US politics - have you no sense of decency, sir?

[mormont]

'I support strikes, but not this strike' = 'I don't support strikes. I wish I did, but I don't'.

[DMC]

1 hour ago, mormont said:

'I support strikes, but not this strike' = 'I don't support strikes. I wish I did, but I don't'.

I don't think that's fair.  You can be pro-labor and still acknowledge that this particular strike would have caused more damage than the potential benefits.  There seems to a strain of absolutism in this thread that's ignoring context - e.g. the fact the administration has been working to get all sides to reach a deal for months whereas ANY Republican president would have told the unions to go fuck themselves right off the bat.

[ThinkerX]

So... Congress tells the unions 'screw you' and orders the workers to accept the contract, with few or no sick days. Then the Unions strike anyways. Could be a real mess.

[mormont]

15 minutes ago, DMC said:

I don't think that's fair.  You can be pro-labor and still acknowledge that this particular strike would have caused more damage than the potential benefits.

You can't be pro-union and also give yourself the right to make that judgement on their behalf.

 

[DMC]

6 minutes ago, mormont said:

You can't be pro-union and also give yourself the right to make that judgement on their behalf.

Again, when you're POTUS you have to make decisions based on more than whether or not you're "pro-union."  As an observer/critic, you can certainly understand that decision and still be "pro-union."

[DMC]

9 hours ago, JGP said:

How in the fuck are there no federal labor laws when its an essential network? Is oversight by State? I should probably quit asking and start digging lol  

Here's an article that helps explain why this situation is different than most - How an arcane 96-year-old law stopped the rail strike:

Quote

Under the Railway Labor Act, the federal agency that oversees railroad and airline labor relations is the National Mediation Board, which tries to bring the two sides together, and it set up a series of limits and cooling off periods during which unions can not strike and management can not lock out the workers. And if all those efforts fail, then Congress can step in and impose a contract under which both sides will have to operate.

In negotiations at other businesses, the workers’ ability to strike is the most powerful option unions have to achieve their goals at the bargaining table. And even the railroads admit that the law makes strikes extremely unlikely.

 

[mormont]

14 minutes ago, DMC said:

Again, when you're POTUS you have to make decisions based on more than whether or not you're "pro-union."  As an observer/critic, you can certainly understand that decision and still be "pro-union."

Now this is my Eurocommie perspective, but withdrawing your labour is a fundamental right (and paid sick leave is also a fundamental right, not to mention good business practice. Not allowing your staff paid sick leave = poor productivity, high staff turnover, losing money).

I can acknowledge that the President faced a difficult political situation and tried to get the best achievable outcome without saying that I don't support the strike. Those are two different questions.

[DMC]

2 minutes ago, mormont said:

I can acknowledge that the President faced a difficult political situation and tried to get the best achievable outcome without saying that I don't support the strike. Those are two different questions.

I mean, it's obviously not two different questions for the President.  Nor for the ire that is being directed towards him on this thread and elsewhere.  

[Larry of the Lawn]

1 hour ago, DMC said:

I don't think that's fair.  You can be pro-labor and still acknowledge that this particular strike would have caused more damage than the potential benefits.  There seems to a strain of absolutism in this thread that's ignoring context - e.g. the fact the administration has been working to get all sides to reach a deal for months whereas ANY Republican president would have told the unions to go fuck themselves right off the bat.

I don't think there's any certainty that if there was a strike the damage would be worse than the benefits - we don't know that because the strike hasn't happened.   It's entirely possible that if there actually was a work stoppage from a strike the rail lines would give the paid sick leave within 24 hours.

Eta: in fact, Congress's disgusting corporate fellatio here is making a wildcat strike the only option for getting paid sick leave.  And the obligatory disclaimer: yes Repubs are worse than Dems.  

[DMC]

27 minutes ago, Larry of the Lake said:

in fact, Congress's disgusting corporate fellatio here is making a wildcat strike the only option for getting paid sick leave.

Yeah, this is the type of dumbass unthinking invective that really doesn't endear oneself to serious discussion.  The overwhelming majority of Dems didn't vote for the deal because they're captured by the corporations.  Especially not the four railroad companies in question.  It's an absurd and naive notion.  They voted for the deal because they're worried about the economic blowback.  Could they be wrong about that?  Maybe!  But assuming every politician is a slave to corporate interests is sophomoric mindlessness reserved for hipsters and undergrads. 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

I watching Trumpanistas sploog all over themselves on Twitter over Elon Musk’s “revelations” about government interference via Twitter in the 2020 election.  I do not want to go wading through their horseshit media.  And I’m seeing nothing in the normal press.

