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
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?
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.
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.
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.
You said it hits them "hardest," but how do you know it doesn't hit the poor and middle class down the pipeline harder, comparatively? What you're talking about is profits; what I'm talking about is clothing and food for actual people and a raising of bottom-line prices. Make no mistake — the consequence of such a strike comes at the cost of holding those down the line hostage. Naturally the shareholders tend to have a rainy-day fund in order to ride out the storm. Naturally the wealthy can weather such storms easier than the poor and middle class, yes?
In fact this goes back to this very strike covered in this submission, in which Biden pointed out to the nnion that their strike would effect... Who? Those impacted by Hurricane Helene.
Hardest is therefore relative.
Exactly. Actual people can't eat profits but there are other logistical methods of getting goods and services to where they are needed, while shareholders are invested and would have to sell their holdings at a loss if they wanted to get their profits elsewhere.
Again, precisely. The larger the group pf people inconvenienced by a work stoppage, the greater the pressure on management to offer the workers an acceptable contract.
Naturally, the shareholders don't want to keep a rainy-day fund, because every dollar that isn't invested in revenue generation is losing value to inflation. That's why just-in-time logistics is so huge, and why our supply chains are so brittle. Reserve capacity is an expense to Capital.
Naturally, poor folk who have very little to lose and everything to gain have a desperate need to secure the best contracts possible. And, as examples like the Montgomery Bus Boycott demonstrate, even state-backed enterprises can't persist in the face of organized and persistent strikes by the poorest folks in the country.
Agreed. Your only misconception is a failure to grasp just how astronomically steep our economic inequality has become.
In relative terms, the business losses due to work stoppage are monumental compared to the cost of labor itself. Businesses regularly spend ten or 100x more on "union avoidance" than the added costs of a decent contract.