Your perspective makes me think of someone in 1860s Britain saying "No, I don't think slavery is good, but I do think the slaves should keep growing cotton because our cotton industry is very important to the economy"
Which is why it’s exhausting and basically impossible to have an adult discussion with you about these topics. Anyone less pure is automatically pictured as the worst type of person you can think of.
Not "anyone less pure." Anyone advocating restricting the democratic rights of others. Which, even if you believe it to be justified, is what you are doing.
I guess so, in this one specific defined case. I don’t like it, but yes I put the well-being of the tens of millions of people who would be impacted by a strike over the paid sick days in this contract.
I wish it wasn’t the case and I wish they had gotten it this time. But that’s not the reality in which we live. In most cases I would also pull the lever on the trolley problem and I would have killed Vision to save half the life in the universe. It’s me, history’s greatest monster.
Not to intrude, but this wasn't a binary problem. There were options other than "force the negotiated and the rejected contract" and "allow a strike to wreck havoc". Such as "put pressure on the railroad companies to include sick days by not putting anything besides legislation with sick days up for a vote".
Which could have backfired. But it would have at least been an attempt to do right here.
Death of Rats on
No I don't.
+20
Options
SummaryJudgmentGrab the hottest iron you can find, stride in the Tower’s front doorRegistered Userregular
edited December 2022
Something I'm trying to figure out, since the media doesn't do a great job with this:
RLA Bargaining Procedures. The RLA's procedural steps for major disputes are as follows:
- A party desiring to effect a change of rates of pay, work rules, or working conditions must give advance written notice (so called "Section 6 notices").
- The parties must confer, and if they fail to resolve the dispute, either or both may invoke the services of the NMB [the National Mediation Board, an independent federal agency that administers the RLA]. The NMB may also offer its services if it finds a labor emergency to exist.
- The NMB can keep the parties in mediation indefinitely, so long as it feels there is a reasonable prospect for settlement. However, if mediation fails, the NMB must endeavor to induce the parties to submit the controversy to binding arbitration, which can take place, however, only if both consent.
- If arbitration is rejected, the parties must maintain the status quo for a 30-day period. If the NMB determines that the dispute threatens "substantially to interrupt interstate commerce to a degree such as to deprive any section of the country of essential transportation service," the NMB shall notify the President, who may create a PEB to investigate the dispute for a 30-day period and issue non-binding recommendations for resolving the dispute. The parties typically agree to PEB requests for extensions of time to further study a dispute. The last stages of the conciliation procedures differ slightly for publicly funded and operated rail commuter carriers.
- While the dispute is working its way through these stages, and for an additional 30 days following the issuance of the PEB's report, the parties must maintain the status quo , and cannot utilize self-help measures. Although not specifically provided for in the RLA, the NMB typically works with the parties to try to induce a last-minute settlement or voluntary extension of the status quo.
- If, after the final 30-day status quo period has expired, a settlement has not been reached, the parties are free to resort to self-help and cannot be enjoined from doing so.
According to this there's ultimately always a way for labor to legally strike at the end of the RLA mediation process if a settlement isn't reached. How was labor ordered back to work? Did they actually settle with the railroads? Does anyone have any better information about what happened, procedurally?
SummaryJudgment on
Some days Blue wonders why anyone ever bothered making numbers so small; other days she supposes even infinity needs to start somewhere.
Your perspective makes me think of someone in 1860s Britain saying "No, I don't think slavery is good, but I do think the slaves should keep growing cotton because our cotton industry is very important to the economy"
Which is why it’s exhausting and basically impossible to have an adult discussion with you about these topics. Anyone less pure is automatically pictured as the worst type of person you can think of.
Not "anyone less pure." Anyone advocating restricting the democratic rights of others. Which, even if you believe it to be justified, is what you are doing.
I guess so, in this one specific defined case. I don’t like it, but yes I put the well-being of the tens of millions of people who would be impacted by a strike over the paid sick days in this contract.
I wish it wasn’t the case and I wish they had gotten it this time. But that’s not the reality in which we live. In most cases I would also pull the lever on the trolley problem and I would have killed Vision to save half the life in the universe. It’s me, history’s greatest monster.
I respect your straightforward response here. I disagree with the comparison to the trolley problem, because there were more than two possible paths here, and because the outcome of the options couldn't be known with certainty. And I disagree that the smooth running of the economy outweighs the importance of the right to strike (in these or generally). This seems like valuing the short term over the long term. Sacrificing or suppressing democratic rights is very dangerous for the long term development of society. And I think the history of how the RLA has been used demonstrates the lasting harm caused by the government breaking strikes.
According to this there's ultimately always a way for labor to legally strike at the end of the RLA mediation process if a settlement isn't reached. How was labor ordered back to work? Did they actually settle with the railroads? Does anyone have any better information about what happened, procedurally?
I have been wondering the same, and would love if someone could clear this up.
.At the same time, I will acknowledge that I would personally prefer that they have to accept the tentative agreement to the alternative of a strike, because the downstream effects would be so bad for so many other people. Is it fair? I guess not, and that sucks. But I still think it’s better overall to avoid the worst case scenario. If they can’t get the sick leave now, they can still build off the gains they made this time when the next set of negotiations start. That’s not ideal, but incremental progress is still progress. I know you and I differ on that opinion though.
