Hacker News Reader

Comment by ok_dad | Hacker News Reader

This is why you need UBI, universal healthcare, etc. If a worker could say "FUCK YOU" and walk off the job at a moment's notice without risking their family, then safety concerns like this become a non-issue because, IMO, most people want to do the right thing when in comes to safety like this, and even if half your staff is willing to take a payment to kill other people with derailment risks, the other half will happily report them.

Edit: My assumption here, which I think is reasonable, is that you cannot solve this problem by laws alone, because (as evidenced by this article) companies and management do not care about that. All replies saying we need more laws might also be a part of the solution, but is not the whole thing.

View on HN

> This is why you need UBI, universal healthcare, etc. If a worker could say "FUCK YOU" and walk off the job at a moment's notice without risking their family, then safety concerns like this become a non-issue because, IMO, most people want to do the right thing when in comes to safety like this, and even if half your staff is willing to take a payment to kill other people with derailment risks, the other half will happily report them.

I don't buy this argument. What your logic seems to be is that if UBI was in place, then if the worker gets blacklisted or whatever, he can still draw upon UBI to not become homeless, but is that really enough? Suppose you have a middle class lifestyle financed by UBI plus your rail worker job, and you saw something shady happening. Would you really risk getting blacklisted from the industry and thereby downgrading your lifestyle to subsistence level, just so you can blow the whistle?

If people have UBI to cover their most basic needs they could actually have savings and they could use that to maintain their standard of living while they find other work. These rail workers are not highly skilled positions. The article states that they get no formal training at all. Even if no railroad company in the country will hire someone as retaliation quitting (which is a big assumption) they could easily work in some other industry.

Railroad workers do get a lot of on the job training though. Or at least used to, wouldn't surprise me if they cut back on. But most rail road jobs are highly skilled jobs, the problem is, those skills don't really transfer well. Kind of like a joke I used to hear Marines make when I was in the Navy. The marines just prepare you to be homeless, because a lot of jobs in the Marine Corp don't really transfer out well (unless your aviation side). Which is where UBI will really help, not just with railroad workers, but workers in general. Need to change industry for X reason? Well you have UBI to assist so you don't eat shit in doing so.

>If people have UBI to cover their most basic needs they could actually have savings and they could use that to maintain their standard of living while they find other work.

This assumes that people will plow their UBI into savings, which is a doubtful assumption given how we see very well paid professionals live paycheck to paycheck due to lifestyle inflation.

Not every professional

It only needs to be one person to whistleblow

That becomes more likely if they don't have to depend on the job to keep a roof over their head and their family doesn't have to be homeless

If I rephrase the argument, you are saying we should not have UBI to provide the lower class with a safety net because some people are bad with their finances?

It could be good to question why some people are bad with their finances, or experience lifestyle inflation. I am going to bet it has less to do with having a safety net or access to more money, and more to do with societal pressure, culture, and mental health.

I don't know, I think we should consider the other half of the problem.

Do you think, if workers were promoted (or given authority) on the basis of a job well done, that this would happen? Right now, in nearly all industries, and even in parts of tech, you become a manager, by being manager-like. That means playing politics and going to business school. Deeper understanding or appreciation of the job isn't really necessary. All that's necessary is the ability to "manage" people, which is of course an important skill, but there's this idea that you can helicopter "leaders" in who don't really need to know the job at hand. It breeds contempt for the folks actually doing the work, and their concerns about the job and their craft.

While I agree, if seems to me that the proper remediation for this situation would be robust whistleblower protections and swift retribution from authorities when a worker says "FUCK THAT" after being told to waive safety inspections or ignore issues and run a train anyway. Including hefty fines against the companies and criminal penalties against not only the managers pushing such approaches, but the executives complicit in it as well.

What if whistleblower protections require the accused company – if the complaint has merit – put in escrow enough money to pay the employee's current salary tacked to inflation or CoL until they reach Social Security retirement age?

It would ensure that a legitimate whistleblower would continue to collect a paycheck if they find themselves blacklisted by similar companies.

Gotta say, I don't hate this idea.

I mean the lack of escrow isn't the bigger problem here - governments take assets (e.g. taxes) all the time with the threat of literally murdering you if you try to stop them. They will get their money from the company one way or another. The problem is actual accountability and real actions.

yes and no. companies find ways to weasel out of laws 5 years down the road all the time. the money would need to be put in escrow at the time of the whistle being blown, or the worker would risk bankruptcy or other legal shenanigans putting it beyond their reach.

> ... or the worker would risk bankruptcy or other legal shenanigans putting it beyond their reach.

Seems like that would happen anyway? eg it sounds like these companies are mostly going to do their utmost to fight against the legal proceedings. play every legal/bastard tactic they can, discredit the whistleblower, likely hire 3rd parties to disrupt things, etc.

Having the money in escrow doesn't seem like a guarantee the whistleblower would end up getting it either.

> If the complaint has merit

What defines this? And what level of whistleblowing would be realistic to invoke the penalty?

My “employer mishandles their MSDS sheets” is a bit different in a small machine shop than “rail workers are told to fudge safety reports” in a national rail carrier that transports hazardous materials.

No need for UBI, atleast not to solve this specific kind of problem.

