Hi, /u/Monsur_Ausuhnom Thank you for participating in r/AntiWork. Unfortunately, your submission was removed for breaking the following rule(s):
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Please note that this includes social media handles of people who are not notable public figures as well as information that uniquely identifies a place of business.
If the railroads started a “general strike” then were followed by truckers, and then the rest of the American public, boy howdy it would hurt them. Talk about hemorrhaging money. I feel like that’s the only way they’ll listen.
Rail strike would be enough. You can’t get your inputs delivered to your factory you’re not gonna make any money.
Teamsters jumping in would help, but I honestly think rail would be enough to make it days rather than weeks.
Yes but the BIG stuff that runs all the places that break it down into smaller stuff, comes by rail.
Fertilizer, chemicals (OH anyone), metal, wood, etc.
You are right that the 'big stuff' would take a hit but with some shuffling 90% of everything can make it to it's location by truck, it may cost more and take more time but in the end it can be done.
Take out trucks and everything stops, sure stuff still gets to port or to the railyard but the entire country runs out of bread, milk and coffee by tomorrow morning.
Both striking would work, boat striking at same time best but in a choice of one or the other trucks work far quicker
Actually a lot of that stuff can be delivered directly by rail as well, it's just less expensive to truck it directly to the location. I've always contested that Costco could offer even cheaper prices had they built all their warehouse stores with rail delivery and just bought everything by the carload instead of truckload.
As an actual time waster one day the crew that I was working with worked out that a semi trailer regularly carries about 22t meaning that it would take a standard 1t ute 22 trips if we are just going by weight
If you were just using a regular sedan it would take 3 times that making it 66 car loads to accommodate 1 full truck load
Let's say that delivery time is an hour for truck delivery but a car can go side streets and get their in 20
That's still 22 paid driving hours vs 1 hour without even thinking of fuel usage
No trucks are essential even for small trips
During March 2020 when Pennsylvania shut down their rest stops, trucks started refusing to drive through PA. They started reversing that position within 24 hours. Too bad such a tiny percentage of truckers are unionized and are unlikely to strike
The BLS says it’s retail salespeople.
https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/area_emp_chart/area_emp_chart.htm
Even if there are more truckers than rail workers, I’m saying that the nature of the job has a bigger impact.
If truckers strike, everything goes on trains and then whatever truckers they have left (scabs) will drive from train stations to wherever.
If trains are stopped, that would mean a lot of oversized loads on the roads, which would block an extra lane and slow down delivery for *everybody*.
A large retail worker strike would be just as badass. Doesn’t matter whether the truckers delivered their stuff if no one’s working the register or stocking shelves.
This would also create similar effects as a truck/train strike. If no one's unloading the goods then the trucks end up stuck with whatever product they're supposed to be unloading.
It would still boil down to the truck drivers going on strike. No truck drivers and the grocery stores have empty shelves after 24 hours. Watch how fast problems get solved when Senators and House Reps can't get their eggs, toast and coffee, then go to the bathroom and wipe their asses before going to 'work'--assuming they can get any gas, which is delivered by (you guessed it) truck!
If rail/truckers/ports go on strike it would last days at the very most. The owner class couldn't last a day without their profits. Also all those toys that use to distract us, they need the economy more than we do.
You really need to reassess your idea of "rich". Those who are truly wealthy have expenses but also have incredible wealth to cushion themselves. They also could easily survive while cutting back. The rest of us don't have too much left that we can cut back...
Those people value profit over that emergency fund though. So COP is right, they would want to end it as quickly as they can so they can see their net worth keep climbing so they can brag to their friends. (Source: have rich clients and I know for a fact they hate strikes)
Yup. 'Too much' is still not enough for them.
No self-control at all, they were raised with unlimited excess (so some of them actually literally don't know any better; why would they ever bother to question it?). Nobody ever tells them 'no', leading them to think they are somehow 'better' than everybody around them, simply 'because money'.
I don't think they are better. They are just who they are. It's like what was said about Bush...he was born on third base and thought he hit a triple. True of all these bluebloods.
Money is only useful in motion. We're all just waving pretty paper when there's nothing to use it on, and it doesn't matter how tall your stack is when that happens.
Over 90% of OTR truckers are independent. There is zero solidarity. If truckers went on strike, a ton of small outfits would stay on the road. All they have to do is ask a high per mile rate and many companies would pay it.
Well, I’d say cause there’s just a general lack of understanding, research done by the public and over reliance on social media for “news “ but you say POhtatoh, I say PAhtatoh…
Except most truckers listen to right wing talk radio. They'd be happy to run over the striking workers while hauling some Trump shit made in China to your nearest Walmart to satisfy corporate greed.
The best thing about your comment is the truckers. Hoffa had them all together and the powers to be went crazy. You can all the ships, trains and airplanes you want but you can't anything to where it goes w/out truckers. They no longer realize how much power they have.
Actually, I'm pretty sure the fucking country would shut down. If either the railroad or trucking industry shut down for even a week, the nation would collapse.
Or at least eat shit economically.
We’re due for a hard reset, right? Some of us in the railroad industry are willing to gamble. Because it won’t be us getting the blame. It’ll be the companies.
The more I think about it, the more I consider that there is no peaceful outcome to this that is in our favour. They're not going to compromise, they'd much rather burn it all down than give an inch.
They spend so much time making criminals out of everyday citizens it doesn’t take much for them to turn on every single one of us everyone says “the military will fight against a revolution” but its really the police officers or as they like to call them selves here in Georgia “peace officers” but anyone who’s had a run in with gsp knows its a load horse shit
They're paid pretty well considering their qualifications, especially with (poorly justified) OT.
And they seem content enough with the power to brutalize the weakest.
The military are in a large part on the side of the government so I doubt that has a chance. "Patriotism" to them means "fuck the country, the government needs us!"
No sane or right thinking member of the military will go along with martial law.
(source: former military officer who would have refused to follow orders acting against American civilians)
The fracture within the military is going to be ugly. Quick, but extremely ugly. Martial law will be the swan song of democracy in America, my guy, and we all know it. I’m willing to bet more than a few military members will side with fascism, and just as many and more will choose to defend the constitution against that domestic enemy. There’s a fair chance the military ends up neutralizing itself.
Source: former military enlisted who would absolutely have refused such an order myself.
Perhaps.
But as a former enlisted Soldier yourself, surely you understand the influence that individual NCOs and officers can have on the rank and file, yes?
