265
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Chetzemoka@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago

February 2023:
https://www.reuters.com/business/white-house-renews-pressure-railroads-over-paid-sick-leave-2023-02-09/

"White House renews pressure on railroads over paid sick leave"

June 2023:
https://www.ibew.org/media-center/Articles/23Daily/2306/230620_IBEWandPaid

"After months of negotiations, the IBEW’s Railroad members at four of the largest U.S. freight carriers finally have what they’ve long sought but that many working people take for granted: paid sick days.

Biden deserves a lot of the credit for achieving this goal for us,” Russo said. “He and his team continued to work behind the scenes to get all of rail labor a fair agreement for paid sick leave.”

Cue leftists: "Yes our stated goals were achieved and objections overcome, but it didn't arrived perfectly packaged with a bow on top looking like our ideal utopia, therefore all problems with progress are clearly the Democrats fault."

Seriously, please stop. Progress is never going to occur in exactly the way you think it should. It's still progress. Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

[-] Harrier_Du_Bois@lemmygrad.ml 0 points 1 year ago

Crushing a labor strike so that Dems could negotiate better terms for the owners. Truly a win for the working class. You did it Libs!

[-] Chetzemoka@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago

Oh come on. Better terms for owners would have been doing absolutely nothing and leaving the rail workers with zero paid sick leave.

Public opinion is a reality whether you like it or not. An unpopular strike that disrupted regular people's lives might sound like a great idea in your utopia, but here in the real world what it's likely to accomplish is support for the suppression of strikes. You can't FORCE class consciousness onto people. You can try, but it's not going to work.

The union itself is reporting this as a win. How is that not enough for you?

[-] Harrier_Du_Bois@lemmygrad.ml 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

No, that would be the BEST terms for the owners. That wasn’t an option, because that could potentially lead to people in the streets. They made minor concessions to placate the workers and so Dems could say they did something.

Are you seriously saying that the union never would have gotten more than this if the strike hadn’t been crushed? This is as good as it get for the workers, right? The Dems stepping in was of zero benefit to the workers.

As far as the Union saying it’s a win….what the fuck else were they going to say? They had no cards left to play when the strike was crushed. The leaders were basically forced to accept this and say thank you. That’s how shit works under capitalism.

[-] Chetzemoka@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago

Uh...they could say "this is not what we wanted, this is bullshit, but we'll take it if we have to" because there's utterly not one thing stopping them from saying that.

Do you not understand that the initial demands from the union were MORE than they actually wanted to get in the end? Because that's how negotiations work. What everybody is demanding in the opening round is not what anyone actually expects to get in the end.

The union itself reporting this as a win tells me that this is where they were hoping to end up, or very close to it

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (13 replies)
this post was submitted on 28 Jul 2023
265 points (90.3% liked)

politics

18894 readers
2983 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. 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.
  6. 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