3 ms·
They should absolutely strike. And they're in a good position to do so: my understanding is that, unlike, say, the air traffic controllers' strike in the '80s,
by danaris 4y ago
They should absolutely strike. And they're in a good position to do so: my understanding is that, unlike, say, the air traffic controllers' strike in the '80s, there's no supply of trained rail operators ready to be brought in as scabs to keep things going.
If they strike, the trains just won't run.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- bombcar 4y agoI think the thing congress is worried about is how quickly the entire country devolves to anarchy if the trains stop. We cancelled all flights in the USA for two days after 9/11 and it really didn't do much of anything major, but Walmart turns over all stock every month or so, and groceries are turned over much faster. Trains also provide a significant amount of coal still used to fuel power plants.
- danaris 4y agoWell, then, maybe Congress should mandate paid sick leave for the people running those trains, rather than mandating that those workers should just shut up and deal with it.