this post was submitted on 04 Oct 2024
212 points (95.3% liked)

politics

19222 readers
2745 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 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 6 points 2 months ago (7 children)

Actually, it would hit the wallets of the rail company shareholders hardest.

Also, don't pretend that the rail strikers came out on top in that negotiation. Their #1 issue was understaffing and the total lack of sick time, neither of which were addressed.

[–] lennybird 5 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (4 children)

Biden said he is not giving up on paid sick leave for rail workers and other Americans who don't receive such benefits. But he made it clear that he was not prepared to see freight trains stopped and food, water, clothing, and holiday gifts stranged in empty depots.

This mind you as we were just getting past the worst of the covid pandemic. Do you have any source to suggest this would impact the shareholders "the hardest"?

Reminder that yet again — this per Bernie Sanders — the expanded sick leave for all rail workers was obstructed by Republicans. Screwing over Democrats during election season is, again, short-sighted. Perhaps those unions from the Teamsters to the longshoremen should rally to get Republicans out of the way?

[–] [email protected] -2 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (3 children)

Do you have any source to suggest this would impact the shareholders "the hardest"?

What do you mean "source"?

This is basic microeconomics, if the company can't sell its services due to labor action then it can't generate profits for the shareholders, so they get hit directly in the wallet.

Everyone has to put up with downstream effects, but only the shareholders get the direct impacts on top of that, so obviously they're getting hit the hardest.

Perhaps those unions from the Teamsters to the longshoremen should rally to get Republicans out of the way?

Most (like 60%) of the Teamsters are Republicans, and I'd bet the same applies to the Longshoremen. That's why the Teamsters hasn't endorsed anyone this year.

[–] sartalon 2 points 2 months ago

I'm gonna have to go with Bernie's leadership on this one.

I trust him more than either of negotiating leads.

Your point on the demographics is key though. At some point, something's got to give. Unions and GoP don't mix, and for labor to not actively fight Trump is like shooting yourself in the face. It is so fucking short sighted and TERRIBLE leadership. It is leopards ate my face level stupidity.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)