|
FlapYoJacks posted:Perhaps the railroads should have started to hire more engineers several years ago? I fail to see how this is labors problem. They could even pass on the cost, too! What are they gonna do, hire the other railroad company across the street?
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2022 20:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 23:01 |
|
|
Acebuckeye13 posted:On the other hand, if the entire economy explodes over a protracted railroad strike Biden is gonna have a hell of a lot more problems than "the left is mad at him." It's a lose-lose situation. The left being mad at him isn't really even much of a problem at this point.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2022 20:59
|
|
|
it's pretty balck and white to me. you either support the unions or you dont
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2022 21:00
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:As for #2, I think you're trying to impose a black-and-white view on something that isn't quite so clear as you're trying to make it out to be. Spiking prices, goods shortages, and a probable recession aren't exactly good for the working class either. Especially under a split Congress that's unlikely to do anything useful about them. And it seems like you've completely glossed over the bits about how this isn't just employer demands being unilaterally imposed on the unions, either. Sounds like Biden should force the companies to surrender then, if it's such a threat.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2022 21:13
|
|
|
Like, aside from anything else, best case scenario is the railroads just keep hemorrhaging talent. Sooner or later, unless the workers get their due, you're in for logistical bs.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2022 21:21
|
|
|
I am of the opinion that any people who support Joe Biden's opposition to the workers in their fight to have better lives for themselves and their families should go down to the railyards and volunteer to pull trains themselves like their moms do (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2022 21:21
|
|
|
It would be hilarious if the Resolution gets filibustered because enough Republicans believe in NO enough to try and stick it to Biden. I'm assuming there will be at least a couple people in the Democratic Caucus who won't vote for it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2022 21:41
|
|
|
Gyges posted:It would be hilarious if the Resolution gets filibustered because enough Republicans believe in NO enough to try and stick it to Biden. I'm assuming there will be at least a couple people in the Democratic Caucus who won't vote for it. I do enjoy the idea that the resolution puts the Republicans in a position where they have to either say no to Biden or say yes to labor, but I'm not sure it's worth the humor.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2022 21:58
|
|
|
Acebuckeye13 posted:On the other hand, if the entire economy explodes over a protracted railroad strike Biden is gonna have a hell of a lot more problems than "the left is mad at him." It's a lose-lose situation. It’s not a lose-lose situation. He could support the workers and ask Congress to force the companies to relent. IMO, his decision is possibly the worst outcome. He’s going to gain the ire of unions which will hurt his chances in 2024 and hurt the chances of other democrats should they support this or do nothing. There’s the possibility of a wildcat strike if the workers are forced to accept the contract. Even if they don’t, a lot of workers will probably just quit which will lead to delays since the companies haven’t been doing much hiring. https://twitter.com/repbowman/status/1597657118412529665?s=46&t=aB8cY0sbGk26Li8IpwlRPA
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2022 22:06
|
|
|
Yeah congress can force the workers demands on the rail companies just as easily as they can enforce the demands of the rail companies on the workers, and they chose the latter.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2022 22:07
|
|
|
Yeowch!!! My Balls!!! posted:these sound like excellent reasons for the Democrats to back the union's demands in the hope of avoiding a shutdown. for some reason they have chosen to do the opposite of this thing. It doesn't seem like they're doing the opposite (which, presumably, would be backing all of the employer's demands while rejecting all of the unions' demands). It seems like they're backing a compromise deal that the union leadership negotiated and that more than half the unions involved have accepted. Byzantine posted:Sounds like Biden should force the companies to surrender then, if it's such a threat. He does not have the legal authority to do so in this situation, and the Supreme Court has traditionally regarded attempts to stretch that particular power with extreme skepticism. It's up to Congress. And while I'd very much love for 60* senators to vote to accept all of the unions' demands and reject all of the employers' demands, that seems extremely unlikely. *I'm tired of adding (or 50 senators to vote for this AND vote to overturn the filibuster), so just assume I'm adding it from now on
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2022 22:11
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:It doesn't seem like they're doing the opposite (which, presumably, would be backing all of the employer's demands while rejecting all of the unions' demands). It seems like they're backing a compromise deal that the union leadership negotiated and that more than half the unions involved have accepted. The unions that didn’t accept the deal represent more than 60% of the total workforce.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2022 22:13
|
|
|
theCalamity posted:It’s not a lose-lose situation. He could support the workers and ask Congress to force the companies to relent. IMO, his decision is possibly the worst outcome. He’s going to gain the ire of unions which will hurt his chances in 2024 and hurt the chances of other democrats should they support this or do nothing. There’s the possibility of a wildcat strike if the workers are forced to accept the contract. Even if they don’t, a lot of workers will probably just quit which will lead to delays since the companies haven’t been doing much hiring. Just curious - why do you think that there's enough support in Congress for forcing the rail company to agree to the union's terms? I would think that not a single Republican would vote yes. Or are you saying that this would simply look better politically?
