this post was submitted on 24 Sep 2023
150 points (92.6% liked)

politics

19120 readers
3184 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. 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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

On September 15, the United Auto Workers began a targeted strike against Ford, GM, and Stellantis (the conglomerate that includes Chrysler) in an effort to secure higher wages, a four-day work week, and other protections in the union’s next contract. The strike is a huge development for American workers, but it’s also a big deal for President Joe Biden—these car companies are central to his green-infrastructure agenda. The union wants assurances that the industry’s historic, heavily subsidized transition toward electric vehicles will work for them, too.

Biden, whose National Labor Relations Board has been an ally of labor organizers in fights against companies such as Amazon and Starbucks, has called himself “the most pro-union president in American history.” He has expressed support for the UAW’s cause (workers “deserve their fair share of the benefits they helped create,” he said last week) and has sent aides to Michigan to assist in the negotiations.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] kaput@jlai.lu 51 points 1 year ago (6 children)

Didn't he severely fuck the train workers unions a few months ago, or did I get that wrong?

[–] the_toeknee@lemmy.world 69 points 1 year ago (3 children)
[–] bdonvr@thelemmy.club 27 points 1 year ago (1 children)

A fraction of the paid sick days they were asking for, while also not meeting their other major demands at all. Ending Precision Scheduled Railroading was a big one. Still going on.

They stopped them from striking and potentially making greater gains, then tossed them some crumbs.

They should have stayed the hell out of it or used the government's power to stop the rail companies not the strikers.

[–] protist@mander.xyz 14 points 1 year ago (4 children)

Well Congress did vote on a bill to give rail workers 7 days of sick leave at the same time as the vote preventing the strike. One bill got enough Republican support to pass, the other didn't. If there were more Democrats in Congress, the outcome would have been more favorable to the unions, hands down

[–] MonkCanatella@sh.itjust.works 19 points 1 year ago (1 children)

the cool thing about strikes is congress doesn't have to vote for a company to give in to the demands of the workers. As a matter of fact congress has fuck all to do with it

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] bdonvr@thelemmy.club 14 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (4 children)

If they'd not intervened AT ALL they could've gotten even more by striking.

Or even better just make a reasonable amount of sick days federal law for all, and also put better safety legislation for trains.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] drdalek13@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 year ago

Sorry, gotta pull and old Reddit classic here:

This

[–] HelloHotel@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

How does that not sound like a complete violation of the constitution. "We voted to give you 7 days to not work somtimes and in exchange took your right to not work"

[–] dannoffs@lemmy.sdf.org 27 points 1 year ago (10 children)

It's wild to me that Biden broke the strike then got them the tiniest fucking concession afterwards and people think that's an argument that he somehow was on the side of the union the whole time. Getting 4 sick days a year is absolutely nothing compared to the whole list of grievances and it's embarrassing that people bring this up in response to him breaking the strike.

[–] Kraiden@kbin.social 6 points 1 year ago

Huh. It's really weird to read stuff like this. Just reminds me how lucky I am to not be in the US... with my legally mandated 10 days a year and all...

[–] tsonfeir@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago

If he was a Republican he would have them all fired and nationally ban unions. So, there’s that.

load more comments (8 replies)
[–] Draedron@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 1 year ago

As a side note. It is so fucked up limited paid sick days are a thing

[–] Uprise42@artemis.camp 11 points 1 year ago (2 children)

On one side I have seen where he’s continued negotiations with them to help them resolve issues without a strike which is pretty beneficial.

On the other hand, if that’s not as good as it looks, then this could show that he realized he fucked up not letting the rail workers strike. If he’s going this hard on other strikes and supporting unions it may be to garner support for re-election. Even if it’s only for his own gain, being heavily pro union is a win for the people.

[–] julianh@lemm.ee 14 points 1 year ago

Even if he's doing it for the appearance, it's good that union support is popular enough that politicians want to seem pro-union.

[–] xantoxis@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago

I mean, that's basically the union working as intended. Together, we have the power to put fear in the powerful. Bosses or Biden, makes little difference.

[–] Ghostalmedia@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

These strikes don’t live in a vacuum. Inflation was much higher then, and supply chain transport constraints were a driving factor for it.

That was arguably some “Stop the Green Goblin or Save Gwen Stacy” shit.

[–] Aabbcc@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

It's almost like we shouldn't have the green goblin running all our trains

[–] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Yes, but then he got them the sick days anyhow after the fact.

I’m concerned that the second deal isn’t part of the contract, but, yeah. He fucked them in the name of national security; then walked back and got them the ask.

[–] bdonvr@thelemmy.club 11 points 1 year ago (2 children)

He got them a small number of the sick days they were demanding, and didn't address any of their other concerns whatsoever such as ending Precision Scheduled Railroading.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] ColeSloth@discuss.tchncs.de 4 points 1 year ago (23 children)

The "most pro union president in history" made it illegal when rail workers were set to strike for better wages and conditions and safety.

-A leftist.

[–] StarManta@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago

The sad part is that one severe fucking of a union don’t even come close to costing him the top spot. The bar is just so low.

[–] TheJims@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Are sure about that friend? Because in reality a economic nightmare of a railroad shutdown was avoided and with the help of the Biden Administration rail workers got what they’ve what they were trying to get for decades.

Reality

Kind of... He gave them a small part of what they asked for and didn't touch the biggest stuff, like PSR. 4 days is better than 0, but still doesn't cover the breadth of what they could've gotten if the strike had been allowed to continue and they were allowed to negotiate without interference.

[–] RojoSanIchiban@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

No, the absolute fuck he didn't.

-A leftist.

[–] GiddyGap@lemm.ee 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] VentraSqwal@links.dartboard.social 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Kind of... He gave them a small part of what they asked for and didn't touch the biggest stuff, like PSR. 4 days is better than 0, but still doesn't cover the breadth of what they could've gotten if the strike had been allowed to continue and they were allowed to negotiate without interference.

“We’re very happy about this. We’ve been trying to get this for decades,” said Artie Maratea, president of the Transportation Communications Union. “It was public pressure and political pressure that got them to come to the table.”

From that article. I'm going to trust that opinion over yours

[–] KairuByte@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 1 year ago

My friend, next time look a little more into it than reading headlines.

load more comments (18 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›