Would *you* accept those working conditions?
Yeah, probably. Any other gotcha questions?
And yeah, your post is pretty horrific on a moral level, regardless of whether you are a socialist or not. "They should have to" is why your position is disgusting. You are an authoritarian.
Your personal opinion of me means nothing. Tell yourself in whatever flavor of evil you want. I could not possibly give a shit less.
You'd accept no sick days? Being penalized and eventually fired if you are ill or have to go to the doctor? I doubt it.
Is there a line of bad treatment past which you'd be unwilling to advocate forcing people to work? Or hell, what would your response be if they just all quit? That would have similarly negative economic effects. Should they be barred from quitting too?
Your perspective makes me think of someone in 1860s Britain saying "No, I don't think slavery is good, but I do think the slaves should keep growing cotton because our cotton industry is very important to the economy"
edit - in the end you are welcome to hold to these repugnant views. But if so, do not later whine when people who disagree don't vote for your political party or align themselves with your politics
Just because someone disagrees with you isn't sufficient reason to describe that person as repugnant. And going directly from talking about how the Rail Workers can quit to accusing Marathon of supporting slavery is repugnant.
And if you decide not to vote Dem because of Marathon, please let me know who you do support. Because their only seems to be one other option which is much, much worse and would fuck over the unions harder than advocating for them not to strike.
.At the same time, I will acknowledge that I would personally prefer that they have to accept the tentative agreement to the alternative of a strike, because the downstream effects would be so bad for so many other people. Is it fair? I guess not, and that sucks. But I still think it’s better overall to avoid the worst case scenario. If they can’t get the sick leave now, they can still build off the gains they made this time when the next set of negotiations start. That’s not ideal, but incremental progress is still progress. I know you and I differ on that opinion though.
Would *you* accept those working conditions?
Yeah, probably. Any other gotcha questions?
And yeah, your post is pretty horrific on a moral level, regardless of whether you are a socialist or not. "They should have to" is why your position is disgusting. You are an authoritarian.
Your personal opinion of me means nothing. Tell yourself in whatever flavor of evil you want. I could not possibly give a shit less.
You'd accept no sick days? Being penalized and eventually fired if you are ill or have to go to the doctor? I doubt it.
Is there a line of bad treatment past which you'd be unwilling to advocate forcing people to work? Or hell, what would your response be if they just all quit? That would have similarly negative economic effects. Should they be barred from quitting too?
Your perspective makes me think of someone in 1860s Britain saying "No, I don't think slavery is good, but I do think the slaves should keep growing cotton because our cotton industry is very important to the economy"
edit - in the end you are welcome to hold to these repugnant views. But if so, do not later whine when people who disagree don't vote for your political party or align themselves with your politics
Just because someone disagrees with you isn't sufficient reason to describe that person as repugnant. And going directly from talking about how the Rail Workers can quit to accusing Marathon of supporting slavery is repugnant.
And if you decide not to vote Dem because of Marathon, please let me know who you do support. Because their only seems to be one other option which is much, much worse and would fuck over the unions harder than advocating for them not to strike.
""Advocating for them not to strike" is dishonest phrasing, that's not what happened. "Prohibiting" and "advocating" are very different concepts.
My political decisions are not made on the basis of conversations in PA D&D. As to who I support, of late I've been working with the Socialist Equality Party. I've read good things about the Party for Socialism and Liberation too, but I don't know enough about them and so far I haven't interacted with their members. Prior to that I had joined the Communist Party USA, but unfortunately they never abandoned Stalin's command to ally with the Democrats, so that, among other issues, makes them non-viable as a communist party in my view.
There's a sort of, "Workers need to be brought in line for the public good!" thing going on and I don't really think it's intentional.
Why isn't it ever the companies that need to be brought in line?
Why does it seem okay to take away the workers option to take whatever action they collectively agree upon but stepping in and negotiating sick days with them in mind is just unthinkable?
It's not a binary choice. There are options beyond, "Let workers strike and crash the economy killing millions!" and "Force the workers to accept terms they've already voted against."
Edit:
Hey guys, the wealthy people all took a vote and I know it's crazy, but we decided the poor people should suffer instead of us. Democracy has spoken!
.At the same time, I will acknowledge that I would personally prefer that they have to accept the tentative agreement to the alternative of a strike, because the downstream effects would be so bad for so many other people. Is it fair? I guess not, and that sucks. But I still think it’s better overall to avoid the worst case scenario. If they can’t get the sick leave now, they can still build off the gains they made this time when the next set of negotiations start. That’s not ideal, but incremental progress is still progress. I know you and I differ on that opinion though.
Would *you* accept those working conditions?
Yeah, probably. Any other gotcha questions?
And yeah, your post is pretty horrific on a moral level, regardless of whether you are a socialist or not. "They should have to" is why your position is disgusting. You are an authoritarian.
Your personal opinion of me means nothing. Tell yourself in whatever flavor of evil you want. I could not possibly give a shit less.
You'd accept no sick days? Being penalized and eventually fired if you are ill or have to go to the doctor? I doubt it.
Is there a line of bad treatment past which you'd be unwilling to advocate forcing people to work? Or hell, what would your response be if they just all quit? That would have similarly negative economic effects. Should they be barred from quitting too?
