this post was submitted on 23 Sep 2023
316 points (97.9% liked)

politics

19107 readers
3504 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 63 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)

The rail strike would have had major economy-wide side effects, including people in other industries being laid off and inflation being exacerbated by shortages in basic food, water, gas.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/economy/looming-rail-strike-would-take-a-major-toll-on-u-s-economy

After averting the strike, the Biden administration continued to pressure and negotiate with rail companies to get the paid sick days that were the sticking point. But there's been almost no news coverage about that fact.

"Negotiations with the other labor coalition unions continued toward a Sept. 15 deadline, but when it became obvious that the bargaining parties would not reach consensus by then, Biden asked then-Secretary of Labor Marty Walsh to assemble the sides and reach an acceptable agreement that would head off a national freight rail strike.

On deadline day, the parties reached an agreement on an updated contract that included the biggest wage increases in 47 years. Over the next several weeks, while acknowledging that the agreement was less than perfect, the IBEW and several of its fellow coalition unions voted to ratify the agreement. A handful of others, however, did not, instead threatening a December freight rail strike.

Biden, citing the potential economic impact of a national freight rail strike during the winter holidays, on Nov. 28 called on Congress to impose the emergency board’s agreement.

Since then, several other railroad-related unions have also seen success in negotiating for similar sick-day benefits. These 12 unions represent more than 105,000 railroad workers. (emphasis mine)

“Biden deserves a lot of the credit for achieving this goal for us,” Russo said. “He and his team continued to work behind the scenes to get all of rail labor a fair agreement for paid sick leave.”

https://www.ibew.org/media-center/Articles/23Daily/2306/230620_IBEWandPaid

A much, much larger question is this: If that rail infrastructure is THIS critical to the basic functioning of our economy, why are we allowing it to be held hostage by private for-profit corporations? This shit should be nationalized and those should be government jobs.

[–] [email protected] 35 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

Thanks for posting this. I've been badmouthing Biden ever since he blocked the railroad strike, but that quote from a union leader — “Biden deserves a lot of the credit for achieving this goal for us. He and his team continued to work behind the scenes to get all of rail labor a fair agreement for paid sick leave" — finally cools my steam.

When he shows up and carries a UAW picket, I am ready to be honestly impressed.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago

The Union leader praising Biden for his later work voted to accept the original contract without sick days. They weren't the ones that were blocked from a wanted strike. They were happy with the original provisional agreement.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Eh. The union had far more demands than sick days. They wanted 15 I think?

Congress tried to give them a week and failed. Biden got them 5.

There were also other major demands like the end of Precision Scheduled Railroading that never got met.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Sounds like Biden got them more than zero.

Progress comes in steps, and I expect leaders to take steps, not cast miracles

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Strike action may well have gotten a far larger step.

If he couldn't get at LEAST as much as the workers could've gotten themselves, the federal government should have stayed out of it.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

"the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few," paraphrasing Spock

The fact that Biden even stepped on at all, should tell you how bad the situation was. Also he's not talking absolutely all the credit for this. Biden wasn't there to make demands, he acted as a mediator to try and resolve this issue before it could hurt the country he was responsible for.

The government cannot just force a company to make drastic financial policy changes. I do wish they'd dictate CEO wage limitations, but that is a different discussion.

You'd rather have a massive impact to every citizens life occur, than guaranteed sick days?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

You'd rather have a massive impact to every citizens life occur

Yes, we need to have an impact to draw attention to the fact that ANY worker has to fight for something as basic as SICK DAYS. That shouldn't be a question, let alone for workers supposedly so important to the economy.

The system is broken, either the government doesn't want to give workers basic protections or isn't able to stand up to the rail conglomerates. Either way, shit's broken. It's gonna take some disruption to make progress.

And anyway, such strikes aren't uncommon around the world. We would survive just fine.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 1 year ago

You're seeing the results that occured. Apparently it helped or else they would have asked them away and kept to their own efforts.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

They were never gonna get 15. I assume 15 was the high ball with something in the middle being an acceptable target.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago

Perhaps, but again there were other demands as well. And 5 is quite low. I have a hard time seeing the federal government stepping in, keeping the workers from demonstrating their power, and then getting them a few crumbs of what they wanted as a good thing.

The big winner in that whole debacle was still the rail companies.

If that's the best the federal government can get from the rail companies, and they won't nationalize them, then the workers needed to strike anyway. Short term economic disruption be damned.

The government should step in the stop the rail companies, not the unions.

[–] [email protected] 17 points 1 year ago

True.

Any company or corporation that is so critical to the functioning over this country that it absolutely cannot shut down... Should be nationalized.

If the government needs it to function for the country to exist, then the government needs to own it.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

If the economy can't function without giving workers time off then what's the point of the economy?

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago

Which is exactly why that industry should be nationalized