5 ms·

"Now let the court enforce it." -Andrew Jackson

by EarthIsHome 4y ago

ceejayoz 4y ago
The current executive is likely to have a different take.
- nebula8804 4y ago
  Unclear....he just threw some of his bread and butter people (the unionized rail workers) under the bus(or train).
  - thrill 4y ago
    It's different when it hurts his constituancy.
    - nebula8804 4y ago
      No, he has been all over the place. The chips act, the student loan forgiveness(pending), the pro union EV moves pissed off his rich buddies but gave some crumbs to the people who voted for him.
  - tyre 4y ago
    and was extraordinarily hesitant to do so. The supply chains are a mess as it is, the US can’t stomach a rail shutdown this winter, and the votes aren’t there to pass sick leave. Biden isn’t a hypocrite; he’s never been a union absolutist.
    - ethbr0 4y ago
      And furthermore, there are a lot of working-class voters who depend on jobs that would be impacted by a rail strike. And the deal the unions were forced to accept was one brokered by the White House after the unions and rail companies couldn't come to agreement. So presumably more than the rail companies would have been willing to settle on, on their own. So in terms of voters pissed off vs voters pleased, he probably comes out ahead on this one.
      - yamtaddle 4y ago
        The overwhelming sentiment in my friend group, including some blue-collar types who might not work for a while if there's a rail shutdown, was "please, strike—we can take it". We were all shocked to find out how poorly rail workers are treated. Everyone was very unhappy with Congress and Biden screwing them over. But I may be in a bubble.
        HDThoreaun 4y ago
        They'll be signing a different tune when there's a blackout on christmas because the coal plant couldn't get its coal.
        yamtaddle 4y ago
        "Awesome, the Internet's down, best day of the year, thanks Baby Jesus, may it never come back". Though, sure, a few days of that and we'd not be happy. Mostly for heating-related and food-spoilage reasons. All the more reason for Congress to force the railroads to cave—which is to say, to behave halfway reasonably. But, instead they screwed the workers. I'm curious how hiring's going to go for them, as they start to run out of workers with a bunch of money in the pension system who can't afford to leave, and now that everyone knows what abusive employers they are. I suppose eventually they'll have to relent and go back to pre-Covid staffing levels, or something like it. Guessing they'll fund that by ditching the pensions entirely, or at least scaling them way back. Great excuse to do that, that they've created for themselves.
        ethbr0 4y ago
        Can they ditch the pension system? Last I checked (job surfing), they had the RRB, which predated social security [0]. I believe it's been mostly homogenized with SS at this point, so distinct in name only, but I expect there are still active laws on the books from the 30s and 40s that govern it? [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railroad_Retirement_Board https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railroad_Retirement_Board
    - wmeredith 4y ago
      This is such a non-excuse for forcing the Unions to work. The fact that US can't afford a rail shutdown could just as quickly be used to say that the railroad companies have to give the union what they want to avert a shutdown, but it went the other way ... Because you know, oligarchy. If their service is so essential, they should be granted some sick days.
      - HDThoreaun 4y ago
