241
submitted 6 months ago by jeffw@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] HopeOfTheGunblade@kbin.social 26 points 6 months ago

He quashed the strike in the moment, and got them most of their demands as a follow-up, as I hear it. But only the first part ever made the news, for some reason.

[-] You999@sh.itjust.works 31 points 6 months ago

I work for the railroad and this is incorrect. The big fight this contract was for actual sick leave. As of right now if I was to get sick and call in I'd potentially lose an entire weeks worth of pay for taking that one day off (our pay system is complicated) and have a mark on my attendance. Most class ones only allow three hits before you are let go. Some take this a step further and make weekends and holidays count as two strikes. Since we work on call 24 hours 6 days a week with no guarantee of actually being home for your day off doing things as simple as scheduling a doctors appointment becomes a nightmare.

What happened in December was congress removed the sick leave portion and made it a separate bill. H.J. Res. 100 passed to block us from striking while the bill for sick leave H.Con.Res.119 failed at the senate.

[-] HopeOfTheGunblade@kbin.social 1 points 6 months ago

Ugh, god damn it.

Thanks for the correction..

[-] blazera@lemmy.world 14 points 6 months ago

There was one statement put out, from the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, one of the unions that voted against the strike, and it just got mega amplified, seemingly everyone heard about it.

No, rail workers didnt get most of their demands, they didnt get as many sick days as they would have with a strike, or other benefits, and not every rail union even got sick days at all. And no one should forget just how poisonous this was for future bargaining, the unions one point of leverage being completely undermined

[-] Eldritch@lemmy.world 3 points 6 months ago

Publicly owned and traded media can't be trusted with facts or truth. They're in it for the money. Which these days means clicks and views. Which means salacious and outraging. Not factual or concise.

this post was submitted on 17 May 2024
241 points (94.5% liked)

politics

19148 readers
1906 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS