289
Derailed train sparks molten sulphur fire in Kentucky
(www.theguardian.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 24 Nov 2023
289 points (97.7% liked)
News
23608 readers
3521 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. 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. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
This is always the argument that people bring up around this, and its woefully misrepresented. Biden signed a bill that 75% of the railroad unions agreed on. The bill was designed to be the bare minimum needed by the unions to continue their work. He stated after signing the bill that work still needed to be done, and that the fight for the unions for better wages and safety was not over, but he was signing this bill to prevent a total shut down of the economy that relies heavily on railroad infrastructure. Biden never said that the unions couldn't continue to address the shortcomings of the system. He didn't take away their rights to strike, or force them into compliance. He merely signed a bill (again, approved by the majority of the unions) to make sure that the railways stay open. If there is a continued failure of the railways, it's not on him, it is because nothing has changed since then. There is still work to be done, it was only ever meant to be a stopgap to avoid a much larger crisis. If you think the writer's strike and SAG-AFTRA was a big deal because movies couldn't be made, imagine what would happen to the US if food supply lines were completely severed. Do you think the produce you get in the grocery store was all farmed within walking distance?
Hey maybe if it's such a point of national security, and halting the trains would have such catastrophic consequences, maybe it's time we nationalized the rail systems? Maybe having these rails in the hands of greedy profiteers who have demonstrated that they are willing to shirk on safety regulations is a terrible idea?
"The government is corrupt, and they can't be trusted to run things. Our infrastructure should be in the hands of the people."
"The people are corrupt, and they can't be trusted to run things. Our infrastructure should be regulated by the government."
Pick a side, but in either case, the only way that we overcome these obstacles is with oversight. It doesn't matter who controls anything, all that matters is how much we hold them accountable for the greater good. You want to really solve the problem, figure out how to get everyone to agree on what's best. Until then, we'll have milquetoast regulations, oligarchs too preoccupied with someone's sexual orientation to actually do anything, and allegiances that change depending on the signature line on the checks.
I've never heard someone say the government is corrupt and infrastructure should be in the hands of the people. The government is the people. Most people say it should be taken out of the hands of private companies and put into the hands of the people, managed by the government. Workers controlling the means of production and all that.
How long have you been on lemmy that you haven't run into a communist or socialist, yet? Shit, even the Libertarians agree on that, and they're fucking idiots.
In a republic, sure. This ain't a republic, though.
Oh, ok, so you have seen a communist or two hanging around here. So, the problem that we have with the government controlling (or managing) things is that the government itself is at the behest of the massive companies, hence my cry for oversight. As long as Big Whoever is throwing money at the lawmakers, the government will suck the dick of whoever they think is paying them. Truthfully, I don't really see the difference between infrastructure controlled by the "government" or the "people", because no matter what stamp we put on it, it's still the United States of Exxon, Nestle, Pepsi, Disney, Google, Amazon, Phillip Morris, Pfizer, or any of the other big names that throw all of their money into obstructing the 99%. The "people", as in you and me, have no power, and we control nothing. Some will say that they want to see utilities and essential services controlled by the "people" and regulated by the government, but the only outcome for that is exactly what we have: lobbyist making laws based on the desires of the 1%. In short (too late), if we want change, it comes from accountability. The only way we can fight to regain control is to hold those we put in power responsible for their actions. Unfortunately, those we put in power have spent a lot of time making sure that they can't be held accountable, so, fuck us, right?
See, I'm working on the assumption that the government is controlled by the people, not corporations. Otherwise you don't really have a government.
To throw out another catchphrase, governments only exist by the consent of the governed, and that does ultimately mean the people.
You can work on whatever assumptions you want. You could assume that their is an eldritch council of Furries that dictate the laws based on how many episodes of Friends the Ugly Naked Guy was mentioned in, it won't make it the truth. Governments do exist by the consent of the governed, unfortunately that consent is manufactured.
Apparently you have not met many people from eastern Europe.
Why did such legislation come at the expense of the workers?
It was the company that built every one of these problems. It was the company that was responsible. It's the company that has the resources and power to make changes.
But when Biden stepped in to keep the economy open, he punished the workers instead.
He didn't "punish" anyone. He made a decision with two bad options, of which he had to pick one. That's what being President is.
He also worked after this bill was passed and got them what they wanted anyway.
https://www.ibew.org/media-center/Articles/22Daily/2208/220917_thanks
So there's an option to support the working class and option to support the rich, and he chose to support the rich, and only came back for workers later.
