|
Bear Enthusiast posted:You should come to America and see firsthand the incredible amount of things that are sadder than that. Maybe "uniquely sad" would have been better. Then again considering that said terrible people are responsible for many of those sadder things and cheer for them makes it a very complicated web of sadness.
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2022 23:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 22:47 |
|
|
Lib and let die posted:I'm sure I'll regret diving back into the fray again here, but for lack of what sounds like any real experience being a member of a union in a lot of the discussion going on here, I thought it might be important to dispel certain bad-faith misrepresentations of the union contract negotiation process having recently gone through the process myself. As an addendum to this post, I would also like to propose a thought experiment, and take it out of the context of supply lines: ActBlue workers are also unionized under CWA Local 1400. ActBlue is a critical part of the democratic fundraising and electoral victory plan. Their contract has yet to be ratified - were contract negotiations to somehow stall into 2024 a smart, militant union would realize that they have the power to collectively break the democrats fundraising ability by going on strike until a contract is ratified - what would folks here propose as a way forward in this scenario? Elections are matter of national security, so we should quickly draft up legislation to to make that strike illegal, because it's an issue of natsec/the most important election ever so far, right?
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2022 23:16
|
|
|
ArbitraryC posted:Aren't you just lying through your teeth here? All the unions have supported a strike if any of the unions are supporting the strike. Since the deal wasn't accepted this means that 100% of the union opposes the deal. There's no fractions or percentages here, this is literally how collective bargaining works. No, all of the unions supported striking if any of the unions rejected the deal and decided to strike, and 8 of the unions supported accepting the deal. The former is a a negotiation strategy and support for that is indicative of support for maintaining solidarity of collective bargaining, the latter is indicative of support for the actual content of the deal. You don't just get to daisy chain those two things together to claim the former is the latter, they're separate concepts. Agreeing to go along with the outcome of a political process does not retroactively dissolve a person's original stated preference if they don't win because you label their original preference as being conditional on winning the vote.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2022 23:31
|
|
|
rscott posted:https://twitter.com/ChadPergram/status/1598052547360854017?t=1yHKKR5CvsOw2Ljt7ghehA&s=19 He's on team "I don't give a gently caress, just make sure they don't strike", i think. He's against anything that delays getting them back to work. If that means no paid leave, fine. If Bernie can get those 7 days passed quickly, also fine. Which is pretty low bar for a supposedly pro union president
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2022 23:36
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:No, all of the unions supported striking if any of the unions rejected the deal and decided to strike, and 8 of the unions supported accepting the deal. But you're also putting words in people's mouths if you're using that as an argument on why it's not going against the unions wants. I'm still with you that really the issue here isn't "Congress giving the railroads all they want" but I also don't think the desires of the minority of members who voted no is something to use as an argument since you're making a lot of assumptions about their current desires. It doesn't dissolve their personal preference but it also makes an assumption they would want their personal preference enacted over what the union wants which is well, the opposite of being part of a union. You're not lying but your argument does add up to quote:actual effective action congress is taking is enforcing a deal that much of the union themselves approves. Which I think makes a lot of assumptions about how union membership views the current conflict in the now based on their stated preference in an internal decision making process. Lib and let die posted:As an addendum to this post, I would also like to propose a thought experiment, and take it out of the context of supply lines: I think most here honestly would say no because your job would not impact them the way a rail strike would. It's always materialism.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2022 23:43
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:No, all of the unions supported striking if any of the unions rejected the deal and decided to strike, and 8 of the unions supported accepting the deal. If I tell you that I will mow your lawn if you give me 20 bucks then that means if you do not give me 20 bucks I do not want to mow your lawn*. It's a conditional statement. The yes votes are all conditional on the rest of the unions agreeing with them, these conditions were not met so every union didn't accept the deal. The percentage of unions who wanted to accept the deal when all was said and done was 0, which is why they all plan to strike together. It's literally that simple, if it weren't then you'd see them split apart and some would accept the deal and others wouldn't. At the end of the day there is 0% approval for ratification and 100% approval for the strike and it's dishonest to phrase it in any other way. You, as well as pro union busting pundits and politicians are trying to imply that the government is pushing a deal that 40% of the members want. This is factually incorrect because at present 100% of the unions are willing to strike over the deal not improving. If you support labor at all you wouldn't be parroting this false narrative. e*: to use a better example it'd be like if some friends invited me out to a movie and I said "I'll go if my wife wants to go". If my wife doesn't want to go, I don't want to go. It's not that there was 50% approval of the two of us going to the movie, it's 0% approval because it only had my approval in the first place on the condition that she wanted to go too. At the end of the day a collective agreement isn't the sum of smaller votes, it's a single yes or no. ArbitraryC fucked around with this message at 23:55 on Nov 30, 2022 |
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2022 23:48
|
|
|
Gumball Gumption posted:But you're also putting words in people's mouths if you're using that as an argument on why it's not going against the unions wants. I'm still with you that really the issue here isn't "Congress giving the railroads all they want" but I also don't think the desires of the minority of members who voted no is something to use as an argument since you're making a lot of assumptions about their current desires. It doesn't dissolve their personal preference but it also makes an assumption they would want their personal preference enacted over what the union wants which is well, the opposite of being part of a union. You're not lying but your argument does add up to I'm not saying they support congress forcing the deal, I'm just responding to the accusation that I'm lying. ArbitraryC posted:If I tell you that I will mow your lawn if you give me 20 bucks then that means if you do not give me 20 bucks I do not want to mow your lawn. It's a conditional statement. The yes votes are all conditional on the rest of the unions agreeing with them, these conditions were not met so every union didn't accept the deal. The percentage of unions who wanted to accept the deal when all was said and done was 0, which is why they all plan to strike together. It's literally that simple, if it weren't then you'd see them split apart and some would accept the deal and others wouldn't. At the end of the day there is 0% approval for ratification and 100% approval for the strike and it's dishonest to phrase it in any other way. This only works in the context of stating the membership's support for sticking with the negotiation process, it does not speak to their support for the actual contents of the deal. The latter is what's relevant if what we're judging is the one-sidedness of the deal and support for the deal on it's merits alone, the former is relevant to support for congress forcing the deal (which is 0). This is like saying all of MA supported Trump being president in 2016, because they went along with the result therefore their support for Clinton was conditional on her getting enough votes. It's a false logical premise, conditional support in the manner you're referring to is indicative of support for following the process, not support for the question itself on it's merits. edit: someone correct me if I'm wrong but going it alone was not put up for vote alongside the ratification Jarmak fucked around with this message at 00:03 on Dec 1, 2022 |
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2022 00:00
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:This only works in the context of stating the membership's support for sticking with the negotiation process, This is - and I generally refrain from using this word, it is literally the foundation for labor solidarity. "If you don't think you're getting a fair deal, I don't think you're getting a fair deal."
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2022 00:03
|
|
|
And I don't think this is weird leftist infighting or squabbling. The plan of attack is super obvious: "Is it really worth risking a rail shutdown that would cause these various bad things over something that 40% of the union supports? It already has over half the unions behind it and almost have of union membership in total!" You already see this cropping up everywhere, but it's a lie, because 100% of the union wants to strike over it. There is no fraction of the union that supports ratification because they are working as a collective single yes or no. They collectively said no.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2022 00:03
|
|
|
Lib and let die posted:This is - and I generally refrain from using this word, it is literally the foundation for labor solidarity. Yes, true, but it's a separable concept from the fairness of the deal itself on it's merits, which again is what was being spoken to.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2022 00:06
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:Yes, true, but it's a separable concept from the fairness of the deal itself on it's merits, which again is what was being spoken to. It's not up to you to determine the fairness of the deal. That is an issue for the membership, and the membership has spoken. Lib and let die posted:If the vote fails to meet the 50% threshold across 100% of the voting membership, the contract is rejected. That's it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2022 00:07
|
|
|
Lib and let die posted:It's not up to you to determine the fairness of the deal. That is an issue for the membership, and the membership has spoken. in fairness, as a member of the united states armed forces, it is technically his job to determine the fairness of the deal via machine gun, if ordered to do so (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST) (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2022 00:41
|
|
|
as a side note, remember all that hemming and hawwing about how the democrats had to do everything slowly, carefully, and by the book, for fear it might offend someone to move quickly on the things the base wanted presented with the threat of a rail strike, all that poo poo flew right out the goddamned window. we went from Biden saying "hey you people better give me the power to shut these loving unions up and pronto" to legislation passing the house in less than 48 hours. when the democratic party actually wants to do something, it's capable of moving very quickly! we are witnessing, in real time, a demonstration that all that interminable slow-walking was not a necessity of political action. it was a necessity due to the party, in its present composition, not actually wanting to make those things happen.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2022 00:58
|
|
|
This is one of those "this is technically true so I can say it" things. Like when I raged about whatever daily execution of a young unarmed black man by police, my father several times brought up the "lack of fathers" in "those communities". My understanding is that is true enough on paper to the point where it's an issue those communities actively address themselves. But to use it as an excuse from his (my old white father who is a "real republican unlike the republican party") perspective against blatant brutality and injustice doesnt land. You're not lying, but focusing on that 40% is effectively anti union because it undermines the whole point of unions and what we're witnessing. You shouldn't be silenced, no, but you should get pushback.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2022 00:59
|
|
|
Yeowch!!! My Balls!!! posted:we are witnessing, in real time, a demonstration that all that interminable slow-walking was not a necessity of political action. it was a necessity due to the party, in its present composition, not actually wanting to make those things happen.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2022 01:02
|
|
|
Yeowch!!! My Balls!!! posted:as a side note, remember all that hemming and hawwing about how the democrats had to do everything slowly, carefully, and by the book, for fear it might offend someone to move quickly on the things the base wanted Capital wants no strike. That is why the Dems moved so fast.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2022 01:28
|
|
|
Interesting how the GOP is responding to the potential strike. Though it ultimately seems to be along the usual lines according to the House votes. Out of curiosity, what exactly are the complete and total (including indirect and far reaching) impacts a strike would have? Like what are the full implications here? Is it just another group of corporate execs getting smacked in the pocketbook and inevitably having to humble themselves by tossing a few crumbs to the proles or is it like "who wants to see what happens if we don't raise the debt ceiling [Joker grin]?" -Blackadder- fucked around with this message at 01:44 on Dec 1, 2022 |
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2022 01:32
|
|
|
Yeowch!!! My Balls!!! posted:as a side note, remember all that hemming and hawwing about how the democrats had to do everything slowly, carefully, and by the book, for fear it might offend someone to move quickly on the things the base wanted No. I don't recall this. Got any examples? -Blackadder- posted:Interesting how the GOP is responding to the potential strike. Though it ultimately seems to be along the usual lines according to the House votes. This article had a decent description of some impacts https://www.pbs.org/newshour/economy/how-a-nationwide-rail-strike-could-impact-consumers-businesses posted:How could a rail strike affect the country? DeadlyMuffin fucked around with this message at 01:45 on Dec 1, 2022 |
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2022 01:39
|
|
|
-Blackadder- posted:Interesting how the GOP is responding to the potential strike. Though it ultimately seems to be along the usual lines according to the House votes. A strike would crash the economy and according to my reading move us to a "every morning, grab your filth-caked pan and collect water at the bottom of the skull mountain"-style economy. This is not a nationalized system because [decades of poor decisions by those in power].
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2022 01:42
|
|
|
DeadlyMuffin posted:No. I don't recall this. Got any examples?
