Jump to content

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


IheartIheartTesla

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, Larry of the Lake said:

For me the no-brainer would be for congress to see the costs of that strike and make sure workers get what they need.

I mean, sure, but then we're back to the fact they can't get 10 GOP Senators on board for the paid sick leave.  Should Biden have fought harder for it to put pressure on them?  Yep.  Should they force a roll call vote to get their opposition on the record - yes, and they did.  Which, again, is why my complaint is a rhetorical one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Larry of the Lake said:

Lol, yeah if they just behaved a little better, followed a couple more rules, maybe police violence would have ended right then and there.

Like, you can just say what you think instead of beating around the bush.  Instead of trying to reframe BLM protests as a strike.   What's the similarity, for you?

Blocking roads doesn't win you support from the parties that are on the fence. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Blocking roads doesn't win you support from the parties that are on the fence. 

Cool story, Hansel.  

Blocking metaphoric roads is literally the only option that workers have in negotiation.  The ability to not work is their only leverage.  You can thank people who "blocked roads" for the 40 hour work week, basic work place safety regulations, and so much more.  Despite your platitudes, blocking roads has achieved a great deal.

*Eta: to your specific point- the parties here are the railroad and the union.  The only reason the govt even has any input is because of the threat of a strike.  Without the threat of a strike the companies would do what they've been doing.  "Blocking the roads" is literally the only leverage.  

As to the BLM comment, I'm more disappointed than anything else if that's how you really see that.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Larry of the Lake said:

Cool story, Hansel.  

Blocking metaphoric roads is literally the only option that workers have in negotiation.  The ability to not work is their only leverage.  You can thank people who "blocked roads" for the 40 hour work week, basic work place safety regulations, and so much more.  Despite your platitudes, blocking roads has achieved a great deal.

 

It also costs people their jobs who have nothing to do with the strike. Or more importantly, it moderately inconveniences people who don't care to begin with. Sounds like a great way to get the public on your side, a public by the way that has a substantial portion that's been conditioned to not like unions. 

I support most strikes. Transportation just seems like a lose-lose unless you give zero shits about people just trying to get from point A to B. Especially when it will achieve nothing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Larry of the Lake said:

Biden response is weak and only benefits the railroads. 

In this economy? :p

The framing should be as a human rights thing. The working conditions of these rails people are absurd. If big Gov intercedes on the labor thing well, that had to happen. The let real down down now would be if progressive law orgs don't start bunching into the courts. No paid sick days? Under what conditions? Easy to drive up the chain and win or am I being a dumb Canadian right now.

I don't know even in retrospect know how you avoid Gov intervention on this. Could this SC afford to sneer at something like this? Even refuse it? 

 

 

         

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

It also costs people their jobs who have nothing to do with the strike. Or more importantly, it moderately inconveniences people who don't care to begin with. Sounds like a great way to get the public on your side, a public by the way that has a substantial portion that's been conditioned to not like unions. 

I support most strikes. Transportation just seems like a lose-lose unless you give zero shits about people just trying to get from point A to B. Especially when it will achieve nothing.

It will achieve something when the people responsible for the shitty conditions are losing money.  

If you want to blame anyone for the people who might lose jobs for a strike it's not the fucking workers who get fired for being sick 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, JGP said:

In this economy?

The framing should be as a human rights thing instead. The working conditions of these rails people are absurd. If big Gov intercedes on the labor thing well, that had to happen. The let down now would be if progressive law orgs don't start driving a bunch of stuff into the courts. No paid sick days?

If rail service is vital enough to interfere with, and I'm sorry,        

You're not wrong, but apparently if they don't keep working like this, then other people will lose their jobs.  *cries a single manful tear of capitalism*

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

 

I support most strikes. Transportation just seems like a lose-lose unless you give zero shits about people just trying to get from point A to B. Especially when it will achieve nothing.

You can say this about any strike.  "I support most strikes.  Citrus fruit distribution just seems like a lose-lose unless you give zero shits about citrus fruit getting from point A-B. "

This is also a freight line strike, not commuter, although they do share rails in some places, it's not like it's stopping the subway or soemthing.  But even if it was, your position, and correct me if I'm wrong, seems to be "too fucking bad if the people that have these essential jobs want to be treated like humans".  Correct me if I'm wrong, but you're saying they should just suck it up?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Larry of the Lake said:

It will achieve something when the people responsible for the shitty conditions are losing money.  

Where's that happening exactly? Last I checked overall the rich have never enjoyed a greater period of time. The titans of The Gilded Age would be poor today compared to their counterparts.

Again, I support your ends, but not your means.

Quote

If you want to blame anyone for the people who might lose jobs for a strike it's not the fucking workers who get fired for being sick 

No, it shouldn't be. But everyday people who don't follow politics will blame the strikers more than the robber barons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Where's that happening exactly? Last I checked overall the rich have never enjoyed a greater period of time. The titans of The Gilded Age would be poor today compared to their counterparts.

Oh, my bad, I didn't realize how ignorant you were about any labor negotiations that have happened in this country in the last 150 years or so.  Strikes and the threat thereof are the only way that workers have gotten anything.  We have child labor laws thanks to strikes.  Your mistake is judging this through the lens of how the rich are doing.  I don't care how theyre doing, and unless they are destitute it's irrelevant to the conversation.

