4 ms·

Unclear....he just threw some of his bread and butter people (the unionized rail workers) under the bus(or train).

by nebula8804 4y ago

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
        yamtaddle 4y ago
        Ah, perhaps not. I figured they had a bit more control over it, like some other opt-out systems when SS got set up originally, but it looks like they don't.
        ethbr0 4y ago
        I honestly don't know, and at this point it would be digging through almost 100 years of legislative patches to find the current state. From what I read, they'd basically converged its cost of living and payouts to be Social Security-equivalent (and tied to it for the future), but I believe it's still a distinct program (that just happens to pay the same amount). There were also some oddities with porting between the two systems (railroad work -> social security work, or vice versa). It stuck in my mind because the idea of a government-backed retirement system before social security seemed such a weird historical quirk!
- 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.

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
        yamtaddle 4y ago
        Ah, perhaps not. I figured they had a bit more control over it, like some other opt-out systems when SS got set up originally, but it looks like they don't.
        ethbr0 4y ago
        I honestly don't know, and at this point it would be digging through almost 100 years of legislative patches to find the current state. From what I read, they'd basically converged its cost of living and payouts to be Social Security-equivalent (and tied to it for the future), but I believe it's still a distinct program (that just happens to pay the same amount). There were also some oddities with porting between the two systems (railroad work -> social security work, or vice versa). It stuck in my mind because the idea of a government-backed retirement system before social security seemed such a weird historical quirk!
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.