You must log in or register to comment.

Cynical_Cabinet t1_j5qk1cb wrote

There's your "Best Freight Railroad in the World". Can't give employees basic sick days, can't pay for maintenance, can't pay for any upgrades, can't ship anything on time, can't follow the law and yield to passenger trains. But hey, they are making record profits so that means everything is fine.


AnybodyMassive1610 t1_j5r3388 wrote

Didn’t the federal government remove their workers right to strike because “national security” or something - cause the companies couldn’t possibly afford to pay a living wage or vacation or sick days? Isn’t that something Joe “I’m all for the unions until I’m not” Biden did just a bit ago?!


Ogediah t1_j5rj1az wrote

They didn’t recently remove their right to strike. It’s baked into older legislation. Biden and congress did leverage that authority. And it was downright fucking ridiculous that Biden busted the strike by starting with: “as the most pro-union president ever”. Guess how his canned response letter also read when I contacted the White House?

Biden, that makes you a union buster you moron. You have to earn the title “most union president ever.” You don’t become it just because you said it.

Also, side note, but FDR was BY FAR the most pro-union president ever. Pro-working class period. His administration gave us OSHA, FLSA, the NLRA, Social Security…. the list goes on.


AnybodyMassive1610 t1_j5rngp8 wrote

I do realize that it isn't new per se. But, I went for something easy to define rather than that level of nuance.

However, you're absolutely right that they had the power to force an agreement and, as you've pointed out, it amounts to union busting.

The exercise of that older legislation, in effect, did remove their right to legally strike by allowing the government to force the union and railroad into an agreement.

It was the choice of this administration to favor the railroad companies that just posted record profits OVER that of the workers and their basic rights.

To be clear, Joe Biden, Chuck Schumer, and Nancy Pelosi --along with all of the current Democratic party leadership-- sided with the railroads & shareholders (like Warren Buffett) over that of the workers and their ability to negotiate collectively as a union.

It is deplorable to me that the party of FDR -- the party that has been supported by labor unions for decades -- whiffed so badly on what could've been a lesson in compassion, fairness, and support for critical workers having to suffer deplorable conditions. Instead it was a lesson in greed that further divides the ruling class from the working class - irrespective of party affiliation.


GroundbreakingWeb963 t1_j5sfy98 wrote

It's almost like the democrats are funded by the exact same people as Republicans and are only giving the illusion of a party that fights for the people. Weird.


stuntmanbob86 t1_j5x7suf wrote

Yeah, look into the companies that donate. You'll see that Berkshire Hathaway donates almost equally to dems and rep in congress. That's pretty telling...


Winchery t1_j5s1dv5 wrote

One thing though, the vast majority of railroad workers are EXTREMELY conservative, so they should be happy that carriers, aka the job creators, got their way. The free market is working for all the railroaders in this case.

I don't really get why they can support republican policies which are so anti union then be mad when the union has no power to protect them?

The democrats can't do anything in this case because if they allowed a strike then republicans would blame inflation and supply chain issues squarely on democrats.

In this case it makes sense to let the very right leaning railroaders sleep in the beds that they have made for themselves and dreamed about their entire life.


processedmeat t1_j5s44el wrote

These are some broad generalization you needed to justify bad behavior


beatyouwithahammer t1_j5tgduk wrote

They were not justifying bad behavior. You did not understand what was being said.


Winchery t1_j5u5qlu wrote

Reread what I said. I didn't justify anything. I just laid out the facts.

Anyone that has ever worked in the cab of a locomotive or on the ground in a yard knows that the workforce is EXTREMELY conservative. Every single day at work you will have at least half of your day wasted hearing about how bad and evil democrats are and how bad unions suck while they vote for people that dismantle their unions.

They think companies should be able to do whatever they want with impunity except when it affects them. They honestly don't deserve any help in that industry.


processedmeat t1_j5u79j1 wrote


>Reread what I said. I didn't justify anything.

Also you

>Anyone that has ever worked in the cab of a locomotive or on the ground in a yard knows that the workforce is EXTREMELY conservative. They honestly don't deserve any help in that industry.

If someone is pro labor they should support labor no matter the political leanings of the majority of people in the field.


Winchery t1_j5u8847 wrote

That's just your opinion. I am pro labor, but if a sector is 95% hardcore conservative, I would like to see the unions fully abandon that sector and let the mighty hand of the free market dictate work rules and pay.

You have to look at the big picture. Railroads collectively spend more time, money and effort dismantling unions than any other industry out there. The mere fact that railroaders have a union when they hate them so much is doing a large amount of harm to unions in other sectors with memberships that aren't joining their employers in dismantling their own unions.


processedmeat t1_j5ua0cy wrote

Even if the railroad didn't have a union you should still support them in getting better working conditions.

Being conservative or liberal is irrelevant. Pro union or anti union is doesn't matter. Labor deserves better working conditions.

With Biden supporting the company over the workers he is supporting management over labor. It signals the next company that the government will have their back in the next dispute.


Winchery t1_j5uhbgg wrote

Biden and democrats have to play games since republicans have made government into gaming the idiot public.

We would be a lot worse off if you can convince even more voters that Biden directly made the cost of items go up even more had he allowed rails to strike.

This is checkers bud. Deep thinking not required. You can pretend like supporting all worker no matter what is going to help, but you fuck a lot more people if you end up having democrats lose all power in government. You are basically saying short-term support is fine even though it will allow the openly corrupt party to control everything.

Again, your idea only requires checkers level of strategy to see the results. In this case I am just glad that the workforce that needed to be sacrificed for the greater good supports the people that want to fuck them.


danielravennest t1_j5w1vq8 wrote

America has a center-right party and a far right party. We don't have any major left or liberal party.


AnybodyMassive1610 t1_j5w43zb wrote

yeah - I know, it is sad but true. What passes as "left / liberalism" here would me "moderate conservative" anywhere else


TailorHour710 t1_j5sp724 wrote

Forgive my ignorance, but I must ask this...what would've happened to the railroad workers if they did strike? How can anyone be forced to work against their will? I hope they plan on striking after hearing this news.


KyurMeTV t1_j5t68k8 wrote

Check out the FAA strike under Regan, they brought in military flight controllers to replace the strikers and the strikers lost their jobs en masse.

I can’t say it’ll be the same for the railroads but if they strike, they loose everything.


Prophet_Tehenhauin t1_j5t8i37 wrote

It wouldn’t be the same for railroads. The us military has people trained to be flight controllers already. They don’t really have a backlog of trained military train conductors or engineers


whapitah2021 t1_j5tayv5 wrote

Never heard of the Army Corps of Engineers? /s


localgravity t1_j5tdaf9 wrote

What would happen if the army corp also refused as a sign of solidarity? I know this would never happen, just curious to see your answer


whapitah2021 t1_j5tgtti wrote

Haven’t thought about that but….There’s no way this country could operate without railroads for an extended period of time. We could figure ways around it in the long run but machinery that move freight long distances are few and far between: over the road trucks wouldn’t be a solution, they’re already occupied. Pull retired engineers in for service to run the trains? Teach others to do the job? Who would train them? It would be a disaster I’d say. Part of that is our “last second supply chain” as you saw during lockdown and after….take 100K blue collar workers out of work and watch what happens, then do the same thing worldwide…..we’re still seeing the effects of that happening from people dying or quitting shitty jobs….microchips for example, China gets overwhelmed with Covid (and other reasons) and there’s a chip shortage in a few weeks….now Toyota is two years out from delivering your new XYZ model. But…..moving freight is a matter of national security and I would hope there’s a solution already in place if all the locomotive operators quit at once… We’re a resilient bunch of people, traditionally… I hope we still are. (Army Corp comment was a play on words, see wiki link below for their actual function if you don’t already know) Have fun, be safe!!!!


Ogediah t1_j5u92c7 wrote

It’d be an illegal strike. If sanctioned by labor leaders they could end up in jail. There are also some protections for a legally recognized unions and they’d essentially loose all those protections. Including but not limited to the necessity for the rail company to bargain in good faith. Due to the national infrastructure concerns, the government would also likely step in and may even provide government employees to keep trains moving. For example, when Reagan fired the striking air traffic controllers, military personnel were brought in to fill the gaps of workers that wouldn’t cross the picket line. The workers that crossed the picket line were instrumental in making that possible. And something similar could happen to the rail workers.

Just incase you are wondering, the workers on strike (air traffic controllers) never got their jobs back.

Unfortunately this is the reality of organized labor nowadays. Laws which originally provided protections for collective bargaining have been gutted by things like Taft-Hartley, the railway labor act, executive privilege, etc. We’re at a point where most strike are illegal, “right to work” laws bleed out unions by forcing them to provide services without dues, companies see almost zero repercussions for breaking the law, etc. Its a real shame. The PRO Act would correct many of the issues. However, it’s had trouble making its way through the legislature.


MagikSkyDaddy t1_j5samrq wrote

Good for you, btw, for contacting the WH. I did too. It was unconscionable.


vintagebat t1_j5u3hru wrote

What's even more fucked up is that Biden busted the strike and still legitimately can claim to be the most pro-labor president since FDR. Every president in between has been that bad.


DerekTheSkiNerd t1_j5rrzq5 wrote

Some of the other unions in the group didn't want to strike and appealed to Biden.

Also the Democrats voted in favor of forcefully adding sick leave to the contract, republicans filibustered that measure.


Cytizens9320 t1_j5rxaiu wrote

>Also the Democrats voted in favor of forcefully adding sick leave to the contract, republicans filibustered that measure.

They deliberately separated the bill in order to absolve themselves and point to the republicans


indoninja t1_j5vpsln wrote

When every Democrat, except for Joe Manchin supports it, and every Republican is against it, seems pretty weird that you would blame Democrats.


Cytizens9320 t1_j5w2u2g wrote

Because they separated it when it should've been under one bill.

It all started because Biden sided with the railways corporations over Unions


indoninja t1_j5wcpg5 wrote

Do you think Republicans would have voted for it?


