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.
Elendil seems to be implying that if they'd only passed the version with sick leave, that could have passed. Because the version that did pass got 80 votes so clearly there's a lot of head room there. I'm saying this isn't true because all the headroom would vanish. You pass only one version, the Senate is just gonna rewrite it and kick it back to the House.
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.
Elendil seems to be implying that if they'd only passed the version with sick leave, that could have passed. Because the version that did pass got 80 votes so clearly there's a lot of head room there. I'm saying this isn't true because all the headroom would vanish. You pass only one version, the Senate is just gonna rewrite it and kick it back to the House.
So then you have a political battle. If there is deadlock and a strike happens, suddenly there is a powerful incentive for the opposition to cave as well. And then it is a matter of who caves first - opposition party + companies or governing party + unions.
However the Democratic Party would never wage a political struggle on behalf of striking workers like that. I'm just describing what a party worth supporting might do. In this case it was governing party + opposition party + companies vs unions.
i can't guarantee the bill would have passed with the sick leave if it was the only one on the table. it depends too much on the individual stock portfolios and donor lists of too many people to make a real guess. what is clear is that there's broad support for preventing the strike from industry and certainly finance as well.
what is even more apparent is that that throwing up your hands and asking nicely for the sick time was never going to work, and until reading through this thread, i would not have known who this dog and pony show was intended to actually convince.
the 80 yes votes in the senate is probably underselling it, too; there were a number of no-shows and one senator was out with COVID. actual support was probably closer to like 85
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.
They could have voted it down and sent the original bad bill back
I suspect that if there was political thought here, it was that any disruption at all would be blamed on the Democrats and would hurt them worse than anything they might gain by holding the line for show votes.
Which is stupid, because a lot of voters may be dumb enough to think that way but they're also too dumb to hold onto a grudge until 2024. Instead they pissed off people more likely to hold those grudges and also more likely to like, do more than just show up at the polls.
I suspect that if there was political thought here, it was that any disruption at all would be blamed on the Democrats and would hurt them worse than anything they might gain by holding the line for show votes.
Which is stupid, because a lot of voters may be dumb enough to think that way but they're also too dumb to hold onto a grudge until 2024. Instead they pissed off people more likely to hold those grudges and also more likely to like, do more than just show up at the polls.
It is almost as if they don't care about alienating a statistical miniscule number of people who votes they consider already theirs regardless of how they act.
They moistly come out at night, moistly.
+2
Options
SummaryJudgmentGrab the hottest iron you can find, stride in the Tower’s front doorRegistered Userregular
edited December 2022
A government is never going to give it's stamp - and shouldn't - on letting a private fight go on such that the country loses access to clean drinking water, among the rest of the damage to the economy. It's never going to approve gambling with everyone else's chips like that. And especially not against the context of labour's representative to the NMB mediation agreeing to the contract that congress ultimately mandated.
Like, what's even the point of sending a delegation to the NMB if they weren't empowered to actually negotiate.
The 49% of workers who wanted to avoid a strike can continue working and aren't forced into a strike they didn't want due to the solidarity clause, and with PRS meaning headcount is so tight, the 51% can take their lump sum two years of 24% back pay raises (thanks, Biden and NMB mediators!) , resign, and the union can negotiate from there for the workers who remain + return-to-industry negotiations for the workers who quit since the RR's can't handle the resignations / quiet quitting.
The back pay coming to the workers from the NMB mediation contract (an average of $16k a worker and due within 60 days, per NPR reporting a statement from RR owners) that was approved means they'll have a war chest for wildcatting or resignations.
SummaryJudgment on
Some days Blue wonders why anyone ever bothered making numbers so small; other days she supposes even infinity needs to start somewhere.
A government is never going to give it's stamp - and shouldn't - on letting a private fight go on such that the country loses access to clean drinking water, among the rest of the damage to the economy. It's never going to approve gambling with everyone else's chips like that. And especially not against the context of labour's representative to the NMB mediation agreeing to the contract that congress ultimately mandated.
Then intervene on the workers side. If the opposition blocks you, fight them.
But frankly I think you're right, the US government will not allow workers in crucial sectors to strike. So join a revolutionary socialist party, comrade.
Like, what's even the point of sending a delegation to the NMB if they weren't empowered to actually negotiate.
You send the representative, they receive a draft deal, then take it back to their unions to decide upon by agreed procedure. The negotiatior being empowered to accept or decline a deal on the spot is obviously not acceptable, the entire point here is democracy.
A government that forces laborers into unacceptable working conditions and doesn't allow them their right to withhold their labor is an authoritarian government.
+25
Options
SummaryJudgmentGrab the hottest iron you can find, stride in the Tower’s front doorRegistered Userregular
A government that forces laborers into unacceptable working conditions and doesn't allow them their right to withhold their labor is an authoritarian government.
Are there Democratic Socialist government countries who refuse to let infrastructure workers legally strike because the failure outcomes of negotiations between labor and capital re: availability of food and clean water, or power or heat, etc. are an unacceptable moral hazard to the rest of the country?
Like, functional governments don't say "well shit, it was Evrart Claire vs Wild Pines, and now we have a number of Flint, MIs re: potable water. Whoops."
