politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
4 sick days, and the ability to sacrifice earned vacation days for 3 more. You really think they would have had to settle for that if they were allowed to strike? It’s not even close to what they asked for, and they had significantly more leverage than the company until the Biden admin stepped in and defanged the union entirely.
The union itself reports this agreement as a win. How is that not enough for you?
They specifically asked the president to not interfere with their right to strike. Once he had taken their rights away from them, they lost nearly all leverage they had, and so the agreement negotiated is better than they would’ve been able to get themselves, but worse than if their rights hadn’t been infringed. Of course it’s a win, it’s more than the 0 they had before, but it’s not sufficient, and still leaves our railroads dangerously understaffed, and does nothing about the other components the workers had demanded, such as the points based attendance systems that are themselves leading to significant safety concerns among railworkers.
Prove it then. You're moving the goalposts here, so explain why you're so sure that they can be moved. What evidence is there that the rail companies, who were refusing to give any sick days, would have capitulated to more than what they've agreed to now?
For that matter, I'm not convinced that the public would overall support the striking workers. If towns lost electricity, heating, and/or clean drinking water because of delays caused by the strike, I couldn't see them standing behind the workers. Even though of course the rail companies are to blame.
Which would a rail company rather do, lose hundreds of millions of dollars a week? Or, negotiate with the union? Why does the public need to support the strike? The public didn’t support the strikes in the 1890s-1930s that won the 40 hour week, overtime, minimum wage, and various other labor benefits. They were too busy being propagandized by the complicit media of their day.
If that logic worked, every strike would instantly win because the company loses out on millions of dollars. Writers have been striking for quite a while now and you don't see any capitulation. Just losing money isn't enough.
And this is why the public opinion matters. If the company thinks they can wait out the strike, they're going to choose that. In that time period, public opinion can either strengthen or weaken their position.
This isn't the 1890s-1930s. The head of the factory isn't onsite when the workers decide to go on strike. The head of the factory isn't unfathomably richer than the workers. Income inequality has escalated to the point that owners aren't going to feel the hit of a strike immediately. The rich CEOs can afford to wait without their lives being affected. It's cheaper for them to work towards the end of an unsuccessful strike than to capitulate.
Just so you don't get the wrong idea, I think the solution is actually nationalizing industries, at least partially. Rail service has become too crucial to our way of life to let a private business handle it. We're seeing how they abuse their position to neglect workers and enrich themselves.
Yeah, I’m with you there, though I’m likely further to the left than you, I believe all industries should either be nationalized or socialized depending on its function.
Ok, now on this point I agree with you completely. If losing a service will do that much damage to the public, then that service should be socialized.
I think we'd be much better served trying to make that happen than argue if a strike would've been more successful or not. At the end of the day, we'll never know the answer there. It's better we agree that good was done. We disagree on if that was the most good possible or not, but we agree it was good. We're better off trying to do more good than figure out if we maximized that previous good. One in the hand is worth two in the bush after all.