Cytizens9320 t1_j5whpq7 wrote

What does republicans have to do with it? Republicans didn't force Biden to forbid railway union from striking and making it illegal


indoninja t1_j5wi714 wrote

You understand that democrats voted for a bill to give the union sick days and Republicans blocked it.

I am asking you what do you think it would’ve happened if they tried to pass one pill with the sick days in it, do you think Republicans would have supported it?


stuntmanbob86 t1_j5x8a68 wrote

Yes, I am 100% certain it would have passed. The stakes were too high if there was a strike. Biden and his board had the chance to put sick days in the TA, they just settled on 1 personal day....


indoninja t1_j5y34uz wrote

You won’t think republicans would relish the chance to hurt the economy and blame Biden? Where have you Ben the last 15 years?


geekynerdynerd t1_j610tw5 wrote

Bruh I'd they'd voted no on forcing a deal to keep the economy functioning it would be the easiest political win ever for the Democrats, not the Republicans. The Democrats would've been able to point to how they all voted for it and the Republicans just wouldn't come to the table.

The only reason to separate them is because the Democrats actually didn't want it to pass. Moderate Democrats follow this playbook time and time again and people like you keep eating it up.


indoninja t1_j61rbv7 wrote

>The Democrats would've been able to point to how they all voted for it and the Republicans just wouldn't come to the table.

Pointing g to stuff does t matter when people are unep played and can’t put food on the table.

With almost two years until an election and Fox News blaming dems for no clean bill it would be a gain for republicans and still very little chance workers got what they wanted.

>Moderate Democrats follow this playbook time and time again and people like you keep eating it up.

The reality is the only way to force those seven days into a bill is with Republican cooperation, Democrats overwhelmingly voted for it, Republicans overwhelmingly voted against it, and somehow you still playing Democrats, but I’m the one eating a propaganda, OK


Cytizens9320 t1_j68b6gf wrote

This whole thing started because government got involved with a private dispute between Corporation and the employees.


indoninja t1_j68hlfv wrote


Not since railroad act of 1863.

The corporation has had huge givt benefits and its service is part of critical infrastructure. It os nonsense to think the givt should just shrug it’s shoulder and let a strike happen.

Seems weird to claim you are upset about lack of sick days but dont blame the people who voted against it.


DerekTheSkiNerd t1_j5s34dh wrote

I think it was actually for stupid boring procedural rules reasons they were separated, not the reason you posit. but i could be mistaken


Ogediah t1_j5ryz8u wrote

That’s not what happened or how it works.


DerekTheSkiNerd t1_j5s3923 wrote

That is exactly what happened, and that is how it works.

Corporations are generally shit, but unions aren't perfect little angels that are always right.

12 unions were subject to that contract, some of them didn't want to strike.


Ogediah t1_j5tgtnn wrote

That’s not what happened or how it works.

Source: I have a formal education in this area and lots of experience exercising it.


processedmeat t1_j5s478a wrote

Tell me again who signed the bill?


DerekTheSkiNerd t1_j5s4czl wrote

Tell me how you or I are in any position to determine which of the 12 unions was in the right and which were in the wrong. Some wanted to strike, some didn't.

The real world isn't black and white.


processedmeat t1_j5t4rx4 wrote

Let the unions that want to strike strike and the ones that don't dont


DerekTheSkiNerd t1_j5u6n5z wrote

Except that isn't how that contract worked. it was an all or nothing. the ones that didn't want to would have been forced to as well.


robinfresno t1_j5tqdbm wrote

There are only two choices. Record profits or bankruptcy. Nothing in between I guess.


Ill_Fail1452 t1_j5tqrcn wrote

It’s disgusting. There is only one FDR. As will ever be.

So many systems we can thank FDR and Hoover for.


YoureGrammarWronger t1_j5ttfos wrote

I don’t think the law is to yield to passenger traffic. I’m pretty sure it’s the other way.


eldomtom2 t1_j5txri3 wrote

The law gives Amtrak priority. What it does not do is provide effective means for enforcing it, or provide any sort of incentive for the freight railroads to provide enough capacity for both freight and passenger trains.


arkuden t1_j5qzqvp wrote

we've let our most important and critical services get completely gutted in the pursuit of profits. When the time comes for us to depend on these services in attack, disaster or something else, we'll find nothing but our own oligarchs who've bled it dry. airlines, railways, internet services to name a few should be national services. America just lacks a competent or functioning federal government to handle it, likely by design at this point considering who is paying them.


unresolved_m t1_j5rko8f wrote

Predatory capitalism - its like regular capitalism, but on steroids


MrPissedHimself t1_j5sociw wrote

Predatory capitalism - its like regular capitalism but on steroids


BeenBadFeelingGood t1_j5swobd wrote

Idk you’re being downvoted smh

Idk who needs to hear it but a free market economy (as defined by adam smith and classical liberal economists like Thomas Paine, Henry George et al) is one free of monopolies, subsidies to corps, and special privileges; a free market thus requires regulation to allow market exchanges and citizens to be free.