        The democrats did say that. They voted for the sick leave bill. Republicans blocked it with the filibuster.
        wolverine876 4y ago
        The Dems knew it would be blocked. If they were serious, they would have included the sick leave in the bill itself.
        HDThoreaun 4y ago
        Then it would be blocked too and christmas would have been ruined.
        wolverine876 4y ago
        That's defeatest, but that is the Democrat's universal position: Avoid confrontation, start negotiations from what you believe the compromise point will be (I read an article talking about Dem leaders in Congress regularly doing that!). It is possible to compete, confront, and negotiate for more.
  - wmeredith 4y ago
    Biden did sign the bill, which sucks. But the only way it got to his desk was that 42 Republican Senators and 1 Democratic Senator (Manchin) voted for it. The President is not a king. POTUS gets too much credit and too much blame for things like this.
    - somenameforme 4y ago
      One major difference between the president and congress is that there is no posturing or "optics." Imagine all 100 senators want to pass a bill because it benefits their "donors", but it's something that society at large would oppose. They can, and do, then strategically organize the vote such that some figure around 50 will vote against it, prioritized by factors like how near their next election is, whether they plan to run again, and how close their elections are. So when Joe Senator votes against (and, to a much lesser degree, for) something you can't ever really be sure they really do oppose/support it. The TPP was one of the most exceptionally visible examples of this with overt bipartisan strategizing against the voter. By contrast when Joe President signs a bill (or vetoes) it you have 100% certainty that it's his "real" agenda, because that is the ultimate and deciding "vote" excepting the increasingly rare scenario of a congressional veto override. Put more succinctly, in our original hypothetical changing out those 50 senators who voted for the unpopular bill would have literally 0 impact on its passage. Yet changing the 1 president would. Even if congress might have the ability to override his veto of it, they would be unlikely to do so for an unpopular bill. In reality the bill would never be voted on unless the congress knew the president was on board.
miguelazo 4y ago
Sounds like substantial fines are in order.
- jimt1234 4y ago
  Not sure if there's any criminal case here, but there should be. Fines, even "substantial fines", never seem to work. When executives start getting perp-walked then things will change.
  - jjk166 4y ago
    The cost of a fall guy to sit in prison for a few years could be orders of magnitude less than the damages a civil case could cost.
    - anonymousab 4y ago
      Ideally it would be both, and the fall guy would be senior leadership and include the CEO by default. Quite frankly, imprisoning the company is the next step - no access to, control or operation of funds, assets or company systems for the duration of imprisonment. It should be as much of a threat to a company's wellbeing as it is to the average man.
nerpderp82 4y ago
Andrew Jackson was basically Joe Arpaio crossed with Nixon. Below is a comprehensive description of how the US removed Indian's from their land. Andrew Jackson plays a prominent role. They Were Just in the Way | Indian Removal https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A5P6vJs1jmY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A5P6vJs1jmY
- djcannabiz 4y ago
  great video. thanks for sharing.

