this post was submitted on 22 Sep 2023
0 points (NaN% liked)

politics

18883 readers
3494 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. 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.
  6. 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 1 year ago
MODERATORS
top 38 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I ain't a Joe Biden fanboy, but I would like to say if Bernie got elected president and he did this then the streets would go wild. This is insanely (good) that a president is showing so much solidarity and support to striking workers. This gets eyes and ears about the UAW strike, people see this support, they become emboldened, and now start thinking, "Hey, maybe we should strike or unionize..."

This is such a huge win for America and leftism in general. Let's Go Dark Brandon

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

Yeah. He sure showed solidarity when he broke up the train strike....

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Bernie would have stood with the rail workers as well. This is makes his current stand seem less sincere and more like a photo op.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Take a look at some of the top voted comments, Biden ended up getting the rail works what they were asking for 2 weeks later

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

But they could have gotten a hell of a lot more if they did strike

[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Perfect is the enemy of good

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

Choose the lesser of two evils every time and you'll end up with the most evil imaginable.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

The auto strike has a 75% approval rating. That's way bigger than most things in US politics. Not supporting the auto strike is a losing issue.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (3 children)

As a Democrat who voted for Biden because he didn't want to see fascism, but was very sore about doing so because Biden is a milquetoast moderate at best...

This is sick. Props.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I might actually vote for him if he does this

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Otherwise what, you're voting for Trump?

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Nah not voting for Biden. It doesn't matter anyway. Blue state and all that

[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 year ago

What about the down ballot races? And honestly, your choice is trump or no trump. Not voting for Biden is pretty close to accepting fascism because you didn't get your perfect candidate.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

He's been a lot more progressive in his policies than I think people thought he'd be. He's not flashy about it though, so people tend to only hear the complaining that comes from much louder people

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

Just remember, this isn't Biden having a change of mind necessarily, this is more about Biden answering to pressure. The reason why Biden behaves like this is mostly because the UAW has witheld their endorsment for him, saying that "Biden has to pick a side, either the working class, or the billionaires", that "he has to earn his endorsment" and that "they expect actions, not just words".

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

He sold out the rail unions not even a year ago

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

He ended up getting them what they wanted just a couple months later. Check out the top comment threads here

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

He got them some sick days. A far cry from having their demands met. Particularly in the aspects concerning safety

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

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.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (2 children)
[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You mean when he in the three months afterwards helped the workers and the union to make sure they got their demands, while also not causing an actual rail shutdown that would cause massive harm to multiple areas?

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Maybe I'm uninformed, but how are rail strikes, which are common in my country, massive harm that a government of half a continent feels the need to step in?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

It was going to be a massive rail strike in a situation where logistics were already strained. The US is run by rail, despite how little we invest into it. It's an absolutely massive amount of land area, and the only reasonable way to transport things across it is rail. It would have crippled almost every business.

That said, if the workers are that important they should get everything they demand. The Biden administration did get them some of their demands, which is better than I expected, they should get more.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yeah wouldn't trust him on this. He definitely not on the side of workers.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

What are you talking about? Yes, they ended the strike without getting paid go leave, but the WH continued to work on it after and they did get what they were asking for. Just media didn't bother reporting on that little detail as it wasn't "newsworthy".

Edit: https://www.ibew.org/media-center/Articles/23Daily/2306/230620_IBEWandPaid

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)

That's still not great. The point of strikes is to be disruptive. This undermines the power of unions. Sure the union got what they wanted, but next time they might not. This whole thing is just the usual Dems playing both sides

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Dude, they were disruptive enough that the fucking president got personally involved on their side. What more do you want?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

I'm sorry what fucking planet do you live on. Biden didn't get involved on the side of unions. He told them they could not legally strike because of national security. But luckily our of the kindness of his heart, Biden still had the railroad give workers paid sick days. That's not wholesome, that's not cool, that's fucked. Any President can now just shut down rail strikes and they don't have to give jack fucking shit. The unions won this time, but next time the won't.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The point of strikes is to be disruptive.

The point of strikes is to get employers to meet the demands of the workers

Sure the union got what they wanted, but

But nothing.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The struggle for workers' rights is not one battle, and enforcing a precedent that the government can and will back corps during a strike diminishes the power of the strike, arguably the most powerful tools for workers' rights, at is core. Biden essentially declared strikes aren't acceptable, but they'll deign to help groups when they see fit, and when this happens under a republican government, we all know there'll be no work done afterwards to satisfy the workers, who now have a diminished position to work with.

The foundation of workers' rights that's been built up over the last hundred+ years was very much damaged by Biden, and he shouldn't get a pass for that. At best it was a stupid blunder he worked to fix, at worst it was a manipulative effort to weaken the effectiveness of these groups while also establishing a reliance on "sympathetic" governmental powers as necessary to get anything done. Neither is particularly great.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Alternatively, you could look at it as the Biden administration declared that strikes above a certain level of disruption to critical infrastructure warrant the government stepping in, even if the demands are valid.
Something about the administration unambiguously endorsing a large but not critical infrastructure strike, like they are with the UAW, implies that maybe the point isn't to signal that strikes are unacceptable.

It's almost like the executive branch has to balance a myriad of competing interests, all of which are important.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

The government could've stepped in in support of the striking workers, but they didn't. Now that the strike isn't causing "problems", they're all for it!

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The point of strike is to get what is demanded. Much better outcome for everyone involved (including the very people who are striking) is to get demands satisfied without having to strike. Do you think people strike, because they love doing that? No one does.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (2 children)

He forced them back to work before their demands could be met. That is a fail. He may have gotten something after the fact, but that doesn’t change that he forced workers back to work instead of striking. What if he wasn’t able to get that done?

FWIW, rail workers were asking for 7 sick days a year. 7. And Biden got them 5 with the ability to convert 2 personal days to sick days. As a note, even 7 is a ridiculously low number.

He should have sided with unions then, too. The only reason he’s doing this is because Republicans are saying that the UAW is being damaged by Biden’s policies.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

He also robbed the right wing of a "unions bad" moment when a rail strike disrupted the whole economy.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

If our infrastructure is so brittle that one strike can disrupt the economy as severely as pro-strikebreaking centrist Democrats say, the current rail companies cannot be trusted to continue operating it.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

This all-or-nothing approach is what gives you nothing more often then not

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

My point is, it shouldn’t be Biden inserting himself into what should have been a conversation between the union and the railroad. He forced the union’s hand and then said “trust me”. I want you to imagine a world where a politician forced a company to accept a union’s offer and then told the company to “trust them”.

As if an American politician would ever force a company to accept a union’s (very reasonable, FWIW) offer.