Is it safe to assume they are seeing attempts to reduce the spread of disinformation and conspiracy theories as “suppression” of what they speciously believe to be “the truth”?  I ask hoping someone else is willing to do my wading for me…

[Larry of the Lawn]

12 minutes ago, DMC said:

Yeah, this is the type of dumbass unthinking invective that really doesn't endear oneself to serious discussion.  The overwhelming majority of Dems didn't vote for the deal because they're captured by the corporations.  Especially not the four railroad companies in question.  It's an absurd and naive notion.  They voted for the deal because they're worried about the economic blowback.  Could they be wrong about that?  Maybe!  But assuming every politician is a slave to corporate interests is sophomoric mindlessness reserved for hipsters and undergrads. 

If by "worried about economic blowback" you mean "worried that other people might start wanting paid sick leave and basic benefits" then yeah, I completely agree.  

Eta: is it really "dumbass unthinking invective" when the process preempts a strike?  It's explicitly siding with the corporations over labor.  If labor wanted to be forced to take the deal congress voted on, they all would have voted for it.  

[DMC]

6 minutes ago, Larry of the Lake said:

If by "worried about economic blowback" you mean "worried that other people might start wanting paid sick leave and basic benefits" then yeah, I completely agree.  

I explained the economic blowback, like, 12 hours ago, and you responded "I get that."

[Varysblackfyre321]

13 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

I watching Trumpanistas sploog all over themselves on Twitter over Elon Musk’s “revelations” about government interference via Twitter in the 2020 election.  I do not want to go wading through their horseshit media.  And I’m seeing nothing in the normal press.

Is it safe to assume they are seeing attempts to reduce the spread of disinformation and conspiracy theories as “suppression” of what they speciously believe to be “the truth”?  I ask hoping someone else is willing to do my wading for me…

The right is really angry Twitter didn’t let them spread revenge porn on hunter Biden.

[Varysblackfyre321]

To be perfectly clear this is just to distract the right from being angry Elon suspended Kanye for being a nazi.

 

[Larry of the Lawn]

3 minutes ago, DMC said:

I explained the economic blowback, like, 12 hours ago, and you responded "I get that."

The "I get that" was referring to your statement that the President was making a cost-benefit analysis.  I certainly wasn't saying that it was a sound reason to knee cap a strine, or that the numbers thrown around by the railways as redmeat to the press are something to be afraid of.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

2 hours ago, DMC said:

I don't think that's fair.  You can be pro-labor and still acknowledge that this particular strike would have caused more damage than the potential benefits.  There seems to a strain of absolutism in this thread that's ignoring context - e.g. the fact the administration has been working to get all sides to reach a deal for months whereas ANY Republican president would have told the unions to go fuck themselves right off the bat.

It's sad we're all having to become Siths. 

Again, I would support the strike if I thought it would have a positive outcome, but as far as I can tell it would not change the votes while also turning people against their cause. Seems like an odd strategy to me if your overall goal is to actually achieve something for the workers in question.

[Larry of the Lawn]

7 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

It's sad we're all having to become Siths. 

Again, I would support the strike if I thought it would have a positive outcome, but as far as I can tell it would not change the votes while also turning people against their cause. Seems like an odd strategy to me if your overall goal is to actually achieve something for the workers in question.

Why is this something that should be voted on in congress?  Given the cost of a strike the railways would have had to come to the table.  But instead congress intervened with an outcome favorable to the railways.  

You keep saying a strike would turn people from the cause.  That's not historically accurate, and the point isn't to change hearts and minds, it's to use the only leverage labor has against a corporation, which is striking. 

You guys totally would have supported sending in the national guard or the Pinkerton's back in the day.  

[Mindwalker]

4 hours ago, mormont said:

'I support strikes, but not this strike' = 'I don't support strikes. I wish I did, but I don't'.

'Now is not the time' . (Also applies to any criticism of Dems from the left btw.)

Biden could simply use an EO. Obama did. For some reason he excluded railway workers though...

[polishgenius]

My experience of public transport strikes is that the public generally only turn against them if they schedule them directly on important national holidays (or against England games).

 

Like in Berlin there was a strike scheduled on the 25th anniversary of the fall of the Wall, and people did not like that, but otherwise pretty much everyone just shrugs and gets on with it as best they have to, wishing the strikers all the best.