2 ms·

Or that Biden used federal authority to quash the railroad union protests for better wages as safer conditions.

mikeyouse 4y ago
I mean, Biden brokered a deal to avert the strike, worked with the house and senate to craft a law guaranteeing the railworkers the benefits they were seeking which was then filibustered by senate republicans, but that's apparently too complicated or politically inconvenient for HN to understand so they pretend like stopping the strike was the end of that story. https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/3758436-senate-rejects-proposal-to-give-rail-workers-seven-days-of-paid-sick-leave/ https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/3758436-senate-rejects-p...
- blix 4y ago
  You could easily rephrase your comment as "Biden took away their only option for self-directed action and then passed the buck to an organization known for doing nothing." Sometimes complexity doesn't actually add anything useful :) Focusing on the DC play-by-play is good for convincing yourself the other team is at fault, and not much else.
  - mikeyouse 4y ago
    Sure, you could rephrase it to something inaccurate if it was your prerogative to "both sides" something that failed almost entirely along party lines after attracting the support of several very conservative senators. I'm not sure what value that adds though :)
    - blix 4y ago
      Were the worked who wanted to continue striking allowed to, or not? Was the response of the Republican-dominated Senate predictable or was it a surprise? If I give fine china to a toddler who drops and breaks it, which party is really at fault?
- mcv 4y ago
  Wasn't it an amendment that Sanders added to Biden's bill, was blocked by Republicans, and then enough Democrats voted for the bill despite the fact that it didn't include Sanders' amendment that should have been part of it from the start? Everybody who voted for it bears the blame for taking away the railroad workers' rights.

I mean, Biden brokered a deal to avert the strike, worked with the house and senate to craft a law guaranteeing the railworkers the benefits they were seeking which was then filibustered by senate republicans, but that's apparently too complicated or politically inconvenient for HN to understand so they pretend like stopping the strike was the end of that story. https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/3758436-senate-rejects-proposal-to-give-rail-workers-seven-days-of-paid-sick-leave/ https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/3758436-senate-rejects-p...

blix 4y ago
You could easily rephrase your comment as "Biden took away their only option for self-directed action and then passed the buck to an organization known for doing nothing." Sometimes complexity doesn't actually add anything useful :) Focusing on the DC play-by-play is good for convincing yourself the other team is at fault, and not much else.
- mikeyouse 4y ago
  Sure, you could rephrase it to something inaccurate if it was your prerogative to "both sides" something that failed almost entirely along party lines after attracting the support of several very conservative senators. I'm not sure what value that adds though :)
  - blix 4y ago
    Were the worked who wanted to continue striking allowed to, or not? Was the response of the Republican-dominated Senate predictable or was it a surprise? If I give fine china to a toddler who drops and breaks it, which party is really at fault?
mcv 4y ago
Wasn't it an amendment that Sanders added to Biden's bill, was blocked by Republicans, and then enough Democrats voted for the bill despite the fact that it didn't include Sanders' amendment that should have been part of it from the start? Everybody who voted for it bears the blame for taking away the railroad workers' rights.