6 ms·

Another possible causal factor is just that labor is weak in the US, and thus is unable to win sick days from their employers AND is unable to convince congres

Another possible causal factor is just that labor is weak in the US, and thus is unable to win sick days from their employers AND is unable to convince congress to pass universal sick days either. If that’s the case (I’m biased to say yes) these rail workers really need to strike. Voting for blues obviously isn’t cutting it.

mjbeswick 4y ago
It's seem like such a far reaching issue that I'm surprised it hasn't triggered a general strike.
- sillystuff 4y ago
  A general strike is illegal in the United States. The US government, under the control of wealthy capitalists, has ensured that capital's interests are protected in law to the detriment of the workers who actually create value. > Among the practices prohibited by the Taft–Hartley act are jurisdictional strikes, wildcat strikes, solidarity or political strikes, secondary boycotts, secondary and mass picketing, closed shops, and monetary donations by unions to federal political campaigns. The amendments also allowed states to enact right-to-work laws banning union shops. Labor in the US is weak by design. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taft%E2%80%93Hartley_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taft%E2%80%93Hartley_Act
  - notch656a 4y ago
    I would support eliminating both the anti-general strike and anti-collusion laws. It seems unfair to ban collusion by capital but not by labor.
  - dpkirchner 4y ago
    > A general strike is illegal in the United States. What're they going to do, imprison the masses? Illegal doesn't mean much without realistic consequences.
    - sillystuff 4y ago
      There are a lot of potential consequences. A look at US labor history shows that mass arrests are possible (one of the first uses of aerial bombing was used to put down a miners' strike at Blair Mountain in the US. So, much worse than mass arrests are possible). But, usually the ruling class + capitalist class targeted those they identified as labor leaders (often with bogus charges-- even without evidence, these often ended in convictions. With some of these convictions resulting in the executions of innocent people). But, just firing all workers who participate as was done in the 1980s when air traffic controllers attempted a strike would likely be sufficient to scare the working class back into compliance. Or, for a larger action, you could punish the entire working class by sharply raising interest rates and inducing a recession. With the resulting large supply of unemployed/underemployed workers, labor will be too weak to make demands.
  - TheCoelacanth 4y ago
    That seems like an obvious First Amendment violation given the economic activity = speech precedent from Citizen's United.
lotsofpulp 4y ago
> Voting for blues obviously isn’t cutting it. But also only “blue” led states have minimum required paid sick laws, so at least they are trying. Given the option between red and blue, it seems obvious which one to support if you support paid leave for all.
p0pcult 4y ago
>Voting for blues obviously isn’t cutting it. Agree, and furthermore, I'd argue that the blue "Third Way"[1] ushered in by Bill Clinton in the US is what hugely screwed labor, and 20 years later leads to the election of DJT. Why can't Biden/congress make the agreement that the unions want and ratify that? There are multiple ways to avoid the strike; I don't understand why this has to be on ownership's terms. Long term, (or at least in 2024, which is about as long term as we get in American politics anymore) this is going to let team Red claim to be the pro-worker team. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Way https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Way
- KptMarchewa 4y ago
  > Long term, (or at least in 2024, which is about as long term as we get in American politics anymore) this is going to let team Red claim to be the pro-worker team. but they are those who are voting those proposals down. >Why can't Biden/congress make the agreement that the unions want and ratify that? because they need 60 votes in senate and obviously don't have them. I just don't understand how you can rationally reconcile party A voting against those proposals, blaming party B for not passing it, and claiming that party A is for those proposals. It's some weird doublethink.
  - p0pcult 4y ago
    Biden doesn't have to sign it in its broken form.
  - dpkirchner 4y ago
    > I just don't understand how you can rationally reconcile party A voting against those proposals, blaming party B for not passing it, and claiming that party A is for those proposals. It's some weird doublethink. It's exactly the same right-wing doublethink that spurs budget cuts and justifies the cuts by pointing out how ineffective government is. Anyone promulgating such notions is either a sucker or dishonest.
- luddit3 4y ago
  This is like blaming the abused wife for not helping her husband to stop abusing her. Party of voting against the majority self interests will continue to vote against the majority's self interests.
zopa 4y ago
The proposal to add seven sick days passed the House and got a majority in the Senate, mostly (though not quite exclusively) ‘blues’. It’s not who unions are voting for that’s the problem, it’s the filibuster.
- dbpatterson 4y ago
  The "blues" created the legislation & forced the workers to accept a shitty contract with no sick days. They could easily have refused to vote for it and let the strike happen w/o real sick days.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - HDThoreaun 4y ago
    > They could easily have refused to vote for it and let the strike happen w/o real sick days. No they could not. That would lead to economic catastrophe worse than march/april 2020. Dems would get swept next election and the workers wouldn't even win because dems would be forced to pass this exact law within a week of the strike starting. The government can't let 100,000 unrelated people lose their jobs, and they really can't let grocery stores run out of stuff or coal plants run out of coal causing blackouts.
    - Throwawayaerlei 4y ago
      Do they not have the option of forcing the railroads to give in on the sick leave issue? Did not "Team Blue" as in the Biden administration arrange this set of trade offs in the first place in the agreement which some of the most affected (screwed) workers are rejecting?
      - HDThoreaun 4y ago
        The bill that would give the workers 7 sick days only got 52 votes in the senate. Needs 60 to overcome the filibuster
outside1234 4y ago
Well, all of the blues voted yes, so its hard to say that red is the solution for these workers
- t-3 4y ago
  The blues also put forward the paid sick leave as a separate bill rather than putting them together. That's no coincidence, but a political strategy.
  - AnimalMuppet 4y ago
    If I understand correctly, the blues also had some hand in negotiating the one-sick-day contract that the union members rejected. Biden at least claimed some credit for that, IIRC.
blululu 4y ago
This would be a more reasonable critique if the Democrats had not been the minority party in the US Senate from 2012-2020. For the last 2 years they only have 51-50 tie breaking lead in the Senate which give a very slim margin to get anything done. I'm sure the Democrats could do more but it is a bit unfair to blame them for the actions/inactions of their (frequently more powerful) rivals.
- TOGoS 4y ago
  The Democrats' failure to run good campaigns, always keeping congress teetering between the two corporate parties, is part of their culpability. If they all ran on, for example, abolishing health insurance companies, and won (because the majority of the population actually wants universal health care), and got elected, suddenly they'd be in the awkward position of having to do something that their big donors don't want and not having Republican control of congress as an excuse. The Democratic party is controlled opposition. They allow a sprinkling of 'progressives' in the party because it makes for a better show.