"Now let the court enforce it." -Andrew Jackson

ceejayoz 4y ago

The current executive is likely to have a different take.

nebula8804 4y ago
Unclear....he just threw some of his bread and butter people (the unionized rail workers) under the bus(or train).
- thrill 4y ago
  It's different when it hurts his constituancy.
  - nebula8804 4y ago
    No, he has been all over the place. The chips act, the student loan forgiveness(pending), the pro union EV moves pissed off his rich buddies but gave some crumbs to the people who voted for him.
- tyre 4y ago
  and was extraordinarily hesitant to do so. The supply chains are a mess as it is, the US can’t stomach a rail shutdown this winter, and the votes aren’t there to pass sick leave. Biden isn’t a hypocrite; he’s never been a union absolutist.
  - ethbr0 4y ago
    And furthermore, there are a lot of working-class voters who depend on jobs that would be impacted by a rail strike. And the deal the unions were forced to accept was one brokered by the White House after the unions and rail companies couldn't come to agreement. So presumably more than the rail companies would have been willing to settle on, on their own. So in terms of voters pissed off vs voters pleased, he probably comes out ahead on this one.
    - yamtaddle 4y ago
      The overwhelming sentiment in my friend group, including some blue-collar types who might not work for a while if there's a rail shutdown, was "please, strike—we can take it". We were all shocked to find out how poorly rail workers are treated. Everyone was very unhappy with Congress and Biden screwing them over. But I may be in a bubble.
      - HDThoreaun 4y ago
        They'll be signing a different tune when there's a blackout on christmas because the coal plant couldn't get its coal.
        yamtaddle 4y ago
        "Awesome, the Internet's down, best day of the year, thanks Baby Jesus, may it never come back". Though, sure, a few days of that and we'd not be happy. Mostly for heating-related and food-spoilage reasons. All the more reason for Congress to force the railroads to cave—which is to say, to behave halfway reasonably. But, instead they screwed the workers. I'm curious how hiring's going to go for them, as they start to run out of workers with a bunch of money in the pension system who can't afford to leave, and now that everyone knows what abusive employers they are. I suppose eventually they'll have to relent and go back to pre-Covid staffing levels, or something like it. Guessing they'll fund that by ditching the pensions entirely, or at least scaling them way back. Great excuse to do that, that they've created for themselves.
        ethbr0 4y ago
        Can they ditch the pension system? Last I checked (job surfing), they had the RRB, which predated social security [0]. I believe it's been mostly homogenized with SS at this point, so distinct in name only, but I expect there are still active laws on the books from the 30s and 40s that govern it? [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railroad_Retirement_Board https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railroad_Retirement_Board
  - wmeredith 4y ago
    This is such a non-excuse for forcing the Unions to work. The fact that US can't afford a rail shutdown could just as quickly be used to say that the railroad companies have to give the union what they want to avert a shutdown, but it went the other way ... Because you know, oligarchy. If their service is so essential, they should be granted some sick days.
    - HDThoreaun 4y ago
      The democrats did say that. They voted for the sick leave bill. Republicans blocked it with the filibuster.
      - wolverine876 4y ago
        The Dems knew it would be blocked. If they were serious, they would have included the sick leave in the bill itself.
        HDThoreaun 4y ago
        Then it would be blocked too and christmas would have been ruined.
        wolverine876 4y ago
        That's defeatest, but that is the Democrat's universal position: Avoid confrontation, start negotiations from what you believe the compromise point will be (I read an article talking about Dem leaders in Congress regularly doing that!). It is possible to compete, confront, and negotiate for more.
- wmeredith 4y ago
  Biden did sign the bill, which sucks. But the only way it got to his desk was that 42 Republican Senators and 1 Democratic Senator (Manchin) voted for it. The President is not a king. POTUS gets too much credit and too much blame for things like this.
  - somenameforme 4y ago
    One major difference between the president and congress is that there is no posturing or "optics." Imagine all 100 senators want to pass a bill because it benefits their "donors", but it's something that society at large would oppose. They can, and do, then strategically organize the vote such that some figure around 50 will vote against it, prioritized by factors like how near their next election is, whether they plan to run again, and how close their elections are. So when Joe Senator votes against (and, to a much lesser degree, for) something you can't ever really be sure they really do oppose/support it. The TPP was one of the most exceptionally visible examples of this with overt bipartisan strategizing against the voter. By contrast when Joe President signs a bill (or vetoes) it you have 100% certainty that it's his "real" agenda, because that is the ultimate and deciding "vote" excepting the increasingly rare scenario of a congressional veto override. Put more succinctly, in our original hypothetical changing out those 50 senators who voted for the unpopular bill would have literally 0 impact on its passage. Yet changing the 1 president would. Even if congress might have the ability to override his veto of it, they would be unlikely to do so for an unpopular bill. In reality the bill would never be voted on unless the congress knew the president was on board.

miguelazo 4y ago

Sounds like substantial fines are in order.

jimt1234 4y ago
Not sure if there's any criminal case here, but there should be. Fines, even "substantial fines", never seem to work. When executives start getting perp-walked then things will change.
- jjk166 4y ago
  The cost of a fall guy to sit in prison for a few years could be orders of magnitude less than the damages a civil case could cost.
  - anonymousab 4y ago
    Ideally it would be both, and the fall guy would be senior leadership and include the CEO by default. Quite frankly, imprisoning the company is the next step - no access to, control or operation of funds, assets or company systems for the duration of imprisonment. It should be as much of a threat to a company's wellbeing as it is to the average man.

nerpderp82 4y ago

Andrew Jackson was basically Joe Arpaio crossed with Nixon. Below is a comprehensive description of how the US removed Indian's from their land. Andrew Jackson plays a prominent role. They Were Just in the Way | Indian Removal https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A5P6vJs1jmY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A5P6vJs1jmY

djcannabiz 4y ago
great video. thanks for sharing.