|
Jarmak posted:Just to be clear because there's a lot of hyperbolic language being used, "siding with the railroad" in this instance is enforcing a compromise agreement that gives the unions most of what they asked for and most of the unions (but representing only ~40% of the workforce) approved. But which they very specifically did not agree to. Hence why there is a strike looming. This isn't a compromise, it's a unilateral imposition of terms on the workers and railroads in contrast to what the unions have decided. Some unions giving a tentative yes means nothing because the entire point is they all go on strike if it's not fully agreed to. So yes, Biden sold the workers out and destroyed most of their power in support of the railroad companies. Imposing the "compromise" agreement is in favor of the railways, because the unions did not agree to it and the alternative is a strike that literally everyone knows the workers would win. Congress intervening here is anti-worker, anti-union, and just flat out wrong.
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2022 18:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 07:26 |
|
|
I don't think their handling on this being quite bone headed is something people would disagree about here, for all the rhetoric even D&D is quite left of the general consensus on the internet and even r/neoliberal is throwing their hands up and saying maybe just nationalize the fuckers. I really wish this weren't as stupid and chaotic as it is but well, here we are. About the only thing that's possible in the near future that would avert a strike would be Bernie's amendment to get added to a bill that passes, and the stakes are historically high because a society can limp along for a bit without teachers and knick-knacks for shopping season but we definitely need stuff like electricity and treated water and that's rail
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2022 18:43
|
|
|
small butter posted:2024. A long strike would absolutely decimate the economy and supply chain, bring up inflation, increase demand for many things, and force the Fed to keep increasing rates. This will easily bleed into the next two years and Democrats will own it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2022 18:45
|
|
|
small butter posted:2024. A long strike would absolutely decimate the economy and supply chain, bring up inflation, increase demand for many things, and force the Fed to keep increasing rates. This will easily bleed into the next two years and Democrats will own it. Sounds like the railroad workers have a lot of leverage! The bosses and politicians should probably give in to their demands before anything bad happens!
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2022 18:45
|
|
|
cat botherer posted:Wow, 15 whole dollars in New York City! Thank u democrats! Look, I can make you a list, like: 1. Paid sick leave for at least a week 2. $15 min wage 3. Pre k for all 4. One of the highest funded school systems in the world 5. Generous Medicaid 6. Medicaid for the undocumented 7. Free or low cost non-Medicaid health insurance for all, including the undocumented I can keep going if you'd like.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2022 18:46
|
|
|
small butter posted:2024. A long strike would absolutely decimate the economy and supply chain, bring up inflation, increase demand for many things, and force the Fed to keep increasing rates. This will easily bleed into the next two years and Democrats will own it. What do you think will happen if they force a bad contract down the throats of members of what is supposed to be a reliable voting bloc for them? How do you think other members of that voting bloc will react? Nucleic Acids fucked around with this message at 18:50 on Nov 30, 2022 |
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2022 18:47
|
|
|
Verus posted:Sounds like the railroad workers have a lot of leverage! The bosses and politicians should probably give in to their demands before anything bad happens! 100% It's just that the politicians are half Republicans and you need 60 votes. Every Democrat would be on board with these basic rear end demands.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2022 18:47
|
|
|
cat botherer posted:He's correct. I don't want the feds forcibly ending strikes, ever, for what I think are pretty obvious reasons (gestures to current events). If that quote is accurate, it doesn't look like he's saying Congress shouldn't intervene, but rather that he's saying Congress shouldn't change the deal: i.e., that they should stick to the original plan of imposing the current compromise deal on the table between the unions and employers, rather than unilaterally changing the deal by adding more of the workers' demands.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2022 18:47
|
|
|
small butter posted:Look, I can make you a list, like:
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2022 18:48
|
|
|
Gerund posted:You're the one who proffered that Canadian pupils and rolling stock was a one-to-one comparison! If you dislike how the analogy works once given scrutiny, get mad at yourself. Why would I get mad at myself? I didn't make you invent that analogy. What I actually said is that if the workers are difficult to replace, then a threat of dismissal, violence, or anything else that results in fewer workers being on the job is completely empty and everyone knows it. I don't know why you're trying to twist that into something I never said.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2022 18:49
|
|
|
Zeron posted:But which they very specifically did not agree to. Hence why there is a strike looming. This isn't a compromise, it's a unilateral imposition of terms on the workers and railroads in contrast to what the unions have decided. Some unions giving a tentative yes means nothing because the entire point is they all go on strike if it's not fully agreed to. So yes, Biden sold the workers out and destroyed most of their power in support of the railroad companies. Imposing the "compromise" agreement is in favor of the railways, because the unions did not agree to it and the alternative is a strike that literally everyone knows the workers would win. Congress intervening here is anti-worker, anti-union, and just flat out wrong. Yes because that's how democracy works, when 60% of people want A, and 40% B, 100% get B. That doesn't erase the fact that 40% actually wanted B. The fact they agreed that they'd all stick together doesn't change the fact that a very large minority was in favor of the deal that's congress is talking about enforcing, which was a compromise. Framing it as if the congress is just giving the railroads whatever they wanted is not accurate.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2022 18:49
|
|
|
small butter posted:100% Sorry, I don't quite get it -- the congressmen aren't the ones running the trains, are they? If they want to avert those horrible economic consequences, they'll need to give in, and fast.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2022 18:50
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:Yes because that's how democracy works, when 60% of people want A, and 40% B, 100% get B. That doesn't erase the fact that 40% actually wanted B. The fact they agreed that they'd all stick together doesn't change the fact that a very large minority was in favor of the deal that's congress is talking about enforcing, which was a compromise. Framing it as if the congress is just giving the railroads whatever they wanted is not accurate. The unions that voted in favor of it have all pledged to support any strike actions.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2022 18:51
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:Yes because that's how democracy works, when 60% of people want A, and 40% B, 100% get B. That doesn't erase the fact that 40% actually wanted B. The fact they agreed that they'd all stick together doesn't change the fact that a very large minority was in favor of the deal that's congress is talking about enforcing, which was a compromise. Framing it as if the congress is just giving the railroads whatever they wanted is not accurate.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2022 18:51
|
|
|
Nucleic Acids posted:The unions that voted in favor of it have all pledged to support any strike actions. Nucleic Acids posted:The unions that voted in favor of it have all pledged to support any strike actions. I already addressed this and you've both ignored my rebuttal
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2022 18:53
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:I already addressed this and you've both ignored my rebuttal No, I didn’t, I just don’t accept your arguments.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2022 18:54
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:I already addressed this and you've both ignored my rebuttal
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2022 18:58
|
|
|
To be fair to biden, he asked voters to deliver him two additional democratic senators and they only gave him one.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2022 18:59
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:Yes because that's how democracy works, when 60% of people want A, and 40% B, 100% get B. That doesn't erase the fact that 40% actually wanted B. The fact they agreed that they'd all stick together doesn't change the fact that a very large minority was in favor of the deal that's congress is talking about enforcing, which was a compromise. Framing it as if the congress is just giving the railroads whatever they wanted is not accurate. A large minority of California voters wanted Republican electoral victories. Should Congress have "compromised" and threw out the actual results in favor of installing Republicans across the state???? If the unions require a unanimous vote and the vote was not unanimous, then every single union votes no. That's just how that system works.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2022 19:03
|
|
|
Shooting Blanks posted:Apparently Cornyn walked it back. Best source I have: Cornyn's account has retweeted it, so this is the message he wants out- that said, I can't tell what vote it's referring to.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2022 19:04
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:I already addressed this and you've both ignored my rebuttal Is it this? Jarmak posted:Yes because that's how democracy works, when 60% of people want A, and 40% B, 100% get B. That doesn't erase the fact that 40% actually wanted B. The fact they agreed that they'd all stick together doesn't change the fact that a very large minority was in favor of the deal that's congress is talking about enforcing, which was a compromise. Framing it as if the congress is just giving the railroads whatever they wanted is not accurate. I mean, the railroads want Biden's recommendation adopted, Biden wants that too, the group that the railroads are negotiating with voted that deal down, and now congress is threatening to impose it on them. Why is that summary seemingly offensive to you? It is very precisely giving the railroads what they currently want.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2022 19:05
|
|
|
If they force this contract, even if it doesn’t lead to a wildcat strike, it’s going to cause more labor attrition which will threaten critical infrastructure. In addition to that, it’s going to severely damage the reputation of democrats among them which could also affect the standing of the party with other unions thus weakening the chances of winning future elections. Forcing the contract is just kicking the can. It only solves the issue in the short term.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2022 19:11