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2022 01:43
|
|
|
cat botherer posted:I really can't tell whether you are joking or not here. In general talking about vague rememebered arguments which may or may not be strawman isn't a great way to go about debating things. If you're wanting to show someone that a previously made argument was false, you should probably link to the previously made false argument. If it's so obviously a thing that happened, finding that should be really easy right? I've seen a lot of times someone has done this and it turns out they slightly or majorly misrepresented the argument that was made, because memory is malleable.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2022 01:46
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:In general talking about vague rememebered arguments which may or may not be strawman isn't a great way to go about debating things.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2022 01:57
|
|
|
cat botherer posted:Here’s one: continued resistance to nuking the filibuster. The two senators who opposed abolishing the filibuster for abortion legalization have been discussed absolutely ad nauseam in this thread. I don't recall a bunch of "hemming and hawwing about how the democrats had to do everything slowly, carefully, and by the book, for fear it might offend someone to move quickly" in that case. I certainly don't think not doing it for fear they might offend someone was the reason it hasn't happened. I think it got held up by two senators with their own agendas. If you have an example, prove me wrong, but "vague rememebered arguments" seems like a decent description to me.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2022 02:14
|
|
|
To try and get things back on the rails a bit: I'm curious what folks thought about the article I posted and the impacts of a strike. I'm far from an expert, I'm curious if there are better takes.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2022 02:26
|
|
|
DeadlyMuffin posted:The two senators who opposed abolishing the filibuster for abortion legalization have been discussed absolutely ad nauseam in this thread. So the effective outcome of a majority democratic party (the party in power, the party that can change the course of the country) is one that could not stand up to a illegitimate that legislated the rights of women from the bench for months but bowed to the whims of capital in less than a month. Before anyone gets defensive, please read this phrase again: EFFECTIVE OUTCOME
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2022 04:21
|
|
|
DeadlyMuffin posted:To try and get things back on the rails a bit: I'm curious what folks thought about the article I posted and the impacts of a strike. I'm far from an expert, I'm curious if there are better takes. Rail represents a non-trivial portion of America's internal shifting. According to the Federal Rail Administration: quote:The rail network accounted for approximately 28 percent of U.S. freight movement by ton-miles (the length and weight freight travels). If that transport capacity vanishes overnight, it can't easily be shifted to road, water, and other means of transport. They don't have the spare capacity to easily absorb that sudden influx of ex-rail traffic. That means a lot more cargo taking a lot more time to get where it needs to go - sometimes longer than our industries built on just-in-time shipping can handle. Don't forget how badly COVID and the Ever Given hosed the supply chains. A nationwide rail strike could potentially be worse.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2022 04:35
|
|
|
So if Bernie locks Paul, Lee, and Cruz in a closet, the 7 days of sick time bill can be passed with simple majority, once nobody filibusters it right? Assuming of course Turtle is on board because he wants Bernie And Biden to primary fight.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2022 04:36
|
|
|
Gyges posted:So if Bernie locks Paul, Lee, and Cruz in a closet, the 7 days of sick time bill can be passed with simple majority, once nobody filibusters it right? Edit: I think it depends on Bernie and friends. If they really will derail (heh) the pact without the sick pay then I think they get it, and if they cave then no. But I don't have a vote count of course. This wouldn't be a filibuster, it's blocking all the unanimous consent the Senate needs, so one senator can muck things up. BrutalistMcDonalds fucked around with this message at 04:51 on Dec 1, 2022 |
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2022 04:43
|
|
|
Will they override the filibuster if Bernie filibusters the one with no sick leave? Open that can of worms already.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2022 04:51
|
|
|
Mizaq posted:Will they override the filibuster if Bernie filibusters the one with no sick leave? Open that can of worms already. Sanders can stop the express lane unanimous consent, but I've got a feeling there are enough Republican votes to override an actual filibuster.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2022 04:59
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Rail represents a non-trivial portion of America's internal shifting. According to the Federal Rail Administration: I can speak to this a little bit with an example - and you're absolutely correct. An engineering company I used to work at designed and built terminals for the petrochemical industry. This is where O&G products could be stored, mixed, and importantly - changed from one type of transport to another. It can be any combination of load/unload involving rail, marine, OTR (over the road, or truck), and pipeline. Designing these takes weeks to months to years (for very large projects), with additional time for permitting and then construction. These projects are also carefully planned in advance across the various parties to guarantee one or more suppliers and one or more customers will be able to use the capacity. They aren't designed or built with excess capacity in mind. More importantly, terminals also aren't designed to easily add or subtract one mode of transport. The same goes for both the supplier and the customer of a given product. Simply put, taking rail out of the equation just for petrochemicals will be an absolutely devastating blow to the economy. You can limp along to some extent using OTR, marine, and pipelines, but serious cuts will be necessary within days if not hours. It's difficult to overstate just how much damage this can do to the country if it happens - we'll find numerous bottlenecks in our logistics infrastructure that we never knew existed previously.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2022 05:00
