4 ms·

The U.S. government suppressed a strike just last year in the rail network. Labor is gaining power, but there's still interrupts coming from the government.

• Der_Einzige 3y ago
  Every time a democratic US president suppresses a strike, the world acts like it's the greatest thing ever. A lot of kennedy era political art and the positivity around him was from him "crushing" labor unions, especially big steel. I was struck by this while visiting his presidential library in Boston. I kind of hate it. The reality is that most people "think" they like unions, but in reality they seem not to.
  • derelicta 3y ago
    It's not surprising. Most newspapers(and political parties) are owned by capitalists, and therefore defend Capital, so it's not surprising to see that most people don't like unions. None of us are immune to propaganda after all, even more if it comes from a reputable source.
    • petsfed 3y ago
      This is never more clear than when you think about the last time "union" was used on a televised newscast on labor day. Sure, they may say "the parade included members of XYZ union local 995" or whatever, but absolutely nothing about "the day set aside to celebrate all the things made possible via the prior sacrifices of unions and other labor organizers". And the insidious thing about that omission is that there are plenty of perfectly valid arguments in defense of the journalistic integrity of everybody in that office, until you get to the interface between editor-in-chief and the actual owner of the newspaper. And even then, there's an apparently huge difference between "tell people that labor day is actually meant to celebrate the noble spirit of the lone entrepreneur, laboring to make our civilization great" and "just don't mention it, people don't care". That the actual intent is identical either way is not anywhere near as apparent as the surface-level differences between the two.
• AnimalMuppet 3y ago
  That's not suppressed, at least not in the same way things were suppressed in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. "Ruling that the strike would be illegal under the Railway Labor Act" is a long way from "send in the US Army to break up the strike".
  • cool_dude85 3y ago
    They didn't rule that the strike would be illegal, the Democratic Congress imposed management's contract.
  • wry_discontent 3y ago
    Why would you expect them to suppress things in exactly the same way? Things are vastly different right now.
    • petsfed 3y ago
      I think the fact that the strike was resolved via legislative action (which I suppose, somewhat circuitously imply threats of violence) and not via overt violence is pretty telling. While in general, strike tactics have moderated, its also true that companies' first step in breaking a strike is no longer physical violence against union organizers.
  • yareal 3y ago
    This is a distinction without a difference. The US government said, "you aren't allowed to strike, if you do there will be consequences." The strikers backed down because the violence they feared. The government has a reputation, and if they say "we're going to hurt you" they probably will.