He’ll be just as pro union as he was when he was cool with making rail strikes illegal.
He’s a right wing capitalist same as the rest of the DNC. He will never back labor in any meaningful way.
I have family who works in the railroad and I can assure you that the vast majority do not appreciate what he has done, paid sick days are only a fraction of what needed to change
The unions that voted for it represent under half of affected workers, and those against it represent well over half.
Like 30% of Americans want to actively dismantle our government for a fascist theocracy, that doesn’t mean they should get their way.
I’ve had enough of these pointedly disengenuous arguments.
deleted by creator
The bill in question invokes the RLA, but specifically forces management and labor to accept a deal agreed on by a technical majority of related labor groups (that notably represents less than half of affected workers.)
Because they’re forced by law to “accept” the new contracts, any organization/strike actions would not be legally recognized as such and therefore not protected as such - hence, “illegal.”
Of course Time is favorable to the capitalist interests but https://time.com/6238361/joe-biden-rail-strike-illegal/
The Railway Labor Act gives the POTUS the ultimate ability to force one side or the other to take concessions in order to avoid a strike. For instance, he could force the bosses to give sick days, or he could force the workers to work without sick days.
He chose the latter.
He isn’t a Right Wing capitalist. He’s a Left Wing capitalist. The Right is feudalist.
You realize that a rail strike would cripple the US, skyrocket inflation, and create shortages all over, right?
Also that the unions overall didn’t want to strike, but if everyone in all but the smallest rail union voted not to strike and the smallest one voted to with the smallest majority they could they’d all be obligated to?
By all means criticize as you feel it’s appropriate, but be informed about how you do.
You realize that a rail strike would cripple the US, skyrocket inflation, and create shortages all over, right? Also that the unions overall didn’t want to strike, but if everyone in all but the smallest rail union voted not to strike and the smallest one voted to with the smallest majority they could they’d all be obligated to?
Almost as if that’s the whole point of a strike or something lmfao
Pretty sure for people who aren’t self important jackasses the point of a strike is to demonstrate to the upper parts of a company that the workers are a vital part of operations and force them into giving better conditions. Not actively making life worse for countless uninvolved people.
It’s almost like you can’t separate purpose and impact.
If the government can command workers back to work they can command the company take the union side contract. That is the problem. Not that he ended it but how it was ended. Lets end strikes like this by government enforcing the union demands.
I agree that’s what should have happened. But if it was always on the union side it wouldn’t take long for the right wing to start dismantling those protections.
Really if they’re instrumental to national security they shouldn’t be privatized either. But just like internet should be classified under the same utility regulations as electric et al, it’s not gonna happen in the existing state of affairs.
this exactly. if its so important then they should be government jobs.
This is goofy as fuck. It’s ok that Biden decided to force feed the rail workers a shit sandwich, because maybe next time the contract is up for renegotiation there will be a republican president who may force them to eat shit, so it’s in their best interest to learn to eat shit? What kind of batshit argument is that?
Biden is a rat.
That is goofy as fuck. Glad I didn’t make any such claim.
Sometimes letting things fail is the best solution. Allowing more banks to fail in 2008 would have been bad in the short term, but would likely put us in a better place today.
The problems a rail strike would cause are incentive to not have a prolonged strike like the actors and writers. A strike of a few days wouldn’t have actually been that bad.
Sometimes, yeah. Sometimes it leads to disaster.
People have already been rightfully upset about inflation. Do you think that would have been better or worse in the event of a rail strike? Do you think people who are already scraping by would be as sympathetic towards rail workers as they should? What do you think the right wing talking heads would have been saying?
That one is not a cut and dry as just a strike. Saying he’s obviously going to act the same way is disingenuous at best.
There’s always going to be people mad no matter what. I expect political leaders to be adults and do what’s best even if the short term is painful, in that I am usually disappointed. A rail strike wouldn’t have moved inflation, it might have made a few more shortages or back orders here and there, but that’s still happening anyway. There would be huge problems if it lasted a month, but that would be unlikely imo.
I think you drastically underestimate how much goes by rail every day
Criticizing people when you don’t even understand how strikes work jfc. “I support labor so long as they don’t cause any hiccups in day to day life” GTFOH bootlicker.
“If everybody but the smallest rail union” 8 out of 12 orgs agreed, but those 8 represent far less than half of the affected workforce. Fun how the people who love to shriek about “being informed” never know dick about dick.
If their jobs are so fucking critical we should probably take care of those employees, shouldn’t we, instead of stripping their legal right to collective bargaining? It’s neat how the slightest labor action or a single Mom being able to afford rent is always the base cause of inflation but years of ballooning pricing to brag about “record profits” have nothing to do with anything.
Eat my whole ass faschie.
I support labor so long as they don’t cause any hiccups in day to day life
@Doug is a liberal: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0nFvhhCulaw
Because my ability to see a position means I support it? Well done.
8 out of 12 orgs agreed, but those 8 represent far less than half of the affected workforce.
You got a source on that? Because I heard it differently. The statement remains true regardless but I’ll happily admit if I’m wrong there.
Fun how the people who love to shriek about
Why is it always severe? Where did I “shriek”? It tracks with your assumptive behavior. Maybe take a moment to breathe and realize we are complex beings that are capable of seeing outside our own points of view.
If their jobs are so fucking critical we should probably take care of those employees, shouldn’t we
Yes. Wholeheartedly yes. Anyone essential which clearly needs to include retail workers along side EMTs and plenty more. You say this like you think I’ll argue against it, but that’s probably because you assumed more about me than you bothered to consider.
instead of stripping their legal right to collective bargaining?
Is “you can’t strike right now” the same as stripping those rights? Are the unions dismantled or has one option, admittedly a large important one, been denied in a way everyone knew was a possibility when it was being discussed?
It’s neat how the slightest labor action or a single Mom being able to afford rent is always the base cause of inflation but years of ballooning pricing to brag about “record profits” have nothing to do with anything.
What? Companies making record profits is absolutely the cause. I didn’t even imply otherwise. But if your arm is broken do you push your car uphill or do you put it in a cast (assuming you have the means to afford healthcare)? A thing can exacerbate a thing without being a cause in the first place.
Eat my whole ass faschie.
You aren’t nearly as insightful or helpful as you think you are
For anyone looking for a relevant source to “but those 8 represent far less than half of the affected workforce.” I don’t have that but I will offer this
If you want the cliff notes rather than read it, it mentions that BLET, possibly the second largest from what I’ve seen, with about 24,000 voted to accept the offer by about 53.5%. The largest, about 28,000, voted against 50.87%. Total union rail workers looks to be around 115,000. Really calls the claim into question so I’ll wait here for the source that backs it up since I apparently know “dick about dick”.