Your perspective makes me think of someone in 1860s Britain saying "No, I don't think slavery is good, but I do think the slaves should keep growing cotton because our cotton industry is very important to the economy"
edit - in the end you are welcome to hold to these repugnant views. But if so, do not later whine when people who disagree don't vote for your political party or align themselves with your politics
Just because someone disagrees with you isn't sufficient reason to describe that person as repugnant. And going directly from talking about how the Rail Workers can quit to accusing Marathon of supporting slavery is repugnant.
And if you decide not to vote Dem because of Marathon, please let me know who you do support. Because their only seems to be one other option which is much, much worse and would fuck over the unions harder than advocating for them not to strike.
""Advocating for them not to strike" is dishonest phrasing, that's not what happened. "Prohibiting" and "advocating" are very different concepts.
My political decisions are not made on the basis of conversations in PA D&D. As to who I support, of late I've been working with the Socialist Equality Party. I've read good things about the Party for Socialism and Liberation too, but I don't know enough about them and so far I haven't interacted with their members. Prior to that I had joined the Communist Party USA, but unfortunately they never abandoned Stalin's command to ally with the Democrats, so that, among other issues, makes them non-viable as a communist party in my view.
What, Marathon, Zag, and others are prohibiting rail strikes?
I fully support the rail workers and if they strike, wildcat or official. But this idea that you're with us or you're against us is just going to result in everyone being against you.
.At the same time, I will acknowledge that I would personally prefer that they have to accept the tentative agreement to the alternative of a strike, because the downstream effects would be so bad for so many other people. Is it fair? I guess not, and that sucks. But I still think it’s better overall to avoid the worst case scenario. If they can’t get the sick leave now, they can still build off the gains they made this time when the next set of negotiations start. That’s not ideal, but incremental progress is still progress. I know you and I differ on that opinion though.
Would *you* accept those working conditions?
Yeah, probably. Any other gotcha questions?
And yeah, your post is pretty horrific on a moral level, regardless of whether you are a socialist or not. "They should have to" is why your position is disgusting. You are an authoritarian.
Your personal opinion of me means nothing. Tell yourself in whatever flavor of evil you want. I could not possibly give a shit less.
You'd accept no sick days? Being penalized and eventually fired if you are ill or have to go to the doctor? I doubt it.
Is there a line of bad treatment past which you'd be unwilling to advocate forcing people to work? Or hell, what would your response be if they just all quit? That would have similarly negative economic effects. Should they be barred from quitting too?
Your perspective makes me think of someone in 1860s Britain saying "No, I don't think slavery is good, but I do think the slaves should keep growing cotton because our cotton industry is very important to the economy"
edit - in the end you are welcome to hold to these repugnant views. But if so, do not later whine when people who disagree don't vote for your political party or align themselves with your politics
Just because someone disagrees with you isn't sufficient reason to describe that person as repugnant. And going directly from talking about how the Rail Workers can quit to accusing Marathon of supporting slavery is repugnant.
And if you decide not to vote Dem because of Marathon, please let me know who you do support. Because their only seems to be one other option which is much, much worse and would fuck over the unions harder than advocating for them not to strike.
""Advocating for them not to strike" is dishonest phrasing, that's not what happened. "Prohibiting" and "advocating" are very different concepts.
My political decisions are not made on the basis of conversations in PA D&D. As to who I support, of late I've been working with the Socialist Equality Party. I've read good things about the Party for Socialism and Liberation too, but I don't know enough about them and so far I haven't interacted with their members. Prior to that I had joined the Communist Party USA, but unfortunately they never abandoned Stalin's command to ally with the Democrats, so that, among other issues, makes them non-viable as a communist party in my view.
What, Marathon, Zag, and others are prohibiting rail strikes?
I fully support the rail workers and if they strike, wildcat or official. But this idea that you're with us or you're against us is just going to result in everyone being against you.
You said "And if you decide not to vote Dem because of Marathon, please let me know who you do support. Because their only seems to be one other option which is much, much worse and would fuck over the unions harder than advocating for them not to strike." That phrasing implies that we are talking about supporting or not supporting the parties in question, not people on this board. I don't support Democrats due to the actions of Democrats, not the words of Zagdrob. The Democrats, not Marathon, voted to break a strike. I don't know why you keep conflating these things.
I don't think it matters either way unless you're paving the road for something actionable. Here, we are simply reproducing the conflict in a local theater to better understand the issue, like most conversations about global politics.
So when you are accused of a lack of support, it's not a personal attack on you (because none of us matter to a substantial degree in terms of actual support), but is a notification that your sentiments are shared by people actually in power who fail to use that power to make a difference. Over the long term, this helps hone your definition of a leader in future situations where you may be closer to the limelight of power.
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
There's a sort of, "Workers need to be brought in line for the public good!" thing going on and I don't really think it's intentional.
Why isn't it ever the companies that need to be brought in line?
Why does it seem okay to take away the workers option to take whatever action they collectively agree upon but stepping in and negotiating sick days with them in mind is just unthinkable?
It's not a binary choice. There are options beyond, "Let workers strike and crash the economy killing millions!" and "Force the workers to accept terms they've already voted against."
Edit:
Hey guys, the wealthy people all took a vote and I know it's crazy, but we decided the poor people should suffer instead of us. Democracy has spoken!
