Phosphorus wrote:

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

There’s the fact, the RR unions haven’t for decades negotiated for sick time says a lot. It’s not the Congress, nor the company’s entire doing—the unions aren’t willing to fight the battle prefers g other compensation deals. Airline pilots have had sick time for years, ALPA fought for it in contracts.

Am I correct in understanding that it has become an issue recently -- because the sick time is not available in principle, due to understaffing?

The way I read it, of course workers would prefer paid sick time off, but compensation was good enough, that folks could forego some pay, while sick, or take days from PTO pool. Because somebody was out there to pick up the slack.

Now, with operation under-staffed, their "request for PTO" (which in reality is actually "calling in sick", but cannot be called that way because contract doesn't allow it) is routinely denied. Which means people showing up sick.

Or am I reading this whole "was - is" wrong?

Not in rail business, but I think you have it right. Union contracts are all about “what will you pay for adding blank?”. If the rails unions wanted sick time, they could have had it, but it might have cost money in pay rates or vacation days (total PTO days). Well, the membership might not have ratified that WHEN crewing made taking a PTO day was possible. I suspect, lots of train crews just went in sick, just as happens elsewhere. I do know train contracts are pretty archaic, particularly on scheduling and fatigue. Industry has long had a pseudo military atomisphere from engineers I know.

Any union member who supports Democrats after what Joke Biden did to the rail unions is a goddamned hypocrite. He’s coming for your unions next.

An extremely disgruntled railroad worker.

Cadet985 wrote:

Any union member who supports Democrats after what Joke Biden did to the rail unions is a goddamned hypocrite. He’s coming for your unions next.

An extremely disgruntled railroad worker.

so you think you can get a better deal from republicans? Those champions of labor?

Phosphorus wrote:

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

There’s the fact, the RR unions haven’t for decades negotiated for sick time says a lot. It’s not the Congress, nor the company’s entire doing—the unions aren’t willing to fight the battle prefers g other compensation deals. Airline pilots have had sick time for years, ALPA fought for it in contracts.

Am I correct in understanding that it has become an issue recently -- because the sick time is not available in principle, due to understaffing?

The way I read it, of course workers would prefer paid sick time off, but compensation was good enough, that folks could forego some pay, while sick, or take days from PTO pool. Because somebody was out there to pick up the slack.

Now, with operation under-staffed, their "request for PTO" (which in reality is actually "calling in sick", but cannot be called that way because contract doesn't allow it) is routinely denied. Which means people showing up sick.

Or am I reading this whole "was - is" wrong?

No, you have it right.

Democrats represent an whole variety of interests. Those interests are not entirely comfortably fitting together. Labor gets most, but not all of what they want. I remember my union leader/activist dad's white hot anger at Truman when he kind of nationalized the steel industry in the mid 40s.Shortly after Republicans got control of congress and permanently maimed labor.

johns624 wrote:

Phosphorus wrote:

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

There’s the fact, the RR unions haven’t for decades negotiated for sick time says a lot. It’s not the Congress, nor the company’s entire doing—the unions aren’t willing to fight the battle prefers g other compensation deals. Airline pilots have had sick time for years, ALPA fought for it in contracts.

Am I correct in understanding that it has become an issue recently -- because the sick time is not available in principle, due to understaffing?

The way I read it, of course workers would prefer paid sick time off, but compensation was good enough, that folks could forego some pay, while sick, or take days from PTO pool. Because somebody was out there to pick up the slack.

Now, with operation under-staffed, their "request for PTO" (which in reality is actually "calling in sick", but cannot be called that way because contract doesn't allow it) is routinely denied. Which means people showing up sick.

Or am I reading this whole "was - is" wrong?

No, you have it right.

Thank you.

Interesting. I find it utterly senseless, when work setup doesn't recognize basic human biology. Like that people get sick, or that they actually need to stand up and go to a toilet.