Capitalism has lots of regulation to create monopolies and specia privileges that mostly benefit capitalists: they are free to fuck over everything and everyone including the environment etc while placing the importance wholly on capital, while disregarding labour and the land.


blockingdom t1_j5t9m82 wrote

Such a society can never exist. The bourgeois state is a tool used to make this insane system even function in the first place, ideas of "free capitalism" are delusions.


neuropotpie t1_j5u15qr wrote

I've taken to calling it corporate colonialism. Extract as much as possible for as little as possible with little to no regard for the people doing the work while funding deregulation in order to do even less.


unresolved_m t1_j5u2of0 wrote

Cory Doctorow calls it "enshittification" and I think its fitting as well

He mostly talks about tech, but it could be applied to any business

> Enshittification is "...a seemingly inevitable consequence arising from the combination of the ease of changing how a platform allocates value, combined with the nature of a "two sided market," where a platform sits between buyers and sellers, hold each hostage to the other, raking off an ever-larger share of the value that passes between them."


FenrirIII t1_j5tce2d wrote

When an emergency happens the taxpayers will bail them out and the rich will pocket as much of it as possible


ConvenientlyHomeless t1_j5s202k wrote

Which is why giving more cash flow and power to the government, who literally is the creator and perpetuator of corporations, is a bad idea. They have more and more money and continuously mismanage it.


Karbon_D t1_j5qsajl wrote

The hard-working people of this country are being fleeced on a regular basis. I’m so tired of feeling like I’m being taken advantage of.


AnybodyMassive1610 t1_j5r3g7w wrote

And with state legislatures and the judiciary taking away the union / collective bargaining power - we are heading right back to the 1930s “pre NLRB” capitalist abuses - wonder how this iteration plays out.


unresolved_m t1_j5rl08s wrote

Saw someone praising Reagan on Reddit today in "what you miss about the 90s" thread...


357FireDragon357 t1_j5r7rls wrote

It seems like almost everyone that's wealthy wants to take advantage of poor people. Recently, my girlfriend and I had to file lawsuits against employer, motel and insurance. All within 6 months. She felt bad at first but I shared with her, that if we don't stick up for our selves, they'll run all over us. No! Your paying for the car wreck (that someone else caused), you're paying for the bed bugs and you're paying for my girlfriends teeth to get fixed because her work place has unsafe work conditions. It's time for the wealthy to pay up! It's becoming rampant, with these rich pricks taking advantage of others.


el_pinata t1_j5r5nq1 wrote

Hey but remember, the strike threat was because the rail workers are greedy.


demarr t1_j5r2ohq wrote

Biden said "hell yeah jack, get your ass back to work. Congress voted you back to work so fuck you jack eat shit"


AnybodyMassive1610 t1_j5r3tl1 wrote

That should be embarrassing to “a regular joe from Scranton” or all the democrats in power - it should be career ending. But there is not accountability for anything and anyone - especially the wealthy ruling class or the obscenely wealthy capitalist class.


ricardo9505 t1_j5qhlia wrote

Reminds me of the 80s auto industry here in America. Total shiitshow. Fell to the Japanese.


[deleted] t1_j5rgxy2 wrote



InsertBluescreenHere t1_j5sa19f wrote

maybe we need to give a buncha visas to the french to come over and teach us how to properly strike.


unresolved_m t1_j5rm417 wrote

Ultra-wealthy know that courts are on their side, no matter what.


NumSeq t1_j5rrymx wrote

True, but courts can't do much once you're gone.

Plus, with all the money in the world, no-one can cheat death.Whether that be from pissed off workers deciding to get even, or a brain tumor...

Not yet, anyway!


unresolved_m t1_j5rspar wrote

You can pass your money to children, though, and that's what rich folks do. I'm in Boston and looking at some homes here definitely makes you realize where the phrase "old money" originated from.


lexota t1_j5r5anu wrote

Sounds about right - make sure the executives and 'board members' get a nice, solid payout - while the actual working hands that get everything done to deliver profitability for the buy back - get zilch.


normpoleon t1_j5r9idq wrote

The RR companies were corrupt murderers from day one


yaosio t1_j5riau7 wrote

They should strike. Oh...


CassandraVindicated t1_j5sy0i2 wrote

They should have never legalized stock buybacks.


Sweetwill62 t1_j5tdqyi wrote

It is also time for shareholders to also be equally liable for any and all fines the company racks up. Not that they split the fine, the company pays the fine and the shareholders pay an equal amount, split up based on how much of the company they own. "But that could screw up retirement plans!!" I do not care. The damage this is doing to society as a whole is by far more damaging than retirement accounts not doing as well, which shouldn't even need to exist in a proper functioning society.


hillsons t1_j5sjcuj wrote

Record profits. Can't afford to give employees fucking sick days though.


SweatingFire t1_j5sp9rl wrote

Publicly traded companies shouldn't be allowed to buy back their shares with their profits.


BassWingerC-137 t1_j5s35dg wrote

And I bet the workers all vote GOP because they ain’t liberals, yet they are in unions and are getting hosed. This country is so full of folks who don’t know how to vote in their own best interests.


nowthenadir t1_j5seltl wrote

I mean a democratic house and president stripped them of their right to negotiate a suitable deal, so does it matter at this point who they vote for?


dxfout t1_j5uxtj6 wrote

Nope both wings belong to the same Bird.


indoninja t1_j5wfall wrote

Republicans and Democrats overwhelmingly supported a plan that would prevent a strike that would further cripple an economy that was struggling with out of control inflation.

Democrats passed a bill in the house, and had all but one senator Supporting it, well, Republican, senators blocked it.

Pretty odd it take for you to blame Democrats for trying to give the labor union what they wanted, and making a responsible choice for the hundreds of millions of Americans would have to deal with the fall out of a strike


stuntmanbob86 t1_j5x8n2t wrote

Democrats are just as guilty as Republicans. There wouldn't had even been a bill for sick days if it wasn't for Bernie. The sick days should had been bundled with the contract. It had a way better chance of passing that way....


indoninja t1_j5y4c1h wrote

> It had a way better chance of passing that way....

It had damn near zero chance of passing if it was bundled, which would’ve meant our spiraling inflation before Christmas would’ve gotten much much worse and we’d still be suffering the consequences


stuntmanbob86 t1_j5ys2wp wrote

I am positive they wouldn't. Too much ar stake. Even if the strike did happen, it would have lasted hours, not weeks. The carriers can't afford to lose that much.

Bottom line is it never even had to go to congress. Biden could have made sure there was sick days in the TA over the summer but he didn't. Biden wasn't ever for sick days.


indoninja t1_j5yy92h wrote

Biden didn’t have the power to push that without a bill that passes the senate.

I’m positive republicans would have blocked it, and even if you dont agree it is silly to pretend Biden didn’t have to weigh that or the risk it would oppose to the rest of america.

BYW banking or Republicans being putting country over party has been a failing bet for over a decade. No idea why you would trust them no.


stuntmanbob86 t1_j5yznzu wrote

He absolutely did have the power. He created an emergency board that basically made the tenative agreement. They thought the workers should only have one "personal" day. Never did Biden mention sick days. It was Biden and his board that are responsible for the TA.

Why wouldn't you risk it? If republicans let the economy be destroyed over 7 sick days then fuck all of them. Regardless, I never said i trusted them, i dont trust either. You don't seem to understand that carriers pay both sides.


indoninja t1_j5z165p wrote

> Why wouldn't you risk it? If republicans let the economy be destroyed over 7 sick days then fuck all of them

Saying “fuck all of them” doesn’t help the millions of American trying to get by.


stuntmanbob86 t1_j5z1zv1 wrote

Listen, the point is it never had to go to congress. Biden had many options before that should have happened. Why Biden and his board never mentioned sick days should be pretty telling.


indoninja t1_j5z4jfl wrote

Biden alone couldn’t decide a plan and force it. And the one the put forth with an additional personal day did get company and half the union support

For a stick to force 7 sick days he needed the senate. The only people in the senate who voted against sick days were republicans and joe manchin.


stuntmanbob86 t1_j5z58pk wrote

The 4 of the 12 unions it didn't pass made up more than half the workers. That's how unions work it has to pass all the unions.


indoninja t1_j5z5yv2 wrote

For a stick to force 7 sick days he needed the senate. The only people in the senate who voted against sick days were republicans and joe manchin.

There was zero path for Biden to get 7 sick days without republican support in senate.

It want there.


stuntmanbob86 t1_j5z7eyv wrote

Again. The emergency board he created could had made sure it was in the contract months ago... He could had made a second emergency board of different members instead of forcing the failed contract....


indoninja t1_j5zpsu1 wrote

He can’t make people accept what the board says without a law.


stuntmanbob86 t1_j5zrab7 wrote

No it has to be voted on by the unions. Every single thing that was in the report was in the TA. If that would had been in the report and voted on by the unions it would had been passed and there wouldn't be a need for congress. Biden thought one personal day was enough...


indoninja t1_j5ztskn wrote

The unions and the company.

The companies would have said no.

Meaning strike, unless a law was passed.

Again, this is simple , there was no path biden could take to get seven days without going through the senate.


stuntmanbob86 t1_j5zvy0h wrote

If the carriers didn't agree, they'd be going against the presidents recommendation, which most likely they wouldn't. But if they did, what difference would it have made? Why wouldn't he try? Answer is he was on the side of the carriers which the TA was leaning towards. Biden never wanted to give them sick days. Bernie was the only one who did anything.


indoninja t1_j5zz2e0 wrote

You are asking why he didn’t try something he knew the companies would say no to?

Biden pushed for a law that Democrats overwhelmingly supported that was blocked in the senate to give the union what you are talking about.

And the only people you are blaming is Biden and democrats, not the people who actually blocked it.


stuntmanbob86 t1_j600w69 wrote

How do you know that they would say no? We dont, cause he didnt even try. Why would he push the agreement he helped create if he knew the workers werent going to pass it? Like I said, the bill was only on the table because of Sanders, Biden didn't do dick. I dont know hoe many times I have to say that Republicans are just as much garbage as democrats are in Congress.


indoninja t1_j601dsf wrote

> Why would he push the agreement he helped create if he knew the workers werent going to pass it?