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2022 22:28
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:"Siding with the bosses" is a bit exaggerated, isn't it? This was the deal negotiated by union leadership. When the deal went up for membership votes, four unions rejected it (and eight others accepted it), but it's not like this is a "unions are told gently caress off, management gets literally everything they want with no concessions" situation Those four unions represent the majority of the workers, and the other eight unions have committed to backing the strike if any one union rejects the deal. https://www.npr.org/2022/11/21/1137640529/railroads-freight-rail-unions-vote-contract-strike quote:Four freight rail unions, with a combined membership of close to 60,000 rail workers, have voted down the five-year contract agreement brokered by the Biden administration back in September. The latest rejection came Monday from the largest of the unions, representing some 28,000 conductors, brakemen, and yardmen.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2022 22:33
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:It doesn't seem like they're doing the opposite (which, presumably, would be backing all of the employer's demands while rejecting all of the unions' demands). It seems like they're backing a compromise deal that the union leadership negotiated and that more than half the unions involved have accepted. telling the majority of all rail workers 'your strike must be made illegal, on the grounds that if you down tools we need to be able to bring in the army to gun you down' is the opposite of backing unions, paineframe. threatening people with murder if they continue on their present course of action and 'support' are mutually exclusive concepts.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2022 22:55
|
|
|
Gumball Gumption posted:Jeez yeah I didn't even think of something as simple as "They don't need to blink yet" but yep, they don't. Discendo Vox posted:A part of the timing here is that the rail companies have a practice of shutting down parts of their infra a week in advance of any anticipated strike date, as a protective measure. This has some legitimate purpose, but it's also a great way for them to apply a quietly advanced leverage date.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2022 22:55
|
|
|
Even the moderate Dems are already coming out against this https://twitter.com/burgessev/status/1597701448804012032?s=20&t=RvlKFBbJZcTKgMSMV34q6w
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2022 23:12
|
|
|
Burning the workers will not solve the larger systematic problem the rail is having with labor and will only exacerbate it. They should force the rail carriers to cave.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2022 23:21
|
|
|
Bernie Sanders is trying to pull off a miracle. Would be amazing if he could rally the GOP against Biden on this one issue. https://twitter.com/NancyVu99/status/1597716142235140097
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2022 23:43
|
|
|
Rigel posted:Bernie Sanders is trying to pull off a miracle. Would be amazing if he could rally the GOP against Biden on this one issue. It honestly makes sense politically for them to get on board. They get to flank Biden from the left and what do they lose? Nothing. They're not going to chase away the racists by helping blue collar workers in something that can easily be spun as David vs Goliath.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2022 23:48
|
|
|
I see, I see. That is how pro-labor genius Joseph Biden supports the unions. By coming out in favor of union busting, Republicans will reflexively oppose it and support the unions demands. 7th dimension chess strikes again!
