316
Although I support this I can't help but wonder... why didn't you do this during the rail strike? Hypocritical much? Such a slap in the face to those workers.
The rail strike would have had major economy-wide side effects, including people in other industries being laid off and inflation being exacerbated by shortages in basic food, water, gas.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/economy/looming-rail-strike-would-take-a-major-toll-on-u-s-economy
After averting the strike, the Biden administration continued to pressure and negotiate with rail companies to get the paid sick days that were the sticking point. But there's been almost no news coverage about that fact.
"Negotiations with the other labor coalition unions continued toward a Sept. 15 deadline, but when it became obvious that the bargaining parties would not reach consensus by then, Biden asked then-Secretary of Labor Marty Walsh to assemble the sides and reach an acceptable agreement that would head off a national freight rail strike.
On deadline day, the parties reached an agreement on an updated contract that included the biggest wage increases in 47 years. Over the next several weeks, while acknowledging that the agreement was less than perfect, the IBEW and several of its fellow coalition unions voted to ratify the agreement. A handful of others, however, did not, instead threatening a December freight rail strike.
Biden, citing the potential economic impact of a national freight rail strike during the winter holidays, on Nov. 28 called on Congress to impose the emergency board’s agreement.
Since then, several other railroad-related unions have also seen success in negotiating for similar sick-day benefits. These 12 unions represent more than 105,000 railroad workers. (emphasis mine)
“Biden deserves a lot of the credit for achieving this goal for us,” Russo said. “He and his team continued to work behind the scenes to get all of rail labor a fair agreement for paid sick leave.”
https://www.ibew.org/media-center/Articles/23Daily/2306/230620_IBEWandPaid
A much, much larger question is this: If that rail infrastructure is THIS critical to the basic functioning of our economy, why are we allowing it to be held hostage by private for-profit corporations? This shit should be nationalized and those should be government jobs.
Thanks for posting this. I've been badmouthing Biden ever since he blocked the railroad strike, but that quote from a union leader — “Biden deserves a lot of the credit for achieving this goal for us. He and his team continued to work behind the scenes to get all of rail labor a fair agreement for paid sick leave" — finally cools my steam.
When he shows up and carries a UAW picket, I am ready to be honestly impressed.
The Union leader praising Biden for his later work voted to accept the original contract without sick days. They weren't the ones that were blocked from a wanted strike. They were happy with the original provisional agreement.
Eh. The union had far more demands than sick days. They wanted 15 I think?
Congress tried to give them a week and failed. Biden got them 5.
There were also other major demands like the end of Precision Scheduled Railroading that never got met.
They were never gonna get 15. I assume 15 was the high ball with something in the middle being an acceptable target.
Perhaps, but again there were other demands as well. And 5 is quite low. I have a hard time seeing the federal government stepping in, keeping the workers from demonstrating their power, and then getting them a few crumbs of what they wanted as a good thing.
The big winner in that whole debacle was still the rail companies.
If that's the best the federal government can get from the rail companies, and they won't nationalize them, then the workers needed to strike anyway. Short term economic disruption be damned.
The government should step in the stop the rail companies, not the unions.
Sounds like Biden got them more than zero.
Progress comes in steps, and I expect leaders to take steps, not cast miracles
Strike action may well have gotten a far larger step.
If he couldn't get at LEAST as much as the workers could've gotten themselves, the federal government should have stayed out of it.
"the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few," paraphrasing Spock
The fact that Biden even stepped on at all, should tell you how bad the situation was. Also he's not talking absolutely all the credit for this. Biden wasn't there to make demands, he acted as a mediator to try and resolve this issue before it could hurt the country he was responsible for.
The government cannot just force a company to make drastic financial policy changes. I do wish they'd dictate CEO wage limitations, but that is a different discussion.
You'd rather have a massive impact to every citizens life occur, than guaranteed sick days?
You'd rather have a massive impact to every citizens life occur
Yes, we need to have an impact to draw attention to the fact that ANY worker has to fight for something as basic as SICK DAYS. That shouldn't be a question, let alone for workers supposedly so important to the economy.
The system is broken, either the government doesn't want to give workers basic protections or isn't able to stand up to the rail conglomerates. Either way, shit's broken. It's gonna take some disruption to make progress.
And anyway, such strikes aren't uncommon around the world. We would survive just fine.
You're seeing the results that occured. Apparently it helped or else they would have asked them away and kept to their own efforts.
True.
