this post was submitted on 24 Sep 2023
323 points (93.3% liked)

politics

19072 readers
3858 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
 

On September 15, the United Auto Workers began a targeted strike against Ford, GM, and Stellantis (the conglomerate that includes Chrysler) in an effort to secure higher wages, a four-day work week, and other protections in the union’s next contract. The strike is a huge development for American workers, but it’s also a big deal for President Joe Biden—these car companies are central to his green-infrastructure agenda. The union wants assurances that the industry’s historic, heavily subsidized transition toward electric vehicles will work for them, too.

Biden, whose National Labor Relations Board has been an ally of labor organizers in fights against companies such as Amazon and Starbucks, has called himself “the most pro-union president in American history.” He has expressed support for the UAW’s cause (workers “deserve their fair share of the benefits they helped create,” he said last week) and has sent aides to Michigan to assist in the negotiations.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] kaput@jlai.lu 82 points 1 year ago (14 children)

Didn't he severely fuck the train workers unions a few months ago, or did I get that wrong?

[–] the_toeknee@lemmy.world 132 points 1 year ago (4 children)
[–] bdonvr@thelemmy.club 55 points 1 year ago (1 children)

A fraction of the paid sick days they were asking for, while also not meeting their other major demands at all. Ending Precision Scheduled Railroading was a big one. Still going on.

They stopped them from striking and potentially making greater gains, then tossed them some crumbs.

They should have stayed the hell out of it or used the government's power to stop the rail companies not the strikers.

[–] protist@mander.xyz 32 points 1 year ago (7 children)

Well Congress did vote on a bill to give rail workers 7 days of sick leave at the same time as the vote preventing the strike. One bill got enough Republican support to pass, the other didn't. If there were more Democrats in Congress, the outcome would have been more favorable to the unions, hands down

[–] MonkCanatella@sh.itjust.works 31 points 1 year ago (2 children)

the cool thing about strikes is congress doesn't have to vote for a company to give in to the demands of the workers. As a matter of fact congress has fuck all to do with it

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] bdonvr@thelemmy.club 24 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (9 children)

If they'd not intervened AT ALL they could've gotten even more by striking.

Or even better just make a reasonable amount of sick days federal law for all, and also put better safety legislation for trains.

load more comments (9 replies)
[–] HelloHotel@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

hey me, angey and ill informed child, shut your faceHow does that not sound like a complete violation of the constitution. "We voted to give you 7 days to not work somtimes and in exchange took your right to not work"

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] dannoffs@lemmy.sdf.org 39 points 1 year ago (19 children)

It's wild to me that Biden broke the strike then got them the tiniest fucking concession afterwards and people think that's an argument that he somehow was on the side of the union the whole time. Getting 4 sick days a year is absolutely nothing compared to the whole list of grievances and it's embarrassing that people bring this up in response to him breaking the strike.

[–] Kraiden@kbin.social 12 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Huh. It's really weird to read stuff like this. Just reminds me how lucky I am to not be in the US... with my legally mandated 10 days a year and all...

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (18 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Uprise42@artemis.camp 16 points 1 year ago (2 children)

On one side I have seen where he’s continued negotiations with them to help them resolve issues without a strike which is pretty beneficial.

On the other hand, if that’s not as good as it looks, then this could show that he realized he fucked up not letting the rail workers strike. If he’s going this hard on other strikes and supporting unions it may be to garner support for re-election. Even if it’s only for his own gain, being heavily pro union is a win for the people.

[–] julianh@lemm.ee 18 points 1 year ago

Even if he's doing it for the appearance, it's good that union support is popular enough that politicians want to seem pro-union.

[–] xantoxis@lemmy.world 12 points 1 year ago

I mean, that's basically the union working as intended. Together, we have the power to put fear in the powerful. Bosses or Biden, makes little difference.

[–] Ghostalmedia@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

These strikes don’t live in a vacuum. Inflation was much higher then, and supply chain transport constraints were a driving factor for it.

That was arguably some “Stop the Green Goblin or Save Gwen Stacy” shit.

[–] Aabbcc@lemm.ee 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

It's almost like we shouldn't have the green goblin running all our trains

[–] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Yes, but then he got them the sick days anyhow after the fact.