SummaryJudgment on
Some days Blue wonders why anyone ever bothered making numbers so small; other days she supposes even infinity needs to start somewhere.
A government that forces laborers into unacceptable working conditions and doesn't allow them their right to withhold their labor is an authoritarian government.
Are there Democratic Socialist government countries who refuse to let infrastructure workers legally strike because the failure outcomes of negotiations between labor and capital re: availability of food and clean water, or power or heat, etc. are an unacceptable moral hazard to the rest of the country?
Like, functional governments don't say "well shit, it was Evrart Claire vs Wild Pines, and now we have a number of Flint, MIs re: potable water. Whoops."
While the UK and Germany are not socialist, the former has had repeated massive rail strikes since last summer. The Tories were going to try to implement a different sort of anti-strike law, I don't know if they did so, maybe a Brit could inform. Germany last year had massive rail strikes that lasted a couple of months on and off, the conservative party there tried to push something like an RLA but I don't think they did so, and the workers made gains.
edit - hah, from googling the UK's strikes:
Ministers have called on Britain’s biggest rail union to be “altruistic” and suspend strike action over Christmas and new year amid warnings that it will cost the economy more than £1.7 billion.
Be altruistic! Same shit everywhere. UK and US railworkers need to start talking to each other.
A government that forces laborers into unacceptable working conditions and doesn't allow them their right to withhold their labor is an authoritarian government.
Are there Democratic Socialist government countries who refuse to let infrastructure workers legally strike because the failure outcomes of negotiations between labor and capital re: availability of food and clean water, or power or heat, etc. are an unacceptable moral hazard to the rest of the country?
Like, functional governments don't say "well shit, it was Evrart Claire vs Wild Pines, and now we have a number of Flint, MIs re: potable water. Whoops."
I think you'll find the answer to be something along the lines of "There are no true Democratic Socialist countries"
A government that forces laborers into unacceptable working conditions and doesn't allow them their right to withhold their labor is an authoritarian government.
Are there Democratic Socialist government countries who refuse to let infrastructure workers legally strike because the failure outcomes of negotiations between labor and capital re: availability of food and clean water, or power or heat, etc. are an unacceptable moral hazard to the rest of the country?
Like, functional governments don't say "well shit, it was Evrart Claire vs Wild Pines, and now we have a number of Flint, MIs re: potable water. Whoops."
I think you'll find the answer to be something along the lines of "There are no true Democratic Socialist countries"
There is a post literally above this with examples from Europe of rail strikes.
The real problem in this whole situation is that it should work the other way around. In order for the government to force a contract, it should be forced on the owners, not labor. If they're going to get involved at all.
As in there should be something put forth by the unions that members do agree on once the government steps into negotiations. If an agreement between that and what capital wants can't be reached within a timeframe then the contract that the unions agreed upon initially should be implemented.
I doubt many people talking here actively want the unions to have to go through a strike. Most people don't want the economic consequences of that to happen either. It's what was passed that's the problem. It's that the government, via overriding the wishes of labor, is forcing something they didn't agree to, instead of forcing something the owners didn't agree to. And they didn't have to do it that way. There is no law that requires them to do this. There is one that gives them the power to do so, but not one that requires it to be a deal that doesn't meet union wishes. And there's nothing that requires that Democrats only present bills they know will pass. Presenting ones they know wouldn't could potentially change the tune of negotiations on the part of the owners. Bring them back to the table. By not even attempting (in any serious manner) to improve the contract they forced they've shown what's the only thing that is important to them, the trickle down effects of a strike. Their only care for labor is that they don't disrupt things, not that they get a fair deal. They also don't care if a major and critical industry is structured in a way that's sustainable and maintainable. It wouldn't surprise me if in 10 years this legislation comes up frequently in discussions about the downfall of the rail industry in the United States. Railroad workers are hard to replace, making the job undesirable as any form of career from the outside looking in has been exasperating these issues. This legislation cements the issues.
While I wouldn't relish a strike happening, I fully would have supported the unions doing so. I would still. And I haven't read a solid reason why this had to be handled the way it was besides that current Democratic leadership didn't care to put up any sort of fight to try and get better for workers in a "too big to fail" "critical infostructure" industry and are completely short sighted as to the knock-on effects this will have down the road.
If 2024 is, as has been implied several times in this thread, an important date when it comes to retention of workers in the industry and a worker shortage that can't be handles happen Democrats have just handed the Republicans an easy thing to point to when they end up pretending to be the friend of the little guy in 2024. Democrats own, from start to finish, this situation. Their president demanded it, their house passed it, and their senate passed it. If this causes the effects of a strike but without a strike be sure that this will be used in 2024 to make sure the house isn't the only thing Democrats lose.
Don't worry everyone the new B2 will be able to bomb everywhere that isn't the Midwest with the corn shipments needed
+6
Options
HacksawJ. Duggan Esq.Wrestler at LawRegistered Userregular
Do I want a strike?
Not 100%, no.
Will I support a strike?
Oh hell yes you better believe I will.
Should the government have intervened on behalf of the workers instead of the owners?
10000% absolutely yes.
Is this the fault of Dems for jumping the gun and betraying organized labor yet again for the benefit of their corporate overlords?
Baby you know it's true. 😎
Will I support a strike?
Oh hell yes you better believe I will.
Should the government have intervened on behalf of the workers instead of the owners?
10000% absolutely yes.
Is this the fault of Dems for jumping the gun and betraying organized labor yet again for the benefit of their corporate overlords?
Baby you know it's true. 😎
This is honestly kind of amazing.
The vast majority of the thread appears to largely already agree on the first three points.
The only real arguments seem to be about point four which of course it is because "I want to complain about the democrats!" is like fuckin' thread herpes or something.
+1
Options
HacksawJ. Duggan Esq.Wrestler at LawRegistered Userregular
Dems took the initiative to screw the workers, didn't they? I think I'm well within my rights to complain about them for that.
Will I support a strike?
Oh hell yes you better believe I will.
Should the government have intervened on behalf of the workers instead of the owners?
10000% absolutely yes.
Is this the fault of Dems for jumping the gun and betraying organized labor yet again for the benefit of their corporate overlords?
Baby you know it's true. 😎
This is honestly kind of amazing.
The vast majority of the thread appears to largely already agree on the first three points.
The only real arguments seem to be about point four which of course it is because "I want to complain about the democrats!" is like fuckin' thread herpes or something.
The Ford government just tried to right to work the entirety of Ontario and failed bad
Because people told em to fuck off
Like stand for something once in a while it pays off p
Dems took the initiative to screw the workers, didn't they? I think I'm well within my rights to complain about them for that.
No, the entire government did, and they did it because of republicans. Of course you're free to complain about whatever you want, but given the realities whinging about democrats is incredibly pointless.
idk, it sounds like a lot of people in this thread would not in fact support a strike, except in the Michael Scott ‘I declare bankruptcy’ kind of way.
I don't know what to say other than do better with reading what people say rather than what you want to argue with? I personally said I think it's far past time for nationalization and almost everyone else has expressed opinions that they wish the workers were getting a better deal. Literally no one in here has been anywhere near "I think it's good this is how this has played out!"
I think, after reading the last couple days' worth of posts in this thread, the importance of the media is undersold in this thread. Also, how fucking slanted for the rich our major media is, and how that interacts with dipshit 'independent' voters.
I think, if the rail workers shut down the country, there is zero chance the public would blame the companies.
Yes, the public would be wrong. The rail workers are entirely justified in striking and have been throughout. The public does not know and does not care.
I suspect that if there was political thought here, it was that any disruption at all would be blamed on the Democrats and would hurt them worse than anything they might gain by holding the line for show votes.
Which is stupid, because a lot of voters may be dumb enough to think that way but they're also too dumb to hold onto a grudge until 2024. Instead they pissed off people more likely to hold those grudges and also more likely to like, do more than just show up at the polls.
It is almost as if they don't care about alienating a statistical miniscule number of people who votes they consider already theirs regardless of how they act.
It's more that as long as organized labor has the hardhat problem, it's going to undercut their political power.
I think, after reading the last couple days' worth of posts in this thread, the importance of the media is undersold in this thread. Also, how fucking slanted for the rich our major media is, and how that interacts with dipshit 'independent' voters.
I think, if the rail workers shut down the country, there is zero chance the public would blame the companies.
Yes, the public would be wrong. The rail workers are entirely justified in striking and have been throughout. The public does not know and does not care.
As the son of a PATCO striker, this is etched into my bones.
Magus`The fun has been DOUBLED!Registered Userregular
I think a big problem is that the general public is dumb as rocks and wouldn't likely put up with any notable disruptions, especially considering how shitty people already perceive their own lives to be. Also, Republican voters hold ire for much longer than non-Republicans do and you better believe that moneyed interests are drooling to have a Tea Party 2.0 style influx of political action. Especially if it could replace the somewhat "effective" but incredibly chaotic nature of the current Qanon obsessed dumpster fire politicians. Same awful beliefs but less chance of losing races because someone said Hitler wasn't really that bad.
Another thing is, the railroad companies have extremely easy access to abundant resources that they could use to divert blame via mass media and no rich person is ever gonna worry about water quality or maternity supplies. They can literally and figuratively afford to not give a shit not only due to that, but also because the government would send in their own workers to cover gaps. Not that they would be able to effectively do the job at all, but it would be free(ish?) for the companies.
This is the expected (and, for many, the desired) outcome of capitalism and decades of eroding worker's rights and decimating public education. It's really hard to win fights when one side has so much more power on an individual level that you would need 95%+ of the country to basically stop working in order to force the remainder's hands. I also wouldn't put it past our government (especially Republican) to not use force.
I feel they should strike but I have no faith in our systems to actually reward their actions. I agree that the railroad should be nationalized (along with utilities, the internet, housing, etc.) but I'm not sure how that is even possible given our political climate for the foreseeable future. People are either voting against their own interests or not engaging at all politically and those of us who are left don't exactly have much available to us outside arguing amongst ourselves it seems. Does that mean we are doomed? I don't think so/certainly hope not, but you can't undo a century of ratfucking in one election cycle.
I suspect that if there was political thought here, it was that any disruption at all would be blamed on the Democrats and would hurt them worse than anything they might gain by holding the line for show votes.
Which is stupid, because a lot of voters may be dumb enough to think that way but they're also too dumb to hold onto a grudge until 2024. Instead they pissed off people more likely to hold those grudges and also more likely to like, do more than just show up at the polls.
It is almost as if they don't care about alienating a statistical miniscule number of people who votes they consider already theirs regardless of how they act.
It's more that as long as organized labor has the hardhat problem, it's going to undercut their political power.
This event really has nothing to do with hard hats, it is remarkable that you have somehow worked your way to "the workers are racist" despite that.
edit - like, conservative attitudes among some workers is indeed a problem in the broad scheme of things, and one that socialists are well aware of, but how is that relevant here?
Dems took the initiative to screw the workers, didn't they? I think I'm well within my rights to complain about them for that.
No, the entire government did, and they did it because of republicans. Of course you're free to complain about whatever you want, but given the realities whinging about democrats is incredibly pointless.
idk, it sounds like a lot of people in this thread would not in fact support a strike, except in the Michael Scott ‘I declare bankruptcy’ kind of way.
I don't know what to say other than do better with reading what people say rather than what you want to argue with? I personally said I think it's far past time for nationalization and almost everyone else has expressed opinions that they wish the workers were getting a better deal. Literally no one in here has been anywhere near "I think it's good this is how this has played out!"
The problem here is this only makes sense if Democrats do not have agency. They do! They chose to put forth the bill. The chose to vote for the bill. Many in this thread are now choosing to give them shit for it. It is kinda weird that this is so controversial. I can see where people would disagree with the desired outcomes. I don't see how you can argue the Democrats did nothing wrong here. They control every lever of power involved, and used all of them to accomplish this goal.
Dems took the initiative to screw the workers, didn't they? I think I'm well within my rights to complain about them for that.
No, the entire government did, and they did it because of republicans. Of course you're free to complain about whatever you want, but given the realities whinging about democrats is incredibly pointless.
idk, it sounds like a lot of people in this thread would not in fact support a strike, except in the Michael Scott ‘I declare bankruptcy’ kind of way.
I don't know what to say other than do better with reading what people say rather than what you want to argue with? I personally said I think it's far past time for nationalization and almost everyone else has expressed opinions that they wish the workers were getting a better deal. Literally no one in here has been anywhere near "I think it's good this is how this has played out!"
The problem here is this only makes sense if Democrats do not have agency. They do! They chose to put forth the bill. The chose to vote for the bill. Many in this thread are now choosing to give them shit for it. It is kinda weird that this is so controversial. I can see where people would disagree with the desired outcomes. I don't see how you can argue the Democrats did nothing wrong here. They control every lever of power involved, and used all of them to accomplish this goal.
Yeah, again, Biden asked congress to pass the bill without sick days. I don't think anyone has argued that the GOP hands are clean, they obviously share the blame. but there is no way to look at what happened and place blame solely on Republicans.
Kaputa on
+2
Options
SummaryJudgmentGrab the hottest iron you can find, stride in the Tower’s front doorRegistered Userregular
Dems took the initiative to screw the workers, didn't they? I think I'm well within my rights to complain about them for that.
No, the entire government did, and they did it because of republicans. Of course you're free to complain about whatever you want, but given the realities whinging about democrats is incredibly pointless.
idk, it sounds like a lot of people in this thread would not in fact support a strike, except in the Michael Scott ‘I declare bankruptcy’ kind of way.
I don't know what to say other than do better with reading what people say rather than what you want to argue with? I personally said I think it's far past time for nationalization and almost everyone else has expressed opinions that they wish the workers were getting a better deal. Literally no one in here has been anywhere near "I think it's good this is how this has played out!"
The problem here is this only makes sense if Democrats do not have agency. They do! They chose to put forth the bill. The chose to vote for the bill. Many in this thread are now choosing to give them shit for it. It is kinda weird that this is so controversial. I can see where people would disagree with the desired outcomes. I don't see how you can argue the Democrats did nothing wrong here. They control every lever of power involved, and used all of them to accomplish this goal.
The Democrats put forth the bill that the union and corp delegates agreed on during the last round of mediation with the NMB.
And then the union said, wait, our workers didn't ratify the agreement, so we can't actually stick to what we agreed to.
And so after it turned out that the delegates weren't actually authorized to make an agreement -- that's the functional result of sending a delegation to an emergency negotiation when union membership wouldn't vote to ratify the agreement -- the clock ran out before they could do another round of mediation.
If the union hadn't reached an agreement with the corp during the mediation congress would not have been able to pass the resolution ordering them to implement what they already agreed to.
And if they wanted to retain the right to strike, the delegation shouldn't have agreed to a settlement during the mediation!
RLA Bargaining Procedures. The RLA's procedural steps for major disputes are as follows:
...
- 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.
Bluntly: it's no wonder congress passed a bill telling them not to renege on their agreement. Otherwise they've just wasted months of time and now everything is fucked up for everyone else who aren't parties to this negotiation.