Any company or corporation that is so critical to the functioning over this country that it absolutely cannot shut down... Should be nationalized.
If the government needs it to function for the country to exist, then the government needs to own it.
The rail strike would have had major economy-wide side effects, including people in other industries being laid off and inflation being exacerbated by shortages in basic food, water, gas.
so essentially since these workers aren't as important, they're allowed to play around a little bit with a strike?
What on earth are you talking about? I literally just said these workers are SO important that I think they should be nationalized.
A strike is not a good thing. The purpose of unionizing is NOT to strike. Getting demands is the goal and they got that through back channels without a strike. The union itself reports this as a victory.
I'm literally unionizing at my job right now and I keep having to explain to this to my colleagues who are terrified they'll have to endure a long strike without pay if we unionize. A strike is a last resort desperation move. It. Is. Not. The. Goal. Collective bargaining negotiations is the goal. That was accomplished without a strike.
Collective bargaining and negotiations isn't the goal, and striking also isn't the goal. The goal is to win your stated demands (or as many of them as possible), like you said. Collective bargaining is safer and involves putting less at stake but is less of an exertion of force and offers less opportunity to flex your strength as workers united. Striking is riskier and is much more devastating to fail at but garners much more public recognition and cements how necessary you are in the event you succeed. Both are choices and both should be available and used at the appropriate time.
As for the original quote I made, I think there was a little bit of a disconnect there, I agree that rail workers should be nationalized (although that doesn't mean they shouldn't also be unionized), I'm saying that the problem is that the auto workers can have their strike entertained because they're "less important" (read: the consequences of their striking are less immediate) where rail workers can't have their strike entertained, because while they're just as exploited, they're also more day-to-day mission critical.
Yes. If you are an essential industry, you’re going to have less freedoms to protest work because of the ripple effects
Look at the ATC strike during Reagan’s presidency
If the economy can't function without giving workers time off then what's the point of the economy?
Which is exactly why that industry should be nationalized
The optimist in me wants to believe that he realized that was a mistake and now has an opportunity to do the right thing this time.
Biden has shown that he is willing to change his opinions and actions when he makes a mistake. He voted for Defense of Marriage Act back in the 90's, but IIRC after he became friends with an aid who happened to be trans (yeah, trans ≠ gay, but I guess they're close enough in some people's eyes) his opinions on LGBT people changed and he now strongly supports gay marriage. Point being, he could have changed his mind about striking workers too.
That's what a lot of people don't like to acknowledge, that individuals can learn and change. That they aren't always who they were.
Individuals learn and change, but learning and changing is only impressive when you're doing it in the name of progress and not in the name of pandering to the most tactically expedient blend of reactionaries and progressives.
why didn't you do this during the rail strike?
I suspect it has something to do with an upcoming something that rhymes with “Melekshin Beer”.
Exactly
This is smart. And very nimble too, slipping in there a day before Trumpolini's visit
He needs to address the fact that all the green energy stimulus going to EVs has gone to non-union plants and rectify the situation immediately. That has been a huge blow to UAW.
Rank and file stand on a picket line because withholding their labor is their political power. Biden has power to put forth policy to improve working people's lives, standing on a picket line without action is just a photo op.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
“Tuesday, I’ll go to Michigan to join the picket line and stand in solidarity with the men and women of UAW as they fight for a fair share of the value they helped create.
Biden’s trip, and the historic presidential appearance on a picket line, underscores the political opportunity as the strike against the nation’s three largest automakers – General Motors, Ford, and Stellantis – enters its second week.
While Biden has repeatedly touted his status as the most pro-labor president, the UAW has yet to offer an endorsement of his reelection bid as he faces low polling numbers on his handling of economic issues.
Presidents, including Biden, have previously declined to wade into union disputes to avoid the perception of taking sides on issues where the negotiating parties are often engaged in litigation.
The National Labor Relations Board, whose members are appointed by the president but expected to function as an independent entity, currently has nearly 30 cases pending that were filed by the United Auto Workers.
Earlier this year Fain was vocal in his criticism of Biden, especially for his administration’s financial support of a transition by the auto industry from traditional gasoline powered cars to electric vehicles, which the UAW sees as a threat to its members’ jobs.
The original article contains 778 words, the summary contains 211 words. Saved 73%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
Nice gesture, too bad that's all it is.
this post was submitted on 23 Sep 2023
316 points (97.9% liked)
politics
18894 readers
3655 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
- 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.
- 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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS