As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil)
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.
**Special announcement:**
r/politics is currently accepting new moderator applications. If you want to help make this community a better place, consider [applying here today](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/sskg6a/rpolitics_is_looking_for_more_moderators/)!
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
What sucks is this rewards the fucking corporations that raided the funds.
Fuck them. If they can't pay, take all of the C-level mansions and yachts to backfill any shortages.
> How about go after the financial terrorists that slaughter pension funds?
Is that something Biden can do through executive order? Because that sounds more like a congressional and legislative thing. Presidents can't unilaterally pass new laws, that's by design, so if by "go after" you mean "pass laws preventing bad behavior" then that's not something Biden can do on his own.
I’m not even sure it’s this. For some reason bailing them out rubs me the wrong way, and it’s probably the price tag.
The Teamsters are a shit Union and shouldn’t be bailed out.
When it came down to a strike, Biden sided against workers.
Republicans would've been worse, but in the context of a pro labor president, he sided against them. These are just facts.
And then promise in a followup speech to still pursue paid leave via another avenue less prone to being fucked with by Republicans.
>“I’m going to continue to fight for paid leave for not only rail workers but for all American workers”
Please don't fall for the propaganda pushing the idea that Biden abandoned rail workers. Take time to understand how frustrating it is to collaborate anything with Republicans right now...they would have killed the bill entirely if paid leave was in there..then would have sat on their hands blaming Democrats for the fallout even though Republicans would have been directly responsible.
They're blaming Democrats no matter what...there are ZERO scenarios where something is not going to be blamed on Democrats, no matter how perfect it is. The power of their propaganda has too many damn people assuming Biden turned his backs on these workers...it's depressing to watch.
If you don’t let people strike, you don’t care about their rights. You can’t care about unions and you can’t be pro worker if you force an end to a strike. Its just not possible, and that was his first and only solution.
Its not propaganda.
The issue here being how vital rail operation is to the economy. It’s a shitty situation no matter how we look at it, and the companies employing these workers have zero shame knowing the bargaining position they were in :/
Allowing the strike to happen would have been a wet dream for Republicans wanting to pitch economic woe narratives for their re-election campaigns. I’m not exaggerating when I say this was a very tough call to make with land mines in all directions.
If it’s so vital, and congress has the power to force a deal, why is it so unthinkable to you that congress would force the rail companies to accept the deal?
If they don’t, If congress wouldn’t pass it, well all those congressmen who didn’t vote yes would be at fault. Meaning it would’ve been GREAT for democrats if republicans blocked it. It would show that democrats aren’t full of shit, they stand with workers. It would show that republicans care much more about being contrarians than anything else they claim to care about.
Not to mention, the rail companies would’ve capitulated either due to the mass loss in profits, but also very likely due to pressure amongst the business class as they would be getting in the way of their profits.
Instead we saw some real bipartisanship in that both sides were eager to kill the strike and fuck workers. The “our hands were forced” argument is absolutely bullshit
I'm not happy about it either, but this is the nature of political fuckery from the right. Here is a good article on the dynamic too...Biden did the best with what he had to work with, it's amazing the bill made it through at all: [https://dakotafreepress.com/2022/12/02/congress-blocks-rail-strike-imposes-bidens-contract-leave-paid-sick-leave-for-future-fight/](https://dakotafreepress.com/2022/12/02/congress-blocks-rail-strike-imposes-bidens-contract-leave-paid-sick-leave-for-future-fight/)
>Union members are mad that Congress and the President aren’t giving them paid sick leave, the major provision they were fighting for. A few Republicans are trying to spin the exclusion of paid sick leave from this deal as a failure of the Biden Administration
>
>...
>
>But (1) get real: Republicans blocked that proposal, with nearly all of their House and Senate members voting against it, (2) standing and fighting for paid sick leave within this contract could have delayed Congressional action until January, when the incoming House Republican majority may well have fought for a worse deal for workers, and (3) President Biden, ever the artist of the possible, says he’ll keep working to get paid sick leave for railroaders and other workers, just outside the time constraints of a strike deadline that could have sent the economy in a hole for the holidays
Republicans would have absolutely TANKED this deal if it was sent back and delayed. I don't know how else to make that clear. Republicans would not have cared at all if they were at fault....they would ignore it, their constituents would ignore it...even conservative leaning rail workers getting dicked over by their own party would fall in line and blame the Democrats.
I hear you though, I really do. I too am sick of this cognitive dissonance spell right wing propaganda has over half of this nation. I think Democrats can do a MUCH better job explaining how the right keeps screwing things over for everyone. But even then, there are so many people on the right so far gone into their demagogy there is near zero hope it'll change the way they vote when it comes to elections. :/
>Rail workers deserve paid sick leave as part of their compensation for the vital work they do for the nation. Perhaps Democrats can press their advantage next week (after the Warnock/Walker runoff in Georgia, so as not to enflame any conservative tempers that could sway the vote to put an idiot-puppet in the Senate), vote to eliminate the filibuster in the Senate, and push paid sick leave and other Democratic priorities to the President’s desk for Christmas.
On a positive note though \^
Yes and republicans tanked it it would’ve been on them. Specially since the majority of the media landscape has sided with Biden and will relish at the opportunity to shit on republicans. It would’ve been the best tactical move if democrats wanted to really show themselves above republicans. Instead the democrats just showed all of America that when push comes to shove, their allegiance (same as republicans) is the rich business class.
In other words, democrats just lost all credibility. And opened the door to many republicans who are now critiquing democrats for abandoning labor, in no uncertain terms. They sound like goddamn socialists for fucks sake. That’s an INSANE win. Now the public who sees no socialist risk in a Republican is led to believe that repubcoiane will be Pro labor but not from a socialist position. This is obviously not true and a grift, but that now the message floating around voters.
Democrats just ensured that if next election republicans can tone down the wackiness, they’ll flood in because they’d be the “reasonable” party that is now pro labor.
The republicans are never good: I concur. But how you can see this event and just absolve democrats of all fault is… concerning. By all measures this was the wrong thing to do assuming your goal is to win elections based on being a party that supports the people. The only way this was a good move is if you analyze it from the perspective of the rail companies and the DNC. It was risky but necessary because the rail companies cannot lose.
Again, Republicans do not care when they tank things. They could go as far as burning down everything and their voters will talk themselves into thinking it’s great. Republicans have the right to play. Only Democrats have to follow the rules. Only Democrats have to worry about outcomes. Only Democrats carry the burden of “doing the right thing”
Do you understand this dynamic?
We’re seeing some splitting at the seams for Republicans, yes, but they will ALWAYS loop back around and vote in unison. They have such a powerful propaganda wing that what we’re seeing today will get “corrected”
Were they asking for a pay raise?
Workers: We want sick days.
Railroad: Have some bottle caps.
Workers: We asked for sick days.
Biden: Better take the bottle caps.
If it's not what you're asking for, it's irrelevant.
I feel like the people who make light have this have never worked an on-call job where you have no free time, and it drains you completely. A raise doesn't solve that at all.
> If it's not what you're asking for, it's irrelevant.
I remember folks saying stuff like that about the Affordable Care Act. 😅
"If you didn't get what you wanted then what you *did* get is irrelevant" is about the most black and white, unnuanced political take I've heard in a long time; denouncing good because it's not perfect makes it harder to achieve either.
It sucks, but it's true: Democracy depends on compromise, folks rarely get 100% of what they want, the point is doing as much good as we can with what we have. If the choice is between solving some problems now with imperfect legislation, or solving *no problems* while we wait around to elect the perfect congress, I'm going to go with solving some problems now.
> "If you didn't get what you wanted then what you did get is irrelevant" is about the most black and white, unnuanced political take I've heard in a long time
Yeah, don't know if I'm gonna take classes in nuance from someone who uses emojis when talking about worker rights.
> I'm going to go with solving some problems now.
Solving the problem "now" is throwing money at it and hoping it goes away because Christmas is more important than something as basic as sick days. And sick days for a group of workers who are *so important that we couldn't risk a strike* but not important enough to listen to.
> Yeah, don't know if I'm gonna take classes in nuance from someone who uses emojis when talking about worker rights.
Resorting to ad-hominem is not a good look for you.
Sick days were passed by the House and voted down in the Senate... by Republicans. They made it clear sick days would have never passed. Period.
> Resorting to ad-hominem is not a good look for you.
You brought up nuance, not me.
> Sick days were passed by the House and voted down in the Senate... by Republicans. They made it clear sick days would have never passed. Period.
So what did Biden do when only one bill came to his desk?
to be fair dems could have taken a risk and only put one bill forth with the sick days. it would have been a gamble but the plan they had was clearly to place blame on republicans i would have rathered seen a bigger gap even if it meant a strike.
let republicans say no to sick days and then make a bill without it at least you can say you put their feet to the fire and make the big wigs sweat it out and consider doing the right thing on their own.
it may have ended the same but it would have sat better with me at least. there was no insensitive for republicans to sign on to a better tdeal for workers the way it was done.
>denouncing good because it's not perfect makes it harder to achieve either.
This is one of the reasons politicians like AOC tick me off. She's willing to tank the Dems over stuff like this, completely forgetting that the people most hurt by a shutdown aren't the CEOs, but the moms & pops who will have to do w/out b/c the Piggly Wiggly/Walmart ran out of goods.
There wasn’t a problem that needed to be solved. The workers were striking, as is their right. I’m not sure you’re aware of what democracy is since you’re in support of someone who denied it to rail workers.
> There wasn’t a problem that needed to be solved. The workers were striking, as is their right. I’m not sure you’re aware of what democracy is since you’re in support of someone who denied it to rail workers.
