| Machiavellian said: While you believe that all workers should have the ability to strike but actually that is not a reality in the US. There are a lot of industry that are allowed unions but not the ability to strike. Personally, I would say it depends on how it could impact the nation. Let's say the strike happens and prevent needed supplies that cause people to die. If one of those people are your loved ones, you might blame, the strikers, the president, the railroad, the GOP you name it but at the end of the day, it will not matter who you blame, your loved one is dead. I know if my child is in danger, I am not going to be for a strike. I look for ways to help but dead is permanent and looking for blame does nothing. So my position is that if the strike could really hurt the country, find another solution. It would have been great if the GOP did not block this bill but then again for them it was a pretty easy move. They are not getting any pressure from their constituents; all blame goes to the President, and they continue the tactic of doing nothing because the easiest move for most people is to blame the President then actually blaming their representees. Even now, you seem to believe that the President has all this power but in reality, the power is in Congress as it always is. Why would the president keep the 7 day leave in the House bill when he probably knew it would not pass and thus the strike happens. Either way the GOP still get what they want. Strike happen, nukes the economy, president gets the blame. Now just think if GOP constituents cried out that this is wrong and put pressure on their representees to vote yes. As for the railroad workers, they are doing what they should as any worker who is not satisfied with a job, take your money and go but its not like its an industry with a lot of cross over especially in today's climate. |
Yes I am well aware that Taft-Hartley forward there have been many bills to neuter the right of workers to strike in many instances. What is legal =|= what is ethical and just though. There was an explicit choice here to make the rail strike illegal/unprotected.
If the strike were to happen, what would actually happen is that the rail-workers would stop or slow down work for a day, likely still working to supply critical needs like medicine. The profits of the railroads would be hit, and there would be a crisis that they'd want to solve within a day -- like with every other rail strike in history. Now what Congress has done has risked a wildcat strike -- which would last much longer than a day. They've also almost guaranteed a long-term labor shortage in a rail-industry, which over the long term could cost the economy much, much more.
There were half a dozen different solutions and paths the Democrats and Biden could've gone so that we didn't get to this point. They could've put more pressure on the railroad companies to reform their points system, they could've mandated minimum staffing (which if rail workers and the rail industry is so important is a necessity) they could've sided with the workers more in September. But they didn't do these things because they are on the side of capital primarily, and workers secondarily.
Why are you so sure the bill wouldn't pass with the seven day leave in it? Many Republicans would've reluctantly voted for it if the economic risks that are being expressed are true because many Republicans own businesses that depend on the Rail supplies. Their own self-interest to keep their businesses afloat would overshadow their reluctance to give a meager 7 day pay sick leave. Hell, if Ted Cruz and Josh Hawley could vote for it when it is decoupled, many other Republicans likely would've join if it were coupled. Joe Manchin too.
Rail workers have plenty of skills that are in demand in other fields, so I think you're going to be surprised when they do leave. In the past there hasn't been crossover because the job paid better. But now rail-workers expressed that the pay isn't worth not having real time off work, being on call 24/7, being reprimanded for going to the doctor outside of specific designated periods, etc. Given that there are labor shortages throughout the economy, I doubt it would be hard for them to find jobs in say fracking, as machinists, in construction, as truckers, etc. All jobs that pay at least 70%-100% as much as rail-work but with much more favorable schedules. And as staffing becomes more of a problem, the pressure to leave exacerbates. The ones who stay likely will be older, more conservative, and with more to lose by leaving -- not a good sign for the industry. The labor supply isn't infinite and it isn't easy to retrain new engineers and machinists.
Many on https://www.reddit.com/r/railroading/ have already said they're going to slow down their work through malicious compliance and then once they get their back-pay ($11,000 to $16,000) they're leaving. A strike that probably would last a day (like previous rail strikes) and 7 days of sick leave would've been the seamless solution compared to this.
Edit:
"
I disagree, why change your current plan or present any alternatives until you hear a ruling from the SC. It would be a bad tactic because the SC could be very specific if they ruled against the forgiveness which would allow the President to change the terms just like he did when another court case against the forgiveness happen. There is no reason to show your hand unless you actually have to especially until you get a decision from the SC. An alternative plan at this juncture does nothing since it would then have to go through a whole process again and just throwing stuff at the wall until you know what you need to do seems like a lot of wasted energy."
Missed this in my original reply. You have backup plans if you want to get something done rather than look like you're doing something because you want to get that thing done and to put pressure on those who are opposing. You also threaten your opposition by using a more radical plan as an alternative to the current more moderate plan. For example, a good backup plan in this challenge would be to expand the $20,000 forgiveness to everyone, neutering the challenge that some are only getting $10,000 and others $20,000, which is the basis of the legal opposition going to the supreme court.
Regardless though, Biden through his current forbearance policy already "showed his hand" -- that he doesn't have backup plans. He's told everyone that if this doesn't go through then 60 days after the court's decision people will have to start paying at the normal interest rates. Unlike Biden, FDR got things done by playing hard against Republicans and the judiciary and being honest with the public. It's called using the presidential power of bully pulpit.
Last edited by sc94597 - on 03 December 2022
