Why is the Pro Act, whose passage is contingent on unlikely filibuster reform, considered a more "grown up," real wold, achievable goal than withholding COVID bill votes for the $15 min wage? Or FTV? We discuss on the latest @BadFaithPod https://twitter.com/briebriejoy/status/1385272505993154560

Because one has the entirety of organized American labor behind it and the other was an idea someone had on a podcast.

Yeah, that’s the problem, genius... someone on a podcast shouldn’t be coming up with these ideas, because they’re extremely simple and easy to figure out.

Pressuring politicians to force them to do what their supporters/constituents want is not really that complicated.

https://twitter.com/Left_Blacksmith/status/1385937077598965762

another post in conversation under that anti-FTV/anti-podcaster (!) guy's feed:

why is the symbolic vote on the PRO-act that does nothing and won't become law so superior to a symbolic vote on M4A that does nothing and won't become law?

Because unions are an important institution in the labor aristocrat wing of capitalism. Who else is going to send newsletters to worker telling them to vote for the Democratic candidate? The CFL-AIO are literally agents of CIA imperialism, these Liz Warren voting radlibs who are pushing this program are just maintaining their hegemony with this virtue signalling capitalist reform bullshit.

    • DetroitLolcat [he/him]
      ·
      4 years ago

      I think it's also possible that Democrats could roll the PRO Act - or at least wide swaths of it - into the infrastructure bill and get it through with 51. Plus Schumer has promised a floor vote on it if it gets 50 cosponsors (currently has 47). Interesting that the FTV people are attacking organizers for trying to force a vote on something...almost like FTV's about punching left not actually winning votes...

      • SolidaritySplodarity [they/them]
        ·
        4 years ago

        And notice how the PRO Act people are actually organizing people and groups to push the issue. FTV's idea of movement building was to shit on people on Twitter/YouTube.

    • Three_Magpies [he/him]
      ·
      4 years ago

      Nah I agree with the OP that this is just making more labor aristocrats privileged workers, who will then live in a defensive crouch to protect their $18/hr. jobs with a .33cent raise every 5 years against working class incursions.

      • invalidusernamelol [he/him]M
        ·
        4 years ago

        This is actually insane. The only thing that's bad about this is the possibility that the new unions might get de-fanged. Even then, a de-fanged union can grow them back. A dead union can't

        • Three_Magpies [he/him]
          ·
          4 years ago

          I guess my anxiety is that even with the growth of unions, they will probably still represent a small portion of workers. And while those workers will have better wages / conditions, they will be mollified and will be more likely to defend the capitalist system than to seek to alter it.

          • invalidusernamelol [he/him]M
            ·
            4 years ago

            Historically, that makes no sense. Union membership is always significantly more radical than union leadership. As unions grow, the leadership feels more pressure to change. Especially because the new members aren't conditioned to the current status quo.

            Grow the unions and hamstring the leadership. Labor aristocrats are the first in the line of trash that needs to be taken out.