Jump to content
 
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

Rail Strike avoided


cigarjoe
 Share

Recommended Posts

42 minutes ago, Bogie56 said:

Rupert Murdoch's rag take on this is that Biden "caved."  At least Kinzinger has a more rational reaction.

 
Xti3NI5W_x96.jpg
 
Update: it appears overnight there was progress and strike has been averted . This is fantastic news

Another tweet from twitterdom with no meat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, ElCid said:

Another tweet from twitterdom with no meat.

It's a statement from Adam Kinzinger.  

BTW, how much time do you spend policing Jake Holman's posts?   Policing is what you seem to be spending most of your time doing these days.  Talk about no meat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The deal.  Apparently Pres. Biden was on speakerphone urging the negotiators to come to a deal - and they did.

 

https://apnews.com/article/biden-economy-strikes-congress-94089be6a4f469444da99fec9dde1b3e 

Biden made a key phone call to Labor Secretary Marty Walsh at 9 p.m. Wednesday as the talks were ongoing after Italian dinner had been brought in, according to White House officials who insisted on anonymity to discuss the conversations. On speakerphone, the president told the negotiators to get a deal done and to consider the harm to families, farmers and businesses if a shutdown occurred, the officials said.The five-year deal, retroactive to 2020, includes the 24% raises and $5,000 in bonuses that a Presidential Emergency Board recommended this summer. But railroads also agreed to ease their strict attendance policies to address some of the unions’ concerns about working conditions.

Railroad workers will now be able to take unpaid days off for doctor’s appointments without being penalized under railroad attendance rules. Previously, workers would lose points under the attendance systems that the BNSF and Union Pacific railways had adopted, and they could be disciplined if they lost all their points.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Bogie56 said:

It's a statement from Adam Kinzinger.  

BTW, how much time do you spend policing Jake Holman's posts?   Policing is what you seem to be spending most of your time doing these days.  Talk about no meat.

As I posted elsewhere I do not read Jake Holman's threads.

I am not policing, just pointing out to others that there is no use opening the links as there is nothing there.  it also is not a statement from Kinzinger, just a blurb from a politician.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, ElCid said:

As I posted elsewhere I do not read Jake Holman's threads.

I am not policing, just pointing out to others that there is no use opening the links as there is nothing there.  it also is not a statement from Kinzinger, just a blurb from a politician.

Many sources are behind a hard paywall - some behind a soft paywall (certain number of free visits within a time period).  Fewer and fewer reputable press sites are completely open these days.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ElCid said:

As I posted elsewhere I do not read Jake Holman's threads.

I am not policing, just pointing out to others that there is no use opening the links as there is nothing there.  it also is not a statement from Kinzinger, just a blurb from a politician.

You feel you have to point that out?  YOU need to point that out.  You.

My advice, not that you are going to take it, is if you see something that you don't think is worth YOUR time is to simply skip over it.  Don't post pointless drivel telling everyone that you personally don't think it was worthwhile for the poster to have posted in the first place or whine about this or that doesn't meet with your approval.  It's like a dog tagging a fire hydrant.  Once or twice, MAYBE ... but the few people that visit off-topics must know your view by now.  Don't bore us to death.

And it is okay to have people on ignore.  That is what the ignore feature is all about.  What is NOT okay, IMO is for you to name people publicly that you personally have on ignore.  That is just insulting and there is no need for it.  If you want to reveal that to someone do it in a private mail but don't post that sort of thing publicly.  There, I've said it.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just had an old memory recalled, back when my father worked on the railroad, whenever there was a strike he was paid what's called a "rocking chair" - monthly payments which lasted only a year.  The Norfolk and Western union took care of their own.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, hamradio said:

Just had an old memory recalled, back when my father worked on the railroad, whenever there was a strike he was paid what's called a "rocking chair" - monthly payments which lasted only a year.  The Norfolk and Western union took care of their own.