Why can't we just expect him to do better for the workers in the first place?
The people who would have been negatively impacted by the strike would be working class people. If trains shut down, people die.
Every city is less than 48 hours from a starvation crisis, all the time.
It's that bad, and he didn't just give the workers what they wanted immediately? If they're that important, why is it even a debate? If the country depends on them, give them what they want.
A) it's not "bad" it's just the way cities work. Always has been, and will be the case until we truly master vertical farming.
B) Presidents aren't kings. There is a sizable portion of Congress that is extremely anti-Union.
Edit: lmao it should read "union" with lower-case but fuck it because those people tend to be anti-Union too
75% of unions representing what percentage of the workers? It’s less than 50%. It is NOT a minority that rejected the bill, it was the majority.
You keep saying this like a majority of people agreeing to something somehow prevents them from being fleeced.
A majority of the workers rejected that agreement and that's what matters. Stop trying to frame this as being the majority.
A majority of workers weren't represented effectively, then, and that isn't Biden's fault.
It's his fault because he's the one that signed the fucking bill.
The workers were being represented effectively! They were going to go on strike! He and congress worked together to stop them for "the economy". He stopped their unions from representing them effectively by forcing them to accept an inferior contract that they rejected.
The fact that you're defending Biden on this is disgusting. Bet you defend him for supporting Israel's genocide too.
He signed a bill that was agreed upon by 75% of the Unions. You act like Biden sat in a room with a quarter million railroad workers and told them to go fuck themselves. He met with their leadership, and the majority of the leadership agreed on the bill. If only 25% of the leaders had agreed, Biden may have done more, but getting 75% of any group to agree on politics is a fucking miracle, and you take those when you get them.
You can't say that the workers were being represented properly and in the same breath say that their representatives went against their wishes when they supported the bill. It seems like you have an axe to grind about Biden, and you are letting your feelings about him affect your decision making process. You should probably vote 3rd party next year to cleanse your conscience.
That's not how democracy works!
One person, one vote. There were multiple unions that were voting together as a group, and each union represented different numbers of people. The unions that represented the most people voted against the agreement and that's why they were going to strike!
The majority. Of workers. Voted to strike. The majority. Of workers. Were betrayed by Biden and continue to be betrayed by shits like you. The rank-and-file voted to strike and they were going to strike and then Biden shut it down.
When a majority of voters vote "no" then the result is no, no matter what unions they belong to. It's called solidarity. You don't seem to understand how voting works, how unions work, or what Biden actually did to stop the strike from happening.
If I wanted to cast a vote that matters this election I would cast a 9mm ballot into my fucking mouth. Seems more productive.
I knew we would find something to agree on.
I'll edit this with a real reply:
Welcome to unionizing. You give up the voice of the many to have a stronger singular voice. Unions aren't genies there to grant the wishes of every person that pays dues, they represent the masses by giving them a single voice. You are looking at this like all of the people that were put out agreed 100% with each other, and we know that isn't true. They all had different visions of how things should work, and while that venn diagram had a good amount of overlap, it wasn't unanimous. If it was, they wouldn't need a Union rep. It doesn't matter how many people each Union had, it was still a singular class. If you don't like that, then I invite you to figure out a better way to do it, and then present your findings to America's labor unions and get them all to agree on it.
When a majority of voters vote "no", then their representative votes "no". And when that vote is cast along with all of the other representatives, then the votes are tallied and a consensus is reached. Please don't lecture me on how to vote, I've seen the Schoolhouse Rock video, I'm well aware of how things work. If you don't like this system, then you should find some like minded people, and form a group, and then using the power of your collective voice tell the government that it needs to change... wait... that's just a fucking union.
The system was going to strike! The system was working correctly when the majority of workers voted to reject the contract and the contract was rejected. Biden and Congress stopped the system from working. Why do you keep lying about this?
You keep saying a majority of unions voted against the strike but that isn't how votes were actually counted!
And when the majority of workers vote to strike, the workers that vote against it stand with them in solidarity.
You keep insisting that Biden was blameless, but there was going to be a strike. The democratic result of the vote, where the majority voted to strike, was going to happen. The rank-and-file democratic majority won. Democracy was working.
Biden and Congress are the reason the strike was broken. Stop with your historical revisionism.
oooookay. I see where the problem is coming from. So, from the outside, or based on what is shown in movies and TV, when a group wants to strike, it seems like they all secretly pass notes to each other in the lunchroom, and then magically come together in a rainbow picket line a few days later.
That's not how it works.