mjbeswick 4y ago

It's seem like such a far reaching issue that I'm surprised it hasn't triggered a general strike.

sillystuff 4y ago
A general strike is illegal in the United States. The US government, under the control of wealthy capitalists, has ensured that capital's interests are protected in law to the detriment of the workers who actually create value. > Among the practices prohibited by the Taft–Hartley act are jurisdictional strikes, wildcat strikes, solidarity or political strikes, secondary boycotts, secondary and mass picketing, closed shops, and monetary donations by unions to federal political campaigns. The amendments also allowed states to enact right-to-work laws banning union shops. Labor in the US is weak by design. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taft%E2%80%93Hartley_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taft%E2%80%93Hartley_Act
- notch656a 4y ago
  I would support eliminating both the anti-general strike and anti-collusion laws. It seems unfair to ban collusion by capital but not by labor.
- dpkirchner 4y ago
  > A general strike is illegal in the United States. What're they going to do, imprison the masses? Illegal doesn't mean much without realistic consequences.
  - sillystuff 4y ago
    There are a lot of potential consequences. A look at US labor history shows that mass arrests are possible (one of the first uses of aerial bombing was used to put down a miners' strike at Blair Mountain in the US. So, much worse than mass arrests are possible). But, usually the ruling class + capitalist class targeted those they identified as labor leaders (often with bogus charges-- even without evidence, these often ended in convictions. With some of these convictions resulting in the executions of innocent people). But, just firing all workers who participate as was done in the 1980s when air traffic controllers attempted a strike would likely be sufficient to scare the working class back into compliance. Or, for a larger action, you could punish the entire working class by sharply raising interest rates and inducing a recession. With the resulting large supply of unemployed/underemployed workers, labor will be too weak to make demands.
- TheCoelacanth 4y ago
  That seems like an obvious First Amendment violation given the economic activity = speech precedent from Citizen's United.

