^Here's my position: It's no longer about pay increases but quality-of-life issues beyond pay. I'm not necessarily in favor of the proposed contract or not because I'm not sure if what they're seeking beyond the last negotiation is an overreach. What does concern me is the US government stepping in to federalize the railroad industry - for a brief period or not - because of a failed negotiation. In the interim, I'm hopeful for a zero-hour agreement that will placate all sides and keep the railroads running long-term. Also, I'm a supporter of labor unions, especially for major industries and specialized trades, even supporting certain restaurant industry segments and warehouse workers as they seek to organize. What I don't want to see happen is GDP going down and inflation going up further when it's preventable. Meanwhile, do you want likely House Speaker Kevin McCarthy stepping in and federalizing the railroads under his terms? That scares me, and without a viable resolution that's what looks like what will happen in the near term.
- 1,868
Don't threaten me with a good time!gone corporate wrote: ↑Nov 28, 2022What does concern me is the US government stepping in to federalize the railroad industry
I'm not sure what your concern is here. If the Feds nationalize the industry to improve things for workers, why is that bad? If they don't do anything for workers, why federalize at all, and why would workers cease their strike?
In any case, if you support unions but don't support them striking for the lion's share of profits, then you don't support unions. That's like saying you support activism as long as it doesn't lead to change, or you support meritocracy as long as wealthier people are still guaranteed jobs/admissions.
Edit: Also LOL at the liberals or fascists federalizing the railroad. They'll march workers into the engine cabs at gunpoint before they de-privatize infrastructure.
https://www.politico.com/news/2022/11/2 ... y-00070980
Only thing left to see is what kind of strike results: a wildcat strike in December, or a slower strike as workers simply leave the business without replacement, progressively overworking the remaining staff until nobody is willing to remain? Maybe we'll get a train version of H1Bs to get some more indentured servants from overseas.
Edit:
Rest of the article is basically "rail workers are so essential to the economy that we can't allow them to waste time with their families."
President Joe Biden on Monday asked Congress to intervene to prevent an economically crippling freight rail strike, even though it means delivering a defeat to his allies in the labor movement.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi immediately announced she will call a vote this week to carry out Biden’s request, which will mean that paid sick leave for the 115,000 workers involved in negotiations won’t be included in the deal.
Agreement rejected by workers was reached "in good faith" by management and their PMC union leadership cronies. Somehow all the burden of swallowing bitter pills for the sake of the economy always falls on workers who would like to see their families and doctors, not the ownership getting billion-dollar dividends.In a statement, Biden called himself a “proud pro-labor president” and said he was reluctant to recommend Congress step in, but that the economic consequences of inaction were too great. He also included a pointed message to Democratic lawmakers who might be inclined to side with workers who oppose the agreement.
“Some in Congress want to modify the deal to either improve it for labor or for management. However well-intentioned, any changes would risk delay and a debilitating shutdown. The agreement was reached in good faith by both sides,” he said.
Only thing left to see is what kind of strike results: a wildcat strike in December, or a slower strike as workers simply leave the business without replacement, progressively overworking the remaining staff until nobody is willing to remain? Maybe we'll get a train version of H1Bs to get some more indentured servants from overseas.
Edit:
We can't let workers deny themselves the benefits of the bargain they rejected, what?Biden said “we cannot let our strongly held conviction for better outcomes for workers deny workers the benefits of the bargain they reached, and hurl this nation into a devastating rail freight shutdown.”
Rest of the article is basically "rail workers are so essential to the economy that we can't allow them to waste time with their families."
Really tragic what occurred here, in no small part Biden's fault as the PEB process was a farce. Long term I think this sets us up on a path to rail nationalization, as the class one carriers likely are going to be unable to staff the railroads with the likely attrition.
- 1,868
It was 100% Biden's fault.Ebsy wrote: ↑Dec 03, 2022Really tragic what occurred here, in no small part Biden's fault as the PEB process was a farce. Long term I think this sets us up on a path to rail nationalization, as the class one carriers likely are going to be unable to staff the railroads with the likely attrition.
- 1,792
I kind of half feel like the rail infrastructure should be nationalized. The rails and bridges themselves, not the trains. Then it would be comparable to the highway system. I tend to think the current paradigm is broken.Ebsy wrote: ↑Dec 03, 2022Really tragic what occurred here, in no small part Biden's fault as the PEB process was a farce. Long term I think this sets us up on a path to rail nationalization, as the class one carriers likely are going to be unable to staff the railroads with the likely attrition.
Fundamentally, unions should not be able to collectively bargain at a scale that can cripple the system. Cripple a company, OK sure, but the whole system that's crazy. More important than any one workers compensation package is that the system works. I am totally for them getting some personal time off but using the entire US economy as leverage is too much.
Politically it was a question of whether it was the hill worth dying on. Literally no person in the presidency (except maybe Bernie Sanders) would have suffered the economically crippling consequences of a strike at this scale. The idea that Rubio is saying he is with workers is complete BS. It's way too easy a call when there is no consequence.
Also, assuming the resultant impacts were on the level everyone seems to admit was likely, the idea that unions would retain the level of popular support if they currently had gone through with a strike is highly suspect. Public sentiment would have turned pretty quickly against, and it would also have turned against unionization in general. This strike would have been bad for unionization in general.
The fix is simple. Congress should pass legislation require a reasonable standard for time off and sick leave for particular industry with comparable impact to the entire economy. That would get the rail workers their compensation without crushing everyone in the process. Let's see if Rubio would support that because I bet, he won't.
- 1,868
Isn't nationalized rail with private trains how lots of other countries do things?
I think we have a lot of companies that are systemically important, due to the popularity of monopolies, including the regional monopolies of the train companies that would make company-specific unions a non-fix to your issue of leverage. But really the fix is a nationwide general strike. You're framing things as worker-vs-worker but in reality the point of the strike is for rail workers to keep more of their own production rather than enriching capitalists. The solution isn't to weaken rail unions, it's to give more power to other workers. Workers have power in proportion to their ability to withhold their labor. Restricting strikes is the same as cutting pay/benefits for all workers.
Democrats could've told the rail companies in the summer that they were gonna ram through a bill with all the workers' demands if the corps didn't reach a deal pre-strike, but instead they pushed through the management deal and kneecapped workers' leverage from the start. If Congress was going to do anything to "fix" this on behalf of workers, they would've done it months ago.
I think we have a lot of companies that are systemically important, due to the popularity of monopolies, including the regional monopolies of the train companies that would make company-specific unions a non-fix to your issue of leverage. But really the fix is a nationwide general strike. You're framing things as worker-vs-worker but in reality the point of the strike is for rail workers to keep more of their own production rather than enriching capitalists. The solution isn't to weaken rail unions, it's to give more power to other workers. Workers have power in proportion to their ability to withhold their labor. Restricting strikes is the same as cutting pay/benefits for all workers.
Democrats could've told the rail companies in the summer that they were gonna ram through a bill with all the workers' demands if the corps didn't reach a deal pre-strike, but instead they pushed through the management deal and kneecapped workers' leverage from the start. If Congress was going to do anything to "fix" this on behalf of workers, they would've done it months ago.
- 6,120
^It's certainly done, but I'm not sure how common it is. Most other countries have national rail systems. Some, like the UK bid out most or all service on them to private contractors. Some others, like Spain and Italy I believe, have hybrid systems, where the national system operates some services and private companies operate others, either in cooperation, or even occasionally competition. Still other countries, like Japan I believe, have more or less completely nationalized systems, albeit with multiple quasi-governmental companies providing different levels and sorts of service. But yes, I'm slowly coming to the conclusion that the system we have is slowly but surely failing, and if we're going to save it then the government is going to have to step in and do something dramatic. I'm inclined to believe a first step would be to give the Federal Railroad Administration and Transit Administration equal shares of the US DoT budget with the Highway Administration. If nationalization is too bitter a pill to swallow, then we could tie federal infrastructure loans and grants to certain service goals and labor compensation practices. We really need a true national system that improves transit times for both people and parts. We need to get most cars and trucks off our highways and city streets. The cost to the current system isn't sustainable. Too many lives lost.
- 1,868
I don't think that would work, if the history of internet and electrical infrastructure are any guide. I think it's nationalization of at least the rails, or bust.symphonicpoet wrote: ↑Dec 06, 2022If nationalization is too bitter a pill to swallow, then we could tie federal infrastructure loans and grants to certain service goals and labor compensation practices.
Edit: We should also nationalize the internet and electrical infrastructure.
- 1,792
I could be behind this in principle.MarkHaversham wrote: ↑Dec 06, 2022I don't think that would work, if the history of internet and electrical infrastructure are any guide. I think it's nationalization of at least the rails, or bust.symphonicpoet wrote: ↑Dec 06, 2022If nationalization is too bitter a pill to swallow, then we could tie federal infrastructure loans and grants to certain service goals and labor compensation practices.
Edit: We should also nationalize the internet and electrical infrastructure.
Politically though it's very risky and I would bet 3 -1 odds the supreme court as currently constituted would overturn it a create an even worse mess. Also, the would-be legal cases regarding compensation. Eminent domain usually requires compensation. What is the "value" of the nation's critical rail infrastructure. It a VERY heavy lift politically.
- 1,868
Well, there's a difference between what they "should" do and what they "will" do. Politically they'll keep doing what they're doing until Wall St. feels so threatened by the state of rail infrastructure that they feel compelled to pressure Congress into taking action, or if the rail companies start going bankrupt (when their deferred maintenance comes due) a la Conrail. In short they will do what needs doing to keep the wealthy wealthy.STLEnginerd wrote: ↑Dec 06, 2022Politically though it's very risky and I would bet 3 -1 odds the supreme court as currently constituted would overturn it a create an even worse mess. Also, the would-be legal cases regarding compensation. Eminent domain usually requires compensation. What is the "value" of the nation's critical rail infrastructure. It a VERY heavy lift politically.
The President and Congress could absolutely take ownership of the rail infrastructure, they even did it before (in 1917) around the same time they legislatively imposed an 8 hour workday for rail workers (Adamson Act, affirmed by SCOTUS in Wilson v. New). Whether or not SCOTUS agrees is of no consequence because Congress controls the makeup and jurisdiction of SCOTUS (if they wanted to, see previous paragraph).
Projects recommended for TAP funding at the January 4th, 2023 TPC meeting at East-West Gateway. I highlighted a few that could be significant.
![]()
Public comment will run from January 27th to February 15th with a final recommendation to the Board of Directors on March 29th.
Public comment will run from January 27th to February 15th with a final recommendation to the Board of Directors on March 29th.
- 9,558
Didnt think about this until today, flipping the ramps to the south side of the highway and opening up all that land north of it.
- 2,056
^ Doesn't GRG own that lot? I wonder if they could sell the off ramps at a good price to them now that they are taking the Brickline on Market Street... or maybe they are making enough money as a parking lot... hmm...
^^ Nooooo! I want to fill all that space up with Chouteaus Pond District. It will stretch down to 14th where someone could kayak from Enterprise to Busch if they were so inclined.
I'm going to get started on this project right after I hit that mega jackpot tonight...
I'm going to get started on this project right after I hit that mega jackpot tonight...
I would happily sacrifice “Chouteau’s Pond” if it meant consolidating ramps south of the viaducts.
I’m just not sure how keen MoDot is on opening a bunch of left side entrances and exits…
I’m just not sure how keen MoDot is on opening a bunch of left side entrances and exits…
- 337
From my conversations with them at the previous future64 meeting, they aren’t. They’d like to fix the current one from vandeventer going westbound.sc4mayor wrote:I would happily sacrifice “Chouteau’s Pond” if it meant consolidating ramps south of the viaducts.
I’m just not sure how keen MoDot is on opening a bunch of left side entrances and exits…
These ramps should be demolished but I don’t think they even need to be replaced. There are plenty of other highway on/off ramps in downtown and traffic isn’t bad outside of peak cardinals game trafficdbInSouthCity wrote:Didnt think about this until today, flipping the ramps to the south side of the highway and opening up all that land north of it.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Or just remove them completely because we don't need a highway ramp every 5-6 blocks
^ I would have more of a tendency to agree with you when traveling eastbound…
I was driving back from Illinois today and when you’re traveling westbound you have the Walnut Street exit from the Poplar to access downtown, the 9th and Clark exit and then Jefferson and 22nd. Remove that 9th Street ramp and you’ve got no exits between the Poplar and the one at Jefferson. I find it extremely hard to believe MoDot would go for that. That’s a hell of a lot more than 5 or 6 blocks between ramps in that direction…more like 20 blocks (with your preference for no ramps).
Reconfiguring eastbound ramps (maybe eliminating the 11th street exit and the 10th street entrance) could be good.
I was driving back from Illinois today and when you’re traveling westbound you have the Walnut Street exit from the Poplar to access downtown, the 9th and Clark exit and then Jefferson and 22nd. Remove that 9th Street ramp and you’ve got no exits between the Poplar and the one at Jefferson. I find it extremely hard to believe MoDot would go for that. That’s a hell of a lot more than 5 or 6 blocks between ramps in that direction…more like 20 blocks (with your preference for no ramps).
Reconfiguring eastbound ramps (maybe eliminating the 11th street exit and the 10th street entrance) could be good.
I always thought a couple of 9-12 story flatiron buildings tucked in and around, wedged between the ramps would be awesome. And unique.dbInSouthCity wrote: ↑Jan 13, 2023Didnt think about this until today, flipping the ramps to the south side of the highway and opening up all that land north of it.
^ I understand your sentiment. What stake does MoDot have in this though? Less ramps to maintain. The City might actually have to repair some roads then since they'd be more heavily utilized Downtown.
I personally think more people on Downtown streets isn't a bad thing. More traffic isn't a bad thing. It might get people to park, walk and explore it more than driving in, parking, doing, and driving out.
I personally think more people on Downtown streets isn't a bad thing. More traffic isn't a bad thing. It might get people to park, walk and explore it more than driving in, parking, doing, and driving out.
