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
He sold out the rail unions not even a year ago
He ended up getting them what they wanted just a couple months later. Check out the top comment threads here
He got them some sick days. A far cry from having their demands met. Particularly in the aspects concerning safety
Copying my response to the other guy here too:
Safety is absolutely a serious concern, but can you show me some sources where safety was a sticking point leading up to the strike vote? The union literature from the time is very focused on sick leave
No he didn't, one of their largest complaints was safety. Democrats downplayed their strike as 'sick days' so it sounded like their demands were trivial.
Safety is absolutely a serious concern, but can you show me some sources where safety was a sticking point leading up to the strike vote? The union literature from the time is very focused on sick leave
As per usual, crickets.
the fact dumbasses here are splitting hairs around sick leave, safety, and insane schedules is absurd. All are serious problems that shouldn't exist.
and it was viscerally demonstrated with multiple train crashes occurring during the period the unions were threatening to strike.
When someone says that sick days weren't a major strike demand and falsely claim without any evidence that safety was the biggest issue, it isn't splitting hairs to ask for proof. If the distinctions don't matter, then makes no sense to complain about safety vs sick leave.
Which train crashes are you referring to?
No, their largest complaints were sick days and a brutal scheduling policy. That's what I remember from looking into this at the time, and what I'm finding looking into it now too.
Can you show me where getting 7 sick days per year was what the unions were looking for?
The railroad guys got dealt a realllllllllly shitty hand with that one.
Nope, he got them their sick days. He kept the pressure on even after imposing the contract. Directly from the IBEW union:
https://www.ibew.org/media-center/Articles/23Daily/2306/230620_IBEWandPaid
Yeah...
Biden isn't pro union. He's pro-re-election.
I'm glad he's going out there to support the workers. But let's not look past the fact that Biden forced the rail union to get fucked in the ass.
I'm totally OK with pro-re-election as long as he sees the direction the winds are blowing. They aren't blowing towards conservatism or neo-liberal economic policy, even if that's where he stands. Meanwhile most of the republican candidates in the primary are saying how greedy the workers are... I'll take Biden. He's not my first choice, and I don't even like his political position on almost anything, but he is doing far better than I expected.
The day after the general election the direction of those winds will change, they always do
I doubt it. Biden is nothing if not a party man. I'm certain he wants his legacy to be that he brought the democratic party into new strength. He'll accomplish that by pushing for more progressive policy that actually helps people. Will he fully go against corporate interest over people? Of course not. He won't be as bad as you're implying though.
He's doing the same thing Obama did in his third year, sounding progressive as hell with lots of populous talk, gets reelected and turns full on corporate owned neolib.
Biden was pushing for unions before the current pro-union zeitgeist bubbled up, which I think started with the first Starbucks successfully unionizing at the end of 2022. The CHIPS act and IRA both required recipients to employ unionized labor.
First Starbucks unionization in that movement was Dec 2021, not end of 2022.