This only requires a solution similar to what the EPA has for illegal refrigerant release, a massive penalty in the 10s or 100s of thousands which gets shared with the whistleblower.

The various definitions and fines can be defined by the regulatory body.

That’s highly specific which is good, and a provides a financial incentive if you blow the whistle, it doesn’t create a “whistleblowing market” that I think the original commenter’s idea does. I’m skeptical of any law that defines itself in generalities and motivates a “report on your neighbors, company, etc… behavior by creating a financial incentive to do it. That is a law that would be ripe for abuse.

The problem is that at some point you become reliant on a certain level of income.

And it would be kinda strange if working nightshifts on rail work would pay the same as UBI.

You don't need it to do so indefinitely. You only need it to pay enough to keep you afloat while you either find another job, or get the previous job to relent, take you back, and agree with you—or downsize your lifestyle.

This is, however, why UBI needs to be high enough to actually cover all the basic necessities of life, and not just be something like $500/month.

How long do you think it takes to find a job as a railroad track laborer?

Exactly, pay enough so that no one has to work. Then we can all buy the goods and services we like without toiling.

>This is, however, why UBI needs to be high enough to actually cover all the basic necessities of life, and not just be something like $500/month

$500/month seems pretty doable if you're only eating rice and beans and live in dorm room style accommodations in south dakota, and don't spend money on anything else. Sure, eating rice and beans isn't great, but eating beef is arguably not a necessity. Nor is living in your own unit in a desirable location, or having money for entertainment.

Or just move to "South Dakota" which is really the Philippines where you get a maid to watch any kid(s), a woman of whatever sort of arrangement you desire, your own flat in a rural but peaceful village, and 3 squares a day. I'd live it up off $500 with no responsibilities, sounds like paradise.

I would be very surprised if you could find rent in South Dakota , that you have room and power to cook rice at 500 a month. Outside of a family member or close friend owning land, and letting you live rent free, 500 ain’t gonna do it.

>I would be very surprised if you could find rent in South Dakota , that you have room and power to cook rice at 500 a month

Using dorm room style accommodations would significantly reduce costs compared to typical estimates using rent for a bachelor apartment. Plopping down the building in the middle of a corn field (as opposed to some sort of high cost urban center) reduces costs even further.

It's not possible.

Rail workers get paid pretty well. If you're making $100,000/yr and supporting a middle class family, you can't have UBI that matches that income level.

Getting $40,000/yr might be enough for a single person, but even then it's a huge change in lifestyle and often impossible to adjust (mortgage, car payments, etc).

In situations like this, the point isn't to have a UBI that matches the income level of an upper-middle-class job.

It's to have something to decrease your burn rate, so you don't have to worry about being homeless next week.

Sure, but there isn't much difference between "I have to stay at my job or end up homeless" or "I have to stay at my job or else I can't afford my mortgage and will have to sell my cars and my kids can't go to summer camp".

Clearly the 2nd one is better, but it's still a very serious decision that has consequences most people would avoid.

> most people want to do the right thing when in comes to safety like this

not in my experience working in blue collar labor, union or not.

also, a bad assumption in general. this is not a good argument for "UBI, nationalized healthcare, etc"

laws/regulation with teeth (punitive fines) are the solution here.

Social safety nets also help with technology. Let's say ChatGPT makes a lot of money and puts a lot of people out of work. Normally the government should tax it and provide safety nets for those workers. Otherwise you have social distress and that's not good for anybody. Technology progress worries me the most because now it has the potential to spread very fast and people simply do not have time to adapt.

Other avenues I suppose would be raising wages so people don't live paycheck to paycheck and decoupling healtcare from employment. But it all leads to the same thing, not having the world end when you suddenly find yourself without a job.

UBI is a utopia where the powerful state serves the people, while simultaneously keeping other states in check. Same for healthcare: it's not the greedy employers who support this, it's the state itself, its ruthless need to subdue and control anything within its reach.

No. Ignoring problems is not a solution.

I read this less as ignoring a problem, and more like empowering people at lower levels of an organization to do the right thing, a check-and-balances of sorts.

Walking out is not the right thing, and it is not empowerment. It is utter disregard for those who remain, it robs them of your expertise and care. US has OSHA, USCSB, municipal ad., state ad., and federal ad. AND multiple members of Congress per state. Before walking out there all these people AND MORE to contact, make aware, request help from.

The freedom to walk is the freedom from retribution, which is what gives the employee the ability to refuse orders, blow the whistle, and get fired if they have to.

Fear of losing a job is a powerful tool for employers to use in order to force employees to do things that go against their sense of ethics and morality.

It's about having the option. Mutual assured destruction.

Yeah buddy that’s quite the stretch.

First, there’s this thing called banks. You can put money into them and save it for later, so you don’t have to depend on a political party handing stuff out.

But sure, not everyone likes to save, that’s their freedom and their choice. Well guess what, they’re part of a rail union, they can already walk off the job.

Could you please be a tad less vitriolic? All this comment makes clear is that there’s absolutely zero point engaging with you because anyone that does is going to become your new outlet for…whatever this is…which is somehow justified by your feelings about UBI? We’re all adults. Act like it.

Actually, no they can't already walk off the job. You may remember that the president essentially imposed a settlement some months ago.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com