Oh no, the framing of this in mass media is very intentional.
EDIT: As is the framing by Biden and other Democratic leadership.
As for "if you're not with us you're against us," in this case there were at least 3 options.
-impose a contract that the workers like on the companies (with us)
-stay uninvolved (neutral, or more neutral than the other choices)
-impose a contract on the workers and ban them from striking (against us)
I would certainly prefer that both parties in government, along with the companies themselves, were not against the railroad workers. Sadly that is not the case.
I have a feeling this is going to really set back Democrats relationship with unions. Like I won't blame them for not supporting the party going forward
If they're so important and the economy is so fragile that a strike can cripple it, they should probably give out paid sick leave huh. Like what kind of idiots are we taking these workers for? They have leverage. They should strike.
I think all workers should have adequate sick leave regardless of how critical they are to the economy or if a strike would cripple it.
I think striking now would be counterproductive and not get them sick days or sick days for workers as a whole. Disagreeing on this point doesn't mean I think workers are idiots, or that I'm evil or anti-worker.
I simply think that striking will not achieve what you think it will achieve and will cause more harm to the workers than not striking would at this point. In fact, through this whole process I don't think there is any point where actually striking would have resulted in the workers being in a better position than not striking.
So you think if they don't strike, they'll get sick leave? That seems extremely unlikely. It's only the threat and execution of industry action that will get them what they need and deserve.
You seem very comfortable in asking these workers to accept conditions you yourself would not want to work in. If they didn't look to strike, would you know or care who these people are? Strikes work and can get concessions. They should strike. And governments should not be able to force them to accept contracts.
No, you're putting words in my mouth and arguing against something I never said.
I never said not striking will get them sick leave.
I said I think that striking now will not only NOT get them sick leave, it will cause them more additional harm and hardship.
The working conditions I do, don't, have, haven't, would, or wouldn't accept is a non-sequitur and irrelevant. I don't think they should strike because I think it would be counterproductive and cause them more harm than not striking. I support them if they choose to strike regardless, but that is not what I hope they choose.
But they're already suffering. Why shouldn't they strike? Why would it make them suffer more?
Tell me you've never experienced a strike without telling me you've never experienced a strike.
Even though working conditions may suck, a strike will suck more. Strike pay is shit, it's stressful on workers and their families, and on a general scale the impacts on supply (e.g. clean water, power, food, consumer goods) will also impact the striking workers because they still participate in society.
That's assuming the striking workers aren't just fired and replaced or the workload isn't just shifted onto the non-striking workers, which is likely since a wildcat strike doesn't oblige all the other unions to strike and most of the unions supported this contract already.
Then there are longer term things like harming public perception from the stories we'll inevitably see about the unions ruining Christmas and making your gas and food prices go up because the media and American public as a whole generally suck.
There is always 'more' suffering to be had.
Oh hey I can speak to this!
Even though I'm not 100% caught up on the thread, I have been in a Union Strike. Happened 3 months after I was hired. I worked for a University that had a research hospital as part of the organization, and the IT, Office, sanitation, and food service workers were all in a union together. Our least paid folks (the sanitation and food service workers) were not being given appropriate PPO at the height of COVID, and were also denied raises. At the same time, our sister union, the nurses union, was looking to go on strike.
There was a lot of hemming and hawing from management and a few local media outlets about how this double strike would hurt patient outcomes and students, and if we actually cared about either demographic we should just take what they give us.
We striked for 2 weeks. I did not get strike pay. I got a 1% raise, but the nurses got a decent raise, our lowest paid workers got 4% and they got the PPO they needed to keep working safely in the Pandemic.
Don't let them fool you. If our system relies on workers suffering, then it is a bad system and need to be demolished and rebuilt.
There's a sort of, "Workers need to be brought in line for the public good!" thing going on and I don't really think it's intentional.
Why isn't it ever the companies that need to be brought in line?
Why does it seem okay to take away the workers option to take whatever action they collectively agree upon but stepping in and negotiating sick days with them in mind is just unthinkable?
It's not a binary choice. There are options beyond, "Let workers strike and crash the economy killing millions!" and "Force the workers to accept terms they've already voted against."
Edit:
Hey guys, the wealthy people all took a vote and I know it's crazy, but we decided the poor people should suffer instead of us. Democracy has spoken!
There aren't the votes to force a more labour friendly deal or some other option. We saw this directly in the Senate. That's why.
There's a sort of, "Workers need to be brought in line for the public good!" thing going on and I don't really think it's intentional.
Why isn't it ever the companies that need to be brought in line?
Why does it seem okay to take away the workers option to take whatever action they collectively agree upon but stepping in and negotiating sick days with them in mind is just unthinkable?
It's not a binary choice. There are options beyond, "Let workers strike and crash the economy killing millions!" and "Force the workers to accept terms they've already voted against."
Edit:
Hey guys, the wealthy people all took a vote and I know it's crazy, but we decided the poor people should suffer instead of us. Democracy has spoken!
There aren't the votes to force a more labour friendly deal or some other option. We saw this directly in the Senate. That's why.
No we didn't. We didn't see democrats present that as the only option. We saw them give themselves cover so they could say the "tried", but without it being the only option they didn't even try and force a more labor friendly deal.