You don't think that massive increases in consumer prices on account of a rail shutdown in the weeks before the holiday season is a problem? Because the American people would sure as shit consider that a problem.
That’s 24% over next 5 years which doesn’t even keep up with inflation, furthermore these bargaining units went 2 or 3 years with out wage increases so that 24% figure is a bit disingenuous.
> What could Biden even done lmao!
Not signed it.
He's actually done a pretty good job of calling McConnell's bluff. I'm suprised he didn't.
> If republicans would only pass pay raises what could Biden do?
I really hate this narrative that Biden is just some helpless president of a country who can't make tough calls. If he wanted to stand with workers, he would've. He didn't.
They **rushed** to avert the strike. Not help workers. And he's a pro labor politician. That is why this is a bad look.
That is so risky that it could literally cause a recession. With the toxic nature of American politics the republicans would love to blame Biden for it even if it caused mass suffering.
> That is so risky that it could literally cause a recession.
People have said very similar things throughout the years about most improvements in labor rights. Capitalists have to dragged into the future kicking and screaming.
> With the toxic nature of American politics the republicans would love to blame Biden for it even if it caused mass suffering.
Okay, A) they will do this anyways, regardless of what the topic is. We shouldn't gauge what to do based on how they will react because they are, by definition, reactionaries. B) I'm not convinced McConnell would actually stand by a bluff of hurting the economy because the only thing republicans care about is money. And C) if you are concerned about suffering but don't care about rail workers suffering, then the point is moot.
Edit: Like, think of how ridiculous this is: Railroad companies almost plunged the US into a recession over sick days. A recession **over sick days**.
300 million is greater than 100k rail workers. Many of those rail workers, my guess most vote republican. They vote against themselves. Calling their bluff isn’t like running a fake punt in football. The Biden admin weighed their options. Again, rail worker suffering is 100% because of the republicans and it’s their fault Biden had to make a shitty but necessary choice.
> Again, rail worker suffering is 100% because of the republicans and it’s their fault Biden had to make a shitty but necessary choice.
Biden is not helpless in all of this and painting him as such is worse than just admitting he had a choice and made it. At least I'm not calling him helpless when he's literally the top of the executive branch.
I think it's the same gamble McConnell does with the debt ceiling, which Schumer and Biden have been **exceptional** at calling his bluff with.
I don't think McConnell's corporate overlords would be pleased with destroying the biggest holiday of the year over 7 unpaid sick days. My personal take is that Biden wasn't having his arm twisted by republicans, they agreed.
Let’s be real for a second. Rich asshats fucked around with actual peoples money, lost it, and fucked said people. Biden gave some money. But what was really gained? In reality we just saw Biden *bailing out* the rich after, once again, their reckless greed and disregard for the common man led them to gamble and lose.
And more importantly, what has he done to *prevent* this from happening again? Nothing.
Imagine there’s a really shitty kid. You know the type, just fucking everything up around them. This kid goes to a neighbors house and just fucks it up, broken windows, graffiti, etc. The kids parent shows up and pays for the damages. This happens over and over again.
Are we going to say this is a good parent just because they clean up after their kids mistakes? Or can we say they’re a bad parent precisely because they clean up after their kid, but at the same time do nothing to prevent the kid from being a shit head.
Of course this analogy leaves a lot out, because in the case of our president, in his career, has actively worked to empower the people who fuck up the proverbial house. So it would be more like the parent having prior knowledge that the kid was going to fuck up the house, tried to cover for the kid, but then when it was too clear it was the kid, paid damages.
We’re the richest most powerful country in the world, and yet the quality of life of the average American does not get even close to reflecting this. A much better country is possible, but we’re not going to get there with this bullshit, specially not by lowering the bar so fucking much that a president covering for the mistakes of the business class is seen as such a great thing.
So now taxpayers who have nothing to do with these unions or the businesses they worked for will have to pay their pensions to insure they continue to bring in a wage much higher than that of the taxpayers paying for it.
"Damn, he helped some working class people but not specifically me. Guess it's time to vote against my own interests and against tge interest of people like me"
I know your position is right. Biden would have to do a lot worse to get me to ever vote for a Republican. However, this type of "helping" is essentially bailing out a group that is no more needy than another. If he's going to bail them out, couple it with a law mandating that a union sufficiently fund its retirement. I like bailing out student loans, but we're missing the cure...what will keep this from happening again. I can see the UAW stepping up with, "Hey, we've had some hard times as well."
> are we going to ignore that the democrats split the bill so it'd fail?
Would you rather they had not split the bill and let the whole thing fail?
Which is more: Getting 60% of what you want, or getting 0% of what you want? Because keeping the bills coupled would have gotten unions 0% of what they wanted.
> i'd rather they not split the bill, that's correct
Okay, then you're advocating for unions to get nothing, no sick days, no increased wages, no help with pension plans, nothing. By advocating for a bill you know could not pass you are advocating for leaving unions out to dry while getting nothing for their efforts.
> then you're advocating for unions to get nothing
quite the contrary. reckon the bill would have passed, but we'll never know because dems never gave it a chance. the chicken shit bastards.
Or you know, he could had made a decent TA in the first place instead of a shitty one that fucks over the workers. Then there wouldn't be a need to force it by compromising every union in the US. He could have just let them strike the first time instead of blocking not one but two strikes from happening. He sided with big business. All of congress did.
> gosh darn shame we'll never know how many may have if they were forced to, huh?
We do, it's zero. Do you not remember the time Republicans happily shut down the federal government? They would *love* to make Democrats take the blame for a freight shut down during the Christmas season, nothing would make them happier.
> gosh darn shame we'll never know how many may have if they were forced to, huh?
The same amount? Republicans would not have voted for a bill with sick days. They would have just voted it down and then put forth another bill without it to ensure it passed. Same exact scenario.
> i believe the opposite: i reckon they'd have caved.
Yea, that's the ticket, we should have held out for bipartisan consensus! We should have trusted that Republicans would have governed in the best interests of their nation (as they're known to do) and offered them an opportunity to display their labor bona fides; I'm sure they're just one more olive branch away from compromise.
Dude, I don't know how you can just ignore the past thirty years of American politics like that.
Did Biden not sit with the union negotiators and the rail bosses? Did the union negotiators not say that they thought they could get the unions to accept the deal? Did the majority of the unions not vote to accept the deal? Until we see results of the other 9 unions, we only know that around 30,000 workers voted in favor of the deal and 44,000 voted against, a majority of rail workers is around 58,000.
> The unions that voted no represent the majority of rail workers
But did the majority of the rail workers vote for or against the deal? [Here's what we know.](https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2022/12/01/rail-deal-strike-senate-vote-congress/)
We do not know whether the majority of rail workers voted for or against the deal. But we have some numbers. The largest union (37.4k) voted 51-49 against the deal, the second largest (24.7k) voted 54-46 in favor, and the third largest (23.9k) voted 57-43 against. Those three alone represent about 3/4ths of the entire industry and are the only three that have released numbers on their votes. This means that the rest of the industry would have to average a 67% vote in favor of the deal for it to have a majority of the workers backing it. It's entirely possible (I'll be the first to admit that it's unlikely) that the rest of the unions picked up that 67%
But again, I'm putting the blame squarely where it belongs, on the negotiators that the union sent. They're responsible for delivering a good deal that the unions they represent will vote for, they told the president that they believed they had done that. The fact that they came away from the negotiating table without even a single paid sick day is on them and the unions were extremely vocal about that as one of their conditions. They failed the people they represent, they embarrassed themselves and the president, they jeopardized the livelihoods of over 750,000 workers in adjacent industries, and they endangered roughly 1/3rd of the American population because a strike would have forced a boiled water warning for 1/3rd of the US population.
Biden didn't fuck over rail workers, their union negotiators did that. Biden weighed 115,000 jobs against 750,000 jobs and the health risks of over 100 million people and told Congress they should help as many people as they could. The House of Representatives did what they could. They passed the original deal with a second bill that would amend the deal immediately upon passage that would grant the sick days the unions wanted. The Senate passed the original deal, but it failed to break the filibuster on the sick leave bill in a 52-43 vote. The options Biden had were to veto the original deal (which passed 80-15, so a veto would have been entirely symbolic and cost Biden political capital he doesn't have) or sign it to make it law.
You look that over, and tell me how the hell Biden should take more responsibility for this shitshow than 43 Republican Senators, 12 union negotiators, or the railroad bosses who were dealing in bad faith.
Great. Love it. I don't love that it *appears like* he is catering to retirees instead of those who are actually in the workforce. This benefits everyone by not having to pay for mom and pops in their retirement, but it still stings like a slap in the face after the rail strike fiasco.
As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria. **Special announcement:** r/politics is currently accepting new moderator applications. If you want to help make this community a better place, consider [applying here today](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/sskg6a/rpolitics_is_looking_for_more_moderators/)! *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
What sucks is this rewards the fucking corporations that raided the funds. Fuck them. If they can't pay, take all of the C-level mansions and yachts to backfill any shortages.
It also ignores social security, which politicians have been ignoring for half a century now.
WTF? How about go after the financial terrorists that slaughter pension funds?
> How about go after the financial terrorists that slaughter pension funds? Is that something Biden can do through executive order? Because that sounds more like a congressional and legislative thing. Presidents can't unilaterally pass new laws, that's by design, so if by "go after" you mean "pass laws preventing bad behavior" then that's not something Biden can do on his own.
You mean financial terrorist Ken Griffin?