If your business plan is premised on the entirety of your workforce being entirely healthy and fully functional 100% of the time, then you must be in for fairly unpleasant surprises, along your business journey.

Might as easily blamed the union negotiators for trading sick or PTO for more money. This exact trade-off has occurred in many union contracts. I’m sure if a trade for x% less raise for 5 days of sick, it would have been costed out and perhaps included in the final deal.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

Might as easily blamed the union negotiators for trading sick or PTO for more money. This exact trade-off has occurred in many union contracts. I’m sure if a trade for x% less raise for 5 days of sick, it would have been costed out and perhaps included in the final deal.

Indeed!
And because this nonsense is actually allowed to happen, in an industry, that is sufficiently critical to national well-being, that the top legislative body of the land, decides to go in and count sick days per year, that has to be mandated, one actually might put the blame on that legislative body, too:

1) they usurp jurisdiction for this business to federal level
2) they pre-determine a good chunk of company-union negotiation mechanisms, and outcomes, via Railway Labor Act
3) they leave enough loopholes for the resulting contracts to be riddled with ticking time-bombs like this "no sick leave" nonsense, inconsistent with Biology 101
4) when bombs do go off ('cause "humans", duh), act surprised and self-righteous.

Unions were greedy and stupid by letting this happen. Companies are silly, trying to enforce "no-one ever goes sick, 'cause we cannot afford to have slack in the system", while publishing press releases of excellent profits.

Like I tried to formulate above:

If your business plan is premised on the entirety of your workforce being entirely healthy and fully functional 100% of the time, then you must be in for fairly unpleasant surprises, along your business journey.

Applies to companies -- and unions too. And legislators, who put a lot of aspects of operations into a straitjacket -- but leave this as a possibility.

Given the existence of managers like this, it might be worth it to mandate some minimum 'true' sick time, no questions asked, for all employees. https://www.kctv5.com/2022/12/06/if-you ... -off-rant/
In this case, the workers were able to act and upper management intervened following press coverage, but not everybody is so fortunate.

I got in a wreck literally on my to work one time, airbags went off and my car was totaled, but you know what, I made it to work, ON TIME! There are no more excuses.

This does not sound like a healthy work ethic, and if your business relies on 100% attendance, it's a disaster waiting to happen.

Years ago, when I was living and working in Germany - a friend of mine moved from Germany to the US, he came back not even a year later and I asked him about his experience, his reply was "I live to work, not work to live". With labour unrest growing in the US (and in Canada), it seems like many are finally realizing there indeed is a much better way to live and work.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

There’s the fact, the RR unions haven’t for decades negotiated for sick time says a lot. It’s not the Congress, nor the company’s entire doing—the unions aren’t willing to fight the battle prefers g other compensation deals. Airline pilots have had sick time for years, ALPA fought for it in contracts.

How can you fight for sick leave when the Government tells you it's illegal to strike and force you back to work? The unions and the members don't have enough and power to negotiate for this paid time off. The railroad companies have insane leverage and power.
I will be shocked if there is a functional rail road in 2024-2026 with all the rail workers set to retire and get out.

PHLspecial wrote:

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

There’s the fact, the RR unions haven’t for decades negotiated for sick time says a lot. It’s not the Congress, nor the company’s entire doing—the unions aren’t willing to fight the battle prefers g other compensation deals. Airline pilots have had sick time for years, ALPA fought for it in contracts.

How can you fight for sick leave when the Government tells you it's illegal to strike and force you back to work? The unions and the members don't have enough and power to negotiate for this paid time off. The railroad companies have insane leverage and power.
I will be shocked if there is a functional rail road in 2024-2026 with all the rail workers set to retire and get out.

There’s still a negotiation process, if the unions thought sick leave exclusive of PTO was what the members wanted, they could have negotiated away something of value in the contract to get sick leave. That’s how negotiations work. It’s apparent the membership wanted money and were willing to accept less PTO or sick.