11th-hour brinkmanship from the freight rail industry, its unions and both parties in Congress.

That's if you see welfare as a zero sum game where it harms someone else while benefiting others.

 

I know people like to blame shareholders but shareholders are also voters to and given how many people are directly tied to the stock market and through things like 401K shareholder benefit isn't unimportant.

 

It's not an understanding. It's a statement that the issa of "doing the most good for the most people" has been used to justify eugenics and genocide.

 

Utilitarianism though would be finding ways to maximize the welfare for as many people. Not just for yourself or your own group.

That does mean you will get situations like this where one party doesn't get all that it wants.

 

Sure a lot of statements have been used to justify a lot of things. Fighting oppression was used to justify the rise of Fascism.

 

My 5% negative return for the past quarter in my 401k account isn't as bad as having to predict 30 days in advance when I'm going to be sick.

But I guess utilitarianism justifies your position here as Biden's decision maximizes the amount of people that are happy.

But I guess in a utilitarian mindset wouldn't it be justified to kill 1000 people to provide 1 million people and additional 10 percent increase in their este of return?

Utilitarianism removes basic empathy in my opinion. But I guess politically speaking Biden is maximizing the amount of people who will support him I guess.

 

As another poster the railroad unions did get a lot of what they wanted so it wasn't like the were being "railroaded" (pun fully intented). The situation was that a railroad strike would cause far more misery for the country as a while. So this situation doesn't fit the alarmist situation that you're outlining.


Also as noted in my previous post. Shareholders are also voters and do matter for this society. When the market tanks it's not just fat cats that suffer. Many others do to.

 

So Blake the company and not the workers for rail shutting down? Why should the onus be on the workers and giving up on their dignity to get the country running? What about the people who benefit the most from these companies? The owners? Shareholders? Why can't we place the blame on them if there is a shutdown?

Why does the default position have to be to blame the workers if there is a shutdown?

 

I think you are entirely missing the point of my criticism of utilitarianism and it shows here.


Let's say in a hypothetical situation where we want to maximize the amount of good throughout a population, severely harming 500 people where their lives are significantly effected in order for 15 million people to have marginally better return on investment is a great example of how utilitarianism removes empathy from the equation.

Politically the utilitarian mindset works amazingly. You want to maximize the amount of people that positively are effected by your positions regardless of how marginally positive it effected them because that means more potential voters.

 

In the context of this thread, your comment was a bit overboard.

Is it really worth having a strike in a critical industry because the “sick days” couldn’t be agreed upon?

Again, this is what they got:

• A 24 percent pay raise from 2020 to 2024, including an immediate 14.1 percent raise;
• A $5,000 bonus in annual installments over five years;
• Temporary freezes in monthly healthcare copays, deductibles and coinsurance costs;
• New time off for routine, preventative, and emergency medical care; and
• Protections for the two-man crew system.

 

No I think you have a limited understanding of utilitarianism. Yes Utilitarianism woudl lead to situations where people are harmed but there is no philosophy that actualy eliminates harm to all people. The idea behind utilitarianism is that we look to minimize the amount of harm done to the most people.

What you're saying is that Utilitaritarianism is used an excuse to exploit people. Yes people have used that as a rationalization just as arguments against oppression have been used to justify Fascism (our country was humiliated at the Treaty of Versailles) and terrrorism (the imperialists have taken our land). Or for a relevant example to the US individual liberty, is frequently used to justify all sorts of negative things (it's our individual liberty to have as many firearms as we want and mass shootings is just the price of individual liberty) yet I don't think you would argue that fighting oppression or standing up to individual liberty is responsible for some of the worst attrocities that the World has seen.

In fact Utilitarianism would argue that yes Oppression is bad and individual liberties are important but those concerns need to be assesed regarding potential harms created by addressing them.

 

That’s fair he may not be the most pro labor president in history but again… that doesn’t wipe away everything else he has done when he was a senator.

Remember the infrastructure/renewable energy bill is pretty pro union and pro build America. The Europeans are in strange twist are actually calling Americans too protectionist.

