politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- 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:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
President Joe Biden has genuinely been one of the more pro-labor presidents in American history. While I strongly disagree with how he handled the rail strikes, the policy coming from his NLRB and the way he's been handling the auto strikes I think are a strong indicator of the policy that he stands for. The United States presidency has an extremely poor track record when it comes to working with labor, and I'll take whatever progress I can get.
Actually he handled them really well, maybe not so good from the PR point of view, as almost no one reported on it:
https://www.ibew.org/media-center/Articles/23Daily/2306/230620_IBEWandPaid
The ibew is one of the more conservative of the 13 separate rail unions, whose strategy involves lobbying Democrats instead of organizing. So of course they're going to praise Biden. My own union isn't as bad, but also throws praise at Biden even tho his administration was a negative influence on our negotiations. For a better view of rail labor, I'd listen to Railworkers United, a caucus of rail workers across all 13 separate unions to pressure the unions to work together and demand more for members. https://myemail.constantcontact.com/RWU-Issues-Official-Statement-on-PEB--250.html?soid=1116509035139&aid=Bt3zn_HU0ik
That was RWU's statement on the prevention of the strike immediately after it happened, but collective bargaining continued with the support of the White House, and they later won sick leave
From RWU:
This is pretty scathing of him actually. Basically no credit was given to Biden and he was blamed for how difficult it was and for screwing them over, along with union officials who wanted to accept weak deals from the railroads and the White House. Their statement seems to be that only through popular pressure and media attention was there then the pressure on Congress to try to pass another law, and the threat of that is how they succeeded.
It's not saying government breaking strikes is good, they're saying it's a common tactic that has bee done throughout history that they need to be prepared for and overcome.
From your link (emphasis mine) :
Biden was a bad influence on West Coast longshore negotiations. As our negotions started, he had both the ILWU president and the employer's representative onto the battleship Iowa to pledge to not prepare for a strike. The union did not prepare for a strike, but the shippers diverted a huge amount of cargo away from the West Coast thru the Panama Canal. Granted, a West coast longshore strike stops 40% of US imports. But removing the threat means the employers have zero incentive to budge.