|
|
|
DeadlyMuffin posted:To try and get things back on the rails a bit: I'm curious what folks thought about the article I posted and the impacts of a strike. I'm far from an expert, I'm curious if there are better takes. There has been a lot of coverage of the strike like this, highlighting how much it would hurt the economy and consumers, and not a whole lot of coverage of the horrific working conditions that the strike is about, nor about the fact that the rail companies are profiting massively off of those same conditions. It seems like a deliberate attempt to frame the issue as selfish workers making you pay more for gas and preventing little Timmy from getting toys for Christmas. The blame for this clusterfuck belongs entirely on the rail bosses, but I have not seen any mainstream media outlets say as much. Obviously a rail strike is going to be extremely bad for everyone. That's why Biden and the Dems should have sided with the workers if they actually care about labor rights like the claim to. Instead they proved themselves to be craven little lapdogs for capital.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2022 05:01
|
|
|
Mizaq posted:Will they override the filibuster if Bernie filibusters the one with no sick leave? Open that can of worms already. Easily. However, Bernie can slow things down to a crawl to the point where it might not be passed until after the strike begins. Apparently Biden is sending his Transportation and Labor secretaries to the Senate tomorrow to talk to Democrats about why they have to pass it (in their opinion) come hell or high water. Rigel fucked around with this message at 05:08 on Dec 1, 2022 |
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2022 05:02
|
|
|
Fister Roboto posted:There has been a lot of coverage of the strike like this, highlighting how much it would hurt the economy and consumers, and not a whole lot of coverage of the horrific working conditions that the strike is about, nor about the fact that the rail companies are profiting massively off of those same conditions. It seems like a deliberate attempt to frame the issue as selfish workers making you pay more for gas and preventing little Timmy from getting toys for Christmas. The blame for this clusterfuck belongs entirely on the rail bosses, but I have not seen any mainstream media outlets say as much. I'm 50/50 on this. I don't think it's a deflection from everyone bringing it up because this does bring front and center very obvious large scale logistics problems that we're just kicking the can down. The last few years have shown how much of modern life is built on a precious supply system. I do 100% think it's a deflection from politicians since there doesn't seem to be a single one then expanding on it and going into their plans on how we don't end up here again, just that we can't allow there to be a strike.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2022 05:05
|
|
|
Biden is probably thinking 2024 and if there is no Christmas the blame is on the Dems.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2022 05:09
|
|
|
Edit: Nevermind. I'm done for the day.
DeadlyMuffin fucked around with this message at 05:25 on Dec 1, 2022 |
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2022 05:19
|
|
|
cat botherer posted:Here’s one: continued resistance to nuking the filibuster. Is that a quote of somebody making an argument are we just moving on from that?
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2022 06:42
|
|
|
Gatts posted:Biden is probably thinking 2024 and if there is no Christmas the blame is on the Dems. It’s definitely partly that. Though I think a bunch of it just economy is super loving delicate right now still and with poo poo going on overseas, both Ukraine and now China locking down/protests, the feds don’t want to risk the economy with a major strike especially before the holidays. A lot more people’s livelihoods are riding on this then just the workers sadly.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2022 12:24
|
|
|
Dapper_Swindler posted:It’s definitely partly that. Though I think a bunch of it just economy is super loving delicate right now still and with poo poo going on overseas, both Ukraine and now China locking down/protests, the feds don’t want to risk the economy with a major strike especially before the holidays. A lot more people’s livelihoods are riding on this then just the workers sadly. Then get the company to give in to the workers demands? The roles are clearly not compensated well enough for everything involved and, if the strike action would cut off this many people, perhaps the workers deserve more. Complaining about people's pocket books seems like a way to shift blame from one part of the worker class to another when the people in charge of both the rail ways and government are the real cause.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2022 12:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 22:47 |
|
|
if its devastating to the economy, it's the perfect time for the workers to strike. they won't have this leverage in these circumstances again
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2022 12:45
|
|