He didn’t know that and almost half did accept that.

He clearly knew the companies would t take it because they didn’t have to ask thousands to find out, they had a no for that at the table

> Republicans are just as much garbage as democrats are in Congress.

Almost every democratic supported it while majority of republicans were against it and Biden clearly was for it.

I dont get the mental gymnastics to look at that and say both sides, and I am done repeating the ame facts you are ignoring.


stuntmanbob86 t1_j603zev wrote

Almost half accepted it? You think if Trump got almost half the votes and they just said "fuck it, he almost got half the votes he's president", lol..... How would he think that a contract that literally gave the workers nothing that they asked for would pass? Biden was clearly for forcing the contract. That was it. The sick days was Bernies bill. All of Congress damaged unions in general for years to come. Guess what's gonna happen in a couple years? Carriers will push as hard as they can and the workers will get fucked. The carriers knew the government was on their side. Tell me you're anti-union without telling me you're anti-union, lol.......


indoninja t1_j607aid wrote

Do you not know how this works?

The meeting was between union ladies and the corporations. They knew corporations would say no to the sick days. They had a plan corp would accept and union would vote on. And about half accepted it.

That doesn’t mean I like it or think it was good, but it does mean it had a decent level of support.

You keep pretending Biden had powe to do something else to force companies to take the seven sick days and that is flat out wrong.

Almost every democratic supported it while majority of republicans were against it and Biden clearly was for it. I dont get the mental gymnastics to look at that and say both sides, and I am done repeating the ame facts you are ignoring.


stuntmanbob86 t1_j60u5z0 wrote

You dont seem to understand how it works. The panel is supposed to be indepedent, they dont make the contract. They write a report with what should go into the contract. That doesn't mean they had to put it in the contract, there was no risk in doing that other than it makes the carriers look bad. If Biden was for sick days he would had made sure there was sick days in the contract.

Workers didn't get anything they wanted. The only reason some passed was because they were scared that they would have a worse one forced on them. The unions that passed it were close, not any landslides by any means.

Like I said, logical next step was a second EB. A different perspective with different members. There is no logical reason he didn't do that. It set a dangerous precedent.

We will just have to keep fighting until the government comes in and shuts us down. You don't find it disturbing congress, even democrats, take money from the carriers?


stuntmanbob86 t1_j6056uw wrote

Honestly though, why did he not just make a new board and see what happens vs forcing a failed contract? That would had extended things and avoid the strike.


indoninja t1_j606see wrote

A new board wouldn’t extend it.


stuntmanbob86 t1_j608g1n wrote

Yes it would. A second board would allow 30 days for a new report and 60 for cooldown.


nowthenadir t1_j5xhev2 wrote

You want to go around thinking that modern day democrats are more like FDR than conservatives from 40 years ago, go ahead. Simple fact is though, had they wanted to, sick days could have been included in the bill. Stop acting like the only choice in front of them was to fuck workers.


indoninja t1_j5y31er wrote

> You want to go around thinking that modern day democrats are more like FDR than conservatives from 40 years ago, go ahead.

I think they clearly are.

> Simple fact is though, had they wanted to, sick days could have been included in the bill.

They could have.

The question is if you think it kills have had any chance to pass.

> Stop acting like the only choice in front of them was to fuck workers.

See above republicans would have certainly blocked it.

Stop acting like this was in a vacuum and democrats didn’t have to worry about actually governing, spiraling inflation a shaky economy and a financial crisis from a strike, where the only way ti avoid it was a law to get the workers to accept something.

Again the only group blocking sick days was republicans . You ignoring everything else about the date of the country and the risk of the strike isn’t an honest view of the situation.


nowthenadir t1_j5y4nb9 wrote

I mean, we disagree. What are you gonna do?


indoninja t1_j5y5btz wrote

Republicans at one point filibustered a law strictly to protect sick veterans. It’s completely on track for them to be completely against helping out unions with sick days, if you really wanna insist, you think they would’ve seen the light and supported it, despite them actually voting against that position, when given a chance, nothing I can say will change your mind.


nowthenadir t1_j5ybu99 wrote

I mean, Ted Cruz voted for the sick days as a separate bill. So we can postulate whether or not the republicans would have “crashed the economy” rather than give some blue collar guys a few sick days, but the bottom line is, we’ll never know, because the fight wasn’t framed that way.

The right to strike is exactly that, a right. It’s part of the NLRA signed in 1935 or something. You may be comfortable stripping rights away from people in the name of the economy, but I’m not. If we can’t engineer an healthy economy based on a fair exchange between labor and capital on a leveled playing field, then I don’t give a shit if we have one or not.

You may be able to convince me that, in general, the Democrats are incompetent rather than complicit, but the end result when it comes to income inequality and the decline of the working class is the same, and so my original point is the same. Some Dems are awesome and have their hearts in the right place; I’m thinking specifically of Warren and AOC. In general, establishment Dems don’t have a great track record.