I don't get why union working stiffs vote for conservatives who are bent on destroying unions.  Donald Trump was never a champion of any worker.  He was forever trying to screw them.

I do get the brainwashing.  The rich conservatives like the Murdochs own the rags that appeal to the working stiffs.  The working stiffs then spend the day reading about "other" deadbeats in unions who have it "cushy" but are bent on striking in any event.  Hence the workers have no sympathy for their 'brother' workers.  They also read about a lot of other "deadbeats" who are gaming the system.  What they don't do is think about the people who are messaging this stuff and why they are doing so.  They are the OWNERS of these factories, etc. that have to pay these unionized workers.  Is there any wonder why they are trying to tell everyone that they are undeserving deadbeats?

  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, txfilmfan said:

Many sources are behind a hard paywall - some behind a soft paywall (certain number of free visits within a time period).  Fewer and fewer reputable press sites are completely open these days.

Not about what I am speaking.  I am posting about the multitude of posts from Twitter that are nothing more than a one sentence blurb.  It is how politicians, podcasters and others troll for money I guess.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, Bogie56 said:

You feel you have to point that out?  YOU need to point that out.  You.

My advice, not that you are going to take it, is if you see something that you don't think is worth YOUR time is to simply skip over it.  Don't post pointless drivel telling everyone that you personally don't think it was worthwhile for the poster to have posted in the first place or whine about this or that doesn't meet with your approval.  It's like a dog tagging a fire hydrant.  Once or twice, MAYBE ... but the few people that visit off-topics must know your view by now.  Don't bore us to death.

And it is okay to have people on ignore.  That is what the ignore feature is all about.  What is NOT okay, IMO is for you to name people publicly that you personally have on ignore.  That is just insulting and there is no need for it.  If you want to reveal that to someone do it in a private mail but don't post that sort of thing publicly.  There, I've said it.

Are YOU serious?  You?  Lots of people on here post who they have on ignore.  I merely RESPONDED to your post implying I should maybe "police JakeHolman's" threads.  Explained why I do not comment on his posts.  Since you made it public, I had to respond in public.

The problem is you spent a goodly amount of your time posting things from other websites here along with the links, usually three links.  None of the links leads to anything.  Now when your post something that actually leads to a story, that is good.

Also, many of the things, such as Kinsinger, are nothing more than something that politician or podcaster has already said many times before.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, Bogie56 said:

And it is okay to have people on ignore.  That is what the ignore feature is all about.  What is NOT okay, IMO is for you to name people publicly that you personally have on ignore.  That is just insulting and there is no need for it.  If you want to reveal that to someone do it in a private mail but don't post that sort of thing publicly.  There, I've said it.

Actually I did not say I had Jake on ignore, I said I don't read his posts.

" I do not read Jake Holman's threads."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Bogie56 said:

I don't get why union working stiffs vote for conservatives who are bent on destroying unions.  Donald Trump was never a champion of any worker.  He was forever trying to screw them.

I do get the brainwashing.  The rich conservatives like the Murdochs own the rags that appeal to the working stiffs.  The working stiffs then spend the day reading about "other" deadbeats in unions who have it "cushy" but are bent on striking in any event.  Hence the workers have no sympathy for their 'brother' workers.  They also read about a lot of other "deadbeats" who are gaming the system.  What they don't do is think about the people who are messaging this stuff and why they are doing so.  They are the OWNERS of these factories, etc. that have to pay these unionized workers.  Is there any wonder why they are trying to tell everyone that they are undeserving deadbeats?

This totally confuses me.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, ElCid said:

Actually I did not say I had Jake on ignore, I said I don't read his posts.

" I do not read Jake Holman's threads."

I was referring to the dozens of times you have said in the past that you have Jake and another poster on ignore.  Every time I read who you name that you have on IGNORE I wince since it is incredibly rude.