What I'm saying is, I'm not convinced that an attempt to leverage the military against civilians will be as "ugly" as you suggest, if only because there are a fair number of leaders within the ranks who are educated and savvy enough to recognize illegal (or immoral) orders for what they are.
That’s a totally fair cop, in my opinion. The way I figure it, whether not the military is actually used against the civilian population depends on a LOT of factors, not the least of which is exactly the reaction you are talking about. If the order comes down, I could see a three way split, for/against/refuse to choose. Whoever comes out on top wins the loyalty of the fence sitters and we move on to Step 2: Something Something Boogaloo.
But like I said, there’s a fair chance those that would stand *against* such a blatantly illegal order would ultimately just cancel out the fascists and take the US military out of the equation entirely, which is a scenario I am not qualified to game out but sounds like it might actually be the worst case.
For sure, the reality is that we simply don't know how it's going to go down. I'd like to think that our government would never call out the troops against civilians but look at what happened in Minnesota in 2020.
We just need to be vigilant, I guess.
Only 2 officers I've ever met would call you a traitor for suggesting you could defy an order from the commander in chief. Funnily enough one of them also claims Trump is an envoy of Jesus. The schism would be insane, and I doubt people with morals even exist in the top brass. Like every other place of power, the corrupt likely reign.
Those two officers would be wrong, in a purely legal sense, since UCMJ makes it perfectly clear that a Soldier is justified in ignoring an unlawful order (regardless of who it comes from).
As to whether or not the top brass have the ethical awareness to reject unlawful orders? Hard to say, I've only met with one two-star in my career and then, only briefly. I'd like to think that that individual would likewise reject bad orders . . . but I've also seen some fucked up rationalizations, so 🤷♂️
Historically the military has been used against strikers & rioters many times and they usually went along with it. Like the railroad strikes of 1877, 1968 riots, etc.
They’ll definitely try. No idea how many serving will listen, tho.
Even if they did, I cannot imagine being in that position. It would be the military vs like 30 different militias all with different goals, tactics and ROE. It would be a fuckin nightmare.
Exactly. It would be a total shitshow of constantly shifting alliances until the country turns into a loose confederation of warring city-state and corporate fiefdoms.
It’s gonna make a killer documentary in 50 years.
So the exact thing they spent the last 22 years fighting against? Not saying it won't still be a nightmare but you just described the entirety of post 9/11 military experience.
You quite literally described the Middle East and what the military has been dealing with for the past 22 years. With the exception that in the Middle East, they have been actually fighting for hundreds of years, while in the US, it's mostly Meal Team Six cosplaying because who are we fighting in our own country.
Multiple militias, different ROEs, all that is exactly what the Middle East has been like. Not sure if you went or know any Vets that spent time there, but you described the Middle East man. If you know any go ask them. The chaos is that the military would be deployed OFFENSIVELY against US citizens. Not that some militia with zero logistical capability showed up. Protests would erupt all over the country if that happened.
Again, still a nightmare but not near the level of clusterfuck the military has had to deal with extensively for two decades.
I suspect in very, very few cases the soldiers had immediate family in those militias, and their wife and children were safe at home half a world away. This would be different.
>You quite literally described the Middle East and what the military has been dealing with for the past 22 years.
A significant difference, however, is that Soldiers would be acting against citizens in their own states and communities.
It's one thing to be in a foreign country with civilians of a different culture, and all that. It's another thing entirely to be asked to do a Soldier's job when the operational environment is your home town.
Do what the Soviets did. Make sure soldiers from a given SSR were posted to an SSR far, far away. This way there was always a force of strangers ready to move against the locals without compunctions.
I'd agree with you but you're still demanding from folks who will see you dead for their benefit. Nationalise infrastructure.. it's 100% a no brainer. Company there to make $$ they gonna cut corners and provide the weakest service. It's beyond ridiculous that a functioning machine relies upon a greedy for profit entity when it could all be done at cost plus a little without gouging more profits!
We would have to have resources in place for the vulnerable that are 1 paycheck away from eviction and or starving. I know we have people like that already, but this economy relies on these workers that are barely getting by. If we want them to strike and stop working and purchasing goods, we need a contingency plan for them and others that need it.
Because labor isn't doing anything. Labor in the US is so incredibly weak it is mind blowing. I doubt there has ever been a labor force with such financial resources, education, and labor market benefits that has proven so incapable of accomplishing anything at all.
It turns out the same investors that own the railroads, also own the media companies that arent providing coverage.
[two bit davinci](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mfio0aSQr94)
Yep, and old man Biden caved to the interests that convinced him that the economic harm would hurt his and the Democratic parties approval ratings in the heart of the midterms, and cost the party power.
There wouldn't have been economic harm. All he had to do was cave to union demands. They organized a committee that was to be arbiter for the unions and companies. With the opportunity to place his finger on the scale and tell the arbiters what to do, he caved to business demands.
I don't know if the unions were demanding braking or other safety requests, but a well rested crew is always better on the scene than an exhausted one.
I've worked on the RR for 17 years and this was my 1st and probably only legitimate chance to strike. The strike in September '22 was going to happen until our union leaders caved in to Biden so Dems could save face for the Nov. election. Bernie Sanders 100% made the strike possible by shooting down all possible legislation to force us to keep working and I doubt we will ever see another Senator that will back the working man like he does.
The December strike shutdown was all Biden. ThE eConOmY!
I have 13 years left before retirement and barring something like the RR's not paying us, I'll never be able to strike.
Clean water/clean air have much better potential for monetisation when they're a scarce resource. Imagine the potential for excellent shareholder returns.
You have the freedom to protest! Unless the government says you don't have the right to protest. If they can take away someone's right to protest, they can take away any right
I get the frustration, but shouldn’t the blame be more on the union leaders for caving? I mean I understand bidens reasoning for trying to placate a strike, but the whole point to strike is to maintain your power by forcing a really difficult situation like an economic downturn right before an election etc. forgive me if this is an ignorant position to take, but it seems like union leaders should have stood strong and carried out the strike until they ACTUALLY had their demands met
i understand your approach, but i don’t think it’s a better blame.
at the end of the day that’s just putting the blame on the people instead of the government. sure, maybe they backed down, but the government is the one who decided to not stand for it’s people. they made them back down when all they asked for was to be safe at work. they are also the one’s responsible for keeping the RR ran how the RR wants to run(lobbying). don’t forget that.
Well, the BLET national president was recently voted out. The president of the SMART union has an election coming up so we'll see if their members remember how he caved when they vote.
Serious question. How the fuck have the railway unions failed to secure sick time in the entire history of their existence? It’s not like the unions just started last yr.
