this post was submitted on 24 Sep 2023
327 points (92.7% liked)

politics

19072 readers
4738 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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] the_toeknee@lemmy.world 130 points 1 year ago (4 children)
[–] bdonvr@thelemmy.club 63 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 32 points 1 year ago (5 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 31 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

[–] protist@mander.xyz -5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Congress has the authority to require a company to give in to the demands of the workers, just not enough people in it who are willing to vote to do it

[–] bdonvr@thelemmy.club 24 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 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.

[–] HelloHotel@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

hey me, angey and ill informed child, shut your faceHow 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"

[–] Pectin8747@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

They're the ones that made the call to split the bill saying it was guaranteed to pass which made no sense

We need to stop saying "if there were more democrats" and start saying "if there were more socialists"

[–] CoderKat@lemm.ee 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yeah, it boggles my mind that the bills were split. The only reason I can think of to explain that is that they simply knew what was going to happen and any other explanation is just gaslighting us into thinking that they were doing something.

[–] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

Yeah, it boggles my mind that the bills were split.

The only reason to split a bill is to pass the centrist/republican portion and let the progressive portion fail.

[–] drdalek13@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 year ago

Sorry, gotta pull and old Reddit classic here:

This

[–] dannoffs@lemmy.sdf.org 42 points 1 year ago (6 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 13 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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...

[–] banneryear1868@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

In Canada I currently have 346 hours of fully paid sick time available with 12 hours used. If I take over 5 days in a row I need to provide a doctor's note. Taking a leave of absence for medical purposes is rarely questioned, same with going on disability. Outside of that I took 10 weeks of fully paid paternity leave, and we have a sabbatical program where you can take a reasonable pay cut for 3 years and take the 4th year off. Also have 4 weeks paid vacation and can take an additional 2 unpaid, with some other funny options available. Dental/medical appointments are a separate fully covered time code.

[–] banneryear1868@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

People comment "don't let good be the enemy of perfect" about this, as if what they got even approaches good. You see how low the bar is at least.

[–] tsonfeir@lemm.ee -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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

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

Again, how is that even constitutionally legal?

[–] tsonfeir@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

What specifically are you referring to, being non-constitutional action? And, where in the constitution do you feel forbids the action?

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

I think I was refering to the fact that i thoght you'd be forced to work, (if the soundbyte of what happened is even true) it's likely biden only banned protesting (witch is the real violation).

I failed to be reasonable because I didnt read the details of what he actually did ~~on a technical level~~ and posted while i was angry.

Edit: wow, im not critical enough of my own ideas here, fixed that

[–] tsonfeir@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

And how did Biden ban protesting? I think maybe you should get your mind off of politics and out of whatever right wing qanon garbage you’re ingesting.

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

I posted while angry, misread the facts and failed to properly call myself a dumbass for spreading Qanon level comments. I failed to interrogate my own claims to see if they made any sense.

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

Wow. Apology accepted! 👍

[–] Ajen@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 year ago

And ignored the union's other demands.