You said so yet again just the other day to refresh your memory.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Bogie56 said:

I was referring to the dozens of times you have said in the past that you have Jake and another poster on ignore.  Every time I read who you name that you have on IGNORE I wince since it is incredibly rude.

You said so yet again just the other day to refresh your memory.

 

But that is not what you quoted.  So, you notified people that I have Jake on ignore.

And what is so damn bad about having someone on ignore?  It is a feature that TCM believed was important to place on this site.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, ElCid said:

But that is not what you quoted.  So, you notified people that I have Jake on ignore.

And what is so damn bad about having someone on ignore?  It is a feature that TCM believed was important to place on this site.

Regarding your second point, I said as much myself.  I objected to your publicly naming people that you have on ignore.   And I did not name anyone when I mentioned this in my post of one hour ago from the time of this post .  I quote ....

<And it is okay to have people on ignore.  That is what the ignore feature is all about.  What is NOT okay, IMO is for you to name people publicly that you personally have on ignore.  That is just insulting and there is no need for it.  If you want to reveal that to someone do it in a private mail but don't post that sort of thing publicly.  There, I've said it.

YOU named Jake, not me and I responded to that.  Your response quote ...

<Actually I did not say I had Jake on ignore, I said I don't read his posts.

" I do not read Jake Holman's threads."

 

You brought up his name, not me.  MAN, you are way off-base.

 

  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Bogie56 said:

Regarding your second point, I said as much myself.  I objected to your publicly naming people that you have on ignore.   And I did not name anyone when I mentioned this in my post of one hour ago from the time of this post .  I quote ....

<And it is okay to have people on ignore.  That is what the ignore feature is all about.  What is NOT okay, IMO is for you to name people publicly that you personally have on ignore.  That is just insulting and there is no need for it.  If you want to reveal that to someone do it in a private mail but don't post that sort of thing publicly.  There, I've said it.

YOU named Jake, not me and I responded to that.  Your response quote ...

<Actually I did not say I had Jake on ignore, I said I don't read his posts.

" I do not read Jake Holman's threads."

 

You brought up his name, not me.  MAN, you are way off-base.

 

Take a break for a while.  Take the time to consider and understand the difference between ignore and don't read.  And remember, you implied that I should "police JakeHolman's" posts.   That is when I explained why I don't and did not say ignore.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You two should both honestly just mutually block each other at this point. I only comment because this is public and also you both rile each other up. It isn’t worth getting so angry about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, ElCid said:

Take a break for a while.  Take the time to consider and understand the difference between ignore and don't read.  And remember, you implied that I should "police JakeHolman's" posts.   That is when I explained why I don't and did not say ignore.

Just to clarify, I wasn't even thinking of Jake when I mentioned that you have publicly named a person that you have on ignore.

But, yes.  A break would be welcome.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, ElCid said:

The deal.  Apparently Pres. Biden was on speakerphone urging the negotiators to come to a deal - and they did.

 

https://apnews.com/article/biden-economy-strikes-congress-94089be6a4f469444da99fec9dde1b3e 

Biden made a key phone call to Labor Secretary Marty Walsh at 9 p.m. Wednesday as the talks were ongoing after Italian dinner had been brought in, according to White House officials who insisted on anonymity to discuss the conversations. On speakerphone, the president told the negotiators to get a deal done and to consider the harm to families, farmers and businesses if a shutdown occurred, the officials said.The five-year deal, retroactive to 2020, includes the 24% raises and $5,000 in bonuses that a Presidential Emergency Board recommended this summer. But railroads also agreed to ease their strict attendance policies to address some of the unions’ concerns about working conditions.

Railroad workers will now be able to take unpaid days off for doctor’s appointments without being penalized under railroad attendance rules. Previously, workers would lose points under the attendance systems that the BNSF and Union Pacific railways had adopted, and they could be disciplined if they lost all their points.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

© 2022 Turner Classic Movies Inc. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Cookie Settings
×
×
  • Create New...