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.
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.