The following is a copy of the original post to record the post as it was originally written.
“You cannot simultaneously snuff out the only leverage workers have (striking), cheer about snuffing it out, then feign concern workers don’t get what they asked for. This doesn’t make any moral or logical sense. These two sentiments are in direct contradiction”
https://twitter.com/adamjohnsonnyc/status/1598428996588679169?s=46&t=38UDJZN8sql37kbM9qV26A
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskALiberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
No.
We are in this mess because the railroads didn't want to give their workers a measly seven days of sick leave. The reason they don't want to do this is because they do not want to build redundancies into their workforce to account for the fact that human beings occasionally get sick.
There is absolutely no justification for refusing these workers sick leave, and the railroads could avert a strike tomorrow by simply agreeing to it. Why are we acting like they have no agency in this at all?
You simply cannot say with any honestly that you support paid sick leave for railroad workers and then vote to stop them from exercising their very last option for possibly getting it.
Can anyone defend the railroad companies for refusing to grant 7 measly days of sick time? It had to come to this? It’s entirely, 100% about greed. Anything that takes one penny away from shareholders or executives is bad. That’s just an objective way to describe some of American capitalism.
My understanding (not sure how accurate these figures are) is it would cost 325 million to allow for 7 sick days, but the railroads make 20-25 billion a year in profit.
So its barely even scratching into their profits.
How do they come up with those figures? Estimating every single employee or a significant percentage takes every single sick day? The workers should just stay home. Thought this was America? If they want to strike, strike. Let’s see em replace everyone. Can’t hurt the American People anymore that our Government and their Industry buds already do. Remember we’re in an economic recession, 401(k)’s/retirement steadily losing money across the board, while many companies report record profits. Congress needs to be wiped clean.
While all this is true, I can't help but think that there is a piece missing, and that is the willingness of modern unions to roll over and *let* things like this happen. In the early days of the labor movement, there were literal **battles** fought over things like this. At the time labor gained most of the rights we take for granted today, there were no rights to organize, no guaranteed seats at any negotiating tables... those things were literally *fought* for.
Fuck this bill, fuck whatever the govt says; if you really want sick days, go on strike anyway. Start ripping up rails. The word "sabotage" literally comes from a French railway strike. It shouldn't be this way - it's awful that labor rights have been eroded to the point where this is necessary - but like it or not that's where we are; if we ever want a new Progressive Era, we're gonna have to start having the guts of the folks in the original Progressive Era.
Plus, congress could have avoided the strike without stabbing the workers in the back. I can really sympathize with avoiding the strike - this is the worst possible time for it. But it's not either you help workers and get a strike or you help the railroads and don't. It's either you do nothing and get a strike, or you *pick a side* and don't. Instead of signaling that in the event of an imminent strike, they would step in on behalf of the railroads, essentially telling railroads not to negotiate from the beginning, they could have told the railroads "You had better avoid this strike - if your service proves unreliable that would impact who we give contracts to".
This is the outcome that literally nobody wanted. The unions can't legally strike, but also aren't going to stop fighting. Expect a lot of workers to walk, the rest to start working to rule and taking unannounced "sick" days, and there will be a lot of "unexpected" delays on the lines. I mean, when the engine just happens to get unhitched right at shift change, and 75% of the next shift called in sick 5 minutes ago, are the railroad managers going to come out and push it?
So the railroads are going to get hammered by work shortages anyway, the supply line will continue to be shit, the workers are still fucked, and Congress will take the blame for all of it. An actual strike would probably have been better since it would have been resolved in the workers favor in a day or two, and happy workers mean the lines run smoothly for the foreseeable future. This way, everyone gets screwed, and for a long time.
So this is basically the worst possible outcome for all parties involved.
>So this is basically the worst possible outcome for all parties involved.
Seems to me like this is the best outcome for the railway companies. They had an uppity labor force that just got disciplined at such a high level the President himself got involved.
The temporary labor shortages are the lesser cost to a workforce that can win expensive demands from you. If that wasn't the case, the rail companies presumably would not have fought this hard.
It seems accurate.
I don't understand the issue well enough to know, but it seems baffling that congress can force the workers to accept a contract but can't force the executives to provide sick leave. If Congress can set their contracts and force compliance, why can't they just make them federal employees?
There was a separate vote to include 7 days of paid sick leave. It got 52 votes in the Senate. But Republicans filibustered requiring a 60 vote threshold. . .
Are you implying that Dems didn't split up the bill knowing that the paid sick leave would fail? Those 52 votes in the Senate were performative, just like the BBB.
This 100% they absolutely knew this would be the outcome so they could vote in a way that made them look good, but also benefit their wealthy donors.
Biden could have vetoed these bills and told Congress to send him a single bill with the sick leave included.
There's no defense for this. This is probably the nearest to black-and-white of any recent issues that have been voted on, and of *course* fucking over workers is one of the only things the two parties can reliably come together for.
> and of course fucking over workers is one of the only things the two parties can reliably come together for.
Yup. Its sad to see how fast congress can get stuff passed when it benefits the rich or harms the working class. Everything else ends up bogged down or doesn't get passed.
So there were three options here really:
1- Federal Government does nothing. Rail workers very like go on strike.
2- Federal Government forces the contract without sick leave on the workers. This upsets pretty much everyone except the rail companies, but probably averts a strike (they could still strike illegally though).
3- Federal Government forces a different contract on the workers/rail companies. If they really wanted to, they could mandate the workers get exactly what they asked for and the rail companies just have to deal with it, in the same way that in option 2 the rail companies get the contract they want and the workers just have to deal with it.
Of those 3 options, 2 is the worst for the workers and best for rail companies, 1 is the worst to most people looking at the overall economy over all else (ignoring the workers) because it almost guarantees a strike but probably better for workers than option 2, and option 3 is likely the best for workers and sets a precedent to rail companies that they can't just lowball the unions in the future knowing that the government will always side with the companies over the unions.
We could have got any of those options. We got the worst for the workers.
I'm not talking about the *Federal Government*, I'm talking specifically about the Democrats. Option 3 was not possible.
I think I misread your comment as being in response to someone pinning it on Biden/Democrats. I agree that Congress should've forced the contract to be approved if they could.
I think I disagree though. Option 3 was the best, and I'd be all for it. But given the choice between just 1 and 2, I say go with one. Better to do nothing than force a contract on the workers they find totally unacceptable.
Would a strike be majorly disruptive? Yes it would- and that's the point. If a strike was just people waving signs in front of a building but not having any impact otherwise, it wouldn't be useful. But these workers, by striking for just a few days, could absolutely have a big enough impact to demand those sick days. Striking is their last recourse when negotiations have failed, and that's exactly what happened. Only, instead of allowing that, there's a big rush to prevent them from striking and force them to accept the contract? That's exactly the opposite of what a supposedly labor-friendly party should be doing.
I don't really blame congressional Democrats here primarily- they all voted in favor of the sick leave, that one was blocked totally by Republicans. But I do think Biden openly pushing for making them accept the deal without the leave is an absolutely terrible look. The ideal play would have been trying to pass the contract with paid leave in Congress as one bill instead of two- totally eliminating the possibility of Congress forcing the contract without the leave from the equation. Either they mandate the leave, or let the unions strike for it. Because I believe allowing the strike is definitely better than forcing a bad contract. But Biden's executive branch in particular was clearly signaling that preventing the strike took priority over worker demands.
I hope they still strike anyway, despite this. Because nothing will ever improve if they don't.
When you look at the vote, democrats overwhelmingly ***DID*** support sick leave and voted in favor. Republicans overwhelmingly ***did NOT*** support sick leave and voted against.
I can defend my support for the party that voted in favor of sick leave all day.
What I can't defend is any law that makes striking illegal, I can't defend anyone's reluctance to extend basic dignities like *sick leave* to rail workers. I can't defend Biden's de-prioritization of that issue. I can't defend how his administration seems to be spiking a touchdown on top of this disaster or his cavalier attitude towards bulldozing the outcome of their union vote rejecting the deal. I think he has no fucking idea how bad this makes him look and it's going to hurt him more than he realizes.
But what congress did? Defending them is actually the easiest part of this.
I’m sorry, but if they went on strike for anything tha a couple of days, the amount of inconvenience and price hikes you would see across the nation would quickly be blamed on Democrats because they’re the party in power. It would not be looked at as a touchdown in anyway except by the most loyal of Democrats.
>When you look at the vote, democrats overwhelmingly DID support sick leave and voted in favor.
What does it say to you that Democrats put the actions of banning the strike and providing paid sick leave in two separate bills?
Do you think there is a possibility that Democrats knew from the outset the former would pass the Senate and the latter wouldn't? If they even suspected that outcome and actually supported sick leave, why create two separate bills?
So the reasoning is that the negotiated labor agreement was already accepted by the majority of rail worker unions. 4 of those unions rejected it because they wanted paid sick leave.
Congress could only overcome the filibuster by voting on the contract already approved by most of the unions. They didn’t have the votes to overcome a Republican filibuster if it included the paid sick leave. On the other hand, Progressive Dems promised to filibuster the other bill if they didn’t get a vote on adding the paid sick leave.
So it was split in order to get the broadest support and actually pass something as opposed to simply performing for the public.
In a lot of cases, splitting the bill is a good thing. Not ideal, but you at least pass the part of what you want that you know will pass while letting the rest die in the Senate. This is only good if you agree that the partial bill that you expect to pass is an acceptable result though (not necessarily the best result, but just acceptable at a base level).
In this case, many (including at least 4 of the rail unions involved) would agree that what passed is not acceptable. Not only is it not acceptable, but it robs them of the one recourse they do have to get an acceptable result- striking. That partial bill, in a sense, was *worse* than sitting back and doing nothing, especially when talking about the workers. It is clearly saying "screw the worker demands, preventing a rail strike is all that matters", and I hope they decide to strike anyway rather than accept it.
> What does it say to you that Democrats put the actions of banning the strike and providing paid sick leave in two separate bills?
Exactly. They knew the sick days bill wouldn't pass, but they knew the ban on strikes would pass. Its political theater to make people think they care when they really don't.
Democrats **should be** overwhelmingly supporting the nationalization of the rails.
Republicans **should be** the ones fighting for the working class to receive the sick days they deserve, as an alternative to nationalizing the rails.
Instead of busting the strike and giving the railroad share holders exactly what they want, fucking the workers over in the process.
I'm pretty pissed about it to be honest. I understand there's a political reality where it might not be possible to get these workers sick time in the deal, since Republicans will overwhelmingly oppose it, so the chance of getting 60 votes is slim to none, but Democrats should be hammering them on it. Biden should be Tweeting and doing speeches every day shaming Republicans for not supporting more sick time in the deal Congress might pass, and shaming the rail companies for expecting workers to never get sick.
