175
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 16 Jul 2024
175 points (96.8% liked)
politics
19089 readers
3968 users here now
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
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Guess they didn't like biden fucking over unions
I love when someone tees up this stuff
So one of Biden’s FIRST actions in office was to fire the piece of shit that Trump put in charge of the NLRB, short cutting the normal procedure for it which actually caused a little bit of a fight, and then to put in a whole bunch of actually pro-labor people. They’ve been backstopping all these pretty remarkable union gains that have been happening the last few years.
The Teamsters, for whatever stupid/corrupt reason, are pretty much the only union that hasn’t come out swinging hard for Biden in the election, because unlike the media they are aware of how much things have been changing for them in the last few years and want it to continue instead of Trump putting Margaret Thatcher in charge of the NLRB of whatever the fuck he wants to do instead.
Oh, and also he broke a rail strike that would have caused some inflation (which I know the media and the people on Lemmy would have been super understanding of the full context of and wouldn’t have caused any problems), and then once no one was paying attention anymore, his administration kept working the issue and got the workers the sick days they were striking for in the first place. So you I guess you do have a point that he’s horrible. I take it all back.
I have another good one very applicable to the teamsters union, Biden and democrats saved their pension fund.
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2022/dec/14/kevin-brady/bidens-36-billion-to-save-teamsters-fund-from-inso/
Pensions that 360,000 retired teamster union workers were relying on.
I really doubt Republicans would have lifted a finger. Probably would have just laughed as one of the largest unions in America collapsed.
Heck here's some more good union news from Democrats. The new regulations and pro labor leadership of the nlrb have helped increase union election success rate to 74%, it's highest level in at least 15 years. It brought back over 8,000 workers that had been unjustly fired from their work places as retaliation for unionizing activities.
The contrast with Republicans couldn't be starker. Project 2025 recommends firing general counsel and leadership of the NLRB "day one," purging existing civil servants so they can hire their own anti union sycophants, and passing new regulations to make it easier to dissolve unions and harder to form them.
https://www.americanprogress.org/article/project-2025-would-undo-the-nlrbs-progress-on-protecting-workers-right-to-organize/
In response to your second paragraph, someone posted above that it's racism. The Teamsters, at least this... Uh governing body?... Fired a number of people in leadership, 3/4 of them racial minorities. When they rehired for these newly opened positions only 1/4 of those hired were racial minorities.
Sick nasty
Thanks for your post, it's well written.
The railroad in question reached an agreement with some but not all of their unions to give them some of the sick days they had been asking for, Biden's administration had no official role in it. Moreover, saying unions can't strike when it's economically or politically inconvenient is tantamount to saying that can't strike at all. There's a reason hundreds of labor historians wrote Biden and his labor secretary an open letter condemning them for what they did with this strike.
Of course, anyone saying they would have gotten any better treatment under a Republican administration is delusional or lying, and there is some pretty smoking gun evidence of racism from this particular union president (see: my other comment in this thread), which is probably why basically every other union has endorsed Biden except this one (like, unions are savvy political organizations that know to not make the perfect the enemy of the good, they do it all the time), but the fact is on at least one occasion when some unions needed Biden to stand up for them he threw them straight under the bus, and acting like he didn't or it's no big deal is extremely unhelpful to Biden's reelection efforts.
Hm... I think you might be right. The White House sort of took credit for it, and I thought I remembered that they were in on some of the negotiations and I've been saying they were, but everything I can find now seems to indicate that it was just the unions pressuring the railroads. I can't find anything to indicate that Biden's people were involved.
100%. I agree. Like I say, my personal feeling is that, if the workers want to strike, then fuck the economy. If the economy tanks and we get some level of "oh god I'm really struggling with the price of hot dogs / with how my stocks are doing," then maybe all of those people who are unhappy about that happening should live for a year in the railroad workers' shoes.
I'm just saying, it's extremely relevant what all other actions Biden did for unions when it wasn't the whole economy at stake, and that I kind of get why he did it. I'm not saying I think that's the right way for the US government to react to a big rail strike or that the Biden administration is a good ending point for progress.
Fair enough. Acting like the other 95% of his union actions didn't happen is also unhelpful to Biden's reelection efforts, though.
Regarding Biden and his administration's involvement, I've had to explain this to people before so I keep the info saved:
https://web.archive.org/web/20230620220325/https://www.ibew.org/media-center/Articles/23Daily/2306/230620_IBEWandPaid
Got it. Yeah. I thought I had seen something like that. I just couldn’t find it on the spot just now when looking for it.
some of the workers got some of their demands. if they'd been able to bring the rail to a halt, they might have gotten it all.
Let’s take all that “how DARE Biden let there be inflation, doesn’t he understand my grocery bill” energy and apply it to this here comment right here
Honestly, in terms of my own personal beliefs, I agree with you. I think if the workers that make the US economy operate decide to bring it to its knees until it starts treating them like humans again, fuckin God bless ‘em and I’ll start eating ramen and eggs until they’re done. I just think it’s a little much to ask a US President to commit the political suicide that would be allowing that to happen (in particular because, given how eager people are to blame him for inflation that wasn’t his fault, I don’t think they would react well to a big economic disruption and lots of inflation that actually was squarely his “fault”).
i don't give any credence to any argument that involves inflation. i don't believe anyone makes any decision that causally increases or decreases the buying power of a dollar, except perhaps the buyer and seller in any transaction, but only within the confines of that transaction, anyway. i do care about people being able to overthrow the capitalist system and the president stepping in and saying "no" is fucking infuriating.
I think we're done here
oh, ok.
Even though you don't like capitalism, you would benefit from reading some basics on economics.
this is posturing and rhetoric. it is not evidence of a natural phenomenon called "inflation"
If a country's monetary authority decides to increase the money in circulation (like what happened during Covid), which lowers demand because there's now more of it, that's certainly somebody influencing inflation. I'd like to hear how it's not.
that's story-telling. it's a myth. everyone could have chosen not to accept higher prices, or levy them. then what? did "inflation" still happen?
It's not that hard. Think of it in terms other than money. You have a stick of gum. You want to trade this for a lollipop. That's fine, you find someone with a lollipop and make the trade.
Next day, someone comes along with an infinite lollipop-making machine. People start handing out lollipops. The same guy from yesterday comes to you and wants to buy 15 more sticks of gum with his fresh lollipops he just got from the lollipop printer. Well, turns out, you've been amassing lollipops too because of this. You now demand 10 lollipops for the stick of gum, because you have the last three sticks and everybody including you are swimming in lollipops.
You'd have to be a complete idiot to continue selling sticks of gum for one lollipop, and if you are, you are definitely going to be taken advantage of and are going to get cleaned out of all your gum.
Economic forces don't just stop existing when capitalism does. People will continue to be people. I say this as an anarchist.
this is storytelling, it is not evidence of a testable causal relationship
It's been tested. Many, many times in history. Weimar Republic. Zimbabwe. Venezuela.
there is no way you tested a bubblegum and lollipops economy with an infinite lollipop machine, and if you did, the results are not applicable to the economies of Venezuela or Zimbabwe
Most pro union president ever wasn't pro union enough for you huh
Idk about ever, since the neoliberal turn in the 80s your probably right, but that ignores FDR who set the foundations for the NLRB and fought hard to get the courts to get them any sort of power. Bidens been a breath of fresh air from the 40 year onslaught against unions but he doesn't compare as well to presidents before that in the new deal era. Even Nixon got OSHA and ERISA signed, granted he had a more functional congress.
by what metric was he "most" pro-union?
If only someone had linked to some articles
this is handwaving.
edit:
this user has, to their credit, probably given me every relevant search result they could scrounge up to try to support their position, but have not actually provided the metric by which we could evaluate whether biden has been the most pro-union president ever. i suspect it is because no such metric exists, and, as such, can never be used to measure the actions of any president. instead of acknowledging that they are simply spreading rhetoric-as-fact, they have chosen to take a sarcastic, patronizing tone. feel free to think what you want about unions, presidential candidates, and whatnot, but please recognize that this claim in particular is purely rhetorical and not one that can be substatiated by any evidence.
What a polite request! As a matter of fact, I'd be happy to cut and paste so it's a little more clear for people who don't like clicking links.
IDK, I stopped with that much; that seems like plenty. Want me to copy and paste some from the NLRB article, though? There's a little bit of history and explanation of how he made it happen that might be interesting.
that's not "ever", and it's not quantified anyway.
your second quote has no meaningful metric at all about biden, only juxtaposing him against harris
the third says he's been trying to make good on his campaign promise, but it does not actually show the bar for how to become the most pro-union president, nor how biden has approached (or passed) that measure.
the fourth is some platitudes.
if a claim is to be made, it should be able to be evidenced. otherwise, it's just rhetoric.
Yes yes, very good. Let it all out.
Here, now do this one; tell me why it's all irrelevant. Don't hold back, it's not good for you.