So i might have missed it in all the screaming at and past one another but
Let's say that the workers, or some of them, do decide to go and wildcat strike.
Do we have any indication that the Unions have a robust enough Strike Fund to keep their striking workers housed/fed/warm/paid during a strike?
Are they allowed to pay workers doing a Wildcat Strike from a union strike fund?
How do we keep the workers able to pay their rent, keep food on the table, and keep electricity on in their homes while they make the noble sacrifice to the gods of labor that we seem to be demanding of them?
A wildcat strike is essentially a resignation. If the unions support them in any way, the union will be sued until it can no longer function.
Edit: For clarity -
There is almost certainly a clause in the contract they will (be forced) to sign that prevents strike action while under contract. The union wont be able to go near people who are striking while under contract and the strikers will have no job protection and will be resigning their positions and/or being fired with cause as soon as they refuse to work or don't show up.
Edit2: I don't know of any unions with robust enough financials to even have a strike fund anymore. The best unions I've been in have only had low/no interest loans available for cost of living for people participating in an action that reduced their paychecks. Which doesn't really matter because of the previous edit.
dispatch.o on
+2
Options
lonelyahavaCall me Ahava ~~She/Her~~Move to New ZealandRegistered Userregular
ok so i guess my next question is the same question but about a normal strike and not wildcat.
Do the unions have enough in a strike fund to actually keep their employees covered at anything resembling living wage, or not?
Because i went through a strike where our Union did not have a robust Fund and we were down to about $60/week to try and live on in the 2nd month of the strike.
The problem with trying to look at this as black and white, is that you have to ignore a fuck ton of facts that are really inconvenient for that argument.
-I'll start with "but supplies argument is the same one used to break teacher strikes," this is so incredibly fucking wrong that I was going to ignore it, but it's worth noting that little Timmy not being able to go to school because of teachers strike is no where in the same ballpark as the shit show you'll get when people get ill for contaminated water, people have health emergencies because they can't get medications they need or people being unable to buy food. Like to even compare to two is both vile and dishonest and Hydropolo should be ashamed for even trying. I mean for FFS I get told I'm way too optimistic at times, but even I don't think for an instant that the public won't turn super fucking hard on the striking rail workers and the the government.
-The contract being imposed, is the one that forced rail operators to make concessions after the government got involved. Is it good, not really. The main issue is the time off and it should really be higher but the rail operators and the republican party are both fucking assholes. So the rail operators aren't going to offer it and thanks to the GOP being so fucking awful and both Manchin and Sinema being shit, the votes in the Senate do not exist. Manchin was the only demeocrat to vote against more leave time, but the howling seems mostly about how the democratic party betrayed labor. This is incredibly unfair to all the democratic senators that are voting the way people want to them to and then getting shat on by Manchin being shit. Also Sinema being shit. Also once again people are giving the GOP a free pass, "it's in their nature, so why bother getting mad." No! Fuck that! Making them fucking own their shit because their is no fucking excuse for them being so shitty. Also maybe some people voting for them will finally clue in that they do actually suck and stop voting. At the very least denies low information voters the excuse of "I voted republican because all my democratic friends never say anything about the republican sucking. It's always about how disappointing the democrats are, so I figured the republican couldn't be that bad or my democratic friends would have said something."
-Voting no on the contract wasn't an intention to strike. Again, the rail operators were forced to make concessions. Also if I were in the shoes of some union members, even if I thought this was the best deal possible, I'd have voted no. For one thing the sick leave is a shit deal, but more importantly, all signs indicated that the deal imposed by Congress would be this one. There is the long shot that the operators could have caved and given more concessions. Even if they didn't, well couldn't get stuck with a worse deal and it denies the rail operators the narrative that the workers are largely okay with current terms. As for striking, I'm not entirely sure if I would vote yes on that or not. Thing is I'm not a psychopath that is A-OK with trampling others to get what I want and I would be plenty aware of how detrimental the supply shortage for certain things that are critical necessities for some. Honestly, the idea of deny people access to food, medicine and clean drinking water would likely sicken me and I'd sooner force Congress to impose the contract if the rail operators didn't give better terms than strike. I'd probably rather find a new job elsewhere after I got the back pay than try striking for a better. No all strikes are equal, some are easier to initiate because "fuck everyone that whines. We're getting a bad deal and they are only mad because it's inconvenient for them!" Others are much harder to start because even though management can go fuck themselves, it still feels really bad when you realize that there are a number of people being made to suffer, that have no real power over the situation. They can't make management less fuck awful and they have no means to turn to someone else for the critical needs that you and your fellow employees provide.
As it turns out, some shit in the world sucks because there isn't a nice clean solution that can be attempted. Not because it doesn't exist, but because there are so many assholes involved that there is no way to implement the better solution, the assholes won't allow it. So everyone that is trying to be decent has to settle for the least worse, but still shitty option.
lonelyahavaCall me Ahava ~~She/Her~~Move to New ZealandRegistered Userregular
So from what i'm getting is that the Rail workers should be willing to strike, for the good of the labor movement in this country, and be willing to stand outside in winter, on picket lines, working Strike Hours, in winter, while being progressively shit on nationally by media, corporations and Uncle Rons and Aunt Karens. They should be willing to do all of this, earning the ire of the nation, for likely less than 25% of their pay, while they still have rent and food and utility bills to pay.