If you want to go down that road though, you're making an awful big leap from in attributing the Awesome Amazingness of Being Rich Right Now to ... strikes?  instead of shitty tax structure, shitty labor protections... oh wait wtf were we talking about? 

How about this, how about you tell me how these workers should go about getting what they want?  All cool that you want to do all that stuff you said you want to do, but.... 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Larry of the Lake said:

You're not wrong, but apparently if they don't keep working like this, then other people will lose their jobs.  *cries a single manful tear of capitalism*

And that's one hundred. And yet. 

[sorry, i edited that one way late]

I value your opinion is what that was. Money is always going to be interested in influencing policy. There's really no way to combat and force statements from courts though? No paid sick days? Under those conditions?

Or am I mad. 

 

  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, JGP said:

And that's one hundred. And yet. 

[sorry, i edited that one way late]

I value your opinion is what that was. Money is always going to be interested in influencing policy. There's really no way to combat and force statements from courts though? No paid sick days? Under those conditions?

Or am I mad. 

 

  

Of course money is always going to be interested in influencing policy.  That's why a strike is the only leverage available.  As far as wondering what the courts would do or the human rights angle... this is the US.  You can be fired for pretty much anything at anytime unless you have a good contract.  And for most people that's not the case?  

The courts are going to defer to either existing legislation or existing case law.  And guess what that means here?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Larry of the Lake said:

Oh, my bad, I didn't realize how ignorant you were about any labor negotiations that have happened in this country in the last 150 years or so. 

Tactics that worked 150 years ago aren't necessarily going to work today, especially when damn near everyone wants instant gratification and are lost in their phones.

Quote

How about this, how about you tell me how these workers should go about getting what they want?  All cool that you want to do all that stuff you said you want to do, but.... 

In this specific area, a dramatic slow down is better than an all out strike. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Larry of the Lake said:

Of course money is always going to be interested in influencing policy.  That's why a strike is the only leverage available.  As far as wondering what the courts would do or the human rights angle... this is the US.  You can be fired for pretty much anything at anytime unless you have a good contract.  And for most people that's not the case?  

The courts are going to defer to either existing legislation or existing case law.  And guess what that means here?  

 

Ok, so I am a dumb Canadian then. I'll wear that.

There's no federal labor law or something that shouldn't stomp down? 

Is there no national labor standard in the US?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Tactics that worked 150 years ago aren't necessarily going to work today, especially when damn near everyone wants instant gratification and are lost in their phones.

In this specific area, a dramatic slow down is better than an all out strike. 

I'm having deja vu.   Not sure what the point is in engaging with you at all.  What do you suggest people do to get better working conditions other than strike?  Ask nicely?

 

8 minutes ago, JGP said:

 

Ok, so I am a dumb Canadian then. I'll wear that.

There's no federal labor law or something that shouldn't stomp down? 

Is there no national labor standard in the US?

Not dumb, but there aren't any federal laws (that im aware of) that are going to guarantee you much of anything.  If that were the case i doubt we'd be hearing about this?  But read the thread again, and guess were Extreme Liberals like the ones explaining why nothing good can happen come down when this shit comes up for actual legislation "it's too disruptive"  "i want to support them but they're stopping traffic"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

The titans of The Gilded Age would be poor today compared to their counterparts.

Er, minor (and rather irrelevant) point, but this isn't true at all.  JD Rockefeller's personal wealth in 1913 was estimated to be almost 3 percent of US GDP at the time.  Other Gilded Age figures - your Carnegies and Vanderbilts - would also be insanely wealthy in today's dollars.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Larry of the Lake said:

I'm having deja vu.   Not sure what the point is in engaging with you at all..

Because I'm trying to suggest to you that the path you're going down will only turn people against you while also achieving nothing?

13 minutes ago, DMC said:

Er, minor (and rather irrelevant) point, but this isn't true at all.  JD Rockefeller's personal wealth in 1913 was estimated to be almost 3 percent of US GDP at the time.  Other Gilded Age figures - your Carnegies and Vanderbilts - would also be insanely wealthy in today's dollars.

Whoa, those estimates are much higher than I'm use to seeing, and this seems why:
 

Quote

On September 29, 1916, Rockefeller became the first person ever to reach a nominal personal fortune of $1 billion (equivalent to $17 billion in 2020).[23] Rockefeller amassed his fortune from the Standard Oil company, of which he was a founder, chairman and major shareholder. By the time of his death in 1937, estimates (if using his wealth as a percentage of US GDP) place his net worth in the range of $300 billion to $400 billion. Using the inflation model, in adjusted dollars for May 2022, his net worth would be $26.1 billion

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Because I'm trying to suggest to you that the path you're going down will only turn people against you while also achieving nothing?


 

 

Oh, my bad for not explaining, this is the question i've been asking in my head, if not explicitly, which like most questions i ask you, you just dodge or deflect:

How the fuck do workers, labor, a union, get something without striking?  

eta: because historically you are very much wrong.  That's the only way anything happens.

eta2: like, they've asked nicely for sick days.  for years.  are there special avenues only Tywin knows about that would have solved this?  Sorry, this is just the way the world works.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...