I feel like even if there's an understandable logic behind their actions other than 'fuck labor, capital 4 lyfe', you could and should still blame the Democrats for being at best incompetent allies of labor by not making a show of it?
RLA Bargaining Procedures. The RLA's procedural steps for major disputes are as follows:
- A party desiring to effect a change of rates of pay, work rules, or working conditions must give advance written notice (so called "Section 6 notices").
- The parties must confer, and if they fail to resolve the dispute, either or both may invoke the services of the NMB [the National Mediation Board, an independent federal agency that administers the RLA]. The NMB may also offer its services if it finds a labor emergency to exist.
- The NMB can keep the parties in mediation indefinitely, so long as it feels there is a reasonable prospect for settlement. However, if mediation fails, the NMB must endeavor to induce the parties to submit the controversy to binding arbitration, which can take place, however, only if both consent.
- If arbitration is rejected, the parties must maintain the status quo for a 30-day period. If the NMB determines that the dispute threatens "substantially to interrupt interstate commerce to a degree such as to deprive any section of the country of essential transportation service," the NMB shall notify the President, who may create a PEB to investigate the dispute for a 30-day period and issue non-binding recommendations for resolving the dispute. The parties typically agree to PEB requests for extensions of time to further study a dispute. The last stages of the conciliation procedures differ slightly for publicly funded and operated rail commuter carriers.
- While the dispute is working its way through these stages, and for an additional 30 days following the issuance of the PEB's report, the parties must maintain the status quo , and cannot utilize self-help measures. Although not specifically provided for in the RLA, the NMB typically works with the parties to try to induce a last-minute settlement or voluntary extension of the status quo.
- If, after the final 30-day status quo period has expired, a settlement has not been reached, the parties are free to resort to self-help and cannot be enjoined from doing so.
According to this there's ultimately always a way for labor to legally strike at the end of the RLA mediation process if a settlement isn't reached. How was labor ordered back to work? Did they actually settle with the railroads? Does anyone have any better information about what happened, procedurally?
Here's a few more infographics that lay it out in a bit more detail, as well as detail the final part of negotiation, where Congress can, in fact, just end negotiations by imposing a deal that both sides have to accept.
You'll see from all of them that the choices are: Agreement, Self-Help after 30 days, or Congress acts.
As always, Republicans being terrible is Democrats' fault.
Oh come off it, the way this played out was entirely in control of the democrats.
The Senate exists, so it never is entirely in control of Democrats.
They didn't have to split off the sick days. They had time to give it a go with that as the only option.
Instead they gave into demands that weren't even made yet without a god damned fight. Biden, when asking congress to use their powers, didn't even ask for the sick days. As I said earlier in the thread, at some point democrats have to actually stand for something.
Not a good look. And I'm saying that as someone who is seriously considering Biden as a contender for best U.S. President in my lifetime. Obviously, that's a judgment I'll reserve for when he leaves the White House.
Which is my best hope at this point, that Biden comes through with his statement of "we'll get sick days done later". But I have low confidence in that actually taking place.
The Republicans didn't force Biden to do this preemptively, a week out before the actual deadline. The workers could have tried applying more pressure to capital to get a better deal before the deadline. Biden could have waited until Dec 9th, until the strike deadline was already here.
But no, this is the end result of years of bad faith foot-dragging in the guise of negotiation on the part of the railroad owners, because they knew whose side Washington would take.
Your perspective makes me think of someone in 1860s Britain saying "No, I don't think slavery is good, but I do think the slaves should keep growing cotton because our cotton industry is very important to the economy"
Which is why it’s exhausting and basically impossible to have an adult discussion with you about these topics. Anyone less pure is automatically pictured as the worst type of person you can think of.
Not "anyone less pure." Anyone advocating restricting the democratic rights of others. Which, even if you believe it to be justified, is what you are doing.
I guess so, in this one specific defined case. I don’t like it, but yes I put the well-being of the tens of millions of people who would be impacted by a strike over the paid sick days in this contract.
I wish it wasn’t the case and I wish they had gotten it this time. But that’s not the reality in which we live. In most cases I would also pull the lever on the trolley problem and I would have killed Vision to save half the life in the universe. It’s me, history’s greatest monster.
I share the concern of the well being of these millions as well. Looking at the big picture, I think that at this point a strike is the least bad way to go about keeping critical supplies flowing. The owners have intentionally structured the working of the railroad in a way that is unsustainable because it maximally extracts money in the short term. A system that cannot allow for sick days is a system on it’s way to collapse, and quickly. To fix it, the owners are going to have to be cowed. That can be done now with a strike, or later when the system collapses. As bad as a strike would be, it would be less bad than a collapse.
I could be wrong. I’m making some guess about how the future might turn out. But this is my honest opinion. The plight of the rail worker is, in ways large and small, shared by everyone not of the owner class, the .01%. Solidarity is survival.
As always, Republicans being terrible is Democrats' fault.
Oh come off it, the way this played out was entirely in control of the democrats.
The Senate exists, so it never is entirely in control of Democrats.
Sure, but splitting the bills in the House was an unforced error. The Democrats deserve to get dragged for this.
Looks at the vote in the house on the second bill. Not splitting means it almost certainly fails in the Senate. It's not an error if your goal is for something to pass.