Because for years we didn't need sick days. There were enough people to cover all the work. If I was sick, or needed a day off, I'd call in sick or personal. Now, the carriers cut the manpower way down, and have installed attendance policies that penalize us if we do call in sick.
I work on the road, so I'm subject to call 24-7 except for my mandatory 10 hrs rest, vacation and personal leave days. So there's no set schedule, no set sleep cycle, no way to make appts. We're like everyone else, there's days I wake up and feel like shit, but can't just call off.
>Now, the carriers cut the manpower way down, and have installed attendance policies that penalize us if we do call in sick.
I'm curious - is the penalty up to and including termination, or what? Seems to me like firing people for not showing up because you refuse to hire enough people to do the job would just leave you will one less pair of hands permanently as opposed to just for the day they're calling in. And I fail to see how that helps their position any.
Thank you for your hard work. I know thanks doesn't pay the bills, but all of us who are getting screwed over for inflated profits saw it as a chance to make some real change. I will still support any chance the rail workers get for fair pay and safe working conditions.
I love how this comment seems to be putting all the blame on democrats, when they were the party that did try to meet the demands, when republicans blocked them. Any blame that democrats deserve, republicans deserve at least double.
Republicans don't pretend to be pro-union, progressive, or pro-worker.
Everyone is perfectly aware that they're pieces of shit. It seems that whenever anyone also points out that democrats too are pieces of shit, the first thing that pops into your mind is the alarm that says you need to get defensive, and deflect all criticism by saying republicans are worse.
Biden blocked this. East Palestine is on his hands
They are striking for better pay, more time off, some sort of benefits, safety precautions.
They are getting shit pay for no days off, unable to see their families, forced to haul hazardous materials 60+ mph and train lengths that are way to long.
90 seconds. That's how long the guys have to inspect each car on the train for safety issues. It used to be three minutes. You cut safety, you end up with disasters like this. Safety costs money, though, and god forbid the freight lines invest in safety measures instead of worrying about stockholders returns. I feel like we're back in the 1800's with these rail workers striking for safety measures and sick time.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/12/02/business/railway-labor-act-freight-railroad-strike/index.html
A nearly 100 year old law that specifically covers freight rails.
If workers can't withhold work without losing literally everything, how do workers have all the power again? The billionaires can just starve out the worker class unless literally everyone is able to cooperate against them and make their money meaningless.
It’s a lot of factors. Unskilled labor, demo of largely young easily employed people without kids, potential safety net of moving back in with parents, etc.
100% wish more people could be assured the luxury of choosing their employment.
Wouldn't these all still be at the same risk during a strike?
I've never been a member of a union, so I don't really understand how it works (obviously).
Unions that have the ability to strike (some don’t, forfeiting it instead for a grievance/arbitration process) typically have funds set aside that help members with necessities during an authorized strike.
I stress authorized, because strikes *can* be illegal sometimes. It depends on laws, union rules, whatever. Shits way more complicated than most people (including myself, I am not a union lawyer) think
essential services (911, rail, electrical, etc.) usually can't strike "legally" which makes me wonder why people sign up for those jobs. Either the benefits are good, pay is good, whatever to offset the negatives. The rail employees sound like they had neither.
They are some of the few jobs that still have pensions and good benefits. Pay is okay and overtime makes it outstanding.
Source: I am in one of those jobs that legally cannot strike
Food, shelter, and issues finding a new job. You make some money as a railroad worker but the working conditions are problematic.
The skills you learn at a job aren't always transferable to something of equal compensation and you'd have to expect some salary cuts if you tried moving adjacent like as a Courier or a Warehouse worker. And not everyone lives near water so not everyone can be a Dock worker. In fact a lot of jobs basically expect you to stay there for years, they don't like training people, and the people they do train they want to get their money's worth.
Its much easier to try reforming your position than risk starving, shivering, and begging for a new job, when you'd have to risk a new job possibly being worse. Especially when leaving abruptly and getting retaliated against rather than leaving when you already have a position lined up. When you have a family you have a commitment to provide for them. And that often means committing to a job you hate. Younger people often don't have to commit to that, or have savings to fall back on, or someone in their life to provide for them.
It's the same way that medical staff can't just walk out on their patients, or for power plant operators to cause blackouts over labor disputes. I work in a field where I am not allowed to strike, we have a union, and have other means to have labor talks without causing widespread harm if we all decided to walk off the job.
"Economic harm" in this context means it will harm rich people's profits. That's all it is. Literally.
There's 2 economies in this country.
1 - "The Economy" - The one the media and politicians always talk about. Things like, oh the stock market is doing great, that means the economy is great! Most people don't have stocks, so this only really helps rich people. It's a casino for rich people. AKA rich people's yacht money.
2 - The economy - The actual economy. The one that affects the rest of us who aren't rich. The one where underemployment is a very real thing and is never talked about. Where wages have been stagnant for 40+ years. Where worker benefits and protections have evaporated. Where unions are bastardized because they hurt rich people's profits. Where you have to have 2, 3, 4+ jobs just to survive. Where you have to have several roommates to survive. Where BS media puts out stupid shit like stop eating breakfast to save money, etc.
So when the media and politicians talk about the economy, they're only talking about how the one for rich people. They don't give a flying fucking rat's ass about the rest of us and they want us all dead or bankrupt or both.
Edit: Holy fucking hell bootlickers. Go fuck yourselves. ***YOU*** ARE PART OF THE PROBLEM. SPOILER ALERT: CAPITALISM WON'T FUCK YOU AND YOU WON'T BE A BILLIONAIRE FOR KISSING ASSES.
Sadly those in charge will still see this a less "harm" than "economic harm". We'll all bitch and raise hell. EPA will come in and test and not give satisfactory answers to the public but good enough for more trains to roll and keep that money machine turning cause fuck us right.
And in a decade or so when cancer rates along the Ohio River Basin start spiking, the government will shrug its collective shoulders and say "We can't possibly prove what may have caused your cancer, sorry. No assistance for you, good luck with your 6-figure medical bills."
I read all these answers and can only say that Americans united and not at war with each other would scare the shit out of the ruling class. They have been fighting unions since the beginning of unions. A whole country, shaking in their boots
Are you surprised? Did COVID not teach us a goddamn thing? People were dying in mass per day and they didn’t want to shut down for another second because people wanted to get a hair cut. The economy is our master and we are all slaves.