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:Yes because that's how democracy works, when 60% of people want A, and 40% B, 100% get B. That doesn't erase the fact that 40% actually wanted B. The fact they agreed that they'd all stick together doesn't change the fact that a very large minority was in favor of the deal that's congress is talking about enforcing, which was a compromise. Framing it as if the congress is just giving the railroads whatever they wanted is not accurate. I think your logic is a little black and white since that's a very simple explanation of democracies vs. how this actually works in Congress.. However, if your main point is that it's not accurate to frame it as "Congress is just giving the railroads whatever they want" then I think you're right. A more accurate way to put it is that Congress is not allowing the unions to continue to negotiate for what they want and enforcing the current terms as is. The conflict here is if the unions should be able to continue to negotiate or not and Congress has decided they shouldn't even though the majority involved in the conflict want to.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2022 19:13
|
|
|
Nucleic Acids posted:No, I didn’t, I just don’t accept your arguments. Well you haven't provided any sort of reason why. The fact they agreed to strike if they didn't all agree to a deal isn't itself reflective of whether or not a significant portion of the membership approved of the deal. "The Union" isn't a singular entity (hell it's not even one union), you can't take the binary outcome of a political process and treat it like it was the stance of everyone who took part in the process. "They agreed to strike" is not a trump card that invalidates the fact a very significant portion of the union members did support taking this deal, and characterizing the contents of the deal as being the everything the railroad wanted is flatly false. Which is the basically exactly what was said by noted anti-union organization *checks notes* the AFL-CIO. Which is also why Nucleic Acids posted:What do you think will happen if they force a bad contract down the throats of members of what is supposed to be a reliable voting bloc for them? How do you think other members of that voting bloc will react? Next to nothing will happen. Because every union that's not the railway unions knows their members are hosed by the economic fallout of a railway strike and so they're going to quietly stand to the side and do as absolutely little as keeping up the appearances of solidarity will let them get away with. See: The AFL-CIO coming out and saying congress should give them the sick days, but not saying a drat thing either way about congress enforcing the deal.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2022 19:16
|
|
|
Rigel posted:Anyone who is seriously arguing that in the year of our lord 2022 we are going to use the army or police to beat and shoot strikers back to work, is out of their mind. The police have literally attacked striking delivery workers(DHL, in Rhode Island) within the last 60 days. Shoot, no, probably not, but beat? Yeah absolutely.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2022 19:16
|
|
|
Gumball Gumption posted:I think your logic is a little black and white since that's a very simple explanation of democracies vs. how this actually works in Congress.. However, if your main point is that it's not accurate to frame it as "Congress is just giving the railroads whatever they want" then I think you're right. Bolded is in fact the point I was making. edit: and I agree with the rest of your post
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2022 19:20
|
|
|
Twincityhacker posted:Yes. And, shockingly, they still did not involve machinegunning down the crowd. They just hit the protestors with everything other than machine guns. People were targeted to be shot by teargas. Pretty sure the press were a target also. The cops walked down a DC street and yelled "light em up" and fired pepper balls at the home where one man had the audacity to film them from his door as they acted like an occupying force. Meatball fucked around with this message at 19:28 on Nov 30, 2022 |
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2022 19:24
|
|
|
There was a video from the george floyd protests where police literally just drove around doing drive-by's with rubber bullets on random people on the street so they could blow off steam. And taped themselves doing it. Reminder that rubber bullets aren't non-lethal.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2022 19:25
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:Bolded is in fact the point I was making. Word, gotcha, then I would definitely also say Congress is making multiple mistakes here and is being anti-labor by deciding to not allow negotiations to continue or to assist the workers in a compromise with the companies that a majority of union membership do approve of. I don't know the exact numbers of the yes/nos in each union but the ones who didn't agree represent a majority of the workers. It's definitely not a pro-labor move.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2022 19:27
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:There was a video from the george floyd protests where police literally just drove around doing drive-by's with rubber bullets on random people on the street so they could blow off steam. And taped themselves doing it. Remember when they tear gassed a street in Minneapolis and people had to flee into their homes? Like, If there was a strike I am very doubtful it would have much violence but more because the modern strike has changed and gives less opportunity for it. I also think anyone whose argument against why is about how those things just don't happen do have a short memory.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2022 19:31
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:Well you haven't provided any sort of reason why. The fact they agreed to strike if they didn't all agree to a deal isn't itself reflective of whether or not a significant portion of the membership approved of the deal. "The Union" isn't a singular entity (hell it's not even one union), you can't take the binary outcome of a political process and treat it like it was the stance of everyone who took part in the process. "They agreed to strike" is not a trump card that invalidates the fact a very significant portion of the union members did support taking this deal, and characterizing the contents of the deal as being the everything the railroad wanted is flatly false. A significant portion did though, and the entire concept of solidarity is predicated on supporting fellow workers if enough vote against a contract that they hit the majority. And using the leadership of the AFL-CIO as a measure of the correct course of action seems rather silly given how poor they've done.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2022 19:35
