3 ms·
This seems pretty drastic given how close the White House was to using an executive action to force the union to work. It's not clear how a more aggressive unio
by legitster 4y ago
This seems pretty drastic given how close the White House was to using an executive action to force the union to work. It's not clear how a more aggressive union president could have done better.
- roody15 4y agoIt’s amazing how Bidens work on this is just excused and rationalized. In His career he has always modeled himself as the representative for the working class and pro union. His direct involvement is the most anti union action in three decades.
- legitster 4y agoIt seems like a particularly unique situation though. Regardless of your stance on unions, a national railroad strike would be an egregiously unacceptable outcome. Nearly every other person in America would be negatively impacted by quite a severe degree. You don't have to love it to understand it.
- detaro 4y agoSince the government action here enforces a specific deal to be "made", it could've prevented the strike and followed some of the demands and added sickdays though?
- toomuchtodo 4y agoIndeed. They could've voted to enforce the pro-union deal. They didn't. They specifically voted to prevent a strike and not provide the sick day benefits.
- HDThoreaun 4y agoThe democrats did. The republicans didnt
- roody15 4y agoExcept that is an easy out. The truth is the emperor has no clothes here. The current DNC is pro corporate pro elitist and just grand stands using some “corporate safe” identity political issues to market themselves as “progressive”
- krapp 4y agoThe emperor never had any clothes. The Democratic Party is progressive in some ways relative to Republicans but, yes, everyone knows the United States has no true left in power. Even AOC voted against labor. It's disgraceful but not surprising.
- HDThoreaun 4y agoMaking life better for 330 million people by forcing 100000 to not strike is not the easy way out.
- OkayPhysicist 4y agoBy the exact same powers that they used to force the union to accept the railroad companies' demands, they could have forced the railway companies' to accept the unions demands. Failure to do so is a failure of policy, of character, and of basic conviction.
- engineer_22 4y agoIt's laughable. Just an "average Joe"... until he uses force to subvert the workers' right to collective negotiation.
- OkayPhysicist 4y agoThe response to being told you can't strike is to strike anyway. The beauty of a strike is that it doesn't need to be legal to be effective. Unions themselves were very illegal when they started out, but through organization and willingness to flaunt the law, they secured themselves a seat at the legitimate negotiation table. Apparently Capital and their government lackies have forgotten why such concessions were granted in the first place.