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2022 23:49
|
|
|
small butter posted:Just curious - why do you think that there's enough support in Congress for forcing the rail company to agree to the union's terms? I would think that not a single Republican would vote yes. Or are you saying that this would simply look better politically? It appears that supporting the companies isn’t going to be that popular of even moderate Dems are coming out against it. Biden should’ve sided with the workers from the beginning and asked Congress to do the same
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2022 23:59
|
|
|
FlapYoJacks posted:The unions that didn’t accept the deal represent more than 60% of the total workforce. Yes, and the unions that did vote to accept the deal are willing to strike anyway in solidarity with the unions that didn't. But a deal that some unions accepted and others didn't is pretty clearly not the same as a total victory in which the employers get everything they ask for while the unions get nothing. It may not be everything the unions want, but let's not pretend they're getting totally steamrolled with no gains at all. Yeowch!!! My Balls!!! posted:telling the majority of all rail workers 'your strike must be made illegal, on the grounds that if you down tools we need to be able to bring in the army to gun you down' is the opposite of backing unions, paineframe. I didn't read Biden's statement super closely, but I'm fairly sure that's anywhere near what he said. And I'm honestly not interested in hearing about the series of massive logical leaps you went through to twist his statement into that, since it says a lot more about your prior beliefs than it does about Joe Biden.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2022 00:00
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Yes, and the unions that did vote to accept the deal are willing to strike anyway in solidarity with the unions that didn't. But a deal that some unions accepted and others didn't is pretty clearly not the same as a total victory in which the employers get everything they ask for while the unions get nothing. It may not be everything the unions want, but let's not pretend they're getting totally steamrolled with no gains at all. you should look up what Congress declaring a rail strike illegal allows it to do, and what they have historically used that illegality to do, paineframe. fair warning, the phrase 'after the soldiers opened fire' will appear.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2022 00:05
|
|
|
Yeowch!!! My Balls!!! posted:you should look up what Congress declaring a rail strike illegal allows it to do, and what they have historically used that illegality to do, paineframe. Ok but that won’t happen this time because…
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2022 00:10
|
|
|
FlapYoJacks posted:Ok but that won’t happen this time because… in fairness, Joe Biden explained at great length he was a friend to unions, and that he supports their goals in theory. while asking Congress to give him the power to order -these- particular union members, if they decide to strike, killed by the united states armed forces for imperiling national security. the overall effect is not unlike the guy pulling the gun out from under the table and pointing it at you calling you "friend" while asking you politely to give him all your money.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2022 00:35
|
|
|
FlapYoJacks posted:Ok but that won’t happen this time because… I literally can't think of the last time guns were used on an American labor strike. It's probably more recent than I'd entirely prefer.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2022 00:36
|
|
|
FlapYoJacks posted:Ok but that won’t happen this time because… Racism. When was the last time you see the military fire on a group who is majority white men? EDIT: IT's happened, but it's been quite some time. EDIT EDIT: Wikipedia says 1979, and that was because the union crossed racial lines and five organizers were killed by the Klan and Nazis. So there were definately cops there. The last *offically* sanctioned union murder was 1959. Twincityhacker fucked around with this message at 00:47 on Nov 30, 2022 |
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2022 00:36
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Yes, and the unions that did vote to accept the deal are willing to strike anyway in solidarity with the unions that didn't. But a deal that some unions accepted and others didn't is pretty clearly not the same as a total victory in which the employers get everything they ask for while the unions get nothing. It may not be everything the unions want, but let's not pretend they're getting totally steamrolled with no gains at all. As it was a core point of contention that they're receiving no concessions on, and lack of such concessions was a primary reason the deal was rejected in the first place, that is in fact pretty close to what is happening. That it is possible to locate a *minority* supporting an imposed "deal" or that some (unnamed) people would perhaps strongly prefer rail workers shut up and take their scraps doesn't actually make the situation nuanced or difficult to grasp, nor does it make the statement "Biden is siding with the bosses" any less true or fair.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2022 00:38