All on the promise that some leftist groups on reddit might be able to put together a money fund for them, but who knows how trustworthy that is, or if they'll ever actually see any of that money.
But they should totally go ahead and endure all of that hardship so the Leftists in the country can push the accelerator down just that little bit more to stick it to "the liberals"?
So from what i'm getting is that the Rail workers should be willing to strike, for the good of the labor movement in this country, and be willing to stand outside in winter, on picket lines, working Strike Hours, in winter, while being progressively shit on nationally by media, corporations and Uncle Rons and Aunt Karens. They should be willing to do all of this, earning the ire of the nation, for likely less than 25% of their pay, while they still have rent and food and utility bills to pay.
All on the promise that some leftist groups on reddit might be able to put together a money fund for them, but who knows how trustworthy that is, or if they'll ever actually see any of that money.
But they should totally go ahead and endure all of that hardship so the Leftists in the country can push the accelerator down just that little bit more to stick it to "the liberals"?
Seems like an awfully big ask to me.
What are you talking about? They should strike if they feel strong enough about their demands to strike for them. From the beginning everyone who thinks the unions should strike should do so for themselves.
So from what i'm getting is that the Rail workers should be willing to strike, for the good of the labor movement in this country, and be willing to stand outside in winter, on picket lines, working Strike Hours, in winter, while being progressively shit on nationally by media, corporations and Uncle Rons and Aunt Karens. They should be willing to do all of this, earning the ire of the nation, for likely less than 25% of their pay, while they still have rent and food and utility bills to pay.
All on the promise that some leftist groups on reddit might be able to put together a money fund for them, but who knows how trustworthy that is, or if they'll ever actually see any of that money.
But they should totally go ahead and endure all of that hardship so the Leftists in the country can push the accelerator down just that little bit more to stick it to "the liberals"?
Seems like an awfully big ask to me.
if only there was some way the union itself could decide whether or not to go on strike, and have the full protection of the US legal system to do so
but now they don't have the choice, so congratulations, they're saved from themselves
So from what i'm getting is that the Rail workers should be willing to strike, for the good of the labor movement in this country, and be willing to stand outside in winter, on picket lines, working Strike Hours, in winter, while being progressively shit on nationally by media, corporations and Uncle Rons and Aunt Karens. They should be willing to do all of this, earning the ire of the nation, for likely less than 25% of their pay, while they still have rent and food and utility bills to pay.
All on the promise that some leftist groups on reddit might be able to put together a money fund for them, but who knows how trustworthy that is, or if they'll ever actually see any of that money.
But they should totally go ahead and endure all of that hardship so the Leftists in the country can push the accelerator down just that little bit more to stick it to "the liberals"?
Seems like an awfully big ask to me.
I think the workers should do what they want to do and if they want help I'd like to help them.
So from what i'm getting is that the Rail workers should be willing to strike, for the good of the labor movement in this country, and be willing to stand outside in winter, on picket lines, working Strike Hours, in winter, while being progressively shit on nationally by media, corporations and Uncle Rons and Aunt Karens. They should be willing to do all of this, earning the ire of the nation, for likely less than 25% of their pay, while they still have rent and food and utility bills to pay.
All on the promise that some leftist groups on reddit might be able to put together a money fund for them, but who knows how trustworthy that is, or if they'll ever actually see any of that money.
But they should totally go ahead and endure all of that hardship so the Leftists in the country can push the accelerator down just that little bit more to stick it to "the liberals"?
Seems like an awfully big ask to me.
Voting not to take the offered contract is separate from a vote to strike.
They had plenty of time to continue negotiations. Most contracts I've been involved in go right up to the week/day before the authorized strike is to take place. It's a huge game of chicken. By all accounts, any strike would have lasted a day or two before the collapse of the rail industry.
This is playing chicken except the government came in and made the unions hit the brake pedal long before they needed to. Now the oligarchs in the rail industry know they don't have to negotiate in even slightly good faith because the government will step in time and time again to ensure it doesn't shut down.
A bully was beating up children at school and stealing lunch money and a teacher came over and told them to stop beating up the other kids. In exchange the other kids have to give the bully the lunch money. The fair action would have been all of the kids getting together and telling the bully to go fuck themselves.
dispatch.o on
0
Options
lonelyahavaCall me Ahava ~~She/Her~~Move to New ZealandRegistered Userregular
My understanding from a few days ago was that the majority of the Unions had decided to accept a contract. But then that was rejected and pushed back to negotiations?
I am a few days behind as life happens. but my (admitted skimming) of the last 2 days of 500 posts in here have been some very vocal folks saying that the Unions should strike for the good of Labor in the country. And having gone through a long strike and the hell that was, I wanted to clarify that thinking so I could understand it.
The workers should absolutely do what they think is right. and I'll back that completely. It just read that a lot of people were championing the ideal of a strike without necessarily thinking about the effect on the workers.