SummaryJudgment on
Some days Blue wonders why anyone ever bothered making numbers so small; other days she supposes even infinity needs to start somewhere.
Dems took the initiative to screw the workers, didn't they? I think I'm well within my rights to complain about them for that.
No, the entire government did, and they did it because of republicans. Of course you're free to complain about whatever you want, but given the realities whinging about democrats is incredibly pointless.
idk, it sounds like a lot of people in this thread would not in fact support a strike, except in the Michael Scott ‘I declare bankruptcy’ kind of way.
I don't know what to say other than do better with reading what people say rather than what you want to argue with? I personally said I think it's far past time for nationalization and almost everyone else has expressed opinions that they wish the workers were getting a better deal. Literally no one in here has been anywhere near "I think it's good this is how this has played out!"
The problem here is this only makes sense if Democrats do not have agency. They do! They chose to put forth the bill. The chose to vote for the bill. Many in this thread are now choosing to give them shit for it. It is kinda weird that this is so controversial. I can see where people would disagree with the desired outcomes. I don't see how you can argue the Democrats did nothing wrong here. They control every lever of power involved, and used all of them to accomplish this goal.
The Democrats put forth the bill that the union and corp delegates agreed on during the last round of mediation with the NMB.
And then the union said, wait, our workers didn't ratify the agreement, so we can't actually stick to what we agreed to.
And so after it turned out that the delegates weren't actually authorized to make an agreement -- that's the functional result of sending a delegation to an emergency negotiation when union membership wouldn't vote to ratify the agreement -- the clock ran out before they could do another round of mediation.
If the union hadn't reached an agreement with the corp during the mediation congress would not have been able to pass the resolution ordering them to implement what they already agreed to.
And if they wanted to retain the right to strike, the delegation shouldn't have agreed to a settlement during the mediation!
RLA Bargaining Procedures. The RLA's procedural steps for major disputes are as follows:
...
- 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.
Bluntly: it's no wonder congress passed a bill telling them not to renege on their agreement. Otherwise they've just wasted months of time and now everything is fucked up for everyone else who aren't parties to this negotiation.
This is blatantly false! If the unions had agreed to it there wouldn't need to be any legislation at all. This is an absurdly ridiculous argument.
Edit: I wanted to leave it here, but it is honestly just incomprehensible that this is a real assertion. Negotiations where each party has to go back to their side for final approval isn't even odd. That is how negotiations work with large groups or anyone by proxy.
Dems took the initiative to screw the workers, didn't they? I think I'm well within my rights to complain about them for that.
No, the entire government did, and they did it because of republicans. Of course you're free to complain about whatever you want, but given the realities whinging about democrats is incredibly pointless.
idk, it sounds like a lot of people in this thread would not in fact support a strike, except in the Michael Scott ‘I declare bankruptcy’ kind of way.
I don't know what to say other than do better with reading what people say rather than what you want to argue with? I personally said I think it's far past time for nationalization and almost everyone else has expressed opinions that they wish the workers were getting a better deal. Literally no one in here has been anywhere near "I think it's good this is how this has played out!"
The problem here is this only makes sense if Democrats do not have agency. They do! They chose to put forth the bill. The chose to vote for the bill. Many in this thread are now choosing to give them shit for it. It is kinda weird that this is so controversial. I can see where people would disagree with the desired outcomes. I don't see how you can argue the Democrats did nothing wrong here. They control every lever of power involved, and used all of them to accomplish this goal.
The Democrats put forth the bill that the union and corp delegates agreed on during the last round of mediation with the NMB.
And then the union said, wait, our workers didn't ratify the agreement, so we can't actually stick to what we agreed to.
And so after it turned out that the delegates weren't actually authorized to make an agreement -- that's the functional result of sending a delegation to an emergency negotiation when union membership wouldn't vote to ratify the agreement -- the clock ran out before they could do another round of mediation.
If the union hadn't reached an agreement with the corp during the mediation congress would not have been able to pass the resolution ordering them to implement what they already agreed to.
And if they wanted to retain the right to strike, the delegation shouldn't have agreed to a settlement during the mediation!
RLA Bargaining Procedures. The RLA's procedural steps for major disputes are as follows:
...
- 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.
Bluntly: it's no wonder congress passed a bill telling them not to renege on their agreement. Otherwise they've just wasted months of time and now everything is fucked up for everyone else who aren't parties to this negotiation.
There was no "reneging on their agreement." The fact that the workers in the unions have to vote to approve or reject the proposed contract is an accepted part of the process that all parties were fully aware of beforehand.
When labor and management's representatives agree to a contract it's a tentative agreement, conditional on approval from the membership of the union. That's how it always works.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
+27
Options
SummaryJudgmentGrab the hottest iron you can find, stride in the Tower’s front doorRegistered Userregular
Dems took the initiative to screw the workers, didn't they? I think I'm well within my rights to complain about them for that.
No, the entire government did, and they did it because of republicans. Of course you're free to complain about whatever you want, but given the realities whinging about democrats is incredibly pointless.
idk, it sounds like a lot of people in this thread would not in fact support a strike, except in the Michael Scott ‘I declare bankruptcy’ kind of way.
