Railroad union megathread

[John Dule]

Does anyone actually believe this would have been averted under Trump?

I mean, I think Trump would have defaulted to bashing skulls, particularly as inflation would probably be worse with economic leadership chosen by the spoils system. It wouldn't avert the problem or the eventuality of workers collapsing on the job or mass quitting leaving the rails unable to function, but it'd be enough for his ghouls to say problem solved.

My dude, the proximate reason for the past year's inflation was Biden's American Rescue Plan. Trump would probably engage in some pointless and stupid money printing to buy votes, but not nearly to the extent that Biden and the Dems have done since taking office.

Ah yes, Biden's American Rescue Plan causing global inflation everywhere. Also funny how Trump dropped two other stimulus plans in his tenure and somehow neither of those caused inflation but Bidens did lol.

Trump's stimulus handouts absolutely caused inflation. Nobody here is denying this.

[jojoju1998]

I get this argument for some bureaucrat in the parks department or whatever, but I really don't think most teachers view themselves as "public employees" in the same way. Teaching is its own thing.

Two questions, then:

1) How would you reform teachers' unions? How would you make it easier to identify and fire bad teachers without fighting the unions every step of the way?

2) Do you at least agree that donations of this size from a public sector union constitute a severe conflict of interest? Actually, I expect you'd want to reform campaign finance across the board, so we should probably be in agreement here.

1. I don't think they need reform, and want to give them more power.

2. I do want campaign finance reform, but what makes the teachers union donations more of a conflict of interest than other public employees? Like what specifically is the conflict of interest.

So when kids get stuck with a sh#tty teacher who is incompetent at teaching, can't control the classroom, and is protected by tenure, tough luck, sucks for them, and we should protect and enable sh#tty teachers even more?

I didn't say that.

This idea that we have some epidemic of crappy teachers who should be fired but aren't is completely fictional. Obviously bad teachers exist, but not enough to warrant changes that would put good teachers at risk.

Replacing tenure with performance based metrics does not put good teachers at risk, because they will do well on those metrics. Only crappy teachers have anything to fear. And FFS, read almost any article about the pedagogy of teaching kids to read and you'll hear about how, even though the evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of phonics over context-based reading, there are still tons of teachers who stubbornly continue to teach context-based reading because they think it's more tedious for them to teach phonics or whatever.

Privileging teacher unions puts the well being of a relatively small rent seeking interest group over the well being of all American kids and their education. The state ought to crush the teachers unions, and crappy teachers in particular should be PATCOed, banned from teaching for life. There's already been far too much damage done. Good teachers have absolutely nothing to fear - and I'm in favor of raising their pay too. (And to avoid random statistical noise punishing unlucky good teachers, you can very easily make performance metrics be based off a 5-year average or whatever instead of a single year.)

Performance Based Metrics is useless. What if you work/teacher in a lower income school where it's hard to raise test scores in such a bad school ? Right ? What if the parents refused to read to their kids ? Or help their kids with their homework ?

Performance Metrics benefit richer schools; because of socio economic factors.

Obviously the performance metrics compare between different teachers at the same school, not between teachers at different schools. This is an extremely lazy copout.

That's not my point. Even Between different teachers at the same school; the socioeconomic factors are going to play in.

If you're teaching from the same curriculum, with the same teaching materials, the comparision is weak. It's basically up to the kid. And the kids's parents who should take more responsibility for their kids's education ( but alas, that isn't always the case ".

I would agree with performance metrics provided that Teachers in return get full autonomy, be allowed to create their own curriculums, and, AND, have higher pay, and Higher Educational Standards for teachers themeselves.

https://hechingerreport.org/teacher-voice-in-finland-its-easier-to-become-a-doctor-or-lawyer-than-a-teacher-heres-why/

Raise the standards for teaching. Raise the pay for it to become a Real Profession.

[Aurelius]

I get this argument for some bureaucrat in the parks department or whatever, but I really don't think most teachers view themselves as "public employees" in the same way. Teaching is its own thing.

Two questions, then:

1) How would you reform teachers' unions? How would you make it easier to identify and fire bad teachers without fighting the unions every step of the way?

2) Do you at least agree that donations of this size from a public sector union constitute a severe conflict of interest? Actually, I expect you'd want to reform campaign finance across the board, so we should probably be in agreement here.

1. I don't think they need reform, and want to give them more power.

2. I do want campaign finance reform, but what makes the teachers union donations more of a conflict of interest than other public employees? Like what specifically is the conflict of interest.

So when kids get stuck with a sh#tty teacher who is incompetent at teaching, can't control the classroom, and is protected by tenure, tough luck, sucks for them, and we should protect and enable sh#tty teachers even more?

I didn't say that.

This idea that we have some epidemic of crappy teachers who should be fired but aren't is completely fictional. Obviously bad teachers exist, but not enough to warrant changes that would put good teachers at risk.