As always, Republicans being terrible is Democrats' fault.
Oh come off it, the way this played out was entirely in control of the democrats.
The Senate exists, so it never is entirely in control of Democrats.
Sure, but splitting the bills in the House was an unforced error. The Democrats deserve to get dragged for this.
Looks at the vote in the house on the second bill. Not splitting means it almost certainly fails in the Senate. It's not an error if your goal is for something to pass.
If all it does is piss of leftist and result in a strike Biden get’s blamed for anyway, then it is indeed an error.
As always, Republicans being terrible is Democrats' fault.
Oh come off it, the way this played out was entirely in control of the democrats.
The Senate exists, so it never is entirely in control of Democrats.
Sure, but splitting the bills in the House was an unforced error. The Democrats deserve to get dragged for this.
Looks at the vote in the house on the second bill. Not splitting means it almost certainly fails in the Senate. It's not an error if your goal is for something to pass.
Eh. There was time to pass a complete bill and if it failed pass the worse one.
As always, Republicans being terrible is Democrats' fault.
Oh come off it, the way this played out was entirely in control of the democrats.
The Senate exists, so it never is entirely in control of Democrats.
Sure, but splitting the bills in the House was an unforced error. The Democrats deserve to get dragged for this.
Looks at the vote in the house on the second bill. Not splitting means it almost certainly fails in the Senate. It's not an error if your goal is for something to pass.
It is an error if you (as in, the party) wants to rely on the good will of organized labor.
As always, Republicans being terrible is Democrats' fault.
Oh come off it, the way this played out was entirely in control of the democrats.
The Senate exists, so it never is entirely in control of Democrats.
Sure, but splitting the bills in the House was an unforced error. The Democrats deserve to get dragged for this.
Looks at the vote in the house on the second bill. Not splitting means it almost certainly fails in the Senate. It's not an error if your goal is for something to pass.
That "something to pass" being a forced contract onto workers, that they had rejected via vote, in order to prevent them from legally striking.
So we agree that they accomplished their goal. But I think their goal was a bad one!
As always, Republicans being terrible is Democrats' fault.
Oh come off it, the way this played out was entirely in control of the democrats.
The Senate exists, so it never is entirely in control of Democrats.
Sure, but splitting the bills in the House was an unforced error. The Democrats deserve to get dragged for this.
Looks at the vote in the house on the second bill. Not splitting means it almost certainly fails in the Senate. It's not an error if your goal is for something to pass.
Maybe the goal should be more than to pass "something". Maybe they should have shot for passing something good.
How does this work? They can't be held accountable for what passed because of republicans, they couldn't try for better because? Like, shoot for what you want then work back from that if you can't get that.
Don't just throw up your hands and go "this is reality folks, nothing we can do besides the bad thing! Better luck next time! Vote D eat at Arby's!"
the bill to force the contract and prevent the strike passed with 80 votes
you didn't get 60 votes for the other because no shit you didn't, it was a show vote that wasn't supposed to pass
but yes, it was not an "error"
Look at the House votes. The first bill gets to 290 for the no-sick-leave version and then drops to almost entirely party-line 221 for the sick leave version. You didn't get to 60 for the sick leave version in the Senate for the same reason the sick leave version barely passed the House and got only a few Republican votes. You were not gonna get 10+ Republicans to vote on the version of the bill with sick leave no matter what. But like in the House, the version that was gonna pass gets a bunch of extra Republicans jumping on board because their votes no longer matter.
As always, Republicans being terrible is Democrats' fault.
Oh come off it, the way this played out was entirely in control of the democrats.
The Senate exists, so it never is entirely in control of Democrats.
Sure, but splitting the bills in the House was an unforced error. The Democrats deserve to get dragged for this.
Looks at the vote in the house on the second bill. Not splitting means it almost certainly fails in the Senate. It's not an error if your goal is for something to pass.
Eh. There was time to pass a complete bill and if it failed pass the worse one.
I think the fear was that the Senate would rewrite the bill, pass it and then kick it back to the House and say "Pass that and we aren't voting for anything else". So Pelosi jammed them first.
As always, Republicans being terrible is Democrats' fault.
Oh come off it, the way this played out was entirely in control of the democrats.
The Senate exists, so it never is entirely in control of Democrats.
Again, the vote that people are most upset about is the bill banning the strike, the bill both parties voted for, not the obvious attempt at distraction that was the sick day bill.
And, if they had really wanted to add sick days, they could have, you know, attempted a political battle, like a real political party. Instead of splitting the bills. Instead of Biden literally asking for the bill to be passed without change. The President literally told everyone not to try to add sick days or anything! Did you miss this somehow?
There is just no way to make this a GOP specific thing without ignoring or rewriting what actually happened.
the bill to force the contract and prevent the strike passed with 80 votes
you didn't get 60 votes for the other because no shit you didn't, it was a show vote that wasn't supposed to pass
but yes, it was not an "error"
Look at the House votes. The first bill gets to 290 for the no-sick-leave version and then drops to almost entirely party-line 221 for the sick leave version. You didn't get to 60 for the sick leave version in the Senate for the same reason the sick leave version barely passed the House and got only a few Republican votes. You were not gonna get 10+ Republicans to vote on the version of the bill with sick leave no matter what. But like in the House, the version that was gonna pass gets a bunch of extra Republicans jumping on board because their votes no longer matter.