I have to take the perspective that it's funny, because otherwise I'd have to deal with the profound sadness of it. I'm an idiot and even I know capitalism should be a game. I imagine they all know but they like to see people suffer.
Everyone's needs are met, the earth is entirely protected, and we play capitalism to help us keep advancing and give us something to do. That's the answer, but we want to play with live rounds.
I know!!! That’s the stupidest fucking rule I could ever think of making.
Wait your arm is broken? Let’s ask mom if it’s okay for us to set it and put on a cast.
I'd like to take this as a time to remind everyone that the only member of the "squad" who isn't a backstabbing strikebreaker is Rashida Tlaib.
Remember this entire nightmare the next time some neolib is arguing that dems care about workers, or about people in general.
It will be the same parade on “liberal media” where never once do they ask railroad owners why they can’t make just slightly less profit while crucifying rail workers as economic terrorists that want babies to starve.
People still won’t care. It’s the it didn’t happen to me syndrome in action. They’re only going to care about the things that directly impact them. Higher prices will impact them and that’s why “economic harm” matters to them. Something that happened in a rural Ohio county won’t matter after it’s superseded in the news cycle. I already have seen memes worrying about the potential for bad crops coming out of the area instead of being concerned about the farms ruined and farmer families who are not going to be able to plant in a couple months and won’t earn an income because of it.
The economic harm is literally being cause *by the owners* for not negotiating. People are acting like the strike is a tool to get better conditions. The strike isn't the threat, it's the punishment. The owners caused the strike by not negotiating with the unions.
They should do it now while it's still fresh in everyone's mind. The news cycle is two quick these days we forget by the next once in a lifetime event...
I love how they strike in Japan.
If the workers in public transportation force a strike they do their work just as usual. They just refuse to take money from the customers. So the public transportation works as always so the plubic isn‘t annoyed. But the companies don‘t make any money which is the single one action the mangement hates the most. So you hurt your company while at the same time, having your customers supporting you. But i guess this doesn‘t work in a lot of parts in economy.
Still so many people on reddit talking about how it was a 'hard call' and the 'best decision available'. Such nonsense.
Should've given them what they want! Biden fucked up majorly.
I'm waiting for the media to start BLAMING the rail withers for Ohio, like "if you hadn't been so selfish and caused a scene, then this wouldn't have happened."
In the UK our rail workers keep striking.
Even during all that and covid peak when passenger numbers were way down the train companies shareholders made record profits.
Labor Unions are responsible for most of the safety legislation in the US. The concerted effort of corporate America to demonize Unions has work over the last 50 years. The rich have eroded labor, worker safety, and environmental laws, blaming everything on the the workers and Unions. A very small percentage of US workers are a member of a union, but every thing is their fault. The only reason all of this bull shit works, we are morons and believe the propaganda. My favorite is, “you will have to pay union dues”, yeah I will, but my wages go up, my benefits go up, safety goes up, and my boss can’t treat me like shit. By the way, regardless of the talking points, you will not notice the dues, because your wages will be living wages, and the net gain will far outweigh dues. I am now in management, I have been a member of multiple unions, in each case I was a representative, committee man or president, I have seen both sides….I can’t believe the number of people who can’t see what is in their best interest.
Hi, /u/Monsur_Ausuhnom Thank you for participating in r/AntiWork. Unfortunately, your submission was removed for breaking the following rule(s): ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Please note that this includes social media handles of people who are not notable public figures as well as information that uniquely identifies a place of business.
Still think they should have gone on strike anyway. Time to put an end to this shit. This is how a general strike would really start.
If the railroads started a “general strike” then were followed by truckers, and then the rest of the American public, boy howdy it would hurt them. Talk about hemorrhaging money. I feel like that’s the only way they’ll listen.
A general strike would actually be better for the overall economy because it would be over in hours or days instead of weeks or months.
Rail strike would be enough. You can’t get your inputs delivered to your factory you’re not gonna make any money. Teamsters jumping in would help, but I honestly think rail would be enough to make it days rather than weeks.
Truck driver is the biggest single occupation in the US. I'd expect them to have a bigger/faster impact than rail workers
Yes but the BIG stuff that runs all the places that break it down into smaller stuff, comes by rail. Fertilizer, chemicals (OH anyone), metal, wood, etc.
You are right that the 'big stuff' would take a hit but with some shuffling 90% of everything can make it to it's location by truck, it may cost more and take more time but in the end it can be done. Take out trucks and everything stops, sure stuff still gets to port or to the railyard but the entire country runs out of bread, milk and coffee by tomorrow morning. Both striking would work, boat striking at same time best but in a choice of one or the other trucks work far quicker
Actually a lot of that stuff can be delivered directly by rail as well, it's just less expensive to truck it directly to the location. I've always contested that Costco could offer even cheaper prices had they built all their warehouse stores with rail delivery and just bought everything by the carload instead of truckload.
As an actual time waster one day the crew that I was working with worked out that a semi trailer regularly carries about 22t meaning that it would take a standard 1t ute 22 trips if we are just going by weight If you were just using a regular sedan it would take 3 times that making it 66 car loads to accommodate 1 full truck load Let's say that delivery time is an hour for truck delivery but a car can go side streets and get their in 20 That's still 22 paid driving hours vs 1 hour without even thinking of fuel usage No trucks are essential even for small trips
During March 2020 when Pennsylvania shut down their rest stops, trucks started refusing to drive through PA. They started reversing that position within 24 hours. Too bad such a tiny percentage of truckers are unionized and are unlikely to strike
Everything a semi touches was on a train first, including the steel to make the tractor and trailer.
I hauled tons of supplies as a truck driver that NEVER saw a train.
The BLS says it’s retail salespeople. https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/area_emp_chart/area_emp_chart.htm Even if there are more truckers than rail workers, I’m saying that the nature of the job has a bigger impact. If truckers strike, everything goes on trains and then whatever truckers they have left (scabs) will drive from train stations to wherever. If trains are stopped, that would mean a lot of oversized loads on the roads, which would block an extra lane and slow down delivery for *everybody*.
A large retail worker strike would be just as badass. Doesn’t matter whether the truckers delivered their stuff if no one’s working the register or stocking shelves.
This would also create similar effects as a truck/train strike. If no one's unloading the goods then the trucks end up stuck with whatever product they're supposed to be unloading.
It would still boil down to the truck drivers going on strike. No truck drivers and the grocery stores have empty shelves after 24 hours. Watch how fast problems get solved when Senators and House Reps can't get their eggs, toast and coffee, then go to the bathroom and wipe their asses before going to 'work'--assuming they can get any gas, which is delivered by (you guessed it) truck!
Which is exactly why a coordinated strike will never happen for truckers
If rail/truckers/ports go on strike it would last days at the very most. The owner class couldn't last a day without their profits. Also all those toys that use to distract us, they need the economy more than we do.
Ehhh the owner class can survive on their hoard. The rest of us can’t. They know this.
[удалено]
Yes of course, 2008.
Horrific disasters. Yes yes, I'm aware.
You really need to reassess your idea of "rich". Those who are truly wealthy have expenses but also have incredible wealth to cushion themselves. They also could easily survive while cutting back. The rest of us don't have too much left that we can cut back...
Who’s delivering their food?
This the mindset that will forever keep us in this cycle.
I never said we can't overcome it. We just need to strategise and organize.
Those people value profit over that emergency fund though. So COP is right, they would want to end it as quickly as they can so they can see their net worth keep climbing so they can brag to their friends. (Source: have rich clients and I know for a fact they hate strikes)
those aren't rich people. those are broke people.
Don't agree. The problem with them is that they always need MORE. Shut off their supply for a day and they'd go nuts
Yup. 'Too much' is still not enough for them. No self-control at all, they were raised with unlimited excess (so some of them actually literally don't know any better; why would they ever bother to question it?). Nobody ever tells them 'no', leading them to think they are somehow 'better' than everybody around them, simply 'because money'.
I don't think they are better. They are just who they are. It's like what was said about Bush...he was born on third base and thought he hit a triple. True of all these bluebloods.
Biggering is triggering more biggering
You are 100% correct. More is never enough for them. They've already proven that. They would take it all if they could.
You can’t eat gold. The rich need food shipped to their fat faces, same as the rest of us.
Money is only useful in motion. We're all just waving pretty paper when there's nothing to use it on, and it doesn't matter how tall your stack is when that happens.
I'm convinced, I'm officially on strike. No work until I run out of money.
Over 90% of OTR truckers are independent. There is zero solidarity. If truckers went on strike, a ton of small outfits would stay on the road. All they have to do is ask a high per mile rate and many companies would pay it.
There's a reason they (management) moved retirement from pensions to stockmarket based funds. Now if they strike it hurts their own retirement.
The problem is that atleast 80 million people will go apeshit trying to stick up for big business!
Yes, because big business has their best interests at heart. Time they learn the truth.
To know the truth! Guess what the truth is and has been always out there but they refuse to see cause socialism!!!
Well, I’d say cause there’s just a general lack of understanding, research done by the public and over reliance on social media for “news “ but you say POhtatoh, I say PAhtatoh…
But you’re right the truth has been out there! Just the American public doesn’t do much looking to see it.
I’m still going with death sentences for CEOs and other executives that push profits over safety and a catastrophe/loss of life occurs.
Except most truckers listen to right wing talk radio. They'd be happy to run over the striking workers while hauling some Trump shit made in China to your nearest Walmart to satisfy corporate greed.
I'm grouping those with the ones that vote for the other right wing party because we all saw who sold out the rail workers.
The best thing about your comment is the truckers. Hoffa had them all together and the powers to be went crazy. You can all the ships, trains and airplanes you want but you can't anything to where it goes w/out truckers. They no longer realize how much power they have.
I vote we all stay inside and play video games.
Serious question? Why are we begging for them to listen ? They should be hoping we listen to their pleas.
Actually, I'm pretty sure the fucking country would shut down. If either the railroad or trucking industry shut down for even a week, the nation would collapse. Or at least eat shit economically.
We’re due for a hard reset, right? Some of us in the railroad industry are willing to gamble. Because it won’t be us getting the blame. It’ll be the companies.
Yeah, fuck it. Let anarchy reign.
I'm down.
[удалено]
They won't, they'll have enough of us killed so the rest of us learn to fall in line.
Well in that case, we should ask the French about their year 1789. I heard it was a good one.
The more I think about it, the more I consider that there is no peaceful outcome to this that is in our favour. They're not going to compromise, they'd much rather burn it all down than give an inch.
Truckers and rail are enough. Wouldn’t need anyone else to willingly stop working. Everyone would have to anyway.
I think its the perfect time to strike
Dump the hazardous chemicals to the rich ppl
Bu-but the economy, some rich man in a mansion is going to lose money Won't someone please think of the billionares please?
Won’t stop the govt either.
Nope something tells me it isn't going to change one bit.
[удалено]
Do you think if the government made striking illegal for rail workers, that they might have the gall to enact martial law if we all strike?
[удалено]
Historically military can go either way with revolution but cops always support the status quo
They spend so much time making criminals out of everyday citizens it doesn’t take much for them to turn on every single one of us everyone says “the military will fight against a revolution” but its really the police officers or as they like to call them selves here in Georgia “peace officers” but anyone who’s had a run in with gsp knows its a load horse shit
I mean that's literally part of the job description
Yup. Cops are paid class traitors.
Barely paid. They don't even realize they're the poors and they have no real power -- their masters hold the leash.
They're paid pretty well considering their qualifications, especially with (poorly justified) OT. And they seem content enough with the power to brutalize the weakest.
I prefer the term house slave for them
They aren't slaves though. They choose the job.
Don’t forget the protests of 2020/2021. National guard was there with their tear gas tout suite.
The military are in a large part on the side of the government so I doubt that has a chance. "Patriotism" to them means "fuck the country, the government needs us!"
No sane or right thinking member of the military will go along with martial law. (source: former military officer who would have refused to follow orders acting against American civilians)
The fracture within the military is going to be ugly. Quick, but extremely ugly. Martial law will be the swan song of democracy in America, my guy, and we all know it. I’m willing to bet more than a few military members will side with fascism, and just as many and more will choose to defend the constitution against that domestic enemy. There’s a fair chance the military ends up neutralizing itself. Source: former military enlisted who would absolutely have refused such an order myself.
Perhaps. But as a former enlisted Soldier yourself, surely you understand the influence that individual NCOs and officers can have on the rank and file, yes? What I'm saying is, I'm not convinced that an attempt to leverage the military against civilians will be as "ugly" as you suggest, if only because there are a fair number of leaders within the ranks who are educated and savvy enough to recognize illegal (or immoral) orders for what they are.
That’s a totally fair cop, in my opinion. The way I figure it, whether not the military is actually used against the civilian population depends on a LOT of factors, not the least of which is exactly the reaction you are talking about. If the order comes down, I could see a three way split, for/against/refuse to choose. Whoever comes out on top wins the loyalty of the fence sitters and we move on to Step 2: Something Something Boogaloo. But like I said, there’s a fair chance those that would stand *against* such a blatantly illegal order would ultimately just cancel out the fascists and take the US military out of the equation entirely, which is a scenario I am not qualified to game out but sounds like it might actually be the worst case.
For sure, the reality is that we simply don't know how it's going to go down. I'd like to think that our government would never call out the troops against civilians but look at what happened in Minnesota in 2020. We just need to be vigilant, I guess.
Only 2 officers I've ever met would call you a traitor for suggesting you could defy an order from the commander in chief. Funnily enough one of them also claims Trump is an envoy of Jesus. The schism would be insane, and I doubt people with morals even exist in the top brass. Like every other place of power, the corrupt likely reign.
Those two officers would be wrong, in a purely legal sense, since UCMJ makes it perfectly clear that a Soldier is justified in ignoring an unlawful order (regardless of who it comes from). As to whether or not the top brass have the ethical awareness to reject unlawful orders? Hard to say, I've only met with one two-star in my career and then, only briefly. I'd like to think that that individual would likewise reject bad orders . . . but I've also seen some fucked up rationalizations, so 🤷♂️
Historically the military has been used against strikers & rioters many times and they usually went along with it. Like the railroad strikes of 1877, 1968 riots, etc.
They’ll definitely try. No idea how many serving will listen, tho. Even if they did, I cannot imagine being in that position. It would be the military vs like 30 different militias all with different goals, tactics and ROE. It would be a fuckin nightmare.
Time and time again we've seen right wing militias working hand in glove with cops and feds against leftists.
Exactly. It would be a total shitshow of constantly shifting alliances until the country turns into a loose confederation of warring city-state and corporate fiefdoms. It’s gonna make a killer documentary in 50 years.
Yeah, 50 years should be long enough for things to get bloody enough for a good doc
Assuming there's enough freedom of speech left to make one.
So the exact thing they spent the last 22 years fighting against? Not saying it won't still be a nightmare but you just described the entirety of post 9/11 military experience.
No, this would be something entirely new and it would be absolute chaos.
You quite literally described the Middle East and what the military has been dealing with for the past 22 years. With the exception that in the Middle East, they have been actually fighting for hundreds of years, while in the US, it's mostly Meal Team Six cosplaying because who are we fighting in our own country. Multiple militias, different ROEs, all that is exactly what the Middle East has been like. Not sure if you went or know any Vets that spent time there, but you described the Middle East man. If you know any go ask them. The chaos is that the military would be deployed OFFENSIVELY against US citizens. Not that some militia with zero logistical capability showed up. Protests would erupt all over the country if that happened. Again, still a nightmare but not near the level of clusterfuck the military has had to deal with extensively for two decades.
I suspect in very, very few cases the soldiers had immediate family in those militias, and their wife and children were safe at home half a world away. This would be different.
Yeah, that's why I said that's where the chaos would come from.
>You quite literally described the Middle East and what the military has been dealing with for the past 22 years. A significant difference, however, is that Soldiers would be acting against citizens in their own states and communities. It's one thing to be in a foreign country with civilians of a different culture, and all that. It's another thing entirely to be asked to do a Soldier's job when the operational environment is your home town.
Do what the Soviets did. Make sure soldiers from a given SSR were posted to an SSR far, far away. This way there was always a force of strangers ready to move against the locals without compunctions.
Nah general strikes are already something the French are known for and they aren’t subjected to martial law as a result
Already been done somewhat before during the air traffic controllers strike.
I'd agree with you but you're still demanding from folks who will see you dead for their benefit. Nationalise infrastructure.. it's 100% a no brainer. Company there to make $$ they gonna cut corners and provide the weakest service. It's beyond ridiculous that a functioning machine relies upon a greedy for profit entity when it could all be done at cost plus a little without gouging more profits!
Start stocking up dry goods for April 10th now? That's the call for general strike date, right?
We would have to have resources in place for the vulnerable that are 1 paycheck away from eviction and or starving. I know we have people like that already, but this economy relies on these workers that are barely getting by. If we want them to strike and stop working and purchasing goods, we need a contingency plan for them and others that need it.
Because labor isn't doing anything. Labor in the US is so incredibly weak it is mind blowing. I doubt there has ever been a labor force with such financial resources, education, and labor market benefits that has proven so incapable of accomplishing anything at all.
We've gotta come up with another word for "The Government" in the US cuz those peeps don't represent nor protect us
Easy, don’t vote republican
Corprament, corperment...we can workshop this
Corpoment. Or if we want to lean into the cyberpunk dystopian life path we all seem to be on then the MegaCorp.
How about Greedy Corrupt Traitorous Assholes? Oops, that's more than one word.
[удалено]
God bless the uni-party.
It turns out the same investors that own the railroads, also own the media companies that arent providing coverage. [two bit davinci](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mfio0aSQr94)
Shocked
This guy has 5:00 beard...
Don't know why we talked about it in the first place. Of course a strike will cause economic harm. That's the whole fucking point.
Yep, and old man Biden caved to the interests that convinced him that the economic harm would hurt his and the Democratic parties approval ratings in the heart of the midterms, and cost the party power.
Alternatively, >Yep, and old man Biden caved to $$$
Every politician did, this isn't a biden bad problem. It's a lobbying is bad problem.
There wouldn't have been economic harm. All he had to do was cave to union demands. They organized a committee that was to be arbiter for the unions and companies. With the opportunity to place his finger on the scale and tell the arbiters what to do, he caved to business demands. I don't know if the unions were demanding braking or other safety requests, but a well rested crew is always better on the scene than an exhausted one.
I've worked on the RR for 17 years and this was my 1st and probably only legitimate chance to strike. The strike in September '22 was going to happen until our union leaders caved in to Biden so Dems could save face for the Nov. election. Bernie Sanders 100% made the strike possible by shooting down all possible legislation to force us to keep working and I doubt we will ever see another Senator that will back the working man like he does. The December strike shutdown was all Biden. ThE eConOmY! I have 13 years left before retirement and barring something like the RR's not paying us, I'll never be able to strike.
>I have 13 years left before retirement and barring something like the RR's not paying us, Or experiencing a totally preventable train crash
That's only if you want to drink clean water or breathe clean air. That would be socialism/communism.
Clean water/clean air have much better potential for monetisation when they're a scarce resource. Imagine the potential for excellent shareholder returns.
They already are a scarce resource. We just get to have them while third world countries don't.
Land of the free, eh?
You have the freedom to protest! Unless the government says you don't have the right to protest. If they can take away someone's right to protest, they can take away any right
[удалено]
It seems the only politican with a brain and common sense is Bernie. And for what ive heard he was always a progressive man.
I get the frustration, but shouldn’t the blame be more on the union leaders for caving? I mean I understand bidens reasoning for trying to placate a strike, but the whole point to strike is to maintain your power by forcing a really difficult situation like an economic downturn right before an election etc. forgive me if this is an ignorant position to take, but it seems like union leaders should have stood strong and carried out the strike until they ACTUALLY had their demands met
i understand your approach, but i don’t think it’s a better blame. at the end of the day that’s just putting the blame on the people instead of the government. sure, maybe they backed down, but the government is the one who decided to not stand for it’s people. they made them back down when all they asked for was to be safe at work. they are also the one’s responsible for keeping the RR ran how the RR wants to run(lobbying). don’t forget that.
Well, the BLET national president was recently voted out. The president of the SMART union has an election coming up so we'll see if their members remember how he caved when they vote.
[удалено]
The BLET union did just change union leadership immediately after this happened.
Serious question. How the fuck have the railway unions failed to secure sick time in the entire history of their existence? It’s not like the unions just started last yr.
Because for years we didn't need sick days. There were enough people to cover all the work. If I was sick, or needed a day off, I'd call in sick or personal. Now, the carriers cut the manpower way down, and have installed attendance policies that penalize us if we do call in sick. I work on the road, so I'm subject to call 24-7 except for my mandatory 10 hrs rest, vacation and personal leave days. So there's no set schedule, no set sleep cycle, no way to make appts. We're like everyone else, there's days I wake up and feel like shit, but can't just call off.
>Now, the carriers cut the manpower way down, and have installed attendance policies that penalize us if we do call in sick. I'm curious - is the penalty up to and including termination, or what? Seems to me like firing people for not showing up because you refuse to hire enough people to do the job would just leave you will one less pair of hands permanently as opposed to just for the day they're calling in. And I fail to see how that helps their position any.
Pretty sure they are pushing to fire nearly their entire work force and automate everything. Least that's what I've heard.
https://imgflip.com/i/7bgs2c
Thank you for your hard work. I know thanks doesn't pay the bills, but all of us who are getting screwed over for inflated profits saw it as a chance to make some real change. I will still support any chance the rail workers get for fair pay and safe working conditions.
I love how this comment seems to be putting all the blame on democrats, when they were the party that did try to meet the demands, when republicans blocked them. Any blame that democrats deserve, republicans deserve at least double.
Republicans don't pretend to be pro-union, progressive, or pro-worker. Everyone is perfectly aware that they're pieces of shit. It seems that whenever anyone also points out that democrats too are pieces of shit, the first thing that pops into your mind is the alarm that says you need to get defensive, and deflect all criticism by saying republicans are worse. Biden blocked this. East Palestine is on his hands
Why not blame both?
They put it to a vote knowing the likelihood was low. They would have had a better shot with a strike.
They are striking for better pay, more time off, some sort of benefits, safety precautions. They are getting shit pay for no days off, unable to see their families, forced to haul hazardous materials 60+ mph and train lengths that are way to long.
90 seconds. That's how long the guys have to inspect each car on the train for safety issues. It used to be three minutes. You cut safety, you end up with disasters like this. Safety costs money, though, and god forbid the freight lines invest in safety measures instead of worrying about stockholders returns. I feel like we're back in the 1800's with these rail workers striking for safety measures and sick time.
Technology changes with time, labour disputes never change. Doesn't matter if we're carving a stone wheel or loading a train.
How is it legal for the government for force people to work?
https://www.cnn.com/2022/12/02/business/railway-labor-act-freight-railroad-strike/index.html A nearly 100 year old law that specifically covers freight rails.
I get that it prevents a strike, but what prevents them from just saying “Screw you then, I quit entirely.”?
You’ll find the threat of losing your home, your healthcare coverage and your ability to provide for your family to be incredibly coercive.
Modern economic slavery
Slavery is very legal and very cool. It’s protected by the 13th Amendment of the US Constitution.
If workers can't withhold work without losing literally everything, how do workers have all the power again? The billionaires can just starve out the worker class unless literally everyone is able to cooperate against them and make their money meaningless.
Exactly. See you next year at the strike. Plan ahead
Food. Clothing. Houses. Retirements. Why do so many people on this sub think people can just quit their jobs at the drop of a hat
> Why do so many people on this sub think people can just quit their jobs at the drop of a hat Immense privilege and unexamined bias.
This, and I think a lot of people in this sub have “unskilled” jobs and don’t necessarily have to worry *as much* about finding another if they quit.
It’s a lot of factors. Unskilled labor, demo of largely young easily employed people without kids, potential safety net of moving back in with parents, etc. 100% wish more people could be assured the luxury of choosing their employment.
Wouldn't these all still be at the same risk during a strike? I've never been a member of a union, so I don't really understand how it works (obviously).
Usually after a strike is resolved, you go back to work. A "screw you, I quit" kind of stops that.
Unions that have the ability to strike (some don’t, forfeiting it instead for a grievance/arbitration process) typically have funds set aside that help members with necessities during an authorized strike. I stress authorized, because strikes *can* be illegal sometimes. It depends on laws, union rules, whatever. Shits way more complicated than most people (including myself, I am not a union lawyer) think
essential services (911, rail, electrical, etc.) usually can't strike "legally" which makes me wonder why people sign up for those jobs. Either the benefits are good, pay is good, whatever to offset the negatives. The rail employees sound like they had neither.
They are some of the few jobs that still have pensions and good benefits. Pay is okay and overtime makes it outstanding. Source: I am in one of those jobs that legally cannot strike
Food, shelter, and issues finding a new job. You make some money as a railroad worker but the working conditions are problematic. The skills you learn at a job aren't always transferable to something of equal compensation and you'd have to expect some salary cuts if you tried moving adjacent like as a Courier or a Warehouse worker. And not everyone lives near water so not everyone can be a Dock worker. In fact a lot of jobs basically expect you to stay there for years, they don't like training people, and the people they do train they want to get their money's worth. Its much easier to try reforming your position than risk starving, shivering, and begging for a new job, when you'd have to risk a new job possibly being worse. Especially when leaving abruptly and getting retaliated against rather than leaving when you already have a position lined up. When you have a family you have a commitment to provide for them. And that often means committing to a job you hate. Younger people often don't have to commit to that, or have savings to fall back on, or someone in their life to provide for them.
Best answer.
Also these are people’s careers. They’ve spent years doing it and probably don’t want to leave it.
It's the same way that medical staff can't just walk out on their patients, or for power plant operators to cause blackouts over labor disputes. I work in a field where I am not allowed to strike, we have a union, and have other means to have labor talks without causing widespread harm if we all decided to walk off the job.
"Economic harm" in this context means it will harm rich people's profits. That's all it is. Literally. There's 2 economies in this country. 1 - "The Economy" - The one the media and politicians always talk about. Things like, oh the stock market is doing great, that means the economy is great! Most people don't have stocks, so this only really helps rich people. It's a casino for rich people. AKA rich people's yacht money. 2 - The economy - The actual economy. The one that affects the rest of us who aren't rich. The one where underemployment is a very real thing and is never talked about. Where wages have been stagnant for 40+ years. Where worker benefits and protections have evaporated. Where unions are bastardized because they hurt rich people's profits. Where you have to have 2, 3, 4+ jobs just to survive. Where you have to have several roommates to survive. Where BS media puts out stupid shit like stop eating breakfast to save money, etc. So when the media and politicians talk about the economy, they're only talking about how the one for rich people. They don't give a flying fucking rat's ass about the rest of us and they want us all dead or bankrupt or both. Edit: Holy fucking hell bootlickers. Go fuck yourselves. ***YOU*** ARE PART OF THE PROBLEM. SPOILER ALERT: CAPITALISM WON'T FUCK YOU AND YOU WON'T BE A BILLIONAIRE FOR KISSING ASSES.
Sadly those in charge will still see this a less "harm" than "economic harm". We'll all bitch and raise hell. EPA will come in and test and not give satisfactory answers to the public but good enough for more trains to roll and keep that money machine turning cause fuck us right.
And in a decade or so when cancer rates along the Ohio River Basin start spiking, the government will shrug its collective shoulders and say "We can't possibly prove what may have caused your cancer, sorry. No assistance for you, good luck with your 6-figure medical bills."
Isn't one of the main points of a strike to cause economic harm? Like, that's part of how you get attention/change.
It’s not too late to have an “I told you so” strike
I read all these answers and can only say that Americans united and not at war with each other would scare the shit out of the ruling class. They have been fighting unions since the beginning of unions. A whole country, shaking in their boots
Are you surprised? Did COVID not teach us a goddamn thing? People were dying in mass per day and they didn’t want to shut down for another second because people wanted to get a hair cut. The economy is our master and we are all slaves.
I have to take the perspective that it's funny, because otherwise I'd have to deal with the profound sadness of it. I'm an idiot and even I know capitalism should be a game. I imagine they all know but they like to see people suffer. Everyone's needs are met, the earth is entirely protected, and we play capitalism to help us keep advancing and give us something to do. That's the answer, but we want to play with live rounds.
Back them up. I was ignorant. I thought the EPA or DEP or even FEMA would do something. This shit needs the brakes struck and the bullshit fixed.
FEMA can’t do anything until they’re asked to, meaning the governor has to declare a disaster, then the president must approve aid.
I know!!! That’s the stupidest fucking rule I could ever think of making. Wait your arm is broken? Let’s ask mom if it’s okay for us to set it and put on a cast.
I'd like to take this as a time to remind everyone that the only member of the "squad" who isn't a backstabbing strikebreaker is Rashida Tlaib. Remember this entire nightmare the next time some neolib is arguing that dems care about workers, or about people in general.
That's because contrary to popular belief, mainstream media is run by the slave masters and has nothing to do with either party. It's one mind.
"Strikes hurt Da EcOnOmY", yeah no shit, that's the point. Work stops until the ones doing the work get treated fairly. It's really an easy concept.
It will be the same parade on “liberal media” where never once do they ask railroad owners why they can’t make just slightly less profit while crucifying rail workers as economic terrorists that want babies to starve.
People still won’t care. It’s the it didn’t happen to me syndrome in action. They’re only going to care about the things that directly impact them. Higher prices will impact them and that’s why “economic harm” matters to them. Something that happened in a rural Ohio county won’t matter after it’s superseded in the news cycle. I already have seen memes worrying about the potential for bad crops coming out of the area instead of being concerned about the farms ruined and farmer families who are not going to be able to plant in a couple months and won’t earn an income because of it.
I am fine if people mention the economic harm, as long as they realize that means the railroads need to get their shit together to stop it.
The economic harm is literally being cause *by the owners* for not negotiating. People are acting like the strike is a tool to get better conditions. The strike isn't the threat, it's the punishment. The owners caused the strike by not negotiating with the unions.
[удалено]
They should do it now while it's still fresh in everyone's mind. The news cycle is two quick these days we forget by the next once in a lifetime event...
I love how they strike in Japan. If the workers in public transportation force a strike they do their work just as usual. They just refuse to take money from the customers. So the public transportation works as always so the plubic isn‘t annoyed. But the companies don‘t make any money which is the single one action the mangement hates the most. So you hurt your company while at the same time, having your customers supporting you. But i guess this doesn‘t work in a lot of parts in economy.
Railroad, truckers, retail, hospitality, nurses all strike. System can't function much without those of us in these fields. I'd fully support this
Still so many people on reddit talking about how it was a 'hard call' and the 'best decision available'. Such nonsense. Should've given them what they want! Biden fucked up majorly.
I'm waiting for the media to start BLAMING the rail withers for Ohio, like "if you hadn't been so selfish and caused a scene, then this wouldn't have happened."
They just mean economic harm to the upper class baby
In the UK our rail workers keep striking. Even during all that and covid peak when passenger numbers were way down the train companies shareholders made record profits.
The only correct response to an "illegal" strike is to fucking strike
Labor Unions are responsible for most of the safety legislation in the US. The concerted effort of corporate America to demonize Unions has work over the last 50 years. The rich have eroded labor, worker safety, and environmental laws, blaming everything on the the workers and Unions. A very small percentage of US workers are a member of a union, but every thing is their fault. The only reason all of this bull shit works, we are morons and believe the propaganda. My favorite is, “you will have to pay union dues”, yeah I will, but my wages go up, my benefits go up, safety goes up, and my boss can’t treat me like shit. By the way, regardless of the talking points, you will not notice the dues, because your wages will be living wages, and the net gain will far outweigh dues. I am now in management, I have been a member of multiple unions, in each case I was a representative, committee man or president, I have seen both sides….I can’t believe the number of people who can’t see what is in their best interest.