Replacing tenure with performance based metrics does not put good teachers at risk, because they will do well on those metrics. Only crappy teachers have anything to fear. And FFS, read almost any article about the pedagogy of teaching kids to read and you'll hear about how, even though the evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of phonics over context-based reading, there are still tons of teachers who stubbornly continue to teach context-based reading because they think it's more tedious for them to teach phonics or whatever.

Privileging teacher unions puts the well being of a relatively small rent seeking interest group over the well being of all American kids and their education. The state ought to crush the teachers unions, and crappy teachers in particular should be PATCOed, banned from teaching for life. There's already been far too much damage done. Good teachers have absolutely nothing to fear - and I'm in favor of raising their pay too. (And to avoid random statistical noise punishing unlucky good teachers, you can very easily make performance metrics be based off a 5-year average or whatever instead of a single year.)

Performance Based Metrics is useless. What if you work/teacher in a lower income school where it's hard to raise test scores in such a bad school ? Right ? What if the parents refused to read to their kids ? Or help their kids with their homework ?

Performance Metrics benefit richer schools; because of socio economic factors.

Obviously the performance metrics compare between different teachers at the same school, not between teachers at different schools. This is an extremely lazy copout.

That's not my point. Even Between different teachers at the same school; the socioeconomic factors are going to play in.

If you're teaching from the same curriculum, with the same teaching materials, the comparision is weak. It's basically up to the kid. And the kids's parents who should take more responsibility for their kids's education ( but alas, that isn't always the case ".

I would agree with performance metrics provided that Teachers in return get full autonomy, be allowed to create their own curriculums, and, AND, have higher pay, and Higher Educational Standards for teachers themeselves.

https://hechingerreport.org/teacher-voice-in-finland-its-easier-to-become-a-doctor-or-lawyer-than-a-teacher-heres-why/

Raise the standards for teaching. Raise the pay for it to become a Real Profession.

1. This is why I propose averaging metrics over several years. When you are teaching four classes a year, of 25 kids each, that's 100 kids a year. 500 kids over 5 years is enough to remove small scale statistical anomalies.

2. Full autonomy over curriculum - hell no. For example, phonics should be the required method for teaching kids to read. A ton of teachers still continue to use the context based method, even though the evidence is OVERWHELMINGLY on the side of phonics, because they enjoy teaching the other method more, or simply don't like phonics, or whatever else.

[jojoju1998]

I get this argument for some bureaucrat in the parks department or whatever, but I really don't think most teachers view themselves as "public employees" in the same way. Teaching is its own thing.

Two questions, then:

1) How would you reform teachers' unions? How would you make it easier to identify and fire bad teachers without fighting the unions every step of the way?

2) Do you at least agree that donations of this size from a public sector union constitute a severe conflict of interest? Actually, I expect you'd want to reform campaign finance across the board, so we should probably be in agreement here.

1. I don't think they need reform, and want to give them more power.

2. I do want campaign finance reform, but what makes the teachers union donations more of a conflict of interest than other public employees? Like what specifically is the conflict of interest.

So when kids get stuck with a sh#tty teacher who is incompetent at teaching, can't control the classroom, and is protected by tenure, tough luck, sucks for them, and we should protect and enable sh#tty teachers even more?

I didn't say that.

This idea that we have some epidemic of crappy teachers who should be fired but aren't is completely fictional. Obviously bad teachers exist, but not enough to warrant changes that would put good teachers at risk.

Replacing tenure with performance based metrics does not put good teachers at risk, because they will do well on those metrics. Only crappy teachers have anything to fear. And FFS, read almost any article about the pedagogy of teaching kids to read and you'll hear about how, even though the evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of phonics over context-based reading, there are still tons of teachers who stubbornly continue to teach context-based reading because they think it's more tedious for them to teach phonics or whatever.

Privileging teacher unions puts the well being of a relatively small rent seeking interest group over the well being of all American kids and their education. The state ought to crush the teachers unions, and crappy teachers in particular should be PATCOed, banned from teaching for life. There's already been far too much damage done. Good teachers have absolutely nothing to fear - and I'm in favor of raising their pay too. (And to avoid random statistical noise punishing unlucky good teachers, you can very easily make performance metrics be based off a 5-year average or whatever instead of a single year.)

Performance Based Metrics is useless. What if you work/teacher in a lower income school where it's hard to raise test scores in such a bad school ? Right ? What if the parents refused to read to their kids ? Or help their kids with their homework ?

Performance Metrics benefit richer schools; because of socio economic factors.

Obviously the performance metrics compare between different teachers at the same school, not between teachers at different schools. This is an extremely lazy copout.

That's not my point. Even Between different teachers at the same school; the socioeconomic factors are going to play in.

If you're teaching from the same curriculum, with the same teaching materials, the comparision is weak. It's basically up to the kid. And the kids's parents who should take more responsibility for their kids's education ( but alas, that isn't always the case ".

I would agree with performance metrics provided that Teachers in return get full autonomy, be allowed to create their own curriculums, and, AND, have higher pay, and Higher Educational Standards for teachers themeselves.

https://hechingerreport.org/teacher-voice-in-finland-its-easier-to-become-a-doctor-or-lawyer-than-a-teacher-heres-why/

Raise the standards for teaching. Raise the pay for it to become a Real Profession.

1. This is why I propose averaging metrics over several years. When you are teaching four classes a year, of 25 kids each, that's 100 kids a year. 500 kids over 5 years is enough to remove small scale statistical anomalies.

2. Full autonomy over curriculum - hell no. For example, phonics should be the required method for teaching kids to read. A ton of teachers still continue to use the context based method, even though the evidence is OVERWHELMINGLY on the side of phonics, because they enjoy teaching the other method more, or simply don't like phonics, or whatever else.

Phonics is somewhat the standard in most other countries.

[Badger]

Also, absolutely no unions in the public sector.

Why?

Public sector unions create perverse incentives. Their members are paid with public funds allocated by elected representatives. Those salaries are then used to pay dues to the union, which then uses that public money to lobby public officials to increase the salaries. Then the salaries increase, and so does the union's take. This is a vicious cycle that is too dangerous to be allowed in a free society, and the police and teachers' unions in this country are hard evidence of the havoc this system can wreak.

Some kind of perverse incentive exists. But it's way worse if they don't exist. Teachers and others provide vital services to society and if they aren't unionized, then they can suffer immense burnout and unhealthy de-prioritization thanks to the decisions of the elected officials.
Teachers and other public employees having unions is as important as the public sector itself is. Which means, quite significant.

There are ways for public-sector employees to organize without the current structure we have. At the very least, there should be a blanket ban on donations from public-sector unions to political candidates. I would much prefer a system in which they took their case directly to the voters via ballot initiatives and local bonds.

If I were in charge, I would personally want to eliminate teachers' unions but accompany this with increased teacher salaries and the elimination of school funding on the basis of property taxes. But of course, I understand that in a few years a different leader could slash funding and teachers' benefits, leaving them with no avenue to lobby for their jobs. My answer to this would be... why should a public employee have the right to lobby for their job in the first place? Running a government often requires firing incompetent workers, eliminating redundant departments, and modernizing the regulatory state by automating certain positions. Why should public employees-- parties with a clear incentive to preserve inefficiencies in the bureaucracy in order to retain their positions-- be allowed to obstruct this necessary process? When someone accepts a position in the public sector, they should understand that the very existence of their occupation is subject to the whims of the voters. If our democratically elected officials determine that a government position should be eliminated, defunded, or outsourced, I don't believe that the person in that position should have the right to resist that democratic determination-- at least not with the bushels of cash they currently use.

You could replace public sector with private sector throughout that entire screed, and your point would remain the same - and just as wrong - regardless.

[Progressive Pessimist]

Anyway, back on topic, thank you Union Joe for saving the rails!

I was very relieved to wake up to this news today. It's another positive for Biden to promote: he successfully averted a major economic disruption while still managing to respect and support unions and their workers (well, for now).

[John Dule]

You could replace public sector with private sector throughout that entire screed, and your point would remain the same - and just as wrong - regardless.

badge her fails two under Stan yet in other comment. not particle airy slurp rising

[new_patomic]

Of course, the deal still has to be ratified.

And from some anecdotal reports, the sick leave is essential but it doesn't exactly solve all of the livability issues that the rail carrier's draconian attendance policies have created.

But for now, it's an improvement, and Biden didn't blink.

[Beet]

Of course, the deal still has to be ratified.

And from some anecdotal reports, the sick leave is essential but it doesn't exactly solve all of the livability issues that the rail carrier's draconian attendance policies have created.

But for now, it's an improvement, and Biden didn't blink.

Yeah, I'm skeptical of the Democrats prematurely celebrating over this. From what I'm hearing on social media, this isn't a done deal. Remember, if you want to credit Biden with the deal, then you can't complain if people blame him if it falls apart.

[wbrocks67]

Of course, the deal still has to be ratified.

And from some anecdotal reports, the sick leave is essential but it doesn't exactly solve all of the livability issues that the rail carrier's draconian attendance policies have created.

But for now, it's an improvement, and Biden didn't blink.

Yeah, I'm skeptical of the Democrats prematurely celebrating over this. From what I'm hearing on social media, this isn't a done deal. Remember, if you want to credit Biden with the deal, then you can't complain if people blame him if it falls apart.

"From what I'm hearing on social media".... where? Biden would not have announced this if it wasn't 99% done.

[Tekken_Guy]

Of course, the deal still has to be ratified.