My understanding from a few days ago was that the majority of the Unions had decided to accept a contract. But then that was rejected and pushed back to negotiations?
I am a few days behind as life happens. but my (admitted skimming) of the last 2 days of 500 posts in here have been some very vocal folks saying that the Unions should strike for the good of Labor in the country. And having gone through a long strike and the hell that was, I wanted to clarify that thinking so I could understand it.
The workers should absolutely do what they think is right. and I'll back that completely. It just read that a lot of people were championing the ideal of a strike without necessarily thinking about the effect on the workers.
From what I understand, the unions that voted not to accept the contract represent the majority of the workers.
it also feels like a pretty reasonable thing that a contract has to be accepted by every union it covers? like, i don't see how that's weird?
i'm sure a contract with a Fuck Those Guys clause might end up having pretty broad Not Those Guys support, but that's not any help to Those Guys who would be forced to accept a shitty contract that fucks them over. if the unions are allowed to split over something like that, it's only going to weaken the ability of workers to organize as a group.
Elendil on
+8
Options
lonelyahavaCall me Ahava ~~She/Her~~Move to New ZealandRegistered Userregular
Is it one big union or a mix of multiple unions?
because the mix is how the phone company in Maine/VT ended up screwing over the unions up there in 2016. The company offered a better deal to the IBEW and they voted to screw over the CAW members. Broke the strike and the CAW members had to go back with a crap contract as a result. After multiple months of striking.
So from what i'm getting is that the Rail workers should be willing to strike, for the good of the labor movement in this country, and be willing to stand outside in winter, on picket lines, working Strike Hours, in winter, while being progressively shit on nationally by media, corporations and Uncle Rons and Aunt Karens. They should be willing to do all of this, earning the ire of the nation, for likely less than 25% of their pay, while they still have rent and food and utility bills to pay.
All on the promise that some leftist groups on reddit might be able to put together a money fund for them, but who knows how trustworthy that is, or if they'll ever actually see any of that money.
But they should totally go ahead and endure all of that hardship so the Leftists in the country can push the accelerator down just that little bit more to stick it to "the liberals"?
Seems like an awfully big ask to me.
The main point is not what they should or shouldn't do - that's their choice. The issue is that they should have a choice.
Supporting *clap* labor *clap* means *clap* supporting *clap* their *clap* decisions
Edit: which means supporting the way they structure themselves in the negotiations and the way they decide to agree to or reject contracts.
Every time I see either assumptions about how many workers voted for or against this thing my eye twitches. Every time it's brought up how many unions voted for or against the contract my eye twitches. The unions decided their structure on this stuff. So respect that if they voted it down, it's because they didn't want it.
The problem with trying to look at this as black and white, is that you have to ignore a fuck ton of facts that are really inconvenient for that argument.
-I'll start with "but supplies argument is the same one used to break teacher strikes," this is so incredibly fucking wrong that I was going to ignore it, but it's worth noting that little Timmy not being able to go to school because of teachers strike is no where in the same ballpark as the shit show you'll get when people get ill for contaminated water, people have health emergencies because they can't get medications they need or people being unable to buy food. Like to even compare to two is both vile and dishonest and Hydropolo should be ashamed for even trying. I mean for FFS I get told I'm way too optimistic at times, but even I don't think for an instant that the public won't turn super fucking hard on the striking rail workers and the the government.
-The contract being imposed, is the one that forced rail operators to make concessions after the government got involved. Is it good, not really. The main issue is the time off and it should really be higher but the rail operators and the republican party are both fucking assholes. So the rail operators aren't going to offer it and thanks to the GOP being so fucking awful and both Manchin and Sinema being shit, the votes in the Senate do not exist. Manchin was the only demeocrat to vote against more leave time, but the howling seems mostly about how the democratic party betrayed labor. This is incredibly unfair to all the democratic senators that are voting the way people want to them to and then getting shat on by Manchin being shit. Also Sinema being shit. Also once again people are giving the GOP a free pass, "it's in their nature, so why bother getting mad." No! Fuck that! Making them fucking own their shit because their is no fucking excuse for them being so shitty. Also maybe some people voting for them will finally clue in that they do actually suck and stop voting. At the very least denies low information voters the excuse of "I voted republican because all my democratic friends never say anything about the republican sucking. It's always about how disappointing the democrats are, so I figured the republican couldn't be that bad or my democratic friends would have said something."
-Voting no on the contract wasn't an intention to strike. Again, the rail operators were forced to make concessions. Also if I were in the shoes of some union members, even if I thought this was the best deal possible, I'd have voted no. For one thing the sick leave is a shit deal, but more importantly, all signs indicated that the deal imposed by Congress would be this one. There is the long shot that the operators could have caved and given more concessions. Even if they didn't, well couldn't get stuck with a worse deal and it denies the rail operators the narrative that the workers are largely okay with current terms. As for striking, I'm not entirely sure if I would vote yes on that or not. Thing is I'm not a psychopath that is A-OK with trampling others to get what I want and I would be plenty aware of how detrimental the supply shortage for certain things that are critical necessities for some. Honestly, the idea of deny people access to food, medicine and clean drinking water would likely sicken me and I'd sooner force Congress to impose the contract if the rail operators didn't give better terms than strike. I'd probably rather find a new job elsewhere after I got the back pay than try striking for a better. No all strikes are equal, some are easier to initiate because "fuck everyone that whines. We're getting a bad deal and they are only mad because it's inconvenient for them!" Others are much harder to start because even though management can go fuck themselves, it still feels really bad when you realize that there are a number of people being made to suffer, that have no real power over the situation. They can't make management less fuck awful and they have no means to turn to someone else for the critical needs that you and your fellow employees provide.
As it turns out, some shit in the world sucks because there isn't a nice clean solution that can be attempted. Not because it doesn't exist, but because there are so many assholes involved that there is no way to implement the better solution, the assholes won't allow it. So everyone that is trying to be decent has to settle for the least worse, but still shitty option.
I like how you not only try to address me in third person instead of actually replying to me, but you decide to misconstrue what I said to "Shame" me.
to quote:
This is the same argument about teachers not striking write larger in terms of impact
I wasn't comparing the two, I was saying it's the same argument, just bigger. I said nothing about the effects, because I CLEARLY get that.
0
Options
No-QuarterNothing To FearBut Fear ItselfRegistered Userregular
Quick question- has any one here (for or against) actually been involved in striking and dealt with the hardship that that can cause?
So from what i'm getting is that the Rail workers should be willing to strike, for the good of the labor movement in this country, and be willing to stand outside in winter, on picket lines, working Strike Hours, in winter, while being progressively shit on nationally by media, corporations and Uncle Rons and Aunt Karens. They should be willing to do all of this, earning the ire of the nation, for likely less than 25% of their pay, while they still have rent and food and utility bills to pay.
All on the promise that some leftist groups on reddit might be able to put together a money fund for them, but who knows how trustworthy that is, or if they'll ever actually see any of that money.
But they should totally go ahead and endure all of that hardship so the Leftists in the country can push the accelerator down just that little bit more to stick it to "the liberals"?
Seems like an awfully big ask to me.
if only there was some way the union itself could decide whether or not to go on strike, and have the full protection of the US legal system to do so
but now they don't have the choice, so congratulations, they're saved from themselves
if only the unions were involved in drafting some kind of legislation that was created to prevent strikes in critical infrastructure industries because one group of workers holding the rest of the economy hostage instead of negotiating with their employer isn't a great outcome
and if only the process set out in that legislation was followed, as it has been dozens of times since it was passed
(they should wildcat, but yeah critical infrastructure folks around the world are legally prevented from striking)
SummaryJudgment on
Some days Blue wonders why anyone ever bothered making numbers so small; other days she supposes even infinity needs to start somewhere.
+2
Options
minor incidentexpert in a dying fieldnjRegistered Userregular
Honestly, a strike or not, while important now, is not the point.
The question is: Is the top-down imposition of this contract going to cause a lot more "quiet quitting", regular quitting and make worker shortage worse?
Answer: Yes, probably. That's going to be the new normal from now on.
+11
Options
No-QuarterNothing To FearBut Fear ItselfRegistered Userregular
Honestly, a strike or not, while important now, is not the point.
The question is: Is the top-down imposition of this contract going to cause a lot more "quiet quitting", regular quitting and make worker shortage worse?
Answer: Yes, probably. That's going to be the new normal from now on.
It is another interesting bit where the target of the discussion feels very telling. The argument appears to accept at face value that we cannot let the unions have autonomy that is democratically expressed. I reject this silly notion and framing. No one wants to force a strike. People are upset the removal of the one lever of power available to labor.
So from what i'm getting is that the Rail workers should be willing to strike, for the good of the labor movement in this country, and be willing to stand outside in winter, on picket lines, working Strike Hours, in winter, while being progressively shit on nationally by media, corporations and Uncle Rons and Aunt Karens. They should be willing to do all of this, earning the ire of the nation, for likely less than 25% of their pay, while they still have rent and food and utility bills to pay.
All on the promise that some leftist groups on reddit might be able to put together a money fund for them, but who knows how trustworthy that is, or if they'll ever actually see any of that money.
But they should totally go ahead and endure all of that hardship so the Leftists in the country can push the accelerator down just that little bit more to stick it to "the liberals"?
Seems like an awfully big ask to me.
if only there was some way the union itself could decide whether or not to go on strike, and have the full protection of the US legal system to do so
but now they don't have the choice, so congratulations, they're saved from themselves
if only the unions were involved in drafting some kind of legislation that was created to prevent strikes in critical infrastructure industries because one group of workers holding the rest of the economy hostage instead of negotiating with their employer isn't a great outcome
and if only the process set out in that legislation was followed, as it has been dozens of times since it was passed
(they should wildcat, but yeah critical infrastructure folks around the world are legally prevented from striking)
so to be clear, you think they should strike, disrupting infrastructure, you just want them to also be more exposed to retaliation, punishment, and strike breaking
Quick question- has any one here (for or against) actually been involved in striking and dealt with the hardship that that can cause?
is anyone insisting they should go to work doing 80 hour weeks and fearing for their job security every time they get sick?
So that's a "no", for you, then?
am i the one who says they shouldn't be allowed to decide for themselves?
Was I one of those people? If not, then whybthenfuck are you responding like this?
because it's a bad faith question?
+12
Options
minor incidentexpert in a dying fieldnjRegistered Userregular
It’s weird, right? It’s almost like if corporations treated people in critical infrastructure jobs as if they were critical they wouldn’t even have to worry so much about having legislation to prevent them from striking.
Ah, it stinks, it sucks, it's anthropologically unjust
Quick question- has any one here (for or against) actually been involved in striking and dealt with the hardship that that can cause?
is anyone insisting they should go to work doing 80 hour weeks and fearing for their job security every time they get sick?
So that's a "no", for you, then?
am i the one who says they shouldn't be allowed to decide for themselves?
Was I one of those people? If not, then whybthenfuck are you responding like this?
because it's a bad faith question?
It is also an irrelevant question. Whether any of us have experience striking is well beyond the point. No one is pushing for legislation forcing the workers to strike. It is simply asked that they be given the option to choose for themselves as they are the ones who have experienced the current working conditions.
+14
Options
minor incidentexpert in a dying fieldnjRegistered Userregular
Quick question- has any one here (for or against) actually been involved in striking and dealt with the hardship that that can cause?
is anyone insisting they should go to work doing 80 hour weeks and fearing for their job security every time they get sick?
So that's a "no", for you, then?
am i the one who says they shouldn't be allowed to decide for themselves?
Was I one of those people? If not, then whybthenfuck are you responding like this?
because it's a bad faith question?
It is also an irrelevant question. Whether any of us have experience striking is well beyond the point. No one is pushing for legislation forcing the workers to strike. It is simply asked that they be given the option to choose for themselves as they are the ones who have experienced the current working conditions.
Exactly. I’ve been a part of a strike before. That doesn’t give me any authority to say these unions should or shouldn’t strike. That’s ridiculous. Only the workers involved can make that call, because a strike is a Big Fucking Ordeal and not to be taken lightly. The only correct answer is “they should be able to strike if they choose to, and I support them if they make that choice.”
minor incident on
Ah, it stinks, it sucks, it's anthropologically unjust
it is absolutely possible that at the end of negotiations, the union would either end up settling for less than they hope for and less than they deserve, or would be unwilling to strike given their own circumstances and the overall circumstances of the union
but they are not being given the choice to strike, nor are they being given a contract that is acceptable to them, and acting like this is to their benefit is ridiculous.
+6
Options
No-QuarterNothing To FearBut Fear ItselfRegistered Userregular
Quick question- has any one here (for or against) actually been involved in striking and dealt with the hardship that that can cause?
is anyone insisting they should go to work doing 80 hour weeks and fearing for their job security every time they get sick?
So that's a "no", for you, then?
am i the one who says they shouldn't be allowed to decide for themselves?
Was I one of those people? If not, then whybthenfuck are you responding like this?
because it's a bad faith question?
If you thought that was true, then you could have just reported it instead of stamping your feet.
Meanwhile, I'll be over here with progressive apostates like... *scrolls up*... AOC, whom I would like to think knows a bit more about this stuff than the juicebox revolutionaries trying to castigate her.
because the mix is how the phone company in Maine/VT ended up screwing over the unions up there in 2016. The company offered a better deal to the IBEW and they voted to screw over the CAW members. Broke the strike and the CAW members had to go back with a crap contract as a result. After multiple months of striking.
So yeah, that is a thing that can happen.
It can, and it is a mix of 12 unions. I think, I have seen different numbers but that's what the articles I've read said.
However, the unions who agreed to the contract said they will strike in solidarity with those that did not, so as long as they stick to that, there is a united front.
Honestly, a strike or not, while important now, is not the point.
The question is: Is the top-down imposition of this contract going to cause a lot more "quiet quitting", regular quitting and make worker shortage worse?
Answer: Yes, probably. That's going to be the new normal from now on.
This is the stuff that might lead to more effective change. At a certain point things are going to break and it's going to be be entirely on the rail operators hands. At certain point people start asking why do you keep struggling to find workers to keep things flowing smoothly? You also hit a point where people start asking the government to take over the rail lines because the private market is clearly failing.
You hit a point where the rail operators won't have any viable hostages to take and in turn their political support won't have any cover to prop them up. They won't be able to claim that it's the unions preventing them from doing capitalism because it's the rail owners that are refusing to do things to make the jobs attractive. They can't blame it on the government because the government intervened to prevent past strikes. The can't use the threat that it'll damage the economy or cause distress for many because the goods are getting to where they need to be, not from a strike, but from a lack of manpower and lack entirely created by the rail operators. Once people find out they can't get their shit because no one wants to work a job where sick leave is nonexistent and PTO might as well not exist because everything is run on a skeleton crew, so people get called in on days they should have off. You'll see more people demand that people working those jobs are given that leave because they want there shit shipped and there are only the rail companies to blame.
So from what i'm getting is that the Rail workers should be willing to strike, for the good of the labor movement in this country, and be willing to stand outside in winter, on picket lines, working Strike Hours, in winter, while being progressively shit on nationally by media, corporations and Uncle Rons and Aunt Karens. They should be willing to do all of this, earning the ire of the nation, for likely less than 25% of their pay, while they still have rent and food and utility bills to pay.
All on the promise that some leftist groups on reddit might be able to put together a money fund for them, but who knows how trustworthy that is, or if they'll ever actually see any of that money.
But they should totally go ahead and endure all of that hardship so the Leftists in the country can push the accelerator down just that little bit more to stick it to "the liberals"?
Seems like an awfully big ask to me.
if only there was some way the union itself could decide whether or not to go on strike, and have the full protection of the US legal system to do so
but now they don't have the choice, so congratulations, they're saved from themselves
if only the unions were involved in drafting some kind of legislation that was created to prevent strikes in critical infrastructure industries because one group of workers holding the rest of the economy hostage instead of negotiating with their employer isn't a great outcome
and if only the process set out in that legislation was followed, as it has been dozens of times since it was passed
(they should wildcat, but yeah critical infrastructure folks around the world are legally prevented from striking)
so to be clear, you think they should strike, disrupting infrastructure, you just want them to also be more exposed to retaliation, punishment, and strike breaking
sure, okay
correct
I have the crazy idea that the government should follow the law, i.e. the RLA, and the procedure set out in it. And I don't think it's a great policy idea for a government to blow up the rest of the economy at the benefit of one sector of workers, especially when they're going to wear that like an albatross and immediately lose power to fascists, undoing whatever good they might have accomolished.
But I do think that the workers should wildcat strike or resign en masse if they want to / if they can afford the fight (or to ask for help beforehand to determine if it's possible), because their responsibility is different than government's responsibility, and it's not going to get better for them otherwise, and so they can claim victory all to themselves - the master's house will never be dismantled by master's tools, or something.
and if they do there should be a robust public support for their strike fund and I'll post proof of my donation.
SummaryJudgment on
Some days Blue wonders why anyone ever bothered making numbers so small; other days she supposes even infinity needs to start somewhere.
So from what i'm getting is that the Rail workers should be willing to strike, for the good of the labor movement in this country, and be willing to stand outside in winter, on picket lines, working Strike Hours, in winter, while being progressively shit on nationally by media, corporations and Uncle Rons and Aunt Karens. They should be willing to do all of this, earning the ire of the nation, for likely less than 25% of their pay, while they still have rent and food and utility bills to pay.
All on the promise that some leftist groups on reddit might be able to put together a money fund for them, but who knows how trustworthy that is, or if they'll ever actually see any of that money.
But they should totally go ahead and endure all of that hardship so the Leftists in the country can push the accelerator down just that little bit more to stick it to "the liberals"?
Seems like an awfully big ask to me.
if only there was some way the union itself could decide whether or not to go on strike, and have the full protection of the US legal system to do so
but now they don't have the choice, so congratulations, they're saved from themselves
if only the unions were involved in drafting some kind of legislation that was created to prevent strikes in critical infrastructure industries because one group of workers holding the rest of the economy hostage instead of negotiating with their employer isn't a great outcome
and if only the process set out in that legislation was followed, as it has been dozens of times since it was passed
(they should wildcat, but yeah critical infrastructure folks around the world are legally prevented from striking)
so to be clear, you think they should strike, disrupting infrastructure, you just want them to also be more exposed to retaliation, punishment, and strike breaking
sure, okay
correct
I have the crazy idea that the government should follow the law, i.e. the RLA, and the procedure set out in it. And I don't think it's a great policy idea for a government to blow up the rest of the economy at the benefit of one sector of workers, especially when they're going to wear that like an albatross and immediately lose power to fascists, undoing whatever good they might have accomolished.
But I do think that the workers should strike, because their responsibility is different than government's responsibility, and it's not going to get better for them otherwise, and so they can claim victory all to themselves - the master's house will never be dismantled by master's tools, or something.
and if they do there should be a robust public support for their strike fund and I'll post proof of my donation.
It is not a question of following the law; the government would be following the law to an equal extent if it did not choose to invoke the Railway Labor Act. Unless I am mistaken, it authorizes state intervention, but it does not mandate it.
Posts
A wildcat strike is essentially a resignation. If the unions support them in any way, the union will be sued until it can no longer function.
Edit: For clarity -
There is almost certainly a clause in the contract they will (be forced) to sign that prevents strike action while under contract. The union wont be able to go near people who are striking while under contract and the strikers will have no job protection and will be resigning their positions and/or being fired with cause as soon as they refuse to work or don't show up.
Edit2: I don't know of any unions with robust enough financials to even have a strike fund anymore. The best unions I've been in have only had low/no interest loans available for cost of living for people participating in an action that reduced their paychecks. Which doesn't really matter because of the previous edit.
Do the unions have enough in a strike fund to actually keep their employees covered at anything resembling living wage, or not?
Because i went through a strike where our Union did not have a robust Fund and we were down to about $60/week to try and live on in the 2nd month of the strike.
Democrats Abroad! || Vote From Abroad
A. Obviously unclear if there will be a strike
B. Can't confirm the veracity of said folks
Hoping that if there is one, we'll have some solid leads on how to assist.
Edit: It's a LOT of people. Maybe if it were just one work group or something? Even then I doubt it.
-I'll start with "but supplies argument is the same one used to break teacher strikes," this is so incredibly fucking wrong that I was going to ignore it, but it's worth noting that little Timmy not being able to go to school because of teachers strike is no where in the same ballpark as the shit show you'll get when people get ill for contaminated water, people have health emergencies because they can't get medications they need or people being unable to buy food. Like to even compare to two is both vile and dishonest and Hydropolo should be ashamed for even trying. I mean for FFS I get told I'm way too optimistic at times, but even I don't think for an instant that the public won't turn super fucking hard on the striking rail workers and the the government.
-The contract being imposed, is the one that forced rail operators to make concessions after the government got involved. Is it good, not really. The main issue is the time off and it should really be higher but the rail operators and the republican party are both fucking assholes. So the rail operators aren't going to offer it and thanks to the GOP being so fucking awful and both Manchin and Sinema being shit, the votes in the Senate do not exist. Manchin was the only demeocrat to vote against more leave time, but the howling seems mostly about how the democratic party betrayed labor. This is incredibly unfair to all the democratic senators that are voting the way people want to them to and then getting shat on by Manchin being shit. Also Sinema being shit. Also once again people are giving the GOP a free pass, "it's in their nature, so why bother getting mad." No! Fuck that! Making them fucking own their shit because their is no fucking excuse for them being so shitty. Also maybe some people voting for them will finally clue in that they do actually suck and stop voting. At the very least denies low information voters the excuse of "I voted republican because all my democratic friends never say anything about the republican sucking. It's always about how disappointing the democrats are, so I figured the republican couldn't be that bad or my democratic friends would have said something."
-Voting no on the contract wasn't an intention to strike. Again, the rail operators were forced to make concessions. Also if I were in the shoes of some union members, even if I thought this was the best deal possible, I'd have voted no. For one thing the sick leave is a shit deal, but more importantly, all signs indicated that the deal imposed by Congress would be this one. There is the long shot that the operators could have caved and given more concessions. Even if they didn't, well couldn't get stuck with a worse deal and it denies the rail operators the narrative that the workers are largely okay with current terms. As for striking, I'm not entirely sure if I would vote yes on that or not. Thing is I'm not a psychopath that is A-OK with trampling others to get what I want and I would be plenty aware of how detrimental the supply shortage for certain things that are critical necessities for some. Honestly, the idea of deny people access to food, medicine and clean drinking water would likely sicken me and I'd sooner force Congress to impose the contract if the rail operators didn't give better terms than strike. I'd probably rather find a new job elsewhere after I got the back pay than try striking for a better. No all strikes are equal, some are easier to initiate because "fuck everyone that whines. We're getting a bad deal and they are only mad because it's inconvenient for them!" Others are much harder to start because even though management can go fuck themselves, it still feels really bad when you realize that there are a number of people being made to suffer, that have no real power over the situation. They can't make management less fuck awful and they have no means to turn to someone else for the critical needs that you and your fellow employees provide.
As it turns out, some shit in the world sucks because there isn't a nice clean solution that can be attempted. Not because it doesn't exist, but because there are so many assholes involved that there is no way to implement the better solution, the assholes won't allow it. So everyone that is trying to be decent has to settle for the least worse, but still shitty option.
All on the promise that some leftist groups on reddit might be able to put together a money fund for them, but who knows how trustworthy that is, or if they'll ever actually see any of that money.
But they should totally go ahead and endure all of that hardship so the Leftists in the country can push the accelerator down just that little bit more to stick it to "the liberals"?
Seems like an awfully big ask to me.
Democrats Abroad! || Vote From Abroad
Yeah, I imagine it would end up entirely donations-based.
What are you talking about? They should strike if they feel strong enough about their demands to strike for them. From the beginning everyone who thinks the unions should strike should do so for themselves.
but now they don't have the choice, so congratulations, they're saved from themselves
I think the workers should do what they want to do and if they want help I'd like to help them.
Voting not to take the offered contract is separate from a vote to strike.
They had plenty of time to continue negotiations. Most contracts I've been involved in go right up to the week/day before the authorized strike is to take place. It's a huge game of chicken. By all accounts, any strike would have lasted a day or two before the collapse of the rail industry.
This is playing chicken except the government came in and made the unions hit the brake pedal long before they needed to. Now the oligarchs in the rail industry know they don't have to negotiate in even slightly good faith because the government will step in time and time again to ensure it doesn't shut down.
A bully was beating up children at school and stealing lunch money and a teacher came over and told them to stop beating up the other kids. In exchange the other kids have to give the bully the lunch money. The fair action would have been all of the kids getting together and telling the bully to go fuck themselves.
I am a few days behind as life happens. but my (admitted skimming) of the last 2 days of 500 posts in here have been some very vocal folks saying that the Unions should strike for the good of Labor in the country. And having gone through a long strike and the hell that was, I wanted to clarify that thinking so I could understand it.
The workers should absolutely do what they think is right. and I'll back that completely. It just read that a lot of people were championing the ideal of a strike without necessarily thinking about the effect on the workers.
Democrats Abroad! || Vote From Abroad
From what I understand, the unions that voted not to accept the contract represent the majority of the workers.
i'm sure a contract with a Fuck Those Guys clause might end up having pretty broad Not Those Guys support, but that's not any help to Those Guys who would be forced to accept a shitty contract that fucks them over. if the unions are allowed to split over something like that, it's only going to weaken the ability of workers to organize as a group.
because the mix is how the phone company in Maine/VT ended up screwing over the unions up there in 2016. The company offered a better deal to the IBEW and they voted to screw over the CAW members. Broke the strike and the CAW members had to go back with a crap contract as a result. After multiple months of striking.
So yeah, that is a thing that can happen.
Democrats Abroad! || Vote From Abroad
Edit: which means supporting the way they structure themselves in the negotiations and the way they decide to agree to or reject contracts.
Every time I see either assumptions about how many workers voted for or against this thing my eye twitches. Every time it's brought up how many unions voted for or against the contract my eye twitches. The unions decided their structure on this stuff. So respect that if they voted it down, it's because they didn't want it.
I like how you not only try to address me in third person instead of actually replying to me, but you decide to misconstrue what I said to "Shame" me.
to quote:
I wasn't comparing the two, I was saying it's the same argument, just bigger. I said nothing about the effects, because I CLEARLY get that.
Multiple people have said so, yes
if only the unions were involved in drafting some kind of legislation that was created to prevent strikes in critical infrastructure industries because one group of workers holding the rest of the economy hostage instead of negotiating with their employer isn't a great outcome
and if only the process set out in that legislation was followed, as it has been dozens of times since it was passed
(they should wildcat, but yeah critical infrastructure folks around the world are legally prevented from striking)
On this very page, no less.
The question is: Is the top-down imposition of this contract going to cause a lot more "quiet quitting", regular quitting and make worker shortage worse?
Answer: Yes, probably. That's going to be the new normal from now on.
So that's a "no", for you, then?
Was I one of those people? If not, then whybthenfuck are you responding like this?
It is another interesting bit where the target of the discussion feels very telling. The argument appears to accept at face value that we cannot let the unions have autonomy that is democratically expressed. I reject this silly notion and framing. No one wants to force a strike. People are upset the removal of the one lever of power available to labor.
sure, okay
It is also an irrelevant question. Whether any of us have experience striking is well beyond the point. No one is pushing for legislation forcing the workers to strike. It is simply asked that they be given the option to choose for themselves as they are the ones who have experienced the current working conditions.
When you jump into a conversation with a question that absolutely reads like a bad faith Gotcha, you’ve got to expect a little pushback.
Exactly. I’ve been a part of a strike before. That doesn’t give me any authority to say these unions should or shouldn’t strike. That’s ridiculous. Only the workers involved can make that call, because a strike is a Big Fucking Ordeal and not to be taken lightly. The only correct answer is “they should be able to strike if they choose to, and I support them if they make that choice.”
but they are not being given the choice to strike, nor are they being given a contract that is acceptable to them, and acting like this is to their benefit is ridiculous.
If you thought that was true, then you could have just reported it instead of stamping your feet.
Meanwhile, I'll be over here with progressive apostates like... *scrolls up*... AOC, whom I would like to think knows a bit more about this stuff than the juicebox revolutionaries trying to castigate her.
However, the unions who agreed to the contract said they will strike in solidarity with those that did not, so as long as they stick to that, there is a united front.
This is the stuff that might lead to more effective change. At a certain point things are going to break and it's going to be be entirely on the rail operators hands. At certain point people start asking why do you keep struggling to find workers to keep things flowing smoothly? You also hit a point where people start asking the government to take over the rail lines because the private market is clearly failing.
You hit a point where the rail operators won't have any viable hostages to take and in turn their political support won't have any cover to prop them up. They won't be able to claim that it's the unions preventing them from doing capitalism because it's the rail owners that are refusing to do things to make the jobs attractive. They can't blame it on the government because the government intervened to prevent past strikes. The can't use the threat that it'll damage the economy or cause distress for many because the goods are getting to where they need to be, not from a strike, but from a lack of manpower and lack entirely created by the rail operators. Once people find out they can't get their shit because no one wants to work a job where sick leave is nonexistent and PTO might as well not exist because everything is run on a skeleton crew, so people get called in on days they should have off. You'll see more people demand that people working those jobs are given that leave because they want there shit shipped and there are only the rail companies to blame.
correct
I have the crazy idea that the government should follow the law, i.e. the RLA, and the procedure set out in it. And I don't think it's a great policy idea for a government to blow up the rest of the economy at the benefit of one sector of workers, especially when they're going to wear that like an albatross and immediately lose power to fascists, undoing whatever good they might have accomolished.
But I do think that the workers should wildcat strike or resign en masse if they want to / if they can afford the fight (or to ask for help beforehand to determine if it's possible), because their responsibility is different than government's responsibility, and it's not going to get better for them otherwise, and so they can claim victory all to themselves - the master's house will never be dismantled by master's tools, or something.
and if they do there should be a robust public support for their strike fund and I'll post proof of my donation.