that’s a dramatic read. the deal democrats are proposing has been negotiated by the union reps, and accepted by 8 of twelve unionists. getting them sick pay as a separate vote, or at least making gop senators vote no, is a conceivable strategy (of course while knowing nothing about actual negotiations occurring right now).
As usual, I’m not clear on the mechanics. I think we’re talking about just the Senate now: If there are separate votes on sick leave and the overall agreement, can they vote on the sick leave portion first?
yeah, that jacobin article cites john cornyn for potential gop support, who i already showed above has stated he’s not going to vote for bernie’s proposal. No chance the sick leave provision gets the 60 votes it needs.
I work for one of the biggest banks in Canada/the world and we have unlimited sick days and obviously aren’t unionized. How come the rightish banking industry is way ahead of unionized employees?
There’s a fundamental difference between managerial types tasked with outcomes and labor tasked filling roles.
It’s pretty subtle maximizing profit with the first group.
With the second, you need a person sitting in a locomotive for x hours (or driving a truck, or sitting in an assembly line, or welding pipes, etc). Sick, vacation, and break time in those settings is perceived to come directly at the expense of management.
1 Like
I’ve identified through rigorous examination why you have more sick days
4 Likes
even tellers get unlimited sick days
That’s less production-line like though. If you factor in a teller FTE as being onsite 80% of the time, a branch needs 4 tellers to run but can get by with 3 in a pinch, you can hire 5 people and it’ll generally work out. No major benefit to push them to 82% or 84% on-site presence really.
With a railroad, they’re totally driven by operating ratio: expenses as a percentage of revenue. That’s by far and away the most important financial metric, and railroads are obsessed with lowering it. If that is your main financial metric, you would expect railroads to want to pay as few sick days as possible, and you would expect workers to unionize to protect themselves from management.
I’ve worked quite a bit for the railroads as a consultant and they have the most outlandish cost control policies. On one contract we were prohibited from spending more than like $6 on breakfast and they capped tips at 15%. I think dinner could go up to $15. This was standard railroad policy. We refused to even claim the expenses under those rules—no way in hell I’m tipping 15% on $5, ever.
6 Likes
Yeah, this is definitely the way to go. I’ve taken about 1 per decade (Until COVID)
The thing I hate most about it is that people are sometimes in a situation where they are incentivized to use sick days as PTO, so instead of knowing in advance when someone is going to be out and planning for that, you just get a surprise the day of.
I think I need to take more sick days.
Fuck off old man
https://twitter.com/tylerpager/status/1598468091758927872?s=46&t=dkLgc7YDVMk1rbICT_usYA
1 Like
wasn’t it sc that shifted biden’s momentum last primaries? is he seriously stacking the deck so he can be the oldest president ever?
2 Likes
uhh what why are you guys hating this? Iowa/NH going first makes zero sense for this party and its voting demographics. SC is the obvious first primary state and should have been 40 years ago. Its not stacking the deck its seeing who the base will vote for.
1 Like
Doesn’t it skullfuck any progressive candidates? Edit: to be clear I get your point but it’s a bit of a depressing one.
SC has a total of 1 Rep out of 7 and 0 Senators who are Dems. It’s as LOL of a choice as NH/Iowa. Michigan and Nevada seem fine to me.
Also giving Jim Clyburn more power over the party is a very bad idea.
1 Like
How is a state Dems are never going to win the obvious choice?
I completely agree Iowa and NH going first makes little to no sense for all the reasons you say. SC wouldn’t be in my top 15 or so of options though either.
Yeah this, having NH and IA be the big opening primaries is dumb af for a lot of reasons and SC is a massive improvement. Obv Biden has a self interest in it, but that doesn’t make it a bad idea.
If we assume that black votes correlate across the country, then picking a state with a relatively large black population gives black voters more say.
There also seems to be a preference for smaller states in the early going. Maybe this is because it encourages retail politics and is cheaper to run campaigns in. In theory, this makes it easier for lesser-known and presumbly lesser-funded candidates to gain some traction because they don’t need to compete in major media markets that require deep pockets.
The only truly fair solution would be to have a single national primary day, but that creates an advantage for the candidates with the most name recognition and the ones who can run more ads.
2 Likes