As always, Republicans being terrible is Democrats' fault.
Oh come off it, the way this played out was entirely in control of the democrats.
The Senate exists, so it never is entirely in control of Democrats.
Sure, but splitting the bills in the House was an unforced error. The Democrats deserve to get dragged for this.
Looks at the vote in the house on the second bill. Not splitting means it almost certainly fails in the Senate. It's not an error if your goal is for something to pass.
Eh. There was time to pass a complete bill and if it failed pass the worse one.
I think the fear was that the Senate would rewrite the bill, pass it and then kick it back to the House and say "Pass that and we aren't voting for anything else". So Pelosi jammed them first.
Nothing you said contradicts what Elendil just said. In fact, your post is tacitly in agreement with Elendil, that the goal was to pass the bill to force the contract and prevent the strike.
If the goal was to try and get the workers paid sick leave, they would have made it a single bill - because if it didn't pass, the workers would still be able to go on strike to pressure capital into granting them their paid sick leave.
As always, Republicans being terrible is Democrats' fault.
Oh come off it, the way this played out was entirely in control of the democrats.
The Senate exists, so it never is entirely in control of Democrats.
Sure, but splitting the bills in the House was an unforced error. The Democrats deserve to get dragged for this.
Looks at the vote in the house on the second bill. Not splitting means it almost certainly fails in the Senate. It's not an error if your goal is for something to pass.
Maybe the goal should be more than to pass "something". Maybe they should have shot for passing something good.
How does this work? They can't be held accountable for what passed because of republicans, they couldn't try for better because? Like, shoot for what you want then work back from that if you can't get that.
Don't just throw up your hands and go "this is reality folks, nothing we can do besides the bad thing! Better luck next time! Vote D eat at Arby's!"
The consistent theme in almost every defence made of Democrats on any subject is to depict them as never having any agency whatsoever.
Posts
Not to intrude, but this wasn't a binary problem. There were options other than "force the negotiated and the rejected contract" and "allow a strike to wreck havoc". Such as "put pressure on the railroad companies to include sick days by not putting anything besides legislation with sick days up for a vote".
Which could have backfired. But it would have at least been an attempt to do right here.
https://railroads.dot.gov/sites/fra.dot.gov/files/fra_net/1647/Railway Labor Act Overview.pdf
According to this there's ultimately always a way for labor to legally strike at the end of the RLA mediation process if a settlement isn't reached. How was labor ordered back to work? Did they actually settle with the railroads? Does anyone have any better information about what happened, procedurally?
I have been wondering the same, and would love if someone could clear this up.
Just because someone disagrees with you isn't sufficient reason to describe that person as repugnant. And going directly from talking about how the Rail Workers can quit to accusing Marathon of supporting slavery is repugnant.
And if you decide not to vote Dem because of Marathon, please let me know who you do support. Because their only seems to be one other option which is much, much worse and would fuck over the unions harder than advocating for them not to strike.
My political decisions are not made on the basis of conversations in PA D&D. As to who I support, of late I've been working with the Socialist Equality Party. I've read good things about the Party for Socialism and Liberation too, but I don't know enough about them and so far I haven't interacted with their members. Prior to that I had joined the Communist Party USA, but unfortunately they never abandoned Stalin's command to ally with the Democrats, so that, among other issues, makes them non-viable as a communist party in my view.
Why isn't it ever the companies that need to be brought in line?
Why does it seem okay to take away the workers option to take whatever action they collectively agree upon but stepping in and negotiating sick days with them in mind is just unthinkable?
It's not a binary choice. There are options beyond, "Let workers strike and crash the economy killing millions!" and "Force the workers to accept terms they've already voted against."
Edit:
Hey guys, the wealthy people all took a vote and I know it's crazy, but we decided the poor people should suffer instead of us. Democracy has spoken!
What, Marathon, Zag, and others are prohibiting rail strikes?
I fully support the rail workers and if they strike, wildcat or official. But this idea that you're with us or you're against us is just going to result in everyone being against you.
So when you are accused of a lack of support, it's not a personal attack on you (because none of us matter to a substantial degree in terms of actual support), but is a notification that your sentiments are shared by people actually in power who fail to use that power to make a difference. Over the long term, this helps hone your definition of a leader in future situations where you may be closer to the limelight of power.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Oh no, the framing of this in mass media is very intentional.
EDIT: As is the framing by Biden and other Democratic leadership.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
-impose a contract that the workers like on the companies (with us)
-stay uninvolved (neutral, or more neutral than the other choices)
-impose a contract on the workers and ban them from striking (against us)
I would certainly prefer that both parties in government, along with the companies themselves, were not against the railroad workers. Sadly that is not the case.
Oh hey I can speak to this!
Even though I'm not 100% caught up on the thread, I have been in a Union Strike. Happened 3 months after I was hired. I worked for a University that had a research hospital as part of the organization, and the IT, Office, sanitation, and food service workers were all in a union together. Our least paid folks (the sanitation and food service workers) were not being given appropriate PPO at the height of COVID, and were also denied raises. At the same time, our sister union, the nurses union, was looking to go on strike.
