Biden said he is not giving up on paid sick leave for rail workers and other Americans who don’t receive such benefits. But he made it clear that he was not prepared to see freight trains stopped and food, water, clothing, and holiday gifts stranged in empty depots.
This mind you as we were just getting past the worst of the covid pandemic. Do you have any source to suggest this would impact the shareholders “the hardest”?
Reminder that yet again — this per Bernie Sanders — the expanded sick leave for all rail workers was obstructed by Republicans. Screwing over Democrats during election season is, again, short-sighted. Perhaps those unions from the Teamsters to the longshoremen should rally to get Republicans out of the way?
Do you have any source to suggest this would impact the shareholders “the hardest”?
What do you mean “source”?
This is basic microeconomics, if the company can’t sell its services due to labor action then it can’t generate profits for the shareholders, so they get hit directly in the wallet.
Everyone has to put up with downstream effects, but only the shareholders get the direct impacts on top of that, so obviously they’re getting hit the hardest.
Perhaps those unions from the Teamsters to the longshoremen should rally to get Republicans out of the way?
Most (like 60%) of the Teamsters are Republicans, and I’d bet the same applies to the Longshoremen. That’s why the Teamsters hasn’t endorsed anyone this year.
I’m gonna have to go with Bernie’s leadership on this one.
I trust him more than either of negotiating leads.
Your point on the demographics is key though. At some point, something’s got to give. Unions and GoP don’t mix, and for labor to not actively fight Trump is like shooting yourself in the face. It is so fucking short sighted and TERRIBLE leadership. It is leopards ate my face level stupidity.
You said it hits them “hardest,” but how do you know it doesn’t hit the poor and middle class down the pipeline harder, comparatively? What you’re talking about is profits; what I’m talking about is clothing and food for actual people and a raising of bottom-line prices. Make no mistake — the consequence of such a strike comes at the cost of holding those down the line hostage. Naturally the shareholders tend to have a rainy-day fund in order to ride out the storm. Naturally the wealthy can weather such storms easier than the poor and middle class, yes?
In fact this goes back to this very strike covered in this submission, in which Biden pointed out to the nnion that their strike would effect… Who? Those impacted by Hurricane Helene.
What you’re talking about is profits; what I’m talking about is clothing and food for actual people and a raising of bottom-line prices.
Exactly. Actual people can’t eat profits but there are other logistical methods of getting goods and services to where they are needed, while shareholders are invested and would have to sell their holdings at a loss if they wanted to get their profits elsewhere.
Make no mistake — the consequence of such a strike comes at the cost of holding those down the line hostage.
Again, precisely. The larger the group pf people inconvenienced by a work stoppage, the greater the pressure on management to offer the workers an acceptable contract.
Naturally the shareholders tend to have a rainy-day fund in order to ride out the storm. Naturally the wealthy can weather such storms easier than the poor and middle class, yes?
Naturally, the shareholders don’t want to keep a rainy-day fund, because every dollar that isn’t invested in revenue generation is losing value to inflation. That’s why just-in-time logistics is so huge, and why our supply chains are so brittle. Reserve capacity is an expense to Capital.
Naturally, poor folk who have very little to lose and everything to gain have a desperate need to secure the best contracts possible. And, as examples like the Montgomery Bus Boycott demonstrate, even state-backed enterprises can’t persist in the face of organized and persistent strikes by the poorest folks in the country.
Hardest is therefore relative
Agreed. Your only misconception is a failure to grasp just how astronomically steep our economic inequality has become.
In relative terms, the business losses due to work stoppage are monumental compared to the cost of labor itself. Businesses regularly spend ten or 100x more on “union avoidance” than the added costs of a decent contract.
This mind you as we were just getting past the worst of the covid pandemic. Do you have any source to suggest this would impact the shareholders “the hardest”?
Reminder that yet again — this per Bernie Sanders — the expanded sick leave for all rail workers was obstructed by Republicans. Screwing over Democrats during election season is, again, short-sighted. Perhaps those unions from the Teamsters to the longshoremen should rally to get Republicans out of the way?
What do you mean “source”?
This is basic microeconomics, if the company can’t sell its services due to labor action then it can’t generate profits for the shareholders, so they get hit directly in the wallet.
Everyone has to put up with downstream effects, but only the shareholders get the direct impacts on top of that, so obviously they’re getting hit the hardest.
Most (like 60%) of the Teamsters are Republicans, and I’d bet the same applies to the Longshoremen. That’s why the Teamsters hasn’t endorsed anyone this year.
I’m gonna have to go with Bernie’s leadership on this one.
I trust him more than either of negotiating leads.
Your point on the demographics is key though. At some point, something’s got to give. Unions and GoP don’t mix, and for labor to not actively fight Trump is like shooting yourself in the face. It is so fucking short sighted and TERRIBLE leadership. It is leopards ate my face level stupidity.
You said it hits them “hardest,” but how do you know it doesn’t hit the poor and middle class down the pipeline harder, comparatively? What you’re talking about is profits; what I’m talking about is clothing and food for actual people and a raising of bottom-line prices. Make no mistake — the consequence of such a strike comes at the cost of holding those down the line hostage. Naturally the shareholders tend to have a rainy-day fund in order to ride out the storm. Naturally the wealthy can weather such storms easier than the poor and middle class, yes?
In fact this goes back to this very strike covered in this submission, in which Biden pointed out to the nnion that their strike would effect… Who? Those impacted by Hurricane Helene.
Hardest is therefore relative.
Exactly. Actual people can’t eat profits but there are other logistical methods of getting goods and services to where they are needed, while shareholders are invested and would have to sell their holdings at a loss if they wanted to get their profits elsewhere.
Again, precisely. The larger the group pf people inconvenienced by a work stoppage, the greater the pressure on management to offer the workers an acceptable contract.
Naturally, the shareholders don’t want to keep a rainy-day fund, because every dollar that isn’t invested in revenue generation is losing value to inflation. That’s why just-in-time logistics is so huge, and why our supply chains are so brittle. Reserve capacity is an expense to Capital.
Naturally, poor folk who have very little to lose and everything to gain have a desperate need to secure the best contracts possible. And, as examples like the Montgomery Bus Boycott demonstrate, even state-backed enterprises can’t persist in the face of organized and persistent strikes by the poorest folks in the country.
Agreed. Your only misconception is a failure to grasp just how astronomically steep our economic inequality has become.
In relative terms, the business losses due to work stoppage are monumental compared to the cost of labor itself. Businesses regularly spend ten or 100x more on “union avoidance” than the added costs of a decent contract.