And from some anecdotal reports, the sick leave is essential but it doesn't exactly solve all of the livability issues that the rail carrier's draconian attendance policies have created.

But for now, it's an improvement, and Biden didn't blink.

Yeah, I'm skeptical of the Democrats prematurely celebrating over this. From what I'm hearing on social media, this isn't a done deal. Remember, if you want to credit Biden with the deal, then you can't complain if people blame him if it falls apart.

How would you rate the chances of a strike?

[Sestak]

Of course, the deal still has to be ratified.

And from some anecdotal reports, the sick leave is essential but it doesn't exactly solve all of the livability issues that the rail carrier's draconian attendance policies have created.

But for now, it's an improvement, and Biden didn't blink.

Yeah, I'm skeptical of the Democrats prematurely celebrating over this. From what I'm hearing on social media, this isn't a done deal. Remember, if you want to credit Biden with the deal, then you can't complain if people blame him if it falls apart.

"From what I'm hearing on social media".... where? Biden would not have announced this if it wasn't 99% done.

Deal with union leadership is done, yes. Needs to be voted on by the members still.

[Kahane's Grave Is A Gender-Neutral Bathroom]

Also, absolutely no unions in the public sector.

Why?

Public sector unions create perverse incentives. Their members are paid with public funds allocated by elected representatives. Those salaries are then used to pay dues to the union, which then uses that public money to lobby public officials to increase the salaries. Then the salaries increase, and so does the union's take. This is a vicious cycle that is too dangerous to be allowed in a free society, and the police and teachers' unions in this country are hard evidence of the havoc this system can wreak.

Some kind of perverse incentive exists. But it's way worse if they don't exist. Teachers and others provide vital services to society and if they aren't unionized, then they can suffer immense burnout and unhealthy de-prioritization thanks to the decisions of the elected officials.
Teachers and other public employees having unions is as important as the public sector itself is. Which means, quite significant.

There are ways for public-sector employees to organize without the current structure we have. At the very least, there should be a blanket ban on donations from public-sector unions to political candidates. I would much prefer a system in which they took their case directly to the voters via ballot initiatives and local bonds.

If I were in charge, I would personally want to eliminate teachers' unions but accompany this with increased teacher salaries and the elimination of school funding on the basis of property taxes. But of course, I understand that in a few years a different leader could slash funding and teachers' benefits, leaving them with no avenue to lobby for their jobs. My answer to this would be... why should a public employee have the right to lobby for their job in the first place? Running a government often requires firing incompetent workers, eliminating redundant departments, and modernizing the regulatory state by automating certain positions. Why should public employees-- parties with a clear incentive to preserve inefficiencies in the bureaucracy in order to retain their positions-- be allowed to obstruct this necessary process? When someone accepts a position in the public sector, they should understand that the very existence of their occupation is subject to the whims of the voters. If our democratically elected officials determine that a government position should be eliminated, defunded, or outsourced, I don't believe that the person in that position should have the right to resist that democratic determination-- at least not with the bushels of cash they currently use.

Yep. I've always advocated for merit pay for teachers but structured so in the end like 80-90% get a raise.

[DPKdebator]

Railroad workers should strike until someone passes a plan to build high speed railways. It would be good for the climate and help ameliorate traffic problems.

[GeorgiaModerate]

https://twitter.com/GAWillStewart/status/1570490614286024705

[dead0man]

does anyone know why rail workers are on call so much?  And how often they get called in?  I"m assuming they get double pay (or whatever) when they are called in.  Do they get any pay when they are on call, but not working?  One of my sisters is a "special" nurse (she does open heart surgeries) and is on call regularly, but she gets paid when she's on it (not her full pay obviously, but something) and it's only a couple of days a week.  Working 40ish hours a week AND being on "call" for another, say, 40 hours a week sounds like hell to me too.

[Ferguson97]

does anyone know why rail workers are on call so much?  And how often they get called in?  I"m assuming they get double pay (or whatever) when they are called in.  Do they get any pay when they are on call, but not working?  One of my sisters is a "special" nurse (she does open heart surgeries) and is on call regularly, but she gets paid when she's on it (not her full pay obviously, but something) and it's only a couple of days a week.  Working 40ish hours a week AND being on "call" for another, say, 40 hours a week sounds like hell to me too.

If a nurse doesn’t show up for work, a single hospital wing is slightly more stressed than usual.

If a rail worker doesn’t show up for work, it can have major supply chain impacts.

[Devout Centrist]

The rail companies have drastically reduced their workforce over the past decade, in part due to a  deranged lean management strategy that relies on using existing workers as much as possible in order to boost profits. As a result, rail workers barely get any time off.

[jojoju1998]

Well. well. Well.


https://www.reuters.com/world/us/most-unionized-us-rail-workers-now-have-new-sick-leave-2023-06-05/