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:"Whip the hell out of your caucus" has had an infamously poor success rate in the current Congress. And if the bill can't even pass the House without heavy whipping then there's no point even sending it to the 50/50 Senate where it needs 10 GOP votes or the nuclear option. And I am pointing out that these all occurred in the wake of -thank you for the correction, i had thought congress was more involved at Pullman!- the executive branch deciding that the strikers were endangering national security, and so the strikers had to die. Joe Biden has explained that sometimes, the rights of workers to strike, and the rights of people to sick leave, just have to take a backseat, to the orderly operation of the American economy. As Discendo Vox pointed out: national security would be imperiled, if the workers were permitted to strike for better conditions. And so he has asked Congress to hand him the ol' negotiatin' gun, for use when the unions say 'we do not accept this deal.' Because it is very useful, in negotiation, to have 'if you do not accept my terms, I'm allowed to have you killed' on the table.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2022 19:35
|
|
|
Gumball Gumption posted:Word, gotcha, then I would definitely also say Congress is making multiple mistakes here and is being anti-labor by deciding to not allow negotiations to continue or to assist the workers in a compromise with the companies that a majority of union membership do approve of. I don't know the exact numbers of the yes/nos in each union but the ones who didn't agree represent a majority of the workers. It's definitely not a pro-labor move. Absolutely fair. I just think there isn't an option here that doesn't have significant downside, so having a discussion that isn't just a screaming match requires not trying to jump to the most hyperbolic extreme characterizations we think we can get away with. Personally I feel like this is one of those lovely situations where the choice is between taking a morally correct stand that will end up being fruitless and destructive, or abandoning principals out of expediency because the practical cost of not doing so is too high. History tends to indicate the latter will be the path chosen and everyone who's not those directly getting screwed will most likely at most make some noises about it before memory-holing it because they don't want to deal with the consequences either.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2022 19:40
|
|
|
Gumball Gumption posted:Remember when they tear gassed a street in Minneapolis and people had to flee into their homes? The only point to be made on it is that police will not use live ammunition on striking workers. That mostly hasn't happened in about 100 years. Will they beat the poo poo out of striking workers? Yes. That's not really arguable.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2022 19:40
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:The only point to be made on it is that police will not use live ammunition on striking workers. That mostly hasn't happened in about 100 years. To be fair I think the skin color of those workers has a lot to do with whether the police beat the poo poo out of them. edit reminder that 100 years ago a lot of those workers we're talking about weren't considered "white"
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2022 19:42
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:To be fair I think the skin color of those workers has a lot to do with whether the police beat the poo poo out of them. Wow! Those poilice officers sound like some rude customers! Has anyone told Joe about this?
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2022 19:43
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:To be fair I think the skin color of those workers has a lot to do with whether the police beat the poo poo out of them. Any time you decide skin color doesn't matter when talking about policing in America, you're almost certainly wrong. quote:edit reminder that 100 years ago a lot of those workers we're talking about weren't considered "white" Yes they were. That's a myth, like "Irish slaves."
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2022 19:44
|
|
|
If the politicians are saying, out loud, that national security is at stake, then they are preparing to protect national security by any means necessary… except forcing the RR to make a better deal. Being anti-labor in general is bad, but in this instance, they’re shouting themselves in the foot right before they kick the fan down the road with that same foot.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2022 19:45
|
|
|
Verus posted:Wow! Those poilice officers sound like some rude customers! Has anyone told Joe about this? Yeah he gave them 35 billion extra in cash and prizes for removing those "superpredators" he spent 40 years arguing for harsher sentences for from our streets.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2022 19:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 07:26 |
|
|
Jaxyon posted:Yes they were. That's a myth, like "Irish slaves." No, it's not a myth, generally almost every ethnic group that migrated to the United States was otherized as "not white" during a period of nativist pushback. Hell Ben Franklin even famously wrote about which Germans counted as "white people" during the German immigration wave in colonial days. In the beginning of the 20th century Slavs, Jews, Italians, and Irish all got this treatment to varying degrees and timelines. edit: equating it to African slavery or the legacy of institutionalized racism is where this completely breaks down, not that it didn't happen at all.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2022 19:52
|
|