4 ms·

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 th

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
    - Throwawayaerlei 4y ago
      How convenient Team Pelosi split the issues into two bills. This result is to no credit of either party; as I've been commenting elsewhere, both hate this segment of the population.
      - HDThoreaun 4y ago
        it wouldn't have passed if it was just one bill. Republicans have no problem allowing a strike since democrats will take the blame for the economic fallout.
        Throwawayaerlei 4y ago
        You know this how? And somehow the House couldn't have first tried a bill with both, then split them out? Your claim would be more useful if you pointed out the vote was 52-43; with no great effort six Republicans voted for it, five Democrats are AWOL and Manchin for some reason I can't imagine voted against it. The Senate also voted 26-69 against 60 more days of negotiations.
    - ddingus 4y ago
      Team Blue had the complete authority to render the filibuster moot. We the people granted them more than enough power to do what we want done. Fact is they hid behind the parliamentarian, insisted on bipartisan legislation as a priority and then proceeded to cede the power granted to make that excuse a reality today. Personally, I reject it all and know damn well this could all play out differently and it doesn't because ordinary people are just not a priority.
      - Throwawayaerlei 4y ago
        Team Blue could in theory end the filibuster today if they dragged in the five MIA Senate Democrats who have not been voting on these measures and got Harris to break the tie. As you say, they have their reasons for keeping it.
mjhay 4y ago
That would require courage and long-term thinking. As of now, this problem has just been punted, while the industry continues to hemorrhage workers

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
  - Throwawayaerlei 4y ago
    How convenient Team Pelosi split the issues into two bills. This result is to no credit of either party; as I've been commenting elsewhere, both hate this segment of the population.
    - HDThoreaun 4y ago
      it wouldn't have passed if it was just one bill. Republicans have no problem allowing a strike since democrats will take the blame for the economic fallout.
      - Throwawayaerlei 4y ago
        You know this how? And somehow the House couldn't have first tried a bill with both, then split them out? Your claim would be more useful if you pointed out the vote was 52-43; with no great effort six Republicans voted for it, five Democrats are AWOL and Manchin for some reason I can't imagine voted against it. The Senate also voted 26-69 against 60 more days of negotiations.
  - ddingus 4y ago
    Team Blue had the complete authority to render the filibuster moot. We the people granted them more than enough power to do what we want done. Fact is they hid behind the parliamentarian, insisted on bipartisan legislation as a priority and then proceeded to cede the power granted to make that excuse a reality today. Personally, I reject it all and know damn well this could all play out differently and it doesn't because ordinary people are just not a priority.
    - Throwawayaerlei 4y ago
      Team Blue could in theory end the filibuster today if they dragged in the five MIA Senate Democrats who have not been voting on these measures and got Harris to break the tie. As you say, they have their reasons for keeping it.

mjhay 4y ago

That would require courage and long-term thinking. As of now, this problem has just been punted, while the industry continues to hemorrhage workers