My argument is absolutely flawed in that it ignores important social issues like bodily autonomy, but my original point wasn’t that the Dems were just as bad as Republicans when it comes to everything. It’s my opinion that we have a very flawed political system that basically presents the average American with a choice between awful and bad.


indoninja t1_j5yg7xm wrote

> So we can postulate whether or not the republicans would have “crashed the economy” rather than give some blue collar guys a few sick days, but the bottom line is, we’ll never know, because the fight wasn’t framed that way.

It was framed that way and recognized that way by all the adults paying attention.

> If we can’t engineer an healthy economy based on a fair exchange between labor and capital on a leveled playing field, then I don’t give a shit if we have one or not.

I dont think we should cut off or nose to spite our face.

And those are the options as long as we need 11 republicans to support sick days for rail workers.

> In general, establishment Dems don’t have a great track record.

dont have a great track record of helping against x isnt in the same league as actively working against.

And you can insert anything in as x from education and healthcare to labor rights and environment.


nowthenadir t1_j5z0ra7 wrote

Look, I don’t need you to agree with me. This is my opinion. It’s based on my experience and my knowledge. You’re entitled to have a different one. My point is that neither party has a track record of advocating for the working class in both words and actions.

There has been a steady decline in the share of wealth controlled by the middle class for decades. This has occurred under administrations of both parties. The economy was great under Clinton, it was also the period of the greatest redistribution of wealth to the upper class in the last 50 years.

You’re allowed to think the democrats have the working classes interests at heart if you want. I’m pretty convinced that while their words appear to, their record doesn’t. Was it a Republican president that kicked thousands of people off welfare with the welfare reform bill? Was it a Republican president that lowered the capital gains tax? Was it a Republican president that presided over the recovery from the 2008 financial crisis where 95% of the wealth created went to the top 1%?

I’m not sure what you’re trying to do. Like, are you trying to have a discussion based on good faith? Or are you trying to prove my opinion wrong and yours right? Because it seems more the latter than the former.


indoninja t1_j5z1usa wrote

Looks like you are ignoring congress under Clinton.

Looks like you are hlossing over the republicans threatening to shut down the givt over Obama wanting to end bush tax cuts for people making over 250k.

Looks like you are ignoring Bidens plan to tax any increase in wealth for people who have over a billion (ie directly adress the gross growth in income inequality from on people who make most their money outside “income”).

Edit-way ti back up your well points by blocking me.


nowthenadir t1_j5z67jk wrote

Nope, not ignoring congress at all. At no point did I give Republicans a bye. The laws I mentioned were signed by a Democratic president however. The recovery that I mentioned with Obama was under a unified democratic government.

I am ignoring Biden’s plan until it becomes a reality.

I don’t know what your problem is, but you’re obviously more into proving my opinion wrong than having a discussion based on good faith. I don’t give a shit what you think. You want to root for Dems like they’re you’re local football team, have fun. I think it’s naive, but it’s your life and you’re allowed to believe what you want.


webs2slow4me t1_j5t2ovl wrote

Stock buybacks should be illegal.

When companies have money they have 3 choices, invest in people, invest in capital, buy back stocks. The first two have value, the last one just artificially inflates the stock price, but not even permanently.

Note: they used to be illegal in the US till the law was repealed.


normallyesoteric t1_j5qx6hk wrote

This just in, water is wet and the earth is an oblate spheroid.


mia_elora t1_j5rkunm wrote

I'm sure that the government will be happy to hear that their anti-union stance was put to good use. :(


johnclarkbadass t1_j5sh33d wrote

Theres gonna come a point where the people find other jobs. Can't do anything about that.


bladearrowney t1_j5ux6ul wrote


johnclarkbadass t1_j5uzls9 wrote

I wonder if indentured servitude was brought up in that court case. That sure sounds like indentured servitude. And fuck do I hate slavers.


Ok-Ease7090 t1_j5s3y7q wrote

Maybe they can afford paid days off now


Rainbow334dr t1_j5s4shv wrote

Where is the profit sharing? Do you have discounted stock option plans. Why not? What the hell did you get for giving up two brakeman when going to a two man crew? Quit blaming the railroads for what they have been doing since forever. Blame the unions for not protecting you or screwing the other unions.


po3smith t1_j5s9itr wrote

So . . . why did they not strike again? Yeah legal BS but at this point its so BS . . . come on!


Attrition t1_j5sige3 wrote

But the workers who want 7 days of sick time are the problem..


Bosht t1_j5ted1n wrote

When the fuck are we going to stop companies from going public? Especially companies that absolutely should not be like necessary economy driven businesses?


Toad32 t1_j5tlpaq wrote

I just noticed the other day that there were 3 large freight trains rolling through town yesterday. That equals about 1 hour of people just stuck in our uptown and passenger rail just waiting for them to pass.


jonr t1_j5tuapb wrote

Capitalism is starting to eat itself. Like a snake eating its tail.


yogfthagen t1_j5tx06s wrote

Stock buybacks should be taxed at 100%.

The only reason to do it is to juice the stock price.

And considering how much executive compensation is based on stock price, it's financial fraud.


physics1986 t1_j5u0gof wrote

How is this related to technology? This isn't the 19th century! Mods, wake up.


Own_Arm1104 t1_j5u3p4s wrote

People who support this verbally or work for them don't deserve support themselves.


Denslayer t1_j5u7c4u wrote

Typical American capitalism


isinedupcuzofrslash t1_j5u7snk wrote

I’m honestly surprised they don’t dock every worker’s wages. Why not? Who’s gonna stop them? Federal government backed them up in negotiations. They didn’t give a shit about the workers. Why even pretend?


Badtrainwreck t1_j5uls9r wrote

Fuck the railroads, fuck Biden. They just get to shit on railroad workers and get away with it.


Matryoshkova t1_j5vdk3q wrote

Sounds like another strike is needed…


nowthenadir t1_j5ztg0c wrote

Was talking about this whole railroad debacle and the president's handling of it with a friend of mine today, he made an interesting point. He said, "When you take away the right to strike, you're forcing workers to give their labor regardless of their conditions, you have instituted wage slavery."


Hard-R-Smitty t1_j5rudnr wrote

Pieces of shit at CSX block our crossings constantly for no apparent reason. Hate them more than anything.


burdfloor t1_j5rxvu7 wrote

Share repurchases is similar to pouring a bottle of good scotch down the drain. Money should be spent on capital improvements, wages, and r&d.


VerimTamunSalsus t1_j5sllvo wrote

Shocking I tell you, shocking. Who would expect this type of behavior from a U.S. corporation.


Sabotage101 t1_j5stir6 wrote

Gonna load up some Railroad Tycoon 2 and really get into this shit


Creepy-Reply-2069 t1_j5sw0vs wrote

I feel like their “record profits” are really just stagnant or marginally increasing and all that’s really occurring is a tighter constriction on everything else like employees and equipment


BigRed323 t1_j5qltx5 wrote

Employees don't own the railroad. Shareholders do. This is what the shareholders want.


Stromaluski t1_j5qpokw wrote

Corporate America at this point is all about "how do we make the most money right this instant, even if it means we're out of business in three years?"

Shareholders are so far removed from the business that they couldn't care less if it closes tomorrow, as long as they can make money today. It's short sighted and screws over everybody that actually works at the company.

I'm not saying you're wrong with your statement. Just saying that it's dumb that our business world is set up this way.


DENelson83 t1_j5qxag3 wrote

Capitalism's core mantra is "as much profit as possible, come hell or high water, until you die".


sirfuzzitoes t1_j5qq79y wrote

Shareholders don't make the railroad run. Employees do. Sure would suck if their shares plummeted bc trains aren't moving.


voidsrus t1_j5qrm65 wrote

>This is what the shareholders want.

sounds like shareholders shouldn't own the railroad then, since their childish short-term wants are getting in the way of the nation's transportation infrastructure.


AnybodyMassive1610 t1_j5r4798 wrote

No, this is what vulture capitalists & corporate raiders want - a large portion of these stocks are held in pensions and funds - they are controlled by a small percentage of the actually “shareholders” and they are purely driven by “profit at all costs” not the long term success of the company (which shareholders used to care about)


ImminentZero t1_j5unr4w wrote

Sounds like it's time to nationalize critical rail infrastructure then.


BigRed323 t1_j5uo5a2 wrote



ImminentZero t1_j5uooir wrote

Because if the profit motive is what has brought us to the point of nearly having a rail shipping shutdown that would be so damaging to the economy and supply chains that Congress itself stepped in to avert it, then the profit motive has to go.

What other reason is there for not increasing employee costs during a time of record profit, other than the profit motive that is required by shareholders?

I don't say this just for rail, I believe that ALL critical infrastructure should be nationalized. If something is required for survival it should not be left to the whims of people whose first concern is their portfolio and not the general welfare.


BigRed323 t1_j5upaa1 wrote

OK tankie. Move to china where all critical infrastructure is already nationalized and tell me how that is.


ImminentZero t1_j5uu65u wrote

Definitely not a tankie. You also aren't refuting anything I've said. Name calling is not an argument.

If you knew your history you'd also know it wouldn't be the first time railroads were nationalized in the US, and that it's not just places like China that have nationalized critical infrastructure.


BigRed323 t1_j5uvqg3 wrote

Yes I am refuting that nationalizing would make the railways better for anyone besides those in control of the new nationalized entity. Investment and efficiency would tank just like we see in any places that nationalize things on the regular.


ImminentZero t1_j5uwovl wrote

The quest for efficiency is how we got to this point though. Rail companies are at a point where they've cut so deeply that they are unable to absorb an employee calling out sick unexpectedly. This is explicitly due to headcount reduction and a "do more with less" push. Of course this could be alleviated by investing in human capital for the company, at a cost to the bottom line, and the rail companies explicitly refuse to do so.

There is no rational reason to not provide the employees with better pay and benefits, in addition to surge hiring headcount needed to facilitate the new benefits (people to cover leave primarily.)

When a company is acting irrationally as they are in this case, and instead spending the profits on stock buybacks to enrich shareholders, it strains credulity to imply that continuing to operate as they are is in the best interest of the company, and that a change that removes the basis of the irrationality would somehow be more detrimental.