Similar to protesting, they're always in favor of these things- but only so long as they have no chance of achieving anything
Don't worry, libs will use the first half of that tweet when frothing at the mouth over why leftists don't love daddy
Did anyone here seriously expect that the bourgeois state would simply allow workers to go on strike and threaten capital? Of course they wouldn't. You can have all these pretty liberal freedoms as long as you don't fuck with the money. But fucking with the money is never going to be legal.
A capitalist government siding with capitalist industry to use the power of the state to force workers to concede to the demands of capital, can you believe this is happening in a western liberal democracy you guys?
A lot of people here got sincerely excited at the prospect, without thinking about surrounding context
Obviously not but this is a teachable moment for my lib parents
He's not really a scab since he's the boss of the whole country. He'd need to be a worker to be a scab.
It would be nice if a bunch of other industries began to strike in solidarity but Americans are so atomized that's never gonna happen.
How did these bags of moldy oranges figure out how to postpone karma for so long
Ah, the old "at least Mussolini made the trains run on time" defense. Joe's still got it!
It's a good thing the Gov didn't just commit so much money to Ukraine that they could to give all 115,000 affected workers ~$120,000 (from just the last round) or ~$550,000 (total so far). I mean, can you imagine the rage induced from a government that shit on its citizens that explosively...:biden-alert:
I hope Chinese America-watchers are having a good time watching videos like: "Is America collapsing? The Great Brandon is losing the Mandate of Heaven. 300 billion to Ukraine!"
I mean, half the joke is that the rail workers aren't asking for more money. They're asking for an end to the crazy 24/7/365 On-Call requirements. That's what is driving the strikes. The money is nice and definitely due, but it is secondary to days-off.
I still really don’t understand what it means for a rail strike to be illegal. Okay, we’re not “striking” we’re “quitting” until you realize you fucking need us working and hire us back with better terms.
Unless they plan on straight up arresting rail workers and compelling them to run the trains at gunpoint punishing a strike doesn’t seem like it would help. All you’re doing is making it harder to have the workers you need when the strike does end.
That’s kinda the thing about a strike is it hard to prevent since ultimately it’s just “not working”
If that was a reasonable option why not just do that now
I'm not sure it's an option at all on a large scale. It's not something that the weekend warrior types can do (it's a skilled job), so presumably you'd need people from the army who drive their logistics trains to do it. But I don't know how many of those there are. Stopping arms shipments to Ukraine because the army train engineers are busy delivering treats would be kinda funny tho.
I still really don’t understand what it means for a rail strike to be illegal. Okay, we’re not “striking” we’re “quitting” until you realize you fucking need us working and hire us back with better terms.
There's a formal process of negotiation. And a "legal" strike is a part of that negotiation process. Without the trappings of legality, the agreement between workers and management isn't legally binding. Without a formal union contract, individual striking workers are exposed to retaliation by the employer. Without a recognized settlement, certain union groups aren't guaranteed the same benefits as others so everything is settled on an individual contractual level rather than as a provision that applies to all current and future union members.
Of course, in a country that's been moving aggressively towards "Right To Work" state-by-state, the veneer of legality is falling away. The Teacher Strikes from back in '18-'19 were functionally wildcat, because there was no formal union and no official union body with which to negotiate. And the strikes weren't resolved at a national or even a state level. Teachers came back once the local districts began to cave on various provisions independent of any contractual agreement, with the expectation that a reversal would set off another round of strikes.
Generally speaking, unions benefit from a uniform collective approach because it grants rights to a ahem class of people rather than some subset that reach a settlement with some random collection of pliant managers. It establishes the union as a base of cooperative support, rather than a mere organ of agitation.
That’s kinda the thing about a strike is it hard to prevent since ultimately it’s just “not working”
Unions don't really benefit from "Quiet Quitting". Leadership needs to be seen as such in order to establish terms and win concessions in a manner that encourages more people to join and participate in the union. No, Congress can't just wave their hands and make people go back to work. But they can make any subsequent deal swiss-cheesed with holes that allow management to legally reneg afterwards without consequence. Similarly, they can impose fines and penalties on union leadership and union organizations, such that state debt collectors and local sheriffs are legally empowered to harass them.
I don't really see how Congress fits into this. It's like including the town council in divorce proceedings.
Would be hilarious if the strike just happened anyway. Show us just how pro-labor you are then
