You can’t just take away workers right to their own power and self-determination and then think it’s all good if you help them get some of the things they want. That’s not actually being pro-union.
I support unions and workers right to strike but at the cost of potential economic collapse?
Every strike causes disruptions, and the bigger the disruption the stronger the strike. Accepting that workers get to use their power to decide what deal is acceptable is part of being pro-labor, even if it means your life is disrupted.
But if you for some reason don’t believe that labor can engage in big disruptions to show their bosses they’re serious and decide you simply must intervene in a worker-employer negotiation, then enforce the contract the workers wanted. And if you’re not willing to force their bosses to accept a contract they don’t like, then don’t pretend you had no choice when you forced the workers.
Every strike causes disruptions, and the bigger the disruption the stronger the strike. Accepting that workers get to use their power to decide what deal is acceptable is part of being pro-labor, even if it means your life is disrupted.
There’s a difference between a disruption and the railroads shutting down in a country experiencing a pandemic and economic depression.
Disruption is fine, shelves being more empty, non-essential goods being harder to obtain is fine. Vital goods and services not getting where they need to, people losing their jobs, homes, health, lives etc. is not. I don’t know if all of that would have happened, I leave that to the people who should have an understanding of that impact. Those people elected for that.
But if you for some reason don’t believe that labor can engage in big disruptions to show their bosses they’re serious and decide you simply must intervene in a worker-employer negotiation, then enforce the contract the workers wanted. And if you’re not willing to force their bosses to accept a contract they don’t like, then don’t pretend you had no choice when you forced the workers.
Can the President unilaterally force the acceptance of a contract on either side? Was there a claim made that the President had no choice by me? By Biden?
It’s disingenuous to bring up the strike blocking without also acknowledging action taken afterward. It seems like narrative building used to present a skewed perspective. Especially when it’s often brought up not as a statement of fact but as an allusion to something else.
Vital goods and services not getting where they need to, people losing their jobs, homes, health, lives etc. is not.
So your stance is that rail workers work for private enterprises but simply cannot strike. They can have pretend unions that join together to ask for stuff, but there’s nothing they can do if they don’t get it. That’s not pro-labor. No one was going to die because the rails weren’t running. The citations was always “the economy” and we literally just went through a crisis where supply chains were disrupted and people’s jobs were saved by emergency acts. Or if you actually believe the apocalypse proclamations, then rail shouldn’t be a private enterprise, and it certainly shouldn’t be run by sick people who haven’t had a good night’s sleep.
Can the President unilaterally force the acceptance of a contract on either side?
It was an act of Congress. It could do nearly anything. There was an amendment for sick days that failed and Biden could have made that a requirement. Or just temporarily seized the railroads while negotiations continue. Truman nationalized the rails to avert a strike.
You can’t say this is going to be an apocalypse, with intervention by Congress itself, and then say “oh, but the only option is blocking a strike and forcing company approved solutions”.
It’s disingenuous to bring up the strike blocking without also acknowledging action taken afterward.
Oh fuck off with your “disingenuous” insinuation. My initial reply is exactly about how you can’t just give them a present after you blocked their core labor power and pretend it’s fixes the original harm. The stuff afterward is good positive work, but in no way addresses the core harm of blocking a union’s right to withhold their labor. He could have gotten them everything they wanted (he didn’t) and it still wouldn’t undo making a major attack on the rights of organized labor.
You can’t just take away workers right to their own power and self-determination and then think it’s all good if you help them get some of the things they want. That’s not actually being pro-union.
Every strike causes disruptions, and the bigger the disruption the stronger the strike. Accepting that workers get to use their power to decide what deal is acceptable is part of being pro-labor, even if it means your life is disrupted.
But if you for some reason don’t believe that labor can engage in big disruptions to show their bosses they’re serious and decide you simply must intervene in a worker-employer negotiation, then enforce the contract the workers wanted. And if you’re not willing to force their bosses to accept a contract they don’t like, then don’t pretend you had no choice when you forced the workers.
There’s a difference between a disruption and the railroads shutting down in a country experiencing a pandemic and economic depression.
Disruption is fine, shelves being more empty, non-essential goods being harder to obtain is fine. Vital goods and services not getting where they need to, people losing their jobs, homes, health, lives etc. is not. I don’t know if all of that would have happened, I leave that to the people who should have an understanding of that impact. Those people elected for that.
Can the President unilaterally force the acceptance of a contract on either side? Was there a claim made that the President had no choice by me? By Biden?
It’s disingenuous to bring up the strike blocking without also acknowledging action taken afterward. It seems like narrative building used to present a skewed perspective. Especially when it’s often brought up not as a statement of fact but as an allusion to something else.
So your stance is that rail workers work for private enterprises but simply cannot strike. They can have pretend unions that join together to ask for stuff, but there’s nothing they can do if they don’t get it. That’s not pro-labor. No one was going to die because the rails weren’t running. The citations was always “the economy” and we literally just went through a crisis where supply chains were disrupted and people’s jobs were saved by emergency acts. Or if you actually believe the apocalypse proclamations, then rail shouldn’t be a private enterprise, and it certainly shouldn’t be run by sick people who haven’t had a good night’s sleep.
It was an act of Congress. It could do nearly anything. There was an amendment for sick days that failed and Biden could have made that a requirement. Or just temporarily seized the railroads while negotiations continue. Truman nationalized the rails to avert a strike.
You can’t say this is going to be an apocalypse, with intervention by Congress itself, and then say “oh, but the only option is blocking a strike and forcing company approved solutions”.
Oh fuck off with your “disingenuous” insinuation. My initial reply is exactly about how you can’t just give them a present after you blocked their core labor power and pretend it’s fixes the original harm. The stuff afterward is good positive work, but in no way addresses the core harm of blocking a union’s right to withhold their labor. He could have gotten them everything they wanted (he didn’t) and it still wouldn’t undo making a major attack on the rights of organized labor.