There was a lot of hemming and hawing from management and a few local media outlets about how this double strike would hurt patient outcomes and students, and if we actually cared about either demographic we should just take what they give us.
We striked for 2 weeks. I did not get strike pay. I got a 1% raise, but the nurses got a decent raise, our lowest paid workers got 4% and they got the PPO they needed to keep working safely in the Pandemic.
Don't let them fool you. If our system relies on workers suffering, then it is a bad system and need to be demolished and rebuilt.
There aren't the votes to force a more labour friendly deal or some other option. We saw this directly in the Senate. That's why.
No we didn't. We didn't see democrats present that as the only option. We saw them give themselves cover so they could say the "tried", but without it being the only option they didn't even try and force a more labor friendly deal.
Oh come off it, the way this played out was entirely in control of the democrats.
The Senate exists, so it never is entirely in control of Democrats.
Here's a few more infographics that lay it out in a bit more detail, as well as detail the final part of negotiation, where Congress can, in fact, just end negotiations by imposing a deal that both sides have to accept.
You'll see from all of them that the choices are: Agreement, Self-Help after 30 days, or Congress acts.
https://raillaborfacts.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/NRLC_CB_Flowchart_V3b.pdf
https://nmb.gov/NMB_Application/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/med-flowchart.pdf
http://www.bletns.com/RLA-flow-chart.pdf
These are just the first 3 I found, looks like there's a lot more.
They didn't have to split off the sick days. They had time to give it a go with that as the only option.
Instead they gave into demands that weren't even made yet without a god damned fight. Biden, when asking congress to use their powers, didn't even ask for the sick days. As I said earlier in the thread, at some point democrats have to actually stand for something.
Doing nothing was an option.
Yes, it works well for Republicans.
Yes. It clearly has. See the current state of affairs in like a billion ways.
Which is my best hope at this point, that Biden comes through with his statement of "we'll get sick days done later". But I have low confidence in that actually taking place.
Sure, but splitting the bills in the House was an unforced error. The Democrats deserve to get dragged for this.
But no, this is the end result of years of bad faith foot-dragging in the guise of negotiation on the part of the railroad owners, because they knew whose side Washington would take.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
I share the concern of the well being of these millions as well. Looking at the big picture, I think that at this point a strike is the least bad way to go about keeping critical supplies flowing. The owners have intentionally structured the working of the railroad in a way that is unsustainable because it maximally extracts money in the short term. A system that cannot allow for sick days is a system on it’s way to collapse, and quickly. To fix it, the owners are going to have to be cowed. That can be done now with a strike, or later when the system collapses. As bad as a strike would be, it would be less bad than a collapse.
I could be wrong. I’m making some guess about how the future might turn out. But this is my honest opinion. The plight of the rail worker is, in ways large and small, shared by everyone not of the owner class, the .01%. Solidarity is survival.
Looks at the vote in the house on the second bill. Not splitting means it almost certainly fails in the Senate. It's not an error if your goal is for something to pass.
you didn't get 60 votes for the other because no shit you didn't, it was a show vote that wasn't supposed to pass
but yes, it was not an "error"
If all it does is piss of leftist and result in a strike Biden get’s blamed for anyway, then it is indeed an error.
Eh. There was time to pass a complete bill and if it failed pass the worse one.
It is an error if you (as in, the party) wants to rely on the good will of organized labor.
That "something to pass" being a forced contract onto workers, that they had rejected via vote, in order to prevent them from legally striking.
So we agree that they accomplished their goal. But I think their goal was a bad one!
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
Maybe the goal should be more than to pass "something". Maybe they should have shot for passing something good.
How does this work? They can't be held accountable for what passed because of republicans, they couldn't try for better because? Like, shoot for what you want then work back from that if you can't get that.
Don't just throw up your hands and go "this is reality folks, nothing we can do besides the bad thing! Better luck next time! Vote D eat at Arby's!"
Look at the House votes. The first bill gets to 290 for the no-sick-leave version and then drops to almost entirely party-line 221 for the sick leave version. You didn't get to 60 for the sick leave version in the Senate for the same reason the sick leave version barely passed the House and got only a few Republican votes. You were not gonna get 10+ Republicans to vote on the version of the bill with sick leave no matter what. But like in the House, the version that was gonna pass gets a bunch of extra Republicans jumping on board because their votes no longer matter.
I think the fear was that the Senate would rewrite the bill, pass it and then kick it back to the House and say "Pass that and we aren't voting for anything else". So Pelosi jammed them first.
And, if they had really wanted to add sick days, they could have, you know, attempted a political battle, like a real political party. Instead of splitting the bills. Instead of Biden literally asking for the bill to be passed without change. The President literally told everyone not to try to add sick days or anything! Did you miss this somehow?
There is just no way to make this a GOP specific thing without ignoring or rewriting what actually happened.
No it wasn’t. It was an attempt to set up a new narrative that absolves the party of blame. Thankfully it doesn't seem to have worked very well.
Nothing you said contradicts what Elendil just said. In fact, your post is tacitly in agreement with Elendil, that the goal was to pass the bill to force the contract and prevent the strike.
If the goal was to try and get the workers paid sick leave, they would have made it a single bill - because if it didn't pass, the workers would still be able to go on strike to pressure capital into granting them their paid sick leave.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar