House votes to impose agreement to block rail strike

[BumRushDaShow]

Source: ABC News

The House on Wednesday voted to block a strike by the nation's railway workers, intervening in a labor dispute with wide-ranging economic and political implications.

The House voted 290-137 to adopt the tentative deal between the rail companies and employees reached in September and brokered by the White House.

In a second, separate 221-207 vote -- aimed at addressing progressive Democrats' concerns over protecting workers -- the House added seven days of paid sick leave to the agreement, which currently calls for only one.

Just three Republicans vote in favor of the added paid leave. The two bills now head to the Senate.

Read more: https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/house-votes-impose-block-rail-strike/story?id=94207518

[James48]

1. Not good.

By making two separate bills out of it, doesn’t that mean now it would take 60 votes to invoke cloture?
Who here thinks republicans in the Senate will allow that to be voted on?


If the railroad workers don’t get the 7 days of sick leave, I don’t think they should honor the Congressional dictate to impose a new conditions of employment. I think they just need to shut the damn railroads down.

[BumRushDaShow]

2. Either bill will need 60 votes to proceed

regardless of whether it was the original only or the add-on.

[James48]

4. But they will get 60 votes

For the bill without sick leave.

The question will he can they get 60 votes for cloture in the sick leave bill.

We REALLY need to make a lot of noise over this. They NEED sick leave.

[BumRushDaShow]

5. Depends on what kind of deal-making they can do

Just like they did with the Respect for Marriage Act, the Senate could come up with something that perhaps is a compromise of those 2 bills (maybe with something like 5 days SL or even a phase-in over multiple years of the leave) and then take that and make it an "amendment as a substitute" to the primary House bill and send that back to the House.

I haven't heard any buzz of where the Senate is on this, except for a handful of GOP members who suggested they were willing to pass something (although I don't know how that would pan out with more SL on a consolidated bill).

[Voltaire2]

6. yup.

[EarthFirst]

3. No deal without the sick leave provision...

…to be included in the full contract negotiation.

Solidarity!

[cloudythescribbler]

7. Really Nancy Pelosi Should Have Included the Sick Leave in a Single Bill

Remember when the more progressive Democrats went along w/the infrastructure bill on the understanding that the Build Back Better bill would also go thru? -- and then that fell thru

this approach seems DESIGNED to provide a mere gesture of a vote on the sick leave SO THAT it can be more or less automatically ditched in practice by the Senate and all that wd remain for the progressives is some saving of face & virtue signalling

This really shows how little many of the Democrats in Congress really care about the more progressive aspects of the Party agenda and platform

clearly progressive concerns are to be finessed and coopted wherever possible, and it usually is

[BumRushDaShow]

8. The issue goes back to the 60 votes needed for bills to proceed for debate in the Senate

(cloture)

I *believe* the main bill had "1" sick day included and passed in the House 290 - 137, and the separate legislation was for 7 days and only passed 221 - 207 in the House, and will be DOA in the Senate.

So this has nothing to do with "progressive aspects" but the reality of the votes to get something on the books.

[imavoter]

9. I really wish progressives

would stop blaming Democrats for Republican
failure to care.

Also, a railroad stoppage would be worse than I think
people really understand. And then somehow
it would be Democratic failure.

The railroad workers need more sick days...we all do.
But they have a grueling schedule.

[BumRushDaShow]

10. The unfortunate prevailing circular firing squad usually results in this

As a (now-retired) federal worker (full time) we "earned" 4 hours of sick leave per (2-week) pay period which would come out to roughly 13 days a year. Those hours/days could carry over from year to year without need to use it or lose it like our vacation (annual leave) time, which for most workers, only allowed a maximum carry-over of 240 hours (30 days, where anything over that would be lost if not used). This was different from many in private industry that offer (paid) "sick periods" where employees could be out sick for some contiguous amount of time but this option was limited to "x" number of "periods".

I used to be our local's union steward, then VP, then President before eventually becoming a supervisor and having to leave it, but I definitely get the issue and IMHO, it's something that really should happen at the federal level for all sorts of positions. I know a number of municipalities (like here in Philly) have been putting in ordinances to require employers give some kind of paid sick time and it has always been a struggle to get that to happen. The rail industry excuse has always been staff shortages but the obvious shortsightedness is that there might be a reason for those "shortages" due to the workplace being toxic.

[imavoter]

11. agreed n/t