unions

I don't think that was a party-line thing for AOC. It was an incredibly complex issue because many of the Rail Unions were locked in strike from inter-union agreements. Sure they were wililng to continue, but it had become a giant morass of red tape.

In fact, if you read the bill, it did not ban striking, despite Congress having the express power to do so if they choose in this situation. The Unions retained the ability to strike, and the bill expressly allowed them to come to a superceding agreement should they do so. All it did was bind terms that were largely acceptable and had already been agreed upon by many of the unions. Did it take ammo away from unions? YES, because several unions perfectly happy with the agreed-upon terms were no longer willing to strike.

I have absolutely come to understand the folks who felt the government should stay out of business and Union negotations. I continue to see them a lot like Republicans, but I understand the nuances of it all. As a Demsoc myself, however, I feel there is sufficient justification for someone like AOC to believe that a Yes vote on the bill (not quite a "No on allowing the rail workers to strike) was the right choice.

Sometimes our congressmen will vote differently than we wish. Sometimes it doesn't make them sellouts to do so.

EDIT: To be clear, I understand that there were very specific issues that some unions wanted resolution on, related to Overwork and "no PTO" being used to avoid hiring more people. There should be regulations to handle that, and I do wish the "enforced agreement' Had provided more than it did.