So bad that 8 out of 12 union groups agreed? Unfortunately you can’t get everything that you want.

You never said how Biden could force the railroad companies to accept the deal.

Ultimately it became up to Congress. The House voted for the sick days and the senate did not.

Sure, but let’s not just hand wave away what the unions got out the negotiations:

• A 24 percent pay raise from 2020 to 2024, including an immediate 14.1 percent raise;
• A $5,000 bonus in annual installments over five years;
• Temporary freezes in monthly healthcare copays, deductibles and coinsurance costs;
• New time off for routine, preventative, and emergency medical care; and
• Protections for the two-man crew system

 

I just thought of an example that directly addresses your argument and one that I raised with another poster who argues for Liberatarianism.

You have a group of farmers and ranchers in the west whose ranches are located near the headwaters of a river. They use that water to irrigate their fields to feed their cattle that their livelihood depends on. Downstream are several other ranchers are farmers who subsequently get less water and are having a harder time maintaining their fields. Now if they get more water they will get an improvement on their fields while the ones by the headwaters are harmed. There are far more farmers and ranchers living along the river than near the headwaters so that would mean more people are helped at the expense of those by the headwaters.

Now out of empathy and respect for property rights should we then just allow those by the headwaters to maximize their water usage or should we instead consider the good of all of those along the river?

 

Rail companies' whole strategy is about bringing down the number of staff on a train as much as possible (PSR). So if someone calls in, their entire strategy falls apart. About 30% of rail workers have been cut in recent years in order to carry more weight with fewer employees.

From NY Mag:

Spoiler

Plagiarizing this from Saagar Enjeti:

7 railway companies have a combined net income of $27 billion, up from $15 billion a decade earlier.

Over the past decade, 6 of the 7 publicly traded rail stocks have paid out $146 billion in stock buybacks/dividends - $30 billion more than they have invested in their own business.

Their stock is up by 300% over the last decade.

They have shrunk their workforce.

Basically... I don't think the average person should be out here cheerleading on their behalf.

 

Companies are trying to do more with less?!??! Wow that’s a new phenomenon….

 

Bit interesting to see the roles reversed in this debate by having a libertarian inclined member argue for the unions, but we are living in times where the government (of both parties) will tip the scales towards a macro desired status quo that doesn't always jive with ideal principles. Once again, the government distorts our implied agreement of Free Markets and even how collective bargaining should operate. Bailouts, industry targeted bills, even general stimmy checks with 60% allocated to regular citizens...It's all predicated hovering over and triaging an economy that's supposedly strong or best in class.

The admin was clearly more afraid of inflationary effects through supply chain disruption, so they did not want to roll the dice betting on unions to negotiate a better settlement through labor's only leverage to strike.

These companies can post all the job openings and claim "labor shortages" all they want, but it's a sleazy and deceptive tactic given what @Haymitch shared with P.S.R.

Pay the market clearing wage with benefits almost every salaried worker takes for granted and/or hire more workers.
​

Do I get a Nobel Prize for solving that labor shortage problem?

 

Also, 1 paid personal day and removal of some disciplinary penalties for missing work due to medical emergency.

This is really basic human worker rights. Being able to rest or seek medical care when you are sick is a basic worker's right.

Union members and progressives should drive for a worker's right to sick leave bill that covers all employees. Some conservatives will be on board.

 

43 Senators voted against providing railway workers 7 days of sick leave. Couldn't get over the 60-vote hump.

6 Republicans voted for it, including Cruz, Graham, Hawley, and Rubio. Manchin was the only D that voted against it.

In the House, it passed with 3 Republicans voting for it.

 

$100m is much better than any nobel prize

 

Do I want the railroad union workers to get their sick days? Absolutely.

Do I want it at the cost of having a critical, logistics sector being shut down? No. The negotiations were about more than sick days and most of the railroad unions voted for the deal. I don’t really view this as a betrayal.

I doubt this is the end of this as hopefully some bills get passed guaranteeing mandatory sick days in critical sectors (at least).