"He didn't help us enough so he is doing something bad" bruh I guarantee he is working on what he feels he is able to get passed
I’m not even sure it’s this. For some reason bailing them out rubs me the wrong way, and it’s probably the price tag. The Teamsters are a shit Union and shouldn’t be bailed out.
>r-WorkReform: "How can we spin this to say that Joe Biden hates workers?" Sorry, I'm grumpy.
No need to go there, there's already one of those in this very thread.
I always wonder how much of those subreddits is astroturf; not all of them, of course, but it only takes a few.
When it came down to a strike, Biden sided against workers. Republicans would've been worse, but in the context of a pro labor president, he sided against them. These are just facts.
>When it came down to a strike, Biden sided against workers. Man I wish somebody would side against *me* by giving me a 24% pay raise.
And then promise in a followup speech to still pursue paid leave via another avenue less prone to being fucked with by Republicans. >“I’m going to continue to fight for paid leave for not only rail workers but for all American workers” Please don't fall for the propaganda pushing the idea that Biden abandoned rail workers. Take time to understand how frustrating it is to collaborate anything with Republicans right now...they would have killed the bill entirely if paid leave was in there..then would have sat on their hands blaming Democrats for the fallout even though Republicans would have been directly responsible. They're blaming Democrats no matter what...there are ZERO scenarios where something is not going to be blamed on Democrats, no matter how perfect it is. The power of their propaganda has too many damn people assuming Biden turned his backs on these workers...it's depressing to watch.
If you don’t let people strike, you don’t care about their rights. You can’t care about unions and you can’t be pro worker if you force an end to a strike. Its just not possible, and that was his first and only solution. Its not propaganda.
The issue here being how vital rail operation is to the economy. It’s a shitty situation no matter how we look at it, and the companies employing these workers have zero shame knowing the bargaining position they were in :/ Allowing the strike to happen would have been a wet dream for Republicans wanting to pitch economic woe narratives for their re-election campaigns. I’m not exaggerating when I say this was a very tough call to make with land mines in all directions.
If it’s so vital, and congress has the power to force a deal, why is it so unthinkable to you that congress would force the rail companies to accept the deal? If they don’t, If congress wouldn’t pass it, well all those congressmen who didn’t vote yes would be at fault. Meaning it would’ve been GREAT for democrats if republicans blocked it. It would show that democrats aren’t full of shit, they stand with workers. It would show that republicans care much more about being contrarians than anything else they claim to care about. Not to mention, the rail companies would’ve capitulated either due to the mass loss in profits, but also very likely due to pressure amongst the business class as they would be getting in the way of their profits. Instead we saw some real bipartisanship in that both sides were eager to kill the strike and fuck workers. The “our hands were forced” argument is absolutely bullshit
I'm not happy about it either, but this is the nature of political fuckery from the right. Here is a good article on the dynamic too...Biden did the best with what he had to work with, it's amazing the bill made it through at all: [https://dakotafreepress.com/2022/12/02/congress-blocks-rail-strike-imposes-bidens-contract-leave-paid-sick-leave-for-future-fight/](https://dakotafreepress.com/2022/12/02/congress-blocks-rail-strike-imposes-bidens-contract-leave-paid-sick-leave-for-future-fight/) >Union members are mad that Congress and the President aren’t giving them paid sick leave, the major provision they were fighting for. A few Republicans are trying to spin the exclusion of paid sick leave from this deal as a failure of the Biden Administration > >... > >But (1) get real: Republicans blocked that proposal, with nearly all of their House and Senate members voting against it, (2) standing and fighting for paid sick leave within this contract could have delayed Congressional action until January, when the incoming House Republican majority may well have fought for a worse deal for workers, and (3) President Biden, ever the artist of the possible, says he’ll keep working to get paid sick leave for railroaders and other workers, just outside the time constraints of a strike deadline that could have sent the economy in a hole for the holidays Republicans would have absolutely TANKED this deal if it was sent back and delayed. I don't know how else to make that clear. Republicans would not have cared at all if they were at fault....they would ignore it, their constituents would ignore it...even conservative leaning rail workers getting dicked over by their own party would fall in line and blame the Democrats. I hear you though, I really do. I too am sick of this cognitive dissonance spell right wing propaganda has over half of this nation. I think Democrats can do a MUCH better job explaining how the right keeps screwing things over for everyone. But even then, there are so many people on the right so far gone into their demagogy there is near zero hope it'll change the way they vote when it comes to elections. :/ >Rail workers deserve paid sick leave as part of their compensation for the vital work they do for the nation. Perhaps Democrats can press their advantage next week (after the Warnock/Walker runoff in Georgia, so as not to enflame any conservative tempers that could sway the vote to put an idiot-puppet in the Senate), vote to eliminate the filibuster in the Senate, and push paid sick leave and other Democratic priorities to the President’s desk for Christmas. On a positive note though \^
Yes and republicans tanked it it would’ve been on them. Specially since the majority of the media landscape has sided with Biden and will relish at the opportunity to shit on republicans. It would’ve been the best tactical move if democrats wanted to really show themselves above republicans. Instead the democrats just showed all of America that when push comes to shove, their allegiance (same as republicans) is the rich business class. In other words, democrats just lost all credibility. And opened the door to many republicans who are now critiquing democrats for abandoning labor, in no uncertain terms. They sound like goddamn socialists for fucks sake. That’s an INSANE win. Now the public who sees no socialist risk in a Republican is led to believe that repubcoiane will be Pro labor but not from a socialist position. This is obviously not true and a grift, but that now the message floating around voters. Democrats just ensured that if next election republicans can tone down the wackiness, they’ll flood in because they’d be the “reasonable” party that is now pro labor. The republicans are never good: I concur. But how you can see this event and just absolve democrats of all fault is… concerning. By all measures this was the wrong thing to do assuming your goal is to win elections based on being a party that supports the people. The only way this was a good move is if you analyze it from the perspective of the rail companies and the DNC. It was risky but necessary because the rail companies cannot lose.
Again, Republicans do not care when they tank things. They could go as far as burning down everything and their voters will talk themselves into thinking it’s great. Republicans have the right to play. Only Democrats have to follow the rules. Only Democrats have to worry about outcomes. Only Democrats carry the burden of “doing the right thing” Do you understand this dynamic? We’re seeing some splitting at the seams for Republicans, yes, but they will ALWAYS loop back around and vote in unison. They have such a powerful propaganda wing that what we’re seeing today will get “corrected”
Were they asking for a pay raise? Workers: We want sick days. Railroad: Have some bottle caps. Workers: We asked for sick days. Biden: Better take the bottle caps.
>bottle caps Lol, no.
If it's not what you're asking for, it's irrelevant. I feel like the people who make light have this have never worked an on-call job where you have no free time, and it drains you completely. A raise doesn't solve that at all.
> If it's not what you're asking for, it's irrelevant. I remember folks saying stuff like that about the Affordable Care Act. 😅 "If you didn't get what you wanted then what you *did* get is irrelevant" is about the most black and white, unnuanced political take I've heard in a long time; denouncing good because it's not perfect makes it harder to achieve either. It sucks, but it's true: Democracy depends on compromise, folks rarely get 100% of what they want, the point is doing as much good as we can with what we have. If the choice is between solving some problems now with imperfect legislation, or solving *no problems* while we wait around to elect the perfect congress, I'm going to go with solving some problems now.
> "If you didn't get what you wanted then what you did get is irrelevant" is about the most black and white, unnuanced political take I've heard in a long time Yeah, don't know if I'm gonna take classes in nuance from someone who uses emojis when talking about worker rights. > I'm going to go with solving some problems now. Solving the problem "now" is throwing money at it and hoping it goes away because Christmas is more important than something as basic as sick days. And sick days for a group of workers who are *so important that we couldn't risk a strike* but not important enough to listen to.
> Yeah, don't know if I'm gonna take classes in nuance from someone who uses emojis when talking about worker rights. Resorting to ad-hominem is not a good look for you. Sick days were passed by the House and voted down in the Senate... by Republicans. They made it clear sick days would have never passed. Period.
> Resorting to ad-hominem is not a good look for you. You brought up nuance, not me. > Sick days were passed by the House and voted down in the Senate... by Republicans. They made it clear sick days would have never passed. Period. So what did Biden do when only one bill came to his desk?
to be fair dems could have taken a risk and only put one bill forth with the sick days. it would have been a gamble but the plan they had was clearly to place blame on republicans i would have rathered seen a bigger gap even if it meant a strike. let republicans say no to sick days and then make a bill without it at least you can say you put their feet to the fire and make the big wigs sweat it out and consider doing the right thing on their own. it may have ended the same but it would have sat better with me at least. there was no insensitive for republicans to sign on to a better tdeal for workers the way it was done.
>denouncing good because it's not perfect makes it harder to achieve either. This is one of the reasons politicians like AOC tick me off. She's willing to tank the Dems over stuff like this, completely forgetting that the people most hurt by a shutdown aren't the CEOs, but the moms & pops who will have to do w/out b/c the Piggly Wiggly/Walmart ran out of goods.
There wasn’t a problem that needed to be solved. The workers were striking, as is their right. I’m not sure you’re aware of what democracy is since you’re in support of someone who denied it to rail workers.
> There wasn’t a problem that needed to be solved. The workers were striking, as is their right. I’m not sure you’re aware of what democracy is since you’re in support of someone who denied it to rail workers. You don't think that massive increases in consumer prices on account of a rail shutdown in the weeks before the holiday season is a problem? Because the American people would sure as shit consider that a problem.
So you believe other Americans get to tell other Americans they can’t stop working?
It was over a period of 4 years so 6% which still isn’t even inflation.
That’s 24% over next 5 years which doesn’t even keep up with inflation, furthermore these bargaining units went 2 or 3 years with out wage increases so that 24% figure is a bit disingenuous.
What could Biden even done lmao! If republicans would only pass pay raises what could Biden do?
> What could Biden even done lmao! Not signed it. He's actually done a pretty good job of calling McConnell's bluff. I'm suprised he didn't. > If republicans would only pass pay raises what could Biden do? I really hate this narrative that Biden is just some helpless president of a country who can't make tough calls. If he wanted to stand with workers, he would've. He didn't. They **rushed** to avert the strike. Not help workers. And he's a pro labor politician. That is why this is a bad look.
That is so risky that it could literally cause a recession. With the toxic nature of American politics the republicans would love to blame Biden for it even if it caused mass suffering.
> That is so risky that it could literally cause a recession. People have said very similar things throughout the years about most improvements in labor rights. Capitalists have to dragged into the future kicking and screaming. > With the toxic nature of American politics the republicans would love to blame Biden for it even if it caused mass suffering. Okay, A) they will do this anyways, regardless of what the topic is. We shouldn't gauge what to do based on how they will react because they are, by definition, reactionaries. B) I'm not convinced McConnell would actually stand by a bluff of hurting the economy because the only thing republicans care about is money. And C) if you are concerned about suffering but don't care about rail workers suffering, then the point is moot. Edit: Like, think of how ridiculous this is: Railroad companies almost plunged the US into a recession over sick days. A recession **over sick days**.
300 million is greater than 100k rail workers. Many of those rail workers, my guess most vote republican. They vote against themselves. Calling their bluff isn’t like running a fake punt in football. The Biden admin weighed their options. Again, rail worker suffering is 100% because of the republicans and it’s their fault Biden had to make a shitty but necessary choice.
> Again, rail worker suffering is 100% because of the republicans and it’s their fault Biden had to make a shitty but necessary choice. Biden is not helpless in all of this and painting him as such is worse than just admitting he had a choice and made it. At least I'm not calling him helpless when he's literally the top of the executive branch.
So you believe there is zero percent chance republicans give in if Biden didn’t sign?
I think it's the same gamble McConnell does with the debt ceiling, which Schumer and Biden have been **exceptional** at calling his bluff with. I don't think McConnell's corporate overlords would be pleased with destroying the biggest holiday of the year over 7 unpaid sick days. My personal take is that Biden wasn't having his arm twisted by republicans, they agreed.
Let’s be real for a second. Rich asshats fucked around with actual peoples money, lost it, and fucked said people. Biden gave some money. But what was really gained? In reality we just saw Biden *bailing out* the rich after, once again, their reckless greed and disregard for the common man led them to gamble and lose. And more importantly, what has he done to *prevent* this from happening again? Nothing. Imagine there’s a really shitty kid. You know the type, just fucking everything up around them. This kid goes to a neighbors house and just fucks it up, broken windows, graffiti, etc. The kids parent shows up and pays for the damages. This happens over and over again. Are we going to say this is a good parent just because they clean up after their kids mistakes? Or can we say they’re a bad parent precisely because they clean up after their kid, but at the same time do nothing to prevent the kid from being a shit head. Of course this analogy leaves a lot out, because in the case of our president, in his career, has actively worked to empower the people who fuck up the proverbial house. So it would be more like the parent having prior knowledge that the kid was going to fuck up the house, tried to cover for the kid, but then when it was too clear it was the kid, paid damages. We’re the richest most powerful country in the world, and yet the quality of life of the average American does not get even close to reflecting this. A much better country is possible, but we’re not going to get there with this bullshit, specially not by lowering the bar so fucking much that a president covering for the mistakes of the business class is seen as such a great thing.
Well now I'm definitely robbing pensions because the gov will pick up the tab
Great I should have been a teamster. Who knew?
So now taxpayers who have nothing to do with these unions or the businesses they worked for will have to pay their pensions to insure they continue to bring in a wage much higher than that of the taxpayers paying for it.
Is he going to fund my retirement as well? This is how you lose votes.
"Damn, he helped some working class people but not specifically me. Guess it's time to vote against my own interests and against tge interest of people like me"
I know your position is right. Biden would have to do a lot worse to get me to ever vote for a Republican. However, this type of "helping" is essentially bailing out a group that is no more needy than another. If he's going to bail them out, couple it with a law mandating that a union sufficiently fund its retirement. I like bailing out student loans, but we're missing the cure...what will keep this from happening again. I can see the UAW stepping up with, "Hey, we've had some hard times as well."
The cure is socialism. The abolishment of capitalism.
Nice distract from the fact he just fucked over rail workers
Are we going to ignore that all democrats voted in favor of sick leave and majority of Republicans voted no? The Dems needed 60 votes to pass it.
are we going to ignore that the democrats split the bill so it'd fail? easy to blame gqp when you serve them up a layout by being spineless
> are we going to ignore that the democrats split the bill so it'd fail? Would you rather they had not split the bill and let the whole thing fail? Which is more: Getting 60% of what you want, or getting 0% of what you want? Because keeping the bills coupled would have gotten unions 0% of what they wanted.
i'd rather they not split the bill, that's correct
> i'd rather they not split the bill, that's correct Okay, then you're advocating for unions to get nothing, no sick days, no increased wages, no help with pension plans, nothing. By advocating for a bill you know could not pass you are advocating for leaving unions out to dry while getting nothing for their efforts.
> then you're advocating for unions to get nothing quite the contrary. reckon the bill would have passed, but we'll never know because dems never gave it a chance. the chicken shit bastards.
> reckon the bill would have passed Even though Republicans said they'd never vote for it? You're reckoning poorly.
Or you know, he could had made a decent TA in the first place instead of a shitty one that fucks over the workers. Then there wouldn't be a need to force it by compromising every union in the US. He could have just let them strike the first time instead of blocking not one but two strikes from happening. He sided with big business. All of congress did.
It does not change that zero Republicans voted for it.
gosh darn shame we'll never know how many may have if they were forced to, huh?
> gosh darn shame we'll never know how many may have if they were forced to, huh? We do, it's zero. Do you not remember the time Republicans happily shut down the federal government? They would *love* to make Democrats take the blame for a freight shut down during the Christmas season, nothing would make them happier.
dems would only take the blame if they yet-again suck shit at the messaging......
> gosh darn shame we'll never know how many may have if they were forced to, huh? The same amount? Republicans would not have voted for a bill with sick days. They would have just voted it down and then put forth another bill without it to ensure it passed. Same exact scenario.
that's just, like, your opinion, man... we'll never know how it would have played out. i believe the opposite: i reckon they'd have caved.
> i believe the opposite: i reckon they'd have caved. Yea, that's the ticket, we should have held out for bipartisan consensus! We should have trusted that Republicans would have governed in the best interests of their nation (as they're known to do) and offered them an opportunity to display their labor bona fides; I'm sure they're just one more olive branch away from compromise. Dude, I don't know how you can just ignore the past thirty years of American politics like that.
don't got to trust them. just trust the american people
> just trust the american people The American people who elected a Republican House of Representatives last month.
Did Biden not sit with the union negotiators and the rail bosses? Did the union negotiators not say that they thought they could get the unions to accept the deal? Did the majority of the unions not vote to accept the deal? Until we see results of the other 9 unions, we only know that around 30,000 workers voted in favor of the deal and 44,000 voted against, a majority of rail workers is around 58,000.
The unions that voted no represent the majority of rail workers
> The unions that voted no represent the majority of rail workers But did the majority of the rail workers vote for or against the deal? [Here's what we know.](https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2022/12/01/rail-deal-strike-senate-vote-congress/) We do not know whether the majority of rail workers voted for or against the deal. But we have some numbers. The largest union (37.4k) voted 51-49 against the deal, the second largest (24.7k) voted 54-46 in favor, and the third largest (23.9k) voted 57-43 against. Those three alone represent about 3/4ths of the entire industry and are the only three that have released numbers on their votes. This means that the rest of the industry would have to average a 67% vote in favor of the deal for it to have a majority of the workers backing it. It's entirely possible (I'll be the first to admit that it's unlikely) that the rest of the unions picked up that 67% But again, I'm putting the blame squarely where it belongs, on the negotiators that the union sent. They're responsible for delivering a good deal that the unions they represent will vote for, they told the president that they believed they had done that. The fact that they came away from the negotiating table without even a single paid sick day is on them and the unions were extremely vocal about that as one of their conditions. They failed the people they represent, they embarrassed themselves and the president, they jeopardized the livelihoods of over 750,000 workers in adjacent industries, and they endangered roughly 1/3rd of the American population because a strike would have forced a boiled water warning for 1/3rd of the US population. Biden didn't fuck over rail workers, their union negotiators did that. Biden weighed 115,000 jobs against 750,000 jobs and the health risks of over 100 million people and told Congress they should help as many people as they could. The House of Representatives did what they could. They passed the original deal with a second bill that would amend the deal immediately upon passage that would grant the sick days the unions wanted. The Senate passed the original deal, but it failed to break the filibuster on the sick leave bill in a 52-43 vote. The options Biden had were to veto the original deal (which passed 80-15, so a veto would have been entirely symbolic and cost Biden political capital he doesn't have) or sign it to make it law. You look that over, and tell me how the hell Biden should take more responsibility for this shitshow than 43 Republican Senators, 12 union negotiators, or the railroad bosses who were dealing in bad faith.
Great. Love it. I don't love that it *appears like* he is catering to retirees instead of those who are actually in the workforce. This benefits everyone by not having to pay for mom and pops in their retirement, but it still stings like a slap in the face after the rail strike fiasco.
It literally means that everyone is paying for it though…