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:Yeah congress can force the workers demands on the rail companies just as easily as they can enforce the demands of the rail companies on the workers, and they chose the latter. it doesn't seem like they have just yet, so that's good
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2022 00:42
|
|
|
Gumball Gumption posted:It honestly makes sense politically for them to get on board. They get to flank Biden from the left and what do they lose? Nothing. They're not going to chase away the racists by helping blue collar workers in something that can easily be spun as David vs Goliath. I don't think that's going to happen, but if it did, I'd take it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2022 00:45
|
|
|
In Dems are better news: https://twitter.com/kylegriffin1/status/1597733457232556032
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2022 00:49
|
|
|
Rigel posted:Bernie Sanders is trying to pull off a miracle. Would be amazing if he could rally the GOP against Biden on this one issue. This might actually be the only way to get the railroads to actually agree to give them the loving sick days. The unity of messaging on the part of Senators in favor of the workers is encouraging. I don't think Biden is playing reverse psychology bad cop on purpose, I just think he's poo poo scared of capital leaving him out to dry, but if (major if) it ends up working out it'll be another "Biden stumbles into a good thing happening" moment.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2022 00:51
|
|
|
Repealing Defence of Marrige Act is good and cool. Also, I know Schumer is a politcal ghoul but the part where he mentioned wearing the same tie he wore at his daughter's wedding to the vote touched my blackened heart.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2022 01:00
|
|
|
Gumball Gumption posted:It honestly makes sense politically for them to get on board. They get to flank Biden from the left and what do they lose? Nothing. They're not going to chase away the racists by helping blue collar workers in something that can easily be spun as David vs Goliath. they also also look good doing some bipartisan action too. hopefully bernie can make it work and pulls it off. FlamingLiberal posted:Even the moderate Dems are already coming out against this yeah. good. it shouldnt be a big ask.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2022 01:14
|
|
|
There aren’t other people to do this work. Right now conductor trainees have a $20,000 dollar sign on bonus. For a we will train and are not looking for an already qualified person job. The bar is: Can you wear safety equipment and report for duty? https://jobs.bnsf.com/us/en/search-results It’s not about money it’s that the life is so awful. It’s is entirely the fault of the rail management.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2022 01:22
|
|
|
Yeowch!!! My Balls!!! posted:you should look up what Congress declaring a rail strike illegal allows it to do, and what they have historically used that illegality to do, paineframe. Only if you're somehow posting from 1899. Because I did look it up, just as you asked. The 20th century has had several national rail strikes which were declared illegal by Congress, none of which appear to involve the phrase "after the soldiers opened fire". The most recent one, the 1992 railroad strike (which brought non-Amtrak rail traffic to a stop nationwide) didn't involve any soldiers at all, not even after Congress imposed a deal on the unions to force an end to the strike. The same goes for a smaller railway strike in 1991. Although Congress intervened to force a deal on workers in both instances, no soldiers appear to have been dispatched, and there were certainly no deaths. Even if you go all the way back to the Great Railroad Strike of 1922, in a much different labor climate and predating both the Railway Labor Act and Taft-Harley, federal troops weren't dispatched - not even after a federal judge issued an injunction banning the strike. Some state governors dispatched the National Guard under their own authority to protect scabs, but as far as I can tell, they didn't shoot anyone either.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2022 01:26
|
|
|
It seems pretty obvious that a service is made up of the people providing it. If them not doing what they do is untenable, they have leverage. So who has this leverage? The people who do the work that makes that service happen, or the money that controls and profits from that service? Who will be served by our representative government? Another instance of "one weird trick to blind you to the truth that's right in front of your own goddamn eyes".
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2022 01:38
|
|
|
Bar Ran Dun posted:There aren’t other people to do this work. drat I would love to be a train conductor. I already work a job where I travel all the time and have no life so I think I could handle it. Gonna file this away in the back of the noggin to think about later. Before someone gets mad I am not implying I will be a scab.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2022 01:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 23:01 |
|
|
Looks like the dems are trying to thread the needle: https://twitter.com/mkraju/status/1597745554326429700?t=jB3wi2OADMNKpltbGw2TKw&s=19
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2022 01:50
|
|