When a union wants to strike, it is because a large number of it's members have said they think it should happen. Then, a proper vote is put into place, and all of those votes are tallied and the Union leadership decides if there will be a strike or not. In the case of a strike, then the entire union goes on strike, regardless of how you voted when they asked if you wanted to strike. If you don't agree with the strike, you may sit at home and not participate, but you don't work. If you do go in to work, and you cross that line, you are a scab, and scabs are very bad people.
So, now that we have laid out the series of events leading up to the strike, lets take a look at what Biden did.
Biden sat down with the leadership, and said, "Hey, I hear there's going to be a strike. What can I do to prevent it." And the leaders said, "We want these things..." Biden said, "Well, here's what I can agree to," and passed over the list of what he was able to get other lawmakers to agree to. 75% of the Unions leadership in the room agreed to the proposal, and decided that their particular union would not strike. The other 25%, even though they represented a large portion of all workers, knew that the strike wouldn't be effective without 100%, and so they didn't strike, either.
So, looking at this, where is the point of failure? Seems like the lack of coordination between the unions in agreeing on what was acceptable was the problem. Biden did his job. He gave them the best he could, and it was accepted by the majority. Done.
Des that clear this whole mess up for you? Can we stop arguing this now?
Wow, thanks for condescending to me like I'm a child that doesn't know how voting works. Very cool and good.
This is historical revisionism.
The tentative deal that Biden helped them reach when he sat down with leadership was a deal that got voted down by the workers. I can not stress this enough. The unions voted, the majority of workers voted "no", and so a strike was going to happen. That's why Biden had to go above them to Congress and rammed the deal through against the wishes of the workers. That's why it required signing a bill!
And what do you think that bill did?
Once that bill was signed, a strike would have been illegal. That's why they decided not to strike. Biden and Congress forced the workers to accept a contract that they didn't want and said "if you strike anyway you can be fired, sued, or even arrested". The union leadership bowed to pressure coming from Biden and the legal threats stacked up against them. I do somewhat resent them for that, but I can't really blame them - things aren't bad enough for unions to start illegally striking and making an enemy of America's government.
And so derailments keep happening and the safety concerns behind the original intent to strike have not been solved.
We can stop arguing, but I won't vote for Biden again. Between this betrayal and the genocide in Israel it's clear there's no point.
Ok. This is my last reply. Say whatever you want afterward, I'm not responding.
Biden created a bill and presents it to union leadership based on what lawmakers are willing to pass into law. The leadership presents the bill to the workers. The workers vote. The leadership tells Biden they agree. Biden signs the bill. That's it. That's the fucking flow of events. Biden didn't go against the will of a vote he didn't call for. He presented a fucking solution, and the solution was agreed to. It doesn't matter to Biden what the workers voted for. He didn't ask for a vote. He asked the leadership what their decision was. By your own logic, the leadership betrayed the workers by not giving proper representation of their will.
So you're just lying? The workers voted against it and then he presented a bill to Congress, and they signed it. The union had zero power.
If your explanation of events was true, Biden wouldn't have needed an act of Congress in the first place! Why do you think he had to do that?
Why do you pretend to care so much when you didn't care enough to Google what happened after the bill passed?
https://www.ibew.org/media-center/Articles/22Daily/2208/220917_thanks
Like, your anger here is entirely performative. That doesn't strike you as odd?
This is only one of the many unions that voted. You're just assuming they represent everyone.
And you're calling my posting performative. You don't even know what the stakes were.
Here's a hint: safety and derailments were one of the issues, and would you look at that, derailments are still happening!
I just think it's weird that you get so riled up but don't actually care about the human consequences of any of this at all. Literally all you care about is the internet take you have about it.
That's such a weird phenomenon.
I think it's weird that you're accusing me of not caring about human consequences in a fucking thread about a train derailment!
That is a human consequence of Biden breaking the strike. This is, in part, his fault for breaking a strike that the majority of workers wanted literally because the work they were doing was unsafe! I care about the human cost of fucking train derailments.
You don't. You only care about defending Biden. Again, you don't even know the stakes. How dare you accuse me of not caring?
This seems a stretch, to say the least.
Workers voted to strike because their working conditions were unsafe due to under-staffing and lack of preventative maintenance.
Biden broke the strike and forced them to accept their unsafe working conditions, under-staffing, and lack of preventative maintenance.
As a direct result of unsafe working conditions and under-staffing and lack of preventative maintenance, a train derailed.
How does that stretch your imagination?
It's not, he's an admitted troll. Don't bother he's just here to be an asshole.