I’m concerned that the second deal isn’t part of the contract, but, yeah. He fucked them in the name of national security; then walked back and got them the ask.

[–] bdonvr@thelemmy.club 11 points 1 year ago (3 children)

He got them a small number of the sick days they were demanding, and didn't address any of their other concerns whatsoever such as ending Precision Scheduled Railroading.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (10 replies)
[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 42 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Joe Biden was a big fan of working on muscle cars when he was younger (even though he also loved public transportation). I think he can definitely appreciate the skill it takes to build a car, so I'm glad he's doing this.

Yes, he didn't do the right thing with the rail workers union- and yes, I know things were negotiated afterward, but it was the wrong way to go about it- but let's not let the perfect be the enemy of the good and acknowledge that he's doing the right thing this time, which is better than taking the side of the auto companies like the Republicans are.

[–] Boddhisatva@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yes, he didn’t do the right thing with the rail workers union- and yes, I know things were negotiated afterward, but it was the wrong way to go about it- but let’s not let the perfect be the enemy of the good...

The rail union is quite pleased with how things played out according to IBEW’s Railway Department Director Al Russo.

We’re thankful that the Biden administration played the long game on sick days and stuck with us for months after Congress imposed our updated national agreement,” Russo said. “Without making a big show of it, Joe Biden and members of his administration in the Transportation and Labor departments have been working continuously to get guaranteed paid sick days for all railroad workers.

...snip...

“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.”

He did do the right thing with the railway workers. The strike would likely have had a massive economic impact across the nation and in many different industries. Avoiding the strike while still getting the workers much of what they wanted was a very good result. Not perfect, but as you said, don't let perfect be the enemy of good.

[–] VentraSqwal@links.dartboard.social 12 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

IBEW is only one of 13 rail unions, and according to another Lemmy user, their union officials are some of the more conservative ones, preferring lobbying Democrats over strikes and popular labor action. I wouldn't go to their statement to see what rank-and-file union members preferred, as they tried to negotiate weaker deals in the beginning and have generally been going against what the majority of their workers would have preferred, according to what I've heard from online union members and from places like the Railroad Workers United (a coalition of rank-and-file members across all the rail unions). It also didn't address Precision Scheduling or inadequate staffing or all sorts of other things they probably could have gotten if their leverage wasn't removed by the President and Congress.

People need to learn what their labor is capable of and politicians interfering absorbs energy from the workers. People also need to stop thinking of themselves as consumers (oh no! My Christmas presents won't arrive in time!), and think of themselves as workers in solidarity with all other wage workers.

I 100% agree with Flying Squid that it was the wrong way to go about it, but he's doing better now.

[–] Aabbcc@lemm.ee 5 points 1 year ago (2 children)

acknowledge that he's doing the right thing this time

Is he DOING anything that helps the UAW? Seems like the president should have more power than verbal support and marching.

[–] krakenx@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago

What should he be doing that doesn't exceed the powers granted to the President by the constitution?

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Pectin8747@lemmy.ml 27 points 1 year ago (7 children)

TFW your country has been a 1/10 for labor for decades and then a president bumps it to a 2/10 and all the neolib outlets champion him as the most pro-union president in history... 🤮

[–] Tolookah@discuss.tchncs.de 15 points 1 year ago

I meant, it's still true. Yes there is room to grow, but look, growth!

[–] assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago

I mean, it tracks. FDR broke federal employee unions. 2/10 is the most pro union we've seen.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] Phegan@lemmy.world 19 points 1 year ago

Why don't you tell us where he is going in a useful headline as opposed to perpetuating click bait culture by using the headline from the website.

[–] Boddhisatva@lemmy.world 12 points 1 year ago (3 children)

I would think this would be too dangerous for the Secret Service to give the okay on. I can only imagine the complexities involved in securing an area like that. On the other hand, I doubt any MAGA zealot would try to kill him, since that would give us our first black, female president.

[–] vertigo3pc@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago

Nah, I'm pretty sure they believe if Biden is killed, RFK Jr or Sidney Powell will become President.

[–] Something_Complex@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago

Yhe because MAGA people are known for their good sense.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›