I don't know what to say other than do better with reading what people say rather than what you want to argue with? I personally said I think it's far past time for nationalization and almost everyone else has expressed opinions that they wish the workers were getting a better deal. Literally no one in here has been anywhere near "I think it's good this is how this has played out!"
The problem here is this only makes sense if Democrats do not have agency. They do! They chose to put forth the bill. The chose to vote for the bill. Many in this thread are now choosing to give them shit for it. It is kinda weird that this is so controversial. I can see where people would disagree with the desired outcomes. I don't see how you can argue the Democrats did nothing wrong here. They control every lever of power involved, and used all of them to accomplish this goal.
The Democrats put forth the bill that the union and corp delegates agreed on during the last round of mediation with the NMB.
And then the union said, wait, our workers didn't ratify the agreement, so we can't actually stick to what we agreed to.
And so after it turned out that the delegates weren't actually authorized to make an agreement -- that's the functional result of sending a delegation to an emergency negotiation when union membership wouldn't vote to ratify the agreement -- the clock ran out before they could do another round of mediation.
If the union hadn't reached an agreement with the corp during the mediation congress would not have been able to pass the resolution ordering them to implement what they already agreed to.
And if they wanted to retain the right to strike, the delegation shouldn't have agreed to a settlement during the mediation!
RLA Bargaining Procedures. The RLA's procedural steps for major disputes are as follows:
...
- 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.
Bluntly: it's no wonder congress passed a bill telling them not to renege on their agreement. Otherwise they've just wasted months of time and now everything is fucked up for everyone else who aren't parties to this negotiation.
This is blatantly false! If the unions had agreed to it there wouldn't need to be any legislation at all. This is an absurdly ridiculous argument.
Edit: I wanted to leave it here, but it is honestly just incomprehensible that this is a real assertion. Negotiations where each party has to go back to their side for final approval isn't even odd. That is how negotiations work with large groups or anyone by proxy.
In General.—Consistent with the purposes of the Railway Labor Act (45 U.S.C. 151 et seq.) to avoid any labor dispute that threatens substantially to interrupt interstate commerce to a degree such as to deprive any section of the country of essential transportation service, the most recent tentative agreements, side letters, and local carrier agreements entered into by the covered parties that have not been ratified before the date of enactment of this joint resolution (including tentative agreements, side letters, and local carrier agreements that have failed ratification)
Either the delegates to the NMB shouldn't have made the agreement, or the unions should have approved a resolution saying that they would vote to ratify what the delegates agreed to.
Some days Blue wonders why anyone ever bothered making numbers so small; other days she supposes even infinity needs to start somewhere.
The tentative agreement was put up for union members to vote to accept or reject.
Several of the unions voted to reject it. The strike was scheduled to start December 9th, there was still time for more negotiations to be initiated.
Then Congress intervened and forced the contract that had been rejected on them anyway!
If anyone has reneged on their agreement, it is the Democratic-controlled government which mediated a tentative agreement and said they would allow workers to decide if they accepted the agreement or not, all under the ostensible auspices of "the most pro-Labor President of all time."
SummaryJudgmentGrab the hottest iron you can find, stride in the Tower’s front doorRegistered Userregular
If the corps had agreed to a sick day bill during the NMB mediation and then reneged and said "well, our delegates didn't have authority and we need to take this to the board and the board votes no" you'd be howling
Some days Blue wonders why anyone ever bothered making numbers so small; other days she supposes even infinity needs to start somewhere.
If the corps had agreed to a sick day bill during the NMB mediation and then reneged and said "well, our delegates didn't have authority and we need to take this to the board and the board votes no" you'd be howling
Yes, because I think people deserve sick days as a default. Not because of some absurd notion that negotiators get to bind everyone to a deal without following the proper procedures. I wouldn't be claiming they backed down. I would be calling them out on their monstrous demands just like I am now.
Edit: Actually a better point. No one has disputed the legality of Congressional action. They have voiced anger at it. "But they follow the rules!" is incredibly unpersuasive. They followed the rules in a way that harmed labor. Their actions led to harm to labor led to my anger. Legality and authority never come into it.
If the corps had agreed to a sick day bill during the NMB mediation and then reneged and said "well, our delegates didn't have authority and we need to take this to the board and the board votes no" you'd be howling
Howling for a strike, maybe. In that hypothetical scenario, the union (ideally) says "ok then fuck you."
Again, every party knew that a union vote was part of the process beforehand, because it is always part of the process*. There was no trick here.
*or in the rare case where it isn't, when union leadership jams through a shitty contract without a legitimate vote, it becomes a damaging scandal and a fiasco. See: Teamsters under Hoffa Jr. and UPS
Posts
Elendil seems to be implying that if they'd only passed the version with sick leave, that could have passed. Because the version that did pass got 80 votes so clearly there's a lot of head room there. I'm saying this isn't true because all the headroom would vanish. You pass only one version, the Senate is just gonna rewrite it and kick it back to the House.
However the Democratic Party would never wage a political struggle on behalf of striking workers like that. I'm just describing what a party worth supporting might do. In this case it was governing party + opposition party + companies vs unions.
what is even more apparent is that that throwing up your hands and asking nicely for the sick time was never going to work, and until reading through this thread, i would not have known who this dog and pony show was intended to actually convince.
They could have voted it down and sent the original bad bill back
Which is stupid, because a lot of voters may be dumb enough to think that way but they're also too dumb to hold onto a grudge until 2024. Instead they pissed off people more likely to hold those grudges and also more likely to like, do more than just show up at the polls.
It is almost as if they don't care about alienating a statistical miniscule number of people who votes they consider already theirs regardless of how they act.
Like, what's even the point of sending a delegation to the NMB if they weren't empowered to actually negotiate.
The 49% of workers who wanted to avoid a strike can continue working and aren't forced into a strike they didn't want due to the solidarity clause, and with PRS meaning headcount is so tight, the 51% can take their lump sum two years of 24% back pay raises (thanks, Biden and NMB mediators!) , resign, and the union can negotiate from there for the workers who remain + return-to-industry negotiations for the workers who quit since the RR's can't handle the resignations / quiet quitting.
The back pay coming to the workers from the NMB mediation contract (an average of $16k a worker and due within 60 days, per NPR reporting a statement from RR owners) that was approved means they'll have a war chest for wildcatting or resignations.
But frankly I think you're right, the US government will not allow workers in crucial sectors to strike. So join a revolutionary socialist party, comrade.
You send the representative, they receive a draft deal, then take it back to their unions to decide upon by agreed procedure. The negotiatior being empowered to accept or decline a deal on the spot is obviously not acceptable, the entire point here is democracy.
Are there Democratic Socialist government countries who refuse to let infrastructure workers legally strike because the failure outcomes of negotiations between labor and capital re: availability of food and clean water, or power or heat, etc. are an unacceptable moral hazard to the rest of the country?
Like, functional governments don't say "well shit, it was Evrart Claire vs Wild Pines, and now we have a number of Flint, MIs re: potable water. Whoops."
edit - hah, from googling the UK's strikes:
Be altruistic! Same shit everywhere. UK and US railworkers need to start talking to each other.
I think you'll find the answer to be something along the lines of "There are no true Democratic Socialist countries"
There is a post literally above this with examples from Europe of rail strikes.
As in there should be something put forth by the unions that members do agree on once the government steps into negotiations. If an agreement between that and what capital wants can't be reached within a timeframe then the contract that the unions agreed upon initially should be implemented.
I doubt many people talking here actively want the unions to have to go through a strike. Most people don't want the economic consequences of that to happen either. It's what was passed that's the problem. It's that the government, via overriding the wishes of labor, is forcing something they didn't agree to, instead of forcing something the owners didn't agree to. And they didn't have to do it that way. There is no law that requires them to do this. There is one that gives them the power to do so, but not one that requires it to be a deal that doesn't meet union wishes. And there's nothing that requires that Democrats only present bills they know will pass. Presenting ones they know wouldn't could potentially change the tune of negotiations on the part of the owners. Bring them back to the table. By not even attempting (in any serious manner) to improve the contract they forced they've shown what's the only thing that is important to them, the trickle down effects of a strike. Their only care for labor is that they don't disrupt things, not that they get a fair deal. They also don't care if a major and critical industry is structured in a way that's sustainable and maintainable. It wouldn't surprise me if in 10 years this legislation comes up frequently in discussions about the downfall of the rail industry in the United States. Railroad workers are hard to replace, making the job undesirable as any form of career from the outside looking in has been exasperating these issues. This legislation cements the issues.
While I wouldn't relish a strike happening, I fully would have supported the unions doing so. I would still. And I haven't read a solid reason why this had to be handled the way it was besides that current Democratic leadership didn't care to put up any sort of fight to try and get better for workers in a "too big to fail" "critical infostructure" industry and are completely short sighted as to the knock-on effects this will have down the road.
If 2024 is, as has been implied several times in this thread, an important date when it comes to retention of workers in the industry and a worker shortage that can't be handles happen Democrats have just handed the Republicans an easy thing to point to when they end up pretending to be the friend of the little guy in 2024. Democrats own, from start to finish, this situation. Their president demanded it, their house passed it, and their senate passed it. If this causes the effects of a strike but without a strike be sure that this will be used in 2024 to make sure the house isn't the only thing Democrats lose.
Not 100%, no.
Will I support a strike?
Oh hell yes you better believe I will.
Should the government have intervened on behalf of the workers instead of the owners?
10000% absolutely yes.
Is this the fault of Dems for jumping the gun and betraying organized labor yet again for the benefit of their corporate overlords?
Baby you know it's true. 😎
This is honestly kind of amazing.
The vast majority of the thread appears to largely already agree on the first three points.
The only real arguments seem to be about point four which of course it is because "I want to complain about the democrats!" is like fuckin' thread herpes or something.
The railway workers may not have sick days, but they have the thoughts and prayers of the democratic party.
The Ford government just tried to right to work the entirety of Ontario and failed bad
Because people told em to fuck off
Like stand for something once in a while it pays off p
No, the entire government did, and they did it because of republicans. Of course you're free to complain about whatever you want, but given the realities whinging about democrats is incredibly pointless.
I don't know what to say other than do better with reading what people say rather than what you want to argue with? I personally said I think it's far past time for nationalization and almost everyone else has expressed opinions that they wish the workers were getting a better deal. Literally no one in here has been anywhere near "I think it's good this is how this has played out!"
I think, if the rail workers shut down the country, there is zero chance the public would blame the companies.
Yes, the public would be wrong. The rail workers are entirely justified in striking and have been throughout. The public does not know and does not care.
It's more that as long as organized labor has the hardhat problem, it's going to undercut their political power.
As the son of a PATCO striker, this is etched into my bones.
Another thing is, the railroad companies have extremely easy access to abundant resources that they could use to divert blame via mass media and no rich person is ever gonna worry about water quality or maternity supplies. They can literally and figuratively afford to not give a shit not only due to that, but also because the government would send in their own workers to cover gaps. Not that they would be able to effectively do the job at all, but it would be free(ish?) for the companies.
This is the expected (and, for many, the desired) outcome of capitalism and decades of eroding worker's rights and decimating public education. It's really hard to win fights when one side has so much more power on an individual level that you would need 95%+ of the country to basically stop working in order to force the remainder's hands. I also wouldn't put it past our government (especially Republican) to not use force.
I feel they should strike but I have no faith in our systems to actually reward their actions. I agree that the railroad should be nationalized (along with utilities, the internet, housing, etc.) but I'm not sure how that is even possible given our political climate for the foreseeable future. People are either voting against their own interests or not engaging at all politically and those of us who are left don't exactly have much available to us outside arguing amongst ourselves it seems. Does that mean we are doomed? I don't think so/certainly hope not, but you can't undo a century of ratfucking in one election cycle.
Steam Profile | Signature art by Alexandra 'Lexxy' Douglass
edit - like, conservative attitudes among some workers is indeed a problem in the broad scheme of things, and one that socialists are well aware of, but how is that relevant here?
The problem here is this only makes sense if Democrats do not have agency. They do! They chose to put forth the bill. The chose to vote for the bill. Many in this thread are now choosing to give them shit for it. It is kinda weird that this is so controversial. I can see where people would disagree with the desired outcomes. I don't see how you can argue the Democrats did nothing wrong here. They control every lever of power involved, and used all of them to accomplish this goal.
The Democrats put forth the bill that the union and corp delegates agreed on during the last round of mediation with the NMB.
And then the union said, wait, our workers didn't ratify the agreement, so we can't actually stick to what we agreed to.
And so after it turned out that the delegates weren't actually authorized to make an agreement -- that's the functional result of sending a delegation to an emergency negotiation when union membership wouldn't vote to ratify the agreement -- the clock ran out before they could do another round of mediation.
If the union hadn't reached an agreement with the corp during the mediation congress would not have been able to pass the resolution ordering them to implement what they already agreed to.
And if they wanted to retain the right to strike, the delegation shouldn't have agreed to a settlement during the mediation!
https://railroads.dot.gov/sites/fra.dot.gov/files/fra_net/1647/Railway Labor Act Overview.pdf
Bluntly: it's no wonder congress passed a bill telling them not to renege on their agreement. Otherwise they've just wasted months of time and now everything is fucked up for everyone else who aren't parties to this negotiation.
This is blatantly false! If the unions had agreed to it there wouldn't need to be any legislation at all. This is an absurdly ridiculous argument.
Edit: I wanted to leave it here, but it is honestly just incomprehensible that this is a real assertion. Negotiations where each party has to go back to their side for final approval isn't even odd. That is how negotiations work with large groups or anyone by proxy.
They really did:
https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-joint-resolution/100/text
Either the delegates to the NMB shouldn't have made the agreement, or the unions should have approved a resolution saying that they would vote to ratify what the delegates agreed to.
The tentative agreement was put up for union members to vote to accept or reject.
Several of the unions voted to reject it. The strike was scheduled to start December 9th, there was still time for more negotiations to be initiated.
Then Congress intervened and forced the contract that had been rejected on them anyway!
If anyone has reneged on their agreement, it is the Democratic-controlled government which mediated a tentative agreement and said they would allow workers to decide if they accepted the agreement or not, all under the ostensible auspices of "the most pro-Labor President of all time."
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
Yes, because I think people deserve sick days as a default. Not because of some absurd notion that negotiators get to bind everyone to a deal without following the proper procedures. I wouldn't be claiming they backed down. I would be calling them out on their monstrous demands just like I am now.
Edit: Actually a better point. No one has disputed the legality of Congressional action. They have voiced anger at it. "But they follow the rules!" is incredibly unpersuasive. They followed the rules in a way that harmed labor. Their actions led to harm to labor led to my anger. Legality and authority never come into it.
Again, every party knew that a union vote was part of the process beforehand, because it is always part of the process*. There was no trick here.
*or in the rare case where it isn't, when union leadership jams through a shitty contract without a legitimate vote, it becomes a damaging scandal and a fiasco. See: Teamsters under Hoffa Jr. and UPS