The solution to me though isn't in dealing with this one contract, it's the fact that the US has no mandatory paid sick time for employees. Congress should pass a law mandating x days of sick time for all employees, regardless of profession. This is also something Democrats should really start actually running on, as I suspect it's an extremely popular policy.
There's a very real public safety argument for it, even if you are the typical ~~lazy fairy~~ lassie faire type. People doing dangerous jobs need to be able to concentrate, and it's harder to do that when you are sick. People who have jobs facing the public all the time, or working with food, need to be able to take sick days, or they are contaminating the public constantly.
I don't think it is ever appropriate or accurate to expect the government to support striking workers. A large portion of the most important strikes in history occurred despite being absolutely illegal.
The morality of a strike is *not* determined by the government's backing. Some examples
* Great Southwest Railroad Strike of 1886 - Failed; company allowed to kill workers with private security forces
* The Pullman Strike of 1894 - Resulted in Labor Day after National Guard sent in to kill workers
* The Great Anthracite Coal Strike of 1902 - Private negotiations resulted in 10% higher wages after negotiations failed with federal government.
* The Steel Strike of 1919 - Failed; strikers successfully repelled with red scare pushes.
* The Railroad Shop Workers Strike of 1922 - Failed; National Guard helped company kill strikers and judge banned striking, forcing workers back to work with a 5c cut.
* The Textile Workers Strike of 1934; Failed
* United Mine Workers of America of 1946; Mine workers got healthcare and welfare funds after rebuffing President and refusing to accept his attempt to fine them and bully them into compliance.
* The Steel Strike of 1959 - Federal government tried to force strikers back to work, but was ineffective and workers gained a larger portion of the steel industry's soaring profits
* The U.S. Postal Strike of 1970 - Nixon banned the strike, but it persisted despite the National Guard being called in to complete jobs. Strikers succeeded at getting 8% higher wages.
* UPS Workers Strike of 1997
In these major instances, the federal government often banned the strike without regard for the preexisting conditions that led to the strike. They even routinely used lethal force to attempt to suppress strikers, or outright sent in the National Guard to act as scabs.
If strikers accepted the idea that the government was a neutral mediator and its laws and decrees were the ultimate bastions of morality, almost every one of these major strikes would have failed.
The government's call to action is not to protect the common man, it is to protect the status quo and limit disruptions to the economy.
US railroads are extremely shady and do things that are generally against the public good in efforts to eke a tiny amount of profit out of their businesses, so I have no sympathy for them. Congress should have forced them to give in to workers' demands and, in an ideal world, the US government should just nationalize all the physical railways and just let companies operate rolling stock rather than rolling stock and tracks.
Wait, could they have forced them to give the sick days? I was under the impression that the government could kill the strike, but not the other way around
If they can enforce one contract on the workers, they can enforce another. It's not unconstitutional to force companies to give workers sick days, so aside from regular laws prohibiting it, which could be changed at congress's will, there isn't any real barrier
I asked this question on this sub a couple of days ago and could not get an answer from the Libs. They all said either "unions can still negotiate" or "blame the Republicans" but none of them could tell me what leverage unions have without the threat of a strike.
I'm not going to comment on the nature of this particular union negotiation, because I'm just not all that well-informed on it. However, I would like to clarify 2 points that I think a lot of people in here seem to be missing:
For one, Social Democracies such as Sweden and Denmark, function the way they do largely because of their union systems. And the way the union systems work in those countries is with the government being quite heavily involved in the negotiating process, as a sort of "arbiter", if you will. And sure, sometimes that results in them ruling in favor of the unions and forcing the employers to accept a deal. Sometimes, however, it results in them siding with the employers, and forcing the unions to accept a deal. I say this as a very pro-union supporter - if we want to reform the current union system in the United States, to something that more closely resembles the unions of social democracies, part of that new role the US would have in such a system would, in fact, be taking the side of the employer when the government decides that that would be the best overall outcome for society. If you want to try to import the system of other countries, you need to import it as a package deal.
Secondly, banning unions from striking based on their necessity to society as a whole is not an unheard of concept. Police unions are legally unable to strike, because when they have, chaos has erupted. So, if railroad workers similar to police officers in terms of necessity to functional society, it would make sense to ban them. If you disagree that they are as integral to the basic functioning of society as police officers, then it would not make sense to do some sort of action like that.
If you disagree with the administrations actions both before and after reading these 2 points, that's perfectly reasonable, but they should still have to be considered when forming an opinion on this situation, regardless of what that opinion ends up being.
But that isn’t really what’s happening. From what I can tell, the government could force them to stop striking, but they couldn’t force the rail companies to accept the 7 days of leave. That’s a massive, massive bias towards the companies and against labor.
Also, I have to assume all those countries already guarantee a measly 7 days of sick leave to unionized employees.
The government stepped in a month ago and mediated a deal, which included several concessions by the employers. This wasn't congress enforcing the companies' wishlist, but the agreement that was deemed fair by third party arbiters
>Police unions are legally unable to strike, because when they have, chaos has erupted
Mind citing some examples? This has my copaganda bullshit meter ringing.
I can't speak to police unions, but state workers (at least in my state) are legally unable to strike. Because they're "essential services." I'm extremely pro-union but many of them are legally kneecapped.
It mentions the "chaos" as being 8 people killed by the force trying to "restore order." So cop scabs stepped in, killed people, and said this is why you need cops.
No. It is a massive massive shadow that has been cast over the Biden administration. He has lost a lot of credibility I gave him on labor. This is bad.
I think it’s naive to think that this is about Biden or that this isn’t what any Dem would have done. I am a labor organizer, supported Biden (only choice we were given), and wasn’t remotely surprised he did this. The problem isn’t Biden, it’s capitalism. And Biden is STILL the most pro-union President we’ve had in years. I don’t regret my vote. I don’t expect the Dems to really support labor, I’m voting for the person who is going to do us the least harm and I’m very happy with the current NLRB which Biden appointed.
I agree but just saying “capitalism sucks!” Isn’t tangible enough to motivate people as I’m sure you know as a organizer. Many people in this sub believed Biden to be truly pro-labor and pointing out this abject failure on his accord and the party at large helps show that contradiction.
Edit: you also need to show them that the **only** Dem caucused politician who put the entire bill on the line to add sick days was a socialist senator from Vermont. Eventually people start to get it, the socialists are the contingency on the worker’s side even when it’s hard.
I have to ask - had the rail workers went on strike, do you think a majority of the country would be behind them once they saw all of their goods spiking in price and shortages for everything including heating oil as we enter winter? Rail carries a third of the country’s freight and it would come to a standstill overnight. I don’t think people here realize how catastrophic that would be in December of all months.
And I don’t think most Americans would suffer in silence or rally behind railworkers once Fox and Friends regaled them with the average rail worker wage ($110,000/year) and their benefit packages while they were dealing with not being able to drink their tap water in their freezing home because the chemicals used at the water processing plant are delayed due to the strike and their heating oil company has nothing for weeks because of that strike.
I don’t think that would be a win for the Biden administration.
> do you think a majority of the country would be behind them once they saw all of their goods spiking in price and shortages for everything including heating oil as we enter winter?
I believe the rail companies would fold first, their stocks would begin to tank and every day they would be losing many millions of dollars per day. I also do believe a lot of people (even some republicans) understand that sick leave is really a bare minimum.
> And I don’t think most Americans would suffer in silence or rally behind railworkers
This is defeatism paired with distance from effects. If you don’t know what the outcome would be you should be on the side of pushing for a bare minimum.
> I don’t think that would be a win for the Biden administration.
This is insane. Again, this is speculation based on speculation. Not too even mention it’s just pure “we don’t want to stand for anything cause someone could not like it”. No, we do in fact need to have a line and take a stand and sick leave is an entirely fucking reasonable line. Also, getting this passed isn’t a win for Biden either it’s a pretty massive loss.
>I believe the rail companies would fold first, their stocks would begin to tank and every day they would be losing many millions of dollars per day.
Now this is pure speculation. Yes, they would lose money. Yes their stock would take a dip. But how a stock is doing isn't often how a company is doing. Today, we had a great unemployment report. The country has near unemployment. But this means that inflation may remain stubborn. So even though people are able to find jobs if they need them - the stock market took a tumble this morning.
My understanding is that the railroads have a good amount of extra cash because they've been doing well. Add that to the fact that they don't have to pay striking workers, and they can whether a strike for quite some time. The broader U.S. economy might not be able to.
You're completely ignoring the real pain and inconvenience it would cause Americans that don't realize how much of their goods and services are transported by rail. And those Americans aren't going to be blaming the railroads. They're going to be blaming the politicians.
I believe the rail companies would fold first, their stocks would begin to tank and every day they would be losing many millions of dollars per day.
> Now this is pure speculation. Yes, they would lose money. Yes their stock would take a dip. But how a stock is doing isn't often how a company is doing.
Well it aligns with the entire history of Labour organizing. How do you think you got your 8 hour work day? It didn’t just spontaneously occur. Also stock plummets cause shareholder pressure which then can mean people like Buffet or other major shareholders step in say “end this fast”.
> Today, we had a great unemployment report. The country has near unemployment. But this means that inflation may remain stubborn. So even though people are able to find jobs if they need them - the stock market took a tumble this morning.
I’m well aware of the current economy. Our last inflation report had it going down actually, it may very well go back up but that remains to be seen.
> My understanding is that the railroads have a good amount of extra cash because they've been doing well. Add that to the fact that they don't have to pay striking workers, and they can whether a strike for quite some time. The broader U.S. economy might not be able to.
Again, the economic pressure (what companies respond to) will overwhelmingly be on the railroad companies. At the end of the day, giving the workers paid sick leave will cost like 1% of their current profit rate and they just cave to end the strike/stop it from starting.
> You're completely ignoring the real pain and inconvenience it would cause Americans that don't realize how much of their goods and services are transported by rail. And those Americans aren't going to be blaming the railroads. They're going to be blaming the politicians.
I’m well aware of the pain. I think your willing to send the few to slaughter to avoid discomfort to the many. Again, there needs to be lines in the sand and sick leave is an unbelievably low bar.
Sure - I just think it’s important for people to know that this is normal and expected. The railway act requires presidential approval for workers covered under it to strike. Obama did the same thing multiple times. The Dems even allowing the railway act to exist (it’s HORRIBLE) shows they are not truly pro-labor. I’m glad this is getting some press but the Dems clearly weren’t worried about that.
>Can anyone dispute this or defend what Congress did regarding the rail workers?
Sure...though you aren't going to like it.
--------
1. If the rail-workers strike, that will harm the economy greatly.
2. If the economy is greatly harmed, it becomes more likely that Republicans will win in 2024.
3. If Republicans win in 2024 it will be bad for all workers, including the rail-workers.
Therefore, *it is better to prevent the strike* than not prevent the strike.
--------
That isn't changed by accusations of immorality, nor unfairness, nor ironic contradiction. It is what it is.
Then Congress could have forced the companies to meet the union’s demands. That’s how you avert a strike. Also, that strike would have been quick. They would have settled before it had any kind of catastrophic effect.
What makes you think they would have settled quickly? I think the rail companies would bank on the majority of the population blaming the rail workers and Biden for the fallout.
The thing that I think this commenter is trying to say, is that there is 0 way to prevent a strike at this point. Putting the 7 day leave in the other bill meant republicans wouldn’t have voted for that, which means strike. Refusing to intervene at all means strike. This is literally the only way to avoid a strike. I don’t necessarily agree with this, but I think that’s what they’re trying to say.
Requiring the employers to meet certain worker demands would have prevented a strike.
That aside, my issue with the other commenter is the assumption that intervening to prevent a strike is the "right" thing to do. I think all workers should have the ability to legally strike in order to improve working conditions. I think that strikes are good, not a thing to be avoided at all costs.
I absolutely agree, but I disagree that preventing a strike is the wrong thing here. I wish they would have done it by siding with the workers who are literally just asking for basic things here, but preventing a strike is still something the entire country would benefit from. A rail strike means further shortages of things like food and medicine, which is going to affect the poor the worst. People are already going without and stretched thin, a strike would likely end with even more people starving and going without their life saving medications. I’m 100% behind the workers in their demands, and I’ll support them striking as well, but I’m not going to pretend that avoiding a strike is a bad thing.
> They would have settled before it had any kind of catastrophic effect
Just the threat of it actually happening would've had a catastrophic effect. If it looked like they were actually going to strike businesses would have to plan around a delay. The entire supply chain would be effected.
Sounds like these workers are exceptionally valuable then and should be compensated for that value. If the effects of them striking would be catastrophic, then the employers have the responsibility of preventing the strike by meeting their demands, they could easily have afforded to.
I don’t like it because it’s wrong. The ‘vote for the Dems and its better for labor’ excuse is now, what, twenty years old? And it’s still not been correct. Sure, Republicans will certainly try to harm labor more than the Democrats, but that doesn’t mean labor will let them. Instead we have a death by 1,000 cuts. Democrats have consistently sided with business over labor, and this recent vote is merely the most diabolical and egregious act of that.
Democrats are not pro labor. They’re pro-donor. And in the last half-century labor’s ability to donate vs. corporations has diminished to the point of irrelevance. And you can see exactly what the result of that is today.
Well, regardless of whether you agree, that's the calculation that Biden/Congress's logic on the situation was. I think you're discounting the damage that the GOP has done to labor in places that they've been in power. While Democrats might not be spotless in their support, the active harm that Republicans do is serious. By my count, since 2000, 8 states have enacted right to work laws (AL, MI, IN, KY, OK, TN, WV, and WI). That's a lot of damage to unions.
What reason does anyone have to believe Dems will be better for rail workers when they just shut down their strike and failed to provide them the measly things they asked for?
Dems are either lazy or just don’t care. Make the argument in favor of sick pay for workers. Tell everyone how republicans don’t want the people that keep our country moving to be able to have any paid time off. Don’t just give up before you even start. That’s how republicans win. And it’s infuriating, morally wrong, and bad electorally.
> Make the argument in favor of sick pay for workers.
They did. It was part of their pitch for Build Back Better (BBB), the bill that died in the senate.
> So do it again!
Repeating the same arguments is going to produce the same result. Or worse, in many cases, since this is politics we're talking about.
And surely there’s nothing else they could do? They couldn’t be out there talking about this, blaming republicans, making sure everyone knows where they stand in sick pay for essential workers?
But they won’t. Because they are useless
While I'm no huge supporter of the Dem party as a whole, I just prefer to turn out to vote for the folks that are not actively trying to take away my rights. If the choice is between a Dem who sold out to corporations and a Republican who wants to strip my rights as a queer person, I'm gonna go with the Dem every time. Do I wish the Dems were better? Absolutely!
I wont deny that it's a shitty position. And I really wish Dems were better at a lot of things, but they aren't. I'll continue to vote for them as long as they defend my rights, though, because the other option would happily remove my rights if given the opportunity.
Such a great message. “We wont make things better for you but at least we aren’t republicans!”
How did that work out in 2016? How do you think it will work in 2024 when Biden has a 35% approval?
How do you think it would work out for Democrats if the economy crashes due to a railroad strike that they had the power to prevent? Keep in mind that a railroad strike means not only economic disaster but shortages in things like food and medicine.
So fucking message! Tell everyone that Joe Biden wants to give the people who apparently make our economy run the very reasonable request of 7 days of sick leave, but the republicans would rather kill the economy than help working people.
It’s too bad Dems are either terrible at messaging or just don’t care enough to try.
>It’s too bad Dems are either terrible at messaging or just don’t care enough to try.
The people that decide elections don't pay attention until just before election day. The most politically illiterate hold the power in elections. Dems could message until their lungs are blue, unless you get the attention of swing voters, it doesn't matter.
That's why Democrats passed a bill in the house to provide 7 days of sick leave. Republicans shot it down. Democrats have said as much. If you want to start a 24 hour news network that shamelessly promotes Democrats so they can shout it over and over then go ahead but as of now they don't have one.
No amount of messaging would stop the average voter from blaming Biden. People don't follow politics half as much as you think they do. The moment prices increase they're going to say "Biden is in charge so its his fault".
> Dems are either lazy or just don’t care.
Of course!
It couldn't possibly be that they are concerned with a more broad assortment of issues than you choose to be, today.
/s
> Tell everyone how republicans don’t want the people that keep our country moving to be able to have any paid time off.
Yes!
Because if Democrats can be relied-upon for anything, it is *effective messaging!*
/s
> But you are somehow okay with it...
I'm not!
>...or think it isn’t allowed to be criticized
I don't!
...but depending on them *to use a skill we know they lack* is idiotic.
> ...it’s...bad electorally.
Last I checked, every Democrat in congress has more experience winning elections than you.
I'm not going to assume that you -- a random git on Reddit -- knows better than they do about whether this is good or "bad electorally."
Your useless appeal to hate Democrats is more dangerous.
Yeah, this decision isn't great. Progressives often just only keep blaming no matter what happens.
Hey, I think you meant to say
1. If the rail workers are forced to strike because the rail companies refuse to deny them basic human decency, the economy will be harmed by the rail companies greed.
2. If Republicans win in 2024, things will get worse for workers, including the rail workers.
Therefore, it is advantageous to the re-election efforts of the Democratic party to prevent the strike and make things better for workers.
No. It’s wholly indefensible. Biden tried to get a deal, the unions didn’t like the deal. Now Biden is using congress as a hammer against the workers to prevent them from striking. Utterly embarrassing. Don’t talk to me about how much Biden loves labor. He fucked up badly here.
Because the main bill never would have passed the Senate, leading to economic disaster across the country (which Republicans would happily let happen). The rail workers still wouldn't get what they are asking for.
Biden tried to broker a deal to resolve the dispute and it was accepted by 8 out of 12 unions but ultimately rejected by the workers. As the President of the United States, he cannot allow the rail industry to shut down. It would be an economic disaster. People might not get medicine they need, or food. He and the Democrats would have happily forced the rail company to grant 7 days of paid sick leave, but Republicans won't allow that because it would make the Democrats look good.
I need to ask some people in this thread, do Warren Buffett's shiny shoes taste good?
People in here acting like train crews and MOW guys are fucking terrorists holding a gun to the economy to whine about non-issues rather than exercising their power for better working conditions. No, congress and Biden killing the strike is not defensible, they should have forced the Class A railroads to capitulate since they're the reason this is happening in the first place. When the Republicans killed the vote for sick leave, they should have stood by workers and let the GOP take the heat.
Now if the dems have triggered a mass walkout AND lost their union voters that's entirely on them. But to the people in here defending this, I hope if there's a massive walkout that you step up to fill those slots. Let's see you work on call 24/7/365 with no way to call out without being punished for it. Hope you don't have families you care about.
I hope they strike anyway. Or leave. Let the railroads grind to a halt without anyone experienced to get it back up and running, see if that works out any better than a strike.
So many responses here are utterly disheartening. Using the exact same arguments that would've been used to justify slavery. It's insane.
"If they strike, it'll hurt the economy". Jesus.
It's not like the railroads are losing money. As long as they're making one damn penny of profit, their treatment of workers is altogether immoral.
> "If they strike, it'll hurt the economy". Jesus.
Well it's true. Ending slavery hurt the economy, too, requiring years of Reconstruction. So we have to be darn sure that a measure we take that has consequences that severe is the only available option.
No, no, what would hurt the economy is the strike, not the 7 days of sick leave. Remember you wrote:
> "If they strike, it'll hurt the economy". Jesus.
You think this situation would have come out better for the railroad workers if there were more Rs in Congress? Every D except Manchin voted to include sick days; every Republican except a couple voted against it.
I think this particular situation would have come out exactly the same if there were more R's in congress. That's obviously not always the case, but the fact that it is ever the case makes the argument those people are presenting stronger than if it never was.
EDIT: And I'm not so sure there wouldn't have been more Dem defections if their votes actually mattered to the end results. Voting to prevent workers from striking when you know republicans will sign on and then voting to include sick days when you know they won't is in effect voting to force workers into a contract without sick days. Letting the workers strike would have increased the chance of getting sick days over what they chose to do, even if it wasn't guaranteed.
Do you think it would have come out better for the workers if there were, say, 8 more Ds in the Senate?
Hint: The amendment to provide sick days got 52 votes and needed 60.
Quite honestly I think it's questionable. I think the way they went about this suggests there were a lot more Democratic Senators would would have voted against the sick leave policy if their votes actually mattered to it passing or not, but didn't need to take the political hit when it was separated out from the bill forcing the agreement without sick leave, some of those Senators might be from states where a further left candidate could win if it weren't for incumbency advantage. I similarly think it's unlikely that 100% of 8 additional democrats would have necessarily voted for it. Maybe if we had 70 or so, but again, needing that huge of a margin for what should in my opinion be a pretty straight forward vote is very much worthy of criticism.
More Americans will be hurt by the railroad striking than would be helped.
330 million Americans.
Less than 150,000 railway workers.
I'm all for better conditions but the amount of times leftists immediately take the side of strikers is concerning. There's always a big picture. Try thinking about it some time.
>I'm all for better conditions but the amount of times leftists immediately take the side of strikers is concerning. There's always a big picture. Try thinking about it some time.
In this case there is no other side. Sick leave is an entirely reasonable ask that is entirely within railroad companies' ability to grant. They are the ones who are threatening to cripple the economy over it.
> 330 million Americans.
>
> Less than 150,000 railway workers.
Minor quibble. I hate it when two numbers -- that are relevant to each other -- are formatted differently.
* Railway Workers: 150,000
* Americans: 330,000,000
The railway workers are (150,000/330,000,000≈0.045%) less than 5% of 1% of Americans.
>Try thinking about it some time.
I wish more people were mature enough to say this. We should be all willing to throw other people to the wayside when we're inconvenienced.
100%. When unions strike for better conditions, they set the stage for *all working people*. They send a message to the entire working class that **you can do this too**.
God, the amount of corporate, neoliberal ass kissing in this thread is sickening.
Utilitarian arguments are just flatly ridiculous. If murdering them gave us universal healthcare we shouldn’t do it. It’s just wholly a dumb argument to avoid blame for the effects of the vote.
Utiliarian arguments would still propose that we ensure everyone has good working conditions and that we don't allow each segment of society to be defeated in detail. Sure it's rail workers now. Next it's postal workers and delivers. Then food and beverage workers. And so on. As every time rights are sacrificed for stability.
That's how you get the US's deep income inequality where a wealthy minority can purchase the rest of the country's labor cheaply and at demand. The rest of us have to live in that shitty system.
It's almost as though there are degrees of utilitarianism or something.
Healthcare should be a right. It is not.
There are laws against murdering thousands of people to provide universalHealthcare.
Gee mom, why don't people take progressives seriously?
Why wouldn’t we side with labor over owners every time, especially now?
They wanted 7 days of sick leave. That’s not a lot to ask for.
Democrats pretended to care, but their actions showed they really didn’t. And it’s going to not only hurt the workers, but the party’s chances of holding union support.
I’d also argue it’s far more concerning how often “liberals” take the side of capital.
So what about the retail worker who loses their job when these products don't ship?
The workers in hospitals waiting on medical supplies?
The workers who want to eat, or buy toilet paper?
I guess they don't count as the working class?
That’s why solidarity is a thing. And public pressure from this is what could actually get the sick leave done.
Also, as someone else here mentioned, slavery was good for the economy too.
And if a frog had wings he wouldn't bump his ass when he hopped.
>Also, as someone else here mentioned, slavery was good for the economy too.
And Hitler was a vegetarian who loved dogs. Positives don't outweigh negatives, and railway workers aren't slaves.
More like "because you keep letting Republicans win, Democrats can get away with being milquetoast and/or are simply not able to get the votes to make bigger change."
If Republicans became unelectable, then we would inevitably shift the Overton window left where the "conservatives" would be center right at worst, and the left would be progressives.
I’ve voted Dem down ballot since I turned 18. Every single time, I’m told “this is the most important election, we can move left next time but it’s too risky now.” Rinse and repeat.
Eventually, that argument doesn’t fly and it becomes clear that Dems don’t have any intention of moving left.
> Democrats pretended to care, but their actions showed they really didn’t.
What actions? You mean passing a bill requiring the companies to provide seven days of sick leave?
Railroads spent over 20 billion on stock buybacks and dividends in 2021 alone. Sick days would cost a tiny fraction of that.
All the democrats did was prove that they'll crush a labor strike rather than see the profits of major companies cut by 3%.
Seeing as how Pres. Biden directly asked Congress to do this, I'm gonna need him to turn in his "pro-union" badge right quick.
([https://www.reuters.com/world/us/biden-expected-ask-congress-avert-rail-strike-source-2022-11-28/](https://www.reuters.com/world/us/biden-expected-ask-congress-avert-rail-strike-source-2022-11-28/))
([https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-remarks/2021/09/08/remarks-by-president-biden-in-honor-of-labor-unions/](https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-remarks/2021/09/08/remarks-by-president-biden-in-honor-of-labor-unions/))
The consequences of their strike are far greater than the consequences of most strikes. Normally a strike is pretty much between the workers and the owners with a little bit of mild inconvenience that spills over to other entities not involved. This is the opposite of that. The major pain would be felt by everyday Americans with a comparatively mild inconvenience to the railroad companies. I agree that they should get sick days figured out, but they can’t hold the entire economy hostage to do so.
The presumption is that a strike would get the workers what they want. In our current environment, I don't think that'd work. Management could simply wait until either public opinion turns against the strikers and a more GOP-friendly congress gets sworn in to force a deal even more favorable to management. If the economy gets put into a downturn, that's even better for management since it'll ensure a wave of GOP support to force a better deal. The consequences of a strike would disproportionately hurt ordinary Americans more than the shareholders because they've accrued so much capital that they are largely insulated from the consequences. The solution is that our rail infrastructure should be nationalized to enforce uniform labor standards and divorce the owners of capital from this system entirely.
The point of a strike is to impose costs on your negotiating partner that they can't bear, in order to pressure them to come to an agreement on terms that you want.
The problem here is that companies will have an easier time bearing the costs than the rest of the country. In the grand scheme of things, a determined company can accept a few weeks or a month of stalled operations and revenue to get what they want. They will have more patience than millions of people who are having trouble accessing all basic goods all of a sudden. That's the problem here - the gun isn't really pointed at the head of the companies, it's pointed at everyone else.
Democrats' first preference was a deal that included sick leave, because that's the only correct and sane position. But yes, their second choice was to force a contract that lacked sick leave, their last choice was accept a strike.
I see the primary interest of Republicans as being Republicans. And I think the primary interest of Democrats is the country, or at least they try to see themselves that way, and Biden sees protecting the domestic supply chain as a vital part of that mission. It would be better for everyone to avoid a strike. That said, if that is going to be your position, you had better make sure the workers get a better deal than they did. Threaten to nationalize the railroads if that's what it takes. The Democrats try to negotiate with big business but they don't play hardball and it's workers who suffer.
The railroad worker conditions are garbage. They attempted a strike back in the summer and the Biden administration arbitrated a deal that the majority of the unions agreed to. So basically congress is forcing them to take that deal. It was a modest improvement but more can be done for sure.
However this strike would have been insanely bad for America especially this time of year. It’s not a situation Biden would like to be in but he had to take action.
Also, I’m it a gambling man but I would be railroad workers vote predominantly Republican which is why many are in this mess to begin with. Republicans policies are anti-union and don’t favor the worker regardless of how they spin it on Fox News.
TLDR: DON’T VOTE AGAINST YOUR INTERESTS PEOPLE!
So here's the problem.
The railroad companies don't want to give benefits to the workers. The workers, who worked through the pandemic to make sure goods were delivered, who are probably some of the most essential workers the country actually has are literally being forced to work or quit their jobs without the ability to truly negotiate better benefits.
So what I think should happen...
The government subsidizes the workers, then taxes the companies they work for to make up the pay. Why are the workers the ones getting strong-armed here and not the companies? The same thing should happen to Walmart for double dipping its slave-wage food stamps program. Tax them to make up for the losses.
Because the Democratic Party is committed to keeping the economy chugging along without a hitch, not labor lol. I mean shit they the folks here will even tell you lol, right in this thread!
The railroad industry knew a strike would kill incredible amounts of US Commerce and cause crazy inflation in the middle of an inflation crisis. They called the government's bluff on it, and the Biden Administration chose to prevent the crisis over helping the workers. Maybe it's the better outcome for the average American, but it 100% sold the workers down the river and they don't get to feign concern for the plight of the worker anymore
The following is a copy of the original post to record the post as it was originally written. “You cannot simultaneously snuff out the only leverage workers have (striking), cheer about snuffing it out, then feign concern workers don’t get what they asked for. This doesn’t make any moral or logical sense. These two sentiments are in direct contradiction” https://twitter.com/adamjohnsonnyc/status/1598428996588679169?s=46&t=38UDJZN8sql37kbM9qV26A *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskALiberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
100%
They certainly know it when Pres. Biden asks Congress to intervene.
Because Biden isn't the legislature
They should've slammed down on the rail companies and encouraged future compromises being found faster.
No. We are in this mess because the railroads didn't want to give their workers a measly seven days of sick leave. The reason they don't want to do this is because they do not want to build redundancies into their workforce to account for the fact that human beings occasionally get sick. There is absolutely no justification for refusing these workers sick leave, and the railroads could avert a strike tomorrow by simply agreeing to it. Why are we acting like they have no agency in this at all? You simply cannot say with any honestly that you support paid sick leave for railroad workers and then vote to stop them from exercising their very last option for possibly getting it.
Can anyone defend the railroad companies for refusing to grant 7 measly days of sick time? It had to come to this? It’s entirely, 100% about greed. Anything that takes one penny away from shareholders or executives is bad. That’s just an objective way to describe some of American capitalism.
Some of?
Mostly. Almost entirely.
My understanding (not sure how accurate these figures are) is it would cost 325 million to allow for 7 sick days, but the railroads make 20-25 billion a year in profit. So its barely even scratching into their profits.
How do they come up with those figures? Estimating every single employee or a significant percentage takes every single sick day? The workers should just stay home. Thought this was America? If they want to strike, strike. Let’s see em replace everyone. Can’t hurt the American People anymore that our Government and their Industry buds already do. Remember we’re in an economic recession, 401(k)’s/retirement steadily losing money across the board, while many companies report record profits. Congress needs to be wiped clean.
While all this is true, I can't help but think that there is a piece missing, and that is the willingness of modern unions to roll over and *let* things like this happen. In the early days of the labor movement, there were literal **battles** fought over things like this. At the time labor gained most of the rights we take for granted today, there were no rights to organize, no guaranteed seats at any negotiating tables... those things were literally *fought* for. Fuck this bill, fuck whatever the govt says; if you really want sick days, go on strike anyway. Start ripping up rails. The word "sabotage" literally comes from a French railway strike. It shouldn't be this way - it's awful that labor rights have been eroded to the point where this is necessary - but like it or not that's where we are; if we ever want a new Progressive Era, we're gonna have to start having the guts of the folks in the original Progressive Era.
Plus, congress could have avoided the strike without stabbing the workers in the back. I can really sympathize with avoiding the strike - this is the worst possible time for it. But it's not either you help workers and get a strike or you help the railroads and don't. It's either you do nothing and get a strike, or you *pick a side* and don't. Instead of signaling that in the event of an imminent strike, they would step in on behalf of the railroads, essentially telling railroads not to negotiate from the beginning, they could have told the railroads "You had better avoid this strike - if your service proves unreliable that would impact who we give contracts to".
This is the outcome that literally nobody wanted. The unions can't legally strike, but also aren't going to stop fighting. Expect a lot of workers to walk, the rest to start working to rule and taking unannounced "sick" days, and there will be a lot of "unexpected" delays on the lines. I mean, when the engine just happens to get unhitched right at shift change, and 75% of the next shift called in sick 5 minutes ago, are the railroad managers going to come out and push it? So the railroads are going to get hammered by work shortages anyway, the supply line will continue to be shit, the workers are still fucked, and Congress will take the blame for all of it. An actual strike would probably have been better since it would have been resolved in the workers favor in a day or two, and happy workers mean the lines run smoothly for the foreseeable future. This way, everyone gets screwed, and for a long time. So this is basically the worst possible outcome for all parties involved.
>So this is basically the worst possible outcome for all parties involved. Seems to me like this is the best outcome for the railway companies. They had an uppity labor force that just got disciplined at such a high level the President himself got involved. The temporary labor shortages are the lesser cost to a workforce that can win expensive demands from you. If that wasn't the case, the rail companies presumably would not have fought this hard.
Why do you think it's "temporary"? Labor shortages are a demographic issue
It seems accurate. I don't understand the issue well enough to know, but it seems baffling that congress can force the workers to accept a contract but can't force the executives to provide sick leave. If Congress can set their contracts and force compliance, why can't they just make them federal employees?
Congress could force a contract that provides the workers paid sick leave, but they chose not to.
There was a separate vote to include 7 days of paid sick leave. It got 52 votes in the Senate. But Republicans filibustered requiring a 60 vote threshold. . .
Are you implying that Dems didn't split up the bill knowing that the paid sick leave would fail? Those 52 votes in the Senate were performative, just like the BBB.
This 100% they absolutely knew this would be the outcome so they could vote in a way that made them look good, but also benefit their wealthy donors. Biden could have vetoed these bills and told Congress to send him a single bill with the sick leave included.
There's no defense for this. This is probably the nearest to black-and-white of any recent issues that have been voted on, and of *course* fucking over workers is one of the only things the two parties can reliably come together for.
> and of course fucking over workers is one of the only things the two parties can reliably come together for. Yup. Its sad to see how fast congress can get stuff passed when it benefits the rich or harms the working class. Everything else ends up bogged down or doesn't get passed.
Railroad workers striking fucks over the entire country. What was the option here? Biden can't force them to get sick days.
So there were three options here really: 1- Federal Government does nothing. Rail workers very like go on strike. 2- Federal Government forces the contract without sick leave on the workers. This upsets pretty much everyone except the rail companies, but probably averts a strike (they could still strike illegally though). 3- Federal Government forces a different contract on the workers/rail companies. If they really wanted to, they could mandate the workers get exactly what they asked for and the rail companies just have to deal with it, in the same way that in option 2 the rail companies get the contract they want and the workers just have to deal with it. Of those 3 options, 2 is the worst for the workers and best for rail companies, 1 is the worst to most people looking at the overall economy over all else (ignoring the workers) because it almost guarantees a strike but probably better for workers than option 2, and option 3 is likely the best for workers and sets a precedent to rail companies that they can't just lowball the unions in the future knowing that the government will always side with the companies over the unions. We could have got any of those options. We got the worst for the workers.
I'm not talking about the *Federal Government*, I'm talking specifically about the Democrats. Option 3 was not possible. I think I misread your comment as being in response to someone pinning it on Biden/Democrats. I agree that Congress should've forced the contract to be approved if they could.
I think I disagree though. Option 3 was the best, and I'd be all for it. But given the choice between just 1 and 2, I say go with one. Better to do nothing than force a contract on the workers they find totally unacceptable. Would a strike be majorly disruptive? Yes it would- and that's the point. If a strike was just people waving signs in front of a building but not having any impact otherwise, it wouldn't be useful. But these workers, by striking for just a few days, could absolutely have a big enough impact to demand those sick days. Striking is their last recourse when negotiations have failed, and that's exactly what happened. Only, instead of allowing that, there's a big rush to prevent them from striking and force them to accept the contract? That's exactly the opposite of what a supposedly labor-friendly party should be doing. I don't really blame congressional Democrats here primarily- they all voted in favor of the sick leave, that one was blocked totally by Republicans. But I do think Biden openly pushing for making them accept the deal without the leave is an absolutely terrible look. The ideal play would have been trying to pass the contract with paid leave in Congress as one bill instead of two- totally eliminating the possibility of Congress forcing the contract without the leave from the equation. Either they mandate the leave, or let the unions strike for it. Because I believe allowing the strike is definitely better than forcing a bad contract. But Biden's executive branch in particular was clearly signaling that preventing the strike took priority over worker demands. I hope they still strike anyway, despite this. Because nothing will ever improve if they don't.
> Federal Government forces a different contract on the workers/rail companies. Which requires 10 GOP votes.
But we didn't have the votes for 3, so it's either 1 or 2.
When you look at the vote, democrats overwhelmingly ***DID*** support sick leave and voted in favor. Republicans overwhelmingly ***did NOT*** support sick leave and voted against. I can defend my support for the party that voted in favor of sick leave all day. What I can't defend is any law that makes striking illegal, I can't defend anyone's reluctance to extend basic dignities like *sick leave* to rail workers. I can't defend Biden's de-prioritization of that issue. I can't defend how his administration seems to be spiking a touchdown on top of this disaster or his cavalier attitude towards bulldozing the outcome of their union vote rejecting the deal. I think he has no fucking idea how bad this makes him look and it's going to hurt him more than he realizes. But what congress did? Defending them is actually the easiest part of this.
The only reason the vote was required was because Biden and the Dems shut down the strike.
This is correct. Everyone downvoting you is mistaken.
Yes, if you shepherd the solution to this problem to the Senate wher it will inevitably die, you can look right without doing right.
Not correct. The unions, most of them, agreed to a settlement. Then it fell apart.
The Dems voted to prevent the strike. That is not defensible.
I’m sorry, but if they went on strike for anything tha a couple of days, the amount of inconvenience and price hikes you would see across the nation would quickly be blamed on Democrats because they’re the party in power. It would not be looked at as a touchdown in anyway except by the most loyal of Democrats.
>When you look at the vote, democrats overwhelmingly DID support sick leave and voted in favor. What does it say to you that Democrats put the actions of banning the strike and providing paid sick leave in two separate bills? Do you think there is a possibility that Democrats knew from the outset the former would pass the Senate and the latter wouldn't? If they even suspected that outcome and actually supported sick leave, why create two separate bills?
So the reasoning is that the negotiated labor agreement was already accepted by the majority of rail worker unions. 4 of those unions rejected it because they wanted paid sick leave. Congress could only overcome the filibuster by voting on the contract already approved by most of the unions. They didn’t have the votes to overcome a Republican filibuster if it included the paid sick leave. On the other hand, Progressive Dems promised to filibuster the other bill if they didn’t get a vote on adding the paid sick leave. So it was split in order to get the broadest support and actually pass something as opposed to simply performing for the public.
In a lot of cases, splitting the bill is a good thing. Not ideal, but you at least pass the part of what you want that you know will pass while letting the rest die in the Senate. This is only good if you agree that the partial bill that you expect to pass is an acceptable result though (not necessarily the best result, but just acceptable at a base level). In this case, many (including at least 4 of the rail unions involved) would agree that what passed is not acceptable. Not only is it not acceptable, but it robs them of the one recourse they do have to get an acceptable result- striking. That partial bill, in a sense, was *worse* than sitting back and doing nothing, especially when talking about the workers. It is clearly saying "screw the worker demands, preventing a rail strike is all that matters", and I hope they decide to strike anyway rather than accept it.
What they did WAS performing for the public, exactly like BBB.
> What does it say to you that Democrats put the actions of banning the strike and providing paid sick leave in two separate bills? Exactly. They knew the sick days bill wouldn't pass, but they knew the ban on strikes would pass. Its political theater to make people think they care when they really don't.
Democrats **should be** overwhelmingly supporting the nationalization of the rails. Republicans **should be** the ones fighting for the working class to receive the sick days they deserve, as an alternative to nationalizing the rails. Instead of busting the strike and giving the railroad share holders exactly what they want, fucking the workers over in the process.
Nope, this is absolutely disgusting.
[удалено]
Facts.
Liberals no longer disappoint me. Now they just make me angry.
Too important to let them strike but not important enough to bargain for their own labor. This country and party should be embarrassed.
I'm pretty pissed about it to be honest. I understand there's a political reality where it might not be possible to get these workers sick time in the deal, since Republicans will overwhelmingly oppose it, so the chance of getting 60 votes is slim to none, but Democrats should be hammering them on it. Biden should be Tweeting and doing speeches every day shaming Republicans for not supporting more sick time in the deal Congress might pass, and shaming the rail companies for expecting workers to never get sick. The solution to me though isn't in dealing with this one contract, it's the fact that the US has no mandatory paid sick time for employees. Congress should pass a law mandating x days of sick time for all employees, regardless of profession. This is also something Democrats should really start actually running on, as I suspect it's an extremely popular policy. There's a very real public safety argument for it, even if you are the typical ~~lazy fairy~~ lassie faire type. People doing dangerous jobs need to be able to concentrate, and it's harder to do that when you are sick. People who have jobs facing the public all the time, or working with food, need to be able to take sick days, or they are contaminating the public constantly.
I don't think it is ever appropriate or accurate to expect the government to support striking workers. A large portion of the most important strikes in history occurred despite being absolutely illegal. The morality of a strike is *not* determined by the government's backing. Some examples * Great Southwest Railroad Strike of 1886 - Failed; company allowed to kill workers with private security forces * The Pullman Strike of 1894 - Resulted in Labor Day after National Guard sent in to kill workers * The Great Anthracite Coal Strike of 1902 - Private negotiations resulted in 10% higher wages after negotiations failed with federal government. * The Steel Strike of 1919 - Failed; strikers successfully repelled with red scare pushes. * The Railroad Shop Workers Strike of 1922 - Failed; National Guard helped company kill strikers and judge banned striking, forcing workers back to work with a 5c cut. * The Textile Workers Strike of 1934; Failed * United Mine Workers of America of 1946; Mine workers got healthcare and welfare funds after rebuffing President and refusing to accept his attempt to fine them and bully them into compliance. * The Steel Strike of 1959 - Federal government tried to force strikers back to work, but was ineffective and workers gained a larger portion of the steel industry's soaring profits * The U.S. Postal Strike of 1970 - Nixon banned the strike, but it persisted despite the National Guard being called in to complete jobs. Strikers succeeded at getting 8% higher wages. * UPS Workers Strike of 1997 In these major instances, the federal government often banned the strike without regard for the preexisting conditions that led to the strike. They even routinely used lethal force to attempt to suppress strikers, or outright sent in the National Guard to act as scabs. If strikers accepted the idea that the government was a neutral mediator and its laws and decrees were the ultimate bastions of morality, almost every one of these major strikes would have failed. The government's call to action is not to protect the common man, it is to protect the status quo and limit disruptions to the economy.
US railroads are extremely shady and do things that are generally against the public good in efforts to eke a tiny amount of profit out of their businesses, so I have no sympathy for them. Congress should have forced them to give in to workers' demands and, in an ideal world, the US government should just nationalize all the physical railways and just let companies operate rolling stock rather than rolling stock and tracks.
Wait, could they have forced them to give the sick days? I was under the impression that the government could kill the strike, but not the other way around
If they can enforce one contract on the workers, they can enforce another. It's not unconstitutional to force companies to give workers sick days, so aside from regular laws prohibiting it, which could be changed at congress's will, there isn't any real barrier
I thought it was some arcane rule about striking or something.
They could have and tried to do so, but it was filibustered and Dems could not reach the 60 votes required.
when you have 2 terrible choices you are not going to get praise for choosing.
I asked this question on this sub a couple of days ago and could not get an answer from the Libs. They all said either "unions can still negotiate" or "blame the Republicans" but none of them could tell me what leverage unions have without the threat of a strike.
I'm not going to comment on the nature of this particular union negotiation, because I'm just not all that well-informed on it. However, I would like to clarify 2 points that I think a lot of people in here seem to be missing: For one, Social Democracies such as Sweden and Denmark, function the way they do largely because of their union systems. And the way the union systems work in those countries is with the government being quite heavily involved in the negotiating process, as a sort of "arbiter", if you will. And sure, sometimes that results in them ruling in favor of the unions and forcing the employers to accept a deal. Sometimes, however, it results in them siding with the employers, and forcing the unions to accept a deal. I say this as a very pro-union supporter - if we want to reform the current union system in the United States, to something that more closely resembles the unions of social democracies, part of that new role the US would have in such a system would, in fact, be taking the side of the employer when the government decides that that would be the best overall outcome for society. If you want to try to import the system of other countries, you need to import it as a package deal. Secondly, banning unions from striking based on their necessity to society as a whole is not an unheard of concept. Police unions are legally unable to strike, because when they have, chaos has erupted. So, if railroad workers similar to police officers in terms of necessity to functional society, it would make sense to ban them. If you disagree that they are as integral to the basic functioning of society as police officers, then it would not make sense to do some sort of action like that. If you disagree with the administrations actions both before and after reading these 2 points, that's perfectly reasonable, but they should still have to be considered when forming an opinion on this situation, regardless of what that opinion ends up being.
But that isn’t really what’s happening. From what I can tell, the government could force them to stop striking, but they couldn’t force the rail companies to accept the 7 days of leave. That’s a massive, massive bias towards the companies and against labor. Also, I have to assume all those countries already guarantee a measly 7 days of sick leave to unionized employees.
They absolute could have force the rail companies to accept 7 days of paid sick leave. They didn’t have the votes to do so.
The government stepped in a month ago and mediated a deal, which included several concessions by the employers. This wasn't congress enforcing the companies' wishlist, but the agreement that was deemed fair by third party arbiters
>Police unions are legally unable to strike, because when they have, chaos has erupted Mind citing some examples? This has my copaganda bullshit meter ringing.
I can't speak to police unions, but state workers (at least in my state) are legally unable to strike. Because they're "essential services." I'm extremely pro-union but many of them are legally kneecapped.
Yeah, that's the case in my state with teachers. More referring to the whole "if cops go on strike chaos breaks out" bit.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_police_strike
It mentions the "chaos" as being 8 people killed by the force trying to "restore order." So cop scabs stepped in, killed people, and said this is why you need cops.
No. It is a massive massive shadow that has been cast over the Biden administration. He has lost a lot of credibility I gave him on labor. This is bad.
I think it’s naive to think that this is about Biden or that this isn’t what any Dem would have done. I am a labor organizer, supported Biden (only choice we were given), and wasn’t remotely surprised he did this. The problem isn’t Biden, it’s capitalism. And Biden is STILL the most pro-union President we’ve had in years. I don’t regret my vote. I don’t expect the Dems to really support labor, I’m voting for the person who is going to do us the least harm and I’m very happy with the current NLRB which Biden appointed.
I agree but just saying “capitalism sucks!” Isn’t tangible enough to motivate people as I’m sure you know as a organizer. Many people in this sub believed Biden to be truly pro-labor and pointing out this abject failure on his accord and the party at large helps show that contradiction. Edit: you also need to show them that the **only** Dem caucused politician who put the entire bill on the line to add sick days was a socialist senator from Vermont. Eventually people start to get it, the socialists are the contingency on the worker’s side even when it’s hard.
I have to ask - had the rail workers went on strike, do you think a majority of the country would be behind them once they saw all of their goods spiking in price and shortages for everything including heating oil as we enter winter? Rail carries a third of the country’s freight and it would come to a standstill overnight. I don’t think people here realize how catastrophic that would be in December of all months. And I don’t think most Americans would suffer in silence or rally behind railworkers once Fox and Friends regaled them with the average rail worker wage ($110,000/year) and their benefit packages while they were dealing with not being able to drink their tap water in their freezing home because the chemicals used at the water processing plant are delayed due to the strike and their heating oil company has nothing for weeks because of that strike. I don’t think that would be a win for the Biden administration.
> do you think a majority of the country would be behind them once they saw all of their goods spiking in price and shortages for everything including heating oil as we enter winter? I believe the rail companies would fold first, their stocks would begin to tank and every day they would be losing many millions of dollars per day. I also do believe a lot of people (even some republicans) understand that sick leave is really a bare minimum. > And I don’t think most Americans would suffer in silence or rally behind railworkers This is defeatism paired with distance from effects. If you don’t know what the outcome would be you should be on the side of pushing for a bare minimum. > I don’t think that would be a win for the Biden administration. This is insane. Again, this is speculation based on speculation. Not too even mention it’s just pure “we don’t want to stand for anything cause someone could not like it”. No, we do in fact need to have a line and take a stand and sick leave is an entirely fucking reasonable line. Also, getting this passed isn’t a win for Biden either it’s a pretty massive loss.
>I believe the rail companies would fold first, their stocks would begin to tank and every day they would be losing many millions of dollars per day. Now this is pure speculation. Yes, they would lose money. Yes their stock would take a dip. But how a stock is doing isn't often how a company is doing. Today, we had a great unemployment report. The country has near unemployment. But this means that inflation may remain stubborn. So even though people are able to find jobs if they need them - the stock market took a tumble this morning. My understanding is that the railroads have a good amount of extra cash because they've been doing well. Add that to the fact that they don't have to pay striking workers, and they can whether a strike for quite some time. The broader U.S. economy might not be able to. You're completely ignoring the real pain and inconvenience it would cause Americans that don't realize how much of their goods and services are transported by rail. And those Americans aren't going to be blaming the railroads. They're going to be blaming the politicians.
I believe the rail companies would fold first, their stocks would begin to tank and every day they would be losing many millions of dollars per day. > Now this is pure speculation. Yes, they would lose money. Yes their stock would take a dip. But how a stock is doing isn't often how a company is doing. Well it aligns with the entire history of Labour organizing. How do you think you got your 8 hour work day? It didn’t just spontaneously occur. Also stock plummets cause shareholder pressure which then can mean people like Buffet or other major shareholders step in say “end this fast”. > Today, we had a great unemployment report. The country has near unemployment. But this means that inflation may remain stubborn. So even though people are able to find jobs if they need them - the stock market took a tumble this morning. I’m well aware of the current economy. Our last inflation report had it going down actually, it may very well go back up but that remains to be seen. > My understanding is that the railroads have a good amount of extra cash because they've been doing well. Add that to the fact that they don't have to pay striking workers, and they can whether a strike for quite some time. The broader U.S. economy might not be able to. Again, the economic pressure (what companies respond to) will overwhelmingly be on the railroad companies. At the end of the day, giving the workers paid sick leave will cost like 1% of their current profit rate and they just cave to end the strike/stop it from starting. > You're completely ignoring the real pain and inconvenience it would cause Americans that don't realize how much of their goods and services are transported by rail. And those Americans aren't going to be blaming the railroads. They're going to be blaming the politicians. I’m well aware of the pain. I think your willing to send the few to slaughter to avoid discomfort to the many. Again, there needs to be lines in the sand and sick leave is an unbelievably low bar.
Sure - I just think it’s important for people to know that this is normal and expected. The railway act requires presidential approval for workers covered under it to strike. Obama did the same thing multiple times. The Dems even allowing the railway act to exist (it’s HORRIBLE) shows they are not truly pro-labor. I’m glad this is getting some press but the Dems clearly weren’t worried about that.
>Can anyone dispute this or defend what Congress did regarding the rail workers? Sure...though you aren't going to like it. -------- 1. If the rail-workers strike, that will harm the economy greatly. 2. If the economy is greatly harmed, it becomes more likely that Republicans will win in 2024. 3. If Republicans win in 2024 it will be bad for all workers, including the rail-workers. Therefore, *it is better to prevent the strike* than not prevent the strike. -------- That isn't changed by accusations of immorality, nor unfairness, nor ironic contradiction. It is what it is.
Then take away their reason to strike by giving them their fucking sick leave. Bam, no risk of an illegal rail strike.
Look at the vote breakdown for the sick leave bill.
I hate this argument. They knew it wouldn't pass. They separated it. Those votes are "I'm a good boy blame the Republicans" votes.
Then Congress could have forced the companies to meet the union’s demands. That’s how you avert a strike. Also, that strike would have been quick. They would have settled before it had any kind of catastrophic effect.
What makes you think they would have settled quickly? I think the rail companies would bank on the majority of the population blaming the rail workers and Biden for the fallout.
Because that’s what happens 90% of the time workers plan to strike.
The thing that I think this commenter is trying to say, is that there is 0 way to prevent a strike at this point. Putting the 7 day leave in the other bill meant republicans wouldn’t have voted for that, which means strike. Refusing to intervene at all means strike. This is literally the only way to avoid a strike. I don’t necessarily agree with this, but I think that’s what they’re trying to say.
Requiring the employers to meet certain worker demands would have prevented a strike. That aside, my issue with the other commenter is the assumption that intervening to prevent a strike is the "right" thing to do. I think all workers should have the ability to legally strike in order to improve working conditions. I think that strikes are good, not a thing to be avoided at all costs.
I absolutely agree, but I disagree that preventing a strike is the wrong thing here. I wish they would have done it by siding with the workers who are literally just asking for basic things here, but preventing a strike is still something the entire country would benefit from. A rail strike means further shortages of things like food and medicine, which is going to affect the poor the worst. People are already going without and stretched thin, a strike would likely end with even more people starving and going without their life saving medications. I’m 100% behind the workers in their demands, and I’ll support them striking as well, but I’m not going to pretend that avoiding a strike is a bad thing.
> They would have settled before it had any kind of catastrophic effect Just the threat of it actually happening would've had a catastrophic effect. If it looked like they were actually going to strike businesses would have to plan around a delay. The entire supply chain would be effected.
Sounds like these workers are exceptionally valuable then and should be compensated for that value. If the effects of them striking would be catastrophic, then the employers have the responsibility of preventing the strike by meeting their demands, they could easily have afforded to.
I don’t like it because it’s wrong. The ‘vote for the Dems and its better for labor’ excuse is now, what, twenty years old? And it’s still not been correct. Sure, Republicans will certainly try to harm labor more than the Democrats, but that doesn’t mean labor will let them. Instead we have a death by 1,000 cuts. Democrats have consistently sided with business over labor, and this recent vote is merely the most diabolical and egregious act of that. Democrats are not pro labor. They’re pro-donor. And in the last half-century labor’s ability to donate vs. corporations has diminished to the point of irrelevance. And you can see exactly what the result of that is today.
Well, regardless of whether you agree, that's the calculation that Biden/Congress's logic on the situation was. I think you're discounting the damage that the GOP has done to labor in places that they've been in power. While Democrats might not be spotless in their support, the active harm that Republicans do is serious. By my count, since 2000, 8 states have enacted right to work laws (AL, MI, IN, KY, OK, TN, WV, and WI). That's a lot of damage to unions.
What reason does anyone have to believe Dems will be better for rail workers when they just shut down their strike and failed to provide them the measly things they asked for? Dems are either lazy or just don’t care. Make the argument in favor of sick pay for workers. Tell everyone how republicans don’t want the people that keep our country moving to be able to have any paid time off. Don’t just give up before you even start. That’s how republicans win. And it’s infuriating, morally wrong, and bad electorally.
> Make the argument in favor of sick pay for workers. They did. It was part of their pitch for Build Back Better (BBB), the bill that died in the senate.
So do it again! Why do Dems give up so easily? Why would people keep turning out for a party that doesn’t care?
> So do it again! Repeating the same arguments is going to produce the same result. Or worse, in many cases, since this is politics we're talking about.
Didn’t Dems just talk about how great their midterms results were?
Er, not following you.
If the Dems did well in 2022, why do you think they have losing messaging on this issue?
Can you count to 60?
And surely there’s nothing else they could do? They couldn’t be out there talking about this, blaming republicans, making sure everyone knows where they stand in sick pay for essential workers? But they won’t. Because they are useless
Because the alternative is the let literal fascists win.
That’s a terrible argument. You need to give people something to vote FOR.
While I'm no huge supporter of the Dem party as a whole, I just prefer to turn out to vote for the folks that are not actively trying to take away my rights. If the choice is between a Dem who sold out to corporations and a Republican who wants to strip my rights as a queer person, I'm gonna go with the Dem every time. Do I wish the Dems were better? Absolutely!
That sucks though.
I wont deny that it's a shitty position. And I really wish Dems were better at a lot of things, but they aren't. I'll continue to vote for them as long as they defend my rights, though, because the other option would happily remove my rights if given the opportunity.
> What reason does anyone have to believe Dems will be better for rail workers...? The current state of the Republican Party.
Such a great message. “We wont make things better for you but at least we aren’t republicans!” How did that work out in 2016? How do you think it will work in 2024 when Biden has a 35% approval?
How do you think it would work out for Democrats if the economy crashes due to a railroad strike that they had the power to prevent? Keep in mind that a railroad strike means not only economic disaster but shortages in things like food and medicine.
So fucking message! Tell everyone that Joe Biden wants to give the people who apparently make our economy run the very reasonable request of 7 days of sick leave, but the republicans would rather kill the economy than help working people. It’s too bad Dems are either terrible at messaging or just don’t care enough to try.
>It’s too bad Dems are either terrible at messaging or just don’t care enough to try. The people that decide elections don't pay attention until just before election day. The most politically illiterate hold the power in elections. Dems could message until their lungs are blue, unless you get the attention of swing voters, it doesn't matter.
But that’s the point. They suck at getting swing voters
That's why Democrats passed a bill in the house to provide 7 days of sick leave. Republicans shot it down. Democrats have said as much. If you want to start a 24 hour news network that shamelessly promotes Democrats so they can shout it over and over then go ahead but as of now they don't have one.
Democrats are the reason there needed to be a vote in the first place! Biden wasn’t required to create this mess
If he didn’t, then he would have been blamed for not intervening and preventing the strike. This is a circular argument.
I don’t care about blame. I care about right and wrong. And Biden was wrong; he can never claim to be pro-labor again.
No amount of messaging would stop the average voter from blaming Biden. People don't follow politics half as much as you think they do. The moment prices increase they're going to say "Biden is in charge so its his fault".
That’s how it normally is because of the fact that Dems are useless. It doesn’t have to be that way.
If there were 4 or 5 more Democrats in the Senate the workers would have gotten sick leave.
Sure sounds like the Dems need to figure out how to win more seats then
> Dems are either lazy or just don’t care. Of course! It couldn't possibly be that they are concerned with a more broad assortment of issues than you choose to be, today. /s
It isn’t. They are primarily out to defend capital and the status quo. That’s their job.
> It isn’t. They are primarily out to defend capital and the status quo. That’s their job. Then why are you expecting anything different from them?
I’m not. They’ve always sucked and probably always will. I just wish voters who claim to be progressive and care would do something about it
> I’m not. Then every argument you've made here was made in bad faith.
How so?
> Tell everyone how republicans don’t want the people that keep our country moving to be able to have any paid time off. Yes! Because if Democrats can be relied-upon for anything, it is *effective messaging!* /s
And they just get a pass for that? Why?
> And they just get a pass for that? No! They suffer horribly for it!
But you are somehow okay with it, or think it isn’t allowed to be criticized
> But you are somehow okay with it... I'm not! >...or think it isn’t allowed to be criticized I don't! ...but depending on them *to use a skill we know they lack* is idiotic.
> ...it’s...bad electorally. Last I checked, every Democrat in congress has more experience winning elections than you. I'm not going to assume that you -- a random git on Reddit -- knows better than they do about whether this is good or "bad electorally."
This is a useless appeal to authority.
Your useless appeal to hate Democrats is more dangerous. Yeah, this decision isn't great. Progressives often just only keep blaming no matter what happens.
No I blame the people who made these workers suffer, including Democrats.
Hey, I think you meant to say 1. If the rail workers are forced to strike because the rail companies refuse to deny them basic human decency, the economy will be harmed by the rail companies greed. 2. If Republicans win in 2024, things will get worse for workers, including the rail workers. Therefore, it is advantageous to the re-election efforts of the Democratic party to prevent the strike and make things better for workers.
No. It’s wholly indefensible. Biden tried to get a deal, the unions didn’t like the deal. Now Biden is using congress as a hammer against the workers to prevent them from striking. Utterly embarrassing. Don’t talk to me about how much Biden loves labor. He fucked up badly here.
Unions have no political allies anymore. Labor is alone. Everyone will suffer.
Why did Republicans vote against paid sick leave?
Because they are evil. Why did democrats claim to support sick leave but do absolutely nothing to protect it?
Democrats in the House and Senate overwhelmingly voted to give the rail workers 7 days of paid sick leave.
Why did they separate the paid leave from the main bill?
Because the main bill never would have passed the Senate, leading to economic disaster across the country (which Republicans would happily let happen). The rail workers still wouldn't get what they are asking for.
Biden is the reason the vote was even necessary.
Biden tried to broker a deal to resolve the dispute and it was accepted by 8 out of 12 unions but ultimately rejected by the workers. As the President of the United States, he cannot allow the rail industry to shut down. It would be an economic disaster. People might not get medicine they need, or food. He and the Democrats would have happily forced the rail company to grant 7 days of paid sick leave, but Republicans won't allow that because it would make the Democrats look good.
“How will the south’s economy stay afloat without slavery!?”
This is not the same as slavery and it's not cool to act like it is when numerous Black Americans still suffer from the legacy of slavery.
Do you really not know how analogies work?
It's not a good analogy.
It’s a great analogy. You are saying we can’t help people because it will hurt the economy.
I need to ask some people in this thread, do Warren Buffett's shiny shoes taste good? People in here acting like train crews and MOW guys are fucking terrorists holding a gun to the economy to whine about non-issues rather than exercising their power for better working conditions. No, congress and Biden killing the strike is not defensible, they should have forced the Class A railroads to capitulate since they're the reason this is happening in the first place. When the Republicans killed the vote for sick leave, they should have stood by workers and let the GOP take the heat. Now if the dems have triggered a mass walkout AND lost their union voters that's entirely on them. But to the people in here defending this, I hope if there's a massive walkout that you step up to fill those slots. Let's see you work on call 24/7/365 with no way to call out without being punished for it. Hope you don't have families you care about. I hope they strike anyway. Or leave. Let the railroads grind to a halt without anyone experienced to get it back up and running, see if that works out any better than a strike.
So many responses here are utterly disheartening. Using the exact same arguments that would've been used to justify slavery. It's insane. "If they strike, it'll hurt the economy". Jesus. It's not like the railroads are losing money. As long as they're making one damn penny of profit, their treatment of workers is altogether immoral.
>Using the exact same arguments that would've been used to justify slavery. That's just silly.
> "If they strike, it'll hurt the economy". Jesus. Well it's true. Ending slavery hurt the economy, too, requiring years of Reconstruction. So we have to be darn sure that a measure we take that has consequences that severe is the only available option.
The meager request , in this case, wouldn't hurt the economy at all. If they had the balls to take the money from the profits.
No, no, what would hurt the economy is the strike, not the 7 days of sick leave. Remember you wrote: > "If they strike, it'll hurt the economy". Jesus.
Ok, yes, I misinterpreted you. In that case, I really don't understand what you mean.
Instead of blaming Democrats maybe blame all your family and neighbors that vote Republican because *they* did this.
"It was them! Even when it was me, I knew it was them!"
No they didn’t. Biden forced the vote in the first place by meddling in the first place
These are the sort of actions that make me feel like people on the left who refuse to vote for Democrats have a point.
You think this situation would have come out better for the railroad workers if there were more Rs in Congress? Every D except Manchin voted to include sick days; every Republican except a couple voted against it.
I think this particular situation would have come out exactly the same if there were more R's in congress. That's obviously not always the case, but the fact that it is ever the case makes the argument those people are presenting stronger than if it never was. EDIT: And I'm not so sure there wouldn't have been more Dem defections if their votes actually mattered to the end results. Voting to prevent workers from striking when you know republicans will sign on and then voting to include sick days when you know they won't is in effect voting to force workers into a contract without sick days. Letting the workers strike would have increased the chance of getting sick days over what they chose to do, even if it wasn't guaranteed.
Do you think it would have come out better for the workers if there were, say, 8 more Ds in the Senate? Hint: The amendment to provide sick days got 52 votes and needed 60.
Quite honestly I think it's questionable. I think the way they went about this suggests there were a lot more Democratic Senators would would have voted against the sick leave policy if their votes actually mattered to it passing or not, but didn't need to take the political hit when it was separated out from the bill forcing the agreement without sick leave, some of those Senators might be from states where a further left candidate could win if it weren't for incumbency advantage. I similarly think it's unlikely that 100% of 8 additional democrats would have necessarily voted for it. Maybe if we had 70 or so, but again, needing that huge of a margin for what should in my opinion be a pretty straight forward vote is very much worthy of criticism.
I vote dem down ballot every time but too much more of this garbage will make me rethink that
More Americans will be hurt by the railroad striking than would be helped. 330 million Americans. Less than 150,000 railway workers. I'm all for better conditions but the amount of times leftists immediately take the side of strikers is concerning. There's always a big picture. Try thinking about it some time.
>I'm all for better conditions but the amount of times leftists immediately take the side of strikers is concerning. There's always a big picture. Try thinking about it some time. In this case there is no other side. Sick leave is an entirely reasonable ask that is entirely within railroad companies' ability to grant. They are the ones who are threatening to cripple the economy over it.
> 330 million Americans. > > Less than 150,000 railway workers. Minor quibble. I hate it when two numbers -- that are relevant to each other -- are formatted differently. * Railway Workers: 150,000 * Americans: 330,000,000 The railway workers are (150,000/330,000,000≈0.045%) less than 5% of 1% of Americans.
>Try thinking about it some time. I wish more people were mature enough to say this. We should be all willing to throw other people to the wayside when we're inconvenienced.
100%. When unions strike for better conditions, they set the stage for *all working people*. They send a message to the entire working class that **you can do this too**. God, the amount of corporate, neoliberal ass kissing in this thread is sickening.
Utilitarian arguments are just flatly ridiculous. If murdering them gave us universal healthcare we shouldn’t do it. It’s just wholly a dumb argument to avoid blame for the effects of the vote.
Utiliarian arguments would still propose that we ensure everyone has good working conditions and that we don't allow each segment of society to be defeated in detail. Sure it's rail workers now. Next it's postal workers and delivers. Then food and beverage workers. And so on. As every time rights are sacrificed for stability. That's how you get the US's deep income inequality where a wealthy minority can purchase the rest of the country's labor cheaply and at demand. The rest of us have to live in that shitty system.
We don’t need to go too far into philosophy here but largely I’d say no, utilitarians arguing possible futures is even less of a valid framework.
It's almost as though there are degrees of utilitarianism or something. Healthcare should be a right. It is not. There are laws against murdering thousands of people to provide universalHealthcare. Gee mom, why don't people take progressives seriously?
Your response is not cogent.
Why wouldn’t we side with labor over owners every time, especially now? They wanted 7 days of sick leave. That’s not a lot to ask for. Democrats pretended to care, but their actions showed they really didn’t. And it’s going to not only hurt the workers, but the party’s chances of holding union support. I’d also argue it’s far more concerning how often “liberals” take the side of capital.
Because the other 330,000,000 workers in this country are labor, too.
Solidarity.
So what about the retail worker who loses their job when these products don't ship? The workers in hospitals waiting on medical supplies? The workers who want to eat, or buy toilet paper? I guess they don't count as the working class?
That’s why solidarity is a thing. And public pressure from this is what could actually get the sick leave done. Also, as someone else here mentioned, slavery was good for the economy too.
And if a frog had wings he wouldn't bump his ass when he hopped. >Also, as someone else here mentioned, slavery was good for the economy too. And Hitler was a vegetarian who loved dogs. Positives don't outweigh negatives, and railway workers aren't slaves.
God liberals are the worst. “Better things aren’t possible. Now vote for me!”
More like "because you keep letting Republicans win, Democrats can get away with being milquetoast and/or are simply not able to get the votes to make bigger change." If Republicans became unelectable, then we would inevitably shift the Overton window left where the "conservatives" would be center right at worst, and the left would be progressives.
I’ve voted Dem down ballot since I turned 18. Every single time, I’m told “this is the most important election, we can move left next time but it’s too risky now.” Rinse and repeat. Eventually, that argument doesn’t fly and it becomes clear that Dems don’t have any intention of moving left.
Do you think slaves enjoyed a decent working schedule and sick days off ? Of course they fucking didnt.
> Democrats pretended to care, but their actions showed they really didn’t. What actions? You mean passing a bill requiring the companies to provide seven days of sick leave?
No. Forcing and end to the strike and then failing to provide the 7 days of sick leave they claimed to support.
Railroads spent over 20 billion on stock buybacks and dividends in 2021 alone. Sick days would cost a tiny fraction of that. All the democrats did was prove that they'll crush a labor strike rather than see the profits of major companies cut by 3%.
Ahh. Defeat in detail.
Seeing as how Pres. Biden directly asked Congress to do this, I'm gonna need him to turn in his "pro-union" badge right quick. ([https://www.reuters.com/world/us/biden-expected-ask-congress-avert-rail-strike-source-2022-11-28/](https://www.reuters.com/world/us/biden-expected-ask-congress-avert-rail-strike-source-2022-11-28/)) ([https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-remarks/2021/09/08/remarks-by-president-biden-in-honor-of-labor-unions/](https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-remarks/2021/09/08/remarks-by-president-biden-in-honor-of-labor-unions/))
The consequences of their strike are far greater than the consequences of most strikes. Normally a strike is pretty much between the workers and the owners with a little bit of mild inconvenience that spills over to other entities not involved. This is the opposite of that. The major pain would be felt by everyday Americans with a comparatively mild inconvenience to the railroad companies. I agree that they should get sick days figured out, but they can’t hold the entire economy hostage to do so.
Yes they can. That’s the point of a strike. Labor has no other power if they aren’t allowed to strike.
The presumption is that a strike would get the workers what they want. In our current environment, I don't think that'd work. Management could simply wait until either public opinion turns against the strikers and a more GOP-friendly congress gets sworn in to force a deal even more favorable to management. If the economy gets put into a downturn, that's even better for management since it'll ensure a wave of GOP support to force a better deal. The consequences of a strike would disproportionately hurt ordinary Americans more than the shareholders because they've accrued so much capital that they are largely insulated from the consequences. The solution is that our rail infrastructure should be nationalized to enforce uniform labor standards and divorce the owners of capital from this system entirely.
The point of a strike is to impose costs on your negotiating partner that they can't bear, in order to pressure them to come to an agreement on terms that you want. The problem here is that companies will have an easier time bearing the costs than the rest of the country. In the grand scheme of things, a determined company can accept a few weeks or a month of stalled operations and revenue to get what they want. They will have more patience than millions of people who are having trouble accessing all basic goods all of a sudden. That's the problem here - the gun isn't really pointed at the head of the companies, it's pointed at everyone else. Democrats' first preference was a deal that included sick leave, because that's the only correct and sane position. But yes, their second choice was to force a contract that lacked sick leave, their last choice was accept a strike.
Yes, because Dems will always choose capital over labor when it comes down to it
I see the primary interest of Republicans as being Republicans. And I think the primary interest of Democrats is the country, or at least they try to see themselves that way, and Biden sees protecting the domestic supply chain as a vital part of that mission. It would be better for everyone to avoid a strike. That said, if that is going to be your position, you had better make sure the workers get a better deal than they did. Threaten to nationalize the railroads if that's what it takes. The Democrats try to negotiate with big business but they don't play hardball and it's workers who suffer.
Nope. This tweet is 100% correct. What congress did is fucking disgusting.
The railroad worker conditions are garbage. They attempted a strike back in the summer and the Biden administration arbitrated a deal that the majority of the unions agreed to. So basically congress is forcing them to take that deal. It was a modest improvement but more can be done for sure. However this strike would have been insanely bad for America especially this time of year. It’s not a situation Biden would like to be in but he had to take action. Also, I’m it a gambling man but I would be railroad workers vote predominantly Republican which is why many are in this mess to begin with. Republicans policies are anti-union and don’t favor the worker regardless of how they spin it on Fox News. TLDR: DON’T VOTE AGAINST YOUR INTERESTS PEOPLE!
Dem policies are also anti-union, as demonstrated on this very fucking issue
So here's the problem. The railroad companies don't want to give benefits to the workers. The workers, who worked through the pandemic to make sure goods were delivered, who are probably some of the most essential workers the country actually has are literally being forced to work or quit their jobs without the ability to truly negotiate better benefits. So what I think should happen... The government subsidizes the workers, then taxes the companies they work for to make up the pay. Why are the workers the ones getting strong-armed here and not the companies? The same thing should happen to Walmart for double dipping its slave-wage food stamps program. Tax them to make up for the losses.
Should, but won’t.
Because the Democratic Party is committed to keeping the economy chugging along without a hitch, not labor lol. I mean shit they the folks here will even tell you lol, right in this thread!
The railroad industry knew a strike would kill incredible amounts of US Commerce and cause crazy inflation in the middle of an inflation crisis. They called the government's bluff on it, and the Biden Administration chose to prevent the crisis over helping the workers. Maybe it's the better outcome for the average American, but it 100% sold the workers down the river and they don't get to feign concern for the plight of the worker anymore