lotsofpulp 4y ago

> Voting for blues obviously isn’t cutting it. But also only “blue” led states have minimum required paid sick laws, so at least they are trying. Given the option between red and blue, it seems obvious which one to support if you support paid leave for all.

p0pcult 4y ago

>Voting for blues obviously isn’t cutting it. Agree, and furthermore, I'd argue that the blue "Third Way"[1] ushered in by Bill Clinton in the US is what hugely screwed labor, and 20 years later leads to the election of DJT. Why can't Biden/congress make the agreement that the unions want and ratify that? There are multiple ways to avoid the strike; I don't understand why this has to be on ownership's terms. Long term, (or at least in 2024, which is about as long term as we get in American politics anymore) this is going to let team Red claim to be the pro-worker team. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Way https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Way

KptMarchewa 4y ago
> Long term, (or at least in 2024, which is about as long term as we get in American politics anymore) this is going to let team Red claim to be the pro-worker team. but they are those who are voting those proposals down. >Why can't Biden/congress make the agreement that the unions want and ratify that? because they need 60 votes in senate and obviously don't have them. I just don't understand how you can rationally reconcile party A voting against those proposals, blaming party B for not passing it, and claiming that party A is for those proposals. It's some weird doublethink.
- p0pcult 4y ago
  Biden doesn't have to sign it in its broken form.
- dpkirchner 4y ago
  > I just don't understand how you can rationally reconcile party A voting against those proposals, blaming party B for not passing it, and claiming that party A is for those proposals. It's some weird doublethink. It's exactly the same right-wing doublethink that spurs budget cuts and justifies the cuts by pointing out how ineffective government is. Anyone promulgating such notions is either a sucker or dishonest.
luddit3 4y ago
This is like blaming the abused wife for not helping her husband to stop abusing her. Party of voting against the majority self interests will continue to vote against the majority's self interests.

zopa 4y ago

The proposal to add seven sick days passed the House and got a majority in the Senate, mostly (though not quite exclusively) ‘blues’. It’s not who unions are voting for that’s the problem, it’s the filibuster.

dbpatterson 4y ago
The "blues" created the legislation & forced the workers to accept a shitty contract with no sick days. They could easily have refused to vote for it and let the strike happen w/o real sick days.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- HDThoreaun 4y ago
  > They could easily have refused to vote for it and let the strike happen w/o real sick days. No they could not. That would lead to economic catastrophe worse than march/april 2020. Dems would get swept next election and the workers wouldn't even win because dems would be forced to pass this exact law within a week of the strike starting. The government can't let 100,000 unrelated people lose their jobs, and they really can't let grocery stores run out of stuff or coal plants run out of coal causing blackouts.
  - Throwawayaerlei 4y ago
    Do they not have the option of forcing the railroads to give in on the sick leave issue? Did not "Team Blue" as in the Biden administration arrange this set of trade offs in the first place in the agreement which some of the most affected (screwed) workers are rejecting?
    - HDThoreaun 4y ago
      The bill that would give the workers 7 sick days only got 52 votes in the senate. Needs 60 to overcome the filibuster

outside1234 4y ago

Well, all of the blues voted yes, so its hard to say that red is the solution for these workers

t-3 4y ago
The blues also put forward the paid sick leave as a separate bill rather than putting them together. That's no coincidence, but a political strategy.
- AnimalMuppet 4y ago
  If I understand correctly, the blues also had some hand in negotiating the one-sick-day contract that the union members rejected. Biden at least claimed some credit for that, IIRC.

blululu 4y ago

This would be a more reasonable critique if the Democrats had not been the minority party in the US Senate from 2012-2020. For the last 2 years they only have 51-50 tie breaking lead in the Senate which give a very slim margin to get anything done. I'm sure the Democrats could do more but it is a bit unfair to blame them for the actions/inactions of their (frequently more powerful) rivals.

TOGoS 4y ago
The Democrats' failure to run good campaigns, always keeping congress teetering between the two corporate parties, is part of their culpability. If they all ran on, for example, abolishing health insurance companies, and won (because the majority of the population actually wants universal health care), and got elected, suddenly they'd be in the awkward position of having to do something that their big donors don't want and not having Republican control of congress as an excuse. The Democratic party is controlled opposition. They allow a sprinkling of 'progressives' in the party because it makes for a better show.