Do you think they would have gotten nothing if they had struck? Absolutely nothing? And you’re so certain of this, despite knowing that the strike would have cost billions of dollars for the rail corps?
Well, if they had decided to accept nothing, that’s their Perogative, but it’s not the place of the President to negate their rights to collectively bargain and negotiate on their behalf after gutting 100% of their leverage.
When a union tries and fails to get things, that’s the harsh nature of bargaining and limits of worker power. They decide when the contract is the best they’re gonna get. When they’re prevented from striking and then someone else decides they can have some benefits, it’s absolutely a different arrangement and doesn’t inherently have worker approval.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: !politics@beehaw.org
In-depth political discussion from around the world; if it’s a political happening, you can post it here.
Guidelines for submissions:
Where possible, post the original source of information.
If there is a paywall, you can use alternative sources or provide an archive.today, 12ft.io, etc. link in the body.
Do not editorialize titles. Preserve the original title when possible; edits for clarity are fine.
Do not post ragebait or shock stories. These will be removed.
Do not post tabloid or blogspam stories. These will be removed.
Social media should be a source of last resort.
These guidelines will be enforced on a know-it-when-I-see-it basis.
He did shut down the railroad workers strike…and then got them the paid sick days they were striking to get
Probably treating this one differently because a railroad shutdown would have had much larger impact on people working in other industries.
Did he reverse the order making it illegal for them to strike in the future? Real question – I hope so but haven’t seen it anywhere.
If he didn’t, that’s all smoke and mirrors.
No, he got them 4 of the 14 sick days they were trying to get, and NONE of the safety changes they were trying to get.
I don’t think I’ve ever seen a union get everything they asked for. It’s not as good as it might have been, but it’s a lot better than nothing.
Do you think they would have gotten nothing if they had struck? Absolutely nothing? And you’re so certain of this, despite knowing that the strike would have cost billions of dollars for the rail corps?
Well, if they had decided to accept nothing, that’s their Perogative, but it’s not the place of the President to negate their rights to collectively bargain and negotiate on their behalf after gutting 100% of their leverage.
When a union tries and fails to get things, that’s the harsh nature of bargaining and limits of worker power. They decide when the contract is the best they’re gonna get. When they’re prevented from striking and then someone else decides they can have some benefits, it’s absolutely a different arrangement and doesn’t inherently have worker approval.