Democratic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has endorsed President Joe Biden’s reelection campaign, a sign of the president’s strength in uniting his party to have the backing of one of its most liberal members
Democratic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has endorsed President Joe Biden’s reelection campaign, a sign of the president’s strength in uniting his party to have the backing of one of its most liberal members
That point about the rail workers isn’t accurate
From https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2023/6/23/2177130/-Big-win-for-Rail-Workers-under-the-Biden-Administration-info-on-the-climate-answer-America-needs
IBEW stands for international brotherhood of electrical workers. They have a division of electricians that work on railroads. I dont know why this guy keeps getting quoted as some head of railroad workers. Thats also one of the unions that voted in favor of the contract with no sick days, it was actual rail worker unions opposing it that were planning on striking before Biden decided workers dont get to strike.
I’m aware of who they are, that article just had the easiest quote to pull showing that the admin kept working at it quietly behind the scenes. A better, yet more convoluted article would have been the one I’m linking below that shows the wins so far, the work that still needs to be done, more sources speaking on how their individual unions are doing, and a larger conglomerate of players still helping (the Biden admin is still a player)
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/may/01/railroad-workers-union-win-sick-leave
oh good, a minority of rail workers got the right to be sick after Biden outlawed their right to collective bargain
Majority*, more or less the only ones still bargaining are the operators, and I don’t understand your cynicism as the work is still being done. It’s obvious from the results so far that it’s succeeding, just slowly and out of the spotlight.
“granted paid sick days to almost half their workforce.” is PR speak for minority.
My cynicism stems from the fact that collective bargaining was outlawed. Telling unions they’re not allowed to go on strike. That’s real, the president forbade a union to do what unions do, that’s now a precedent we can just call upon whenever workers rights might inconvenience rich people, shit’s not okay. Kind of hard to negotiate when your one point of leverage you have on the rich is not allowed. Any of this ‘work still needing done’ would have been done a whole lot sooner and better if not for Biden.
Older article
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/most-unionized-us-rail-workers-now-have-new-sick-leave-2023-06-05/#:~:text=Under the agreement effective Aug,use as paid sick time.
I also disagree with the “better” part and the precedent you think that vote sets, for a few complicated reasons. First, “better” would have included hurting 100% of Americans with even more increased prices than were already being suffered from inflation numbers on the back end of the COVID economy. The administration had to choose between helping the union workers and helping all Americans. In the end, they chose both, just not immediately as illustrated above. As far as the precedent goes, rail unions are in a very unique position as Congress has a permanent seat at the bargaining table, this is not something other unions face. While we’re on precedents, they had already agreed on a contract months before and still moved to strike, that’s also a dangerous precedent. The whole thing was a shit show top to bottom. All things considered, I think the Biden admin is handling it the best that any ever could have.
Yeah, you think the labor strikes to get us the 8 hour work day and overtime laws didnt raise prices? This logic you’re using can dismiss any labor movement, because the employers are holding prices hostage. Same logic used against minimum wage, against child labor laws. I cant afford shit and Im willing to afford even less shit temporarily for another industry to get better workers rights. Anything to hurt scumbag employers not even allowing workers to get sick.
And no, they didnt agree on a contract months before. Some union leaders agreed to it, others rejected it, no one ratified it, before congress and Biden enforced the agreement by legislation. Why the hell would they strike against a contract they agreed with?
Man you are debating in serious bad faith of you’re going to posit me as anti union.
You’re right, all unions had not agreed in the contracts months before, several agreed, but after brushing up, 3 of the 12 unions objected and it only takes 1 to spike the negotiations, that’s my error. I was mistaken in believing that when they sent the negotiated contracts to Congress in September that they had reached agreement, but moved to strike after negotiations feel apart in the cooling phase.
As far as everything else goes, yes, the point of strikes is to cause discomfort as a way of balancing power between labor and capital, however that doesn’t change the government’s obligation when it’s of such large consequence. They had exactly one lever and were forced to pull it, some more gleefully than others. At the end of the day, the Biden administration didn’t let the conversation stop there, and that is what sets the administration apart for the alternative.
Listen, I’m thrilled that the workers got their sick days and credit where credit’s due to anyone in the admin who helped secure that, but that doesn’t make my point inaccurate. The Biden administration helped deny railroad workers their right to strike. That counts as breaking the back of the strike, even if after breaking their back they turned around and gave them (at least part) of what they were asking for. Breaking strikes via a literal act of Congress is a deeply upsetting, dangerous, and anti-worker move. Full stop.
In contrast to the IBEW statements you’ve quoted up above, look at the contrasting tone from the RWU in a recent Jacobin article:
(Emphasis added by me)