politics
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
view the rest of the comments
A fraction of the paid sick days they were asking for, while also not meeting their other major demands at all. Ending Precision Scheduled Railroading was a big one. Still going on.
They stopped them from striking and potentially making greater gains, then tossed them some crumbs.
They should have stayed the hell out of it or used the government's power to stop the rail companies not the strikers.
Well Congress did vote on a bill to give rail workers 7 days of sick leave at the same time as the vote preventing the strike. One bill got enough Republican support to pass, the other didn't. If there were more Democrats in Congress, the outcome would have been more favorable to the unions, hands down
the cool thing about strikes is congress doesn't have to vote for a company to give in to the demands of the workers. As a matter of fact congress has fuck all to do with it
Congress has the authority to require a company to give in to the demands of the workers, just not enough people in it who are willing to vote to do it
If they'd not intervened AT ALL they could've gotten even more by striking.
Or even better just make a reasonable amount of sick days federal law for all, and also put better safety legislation for trains.
Ok, and at real risk to many thousands of other people's jobs when the rail system ground to a halt. When nurses go on strike, it's expected more expensive travel nurses are going to step in to do patient care, because otherwise innocent people will be harmed. UAW goes on strike, no one steps in to take over because all that happens is corporate revenue starts to suffer, car prices may go up, repair parts may become harder to find or more expensive.
If rail workers go on strike, the entire United States manufacturing sector grinds to a halt, plus serious impact on imports/exports, military readiness, and even food availability. Inflation would almost immediately have become much worse. Right wing and corporate media would have been running rampant with anti-union stories because public sentiment would have quickly shifted against the strike once the implications became clear. All this is ok though, because after devastating the US economy, the rail workers walk away with a slightly better contract than this one?
If the entire US economy necessitates oppressing rail workers, then yes, rail workers striking is a good thing. It sounds like they are extremely important, according to you, and should be listened to.
Then get the asshole executives to compromise instead? Why is the blame here being put on the workers being exploited?
Oh duh! Why didn't they think of that!? Just compromise with the fucking scumbags, easy!
Maybe take a second pass at reading what I actually said, bud, unless you're calling the workers "fucking scumbags", and if that's the case, right back at ya!
My point is that I think they've been trying to compromise with the executive scumbags for a long time
If i keep slaves, and those slaves feed my children. If they escape my children will starve, the whole negborhood will! Therefore it is immoral to let the slaves become free persons, EVER. /s
The trolly problem clasically has no good answer, however the above statement has held down thousands of slaves in all but name. You are saying perpetuating slavery indefinitly causes less suffering than an unknown amount of starvation.
Sounds like the railroads are mismanaged to the point where the entire industry is so brittle that one strike of any duration at all would be a catastrophe.
Sounds like a job for antitrust or nationalization. Of course, if we can't muster the political will to impose terms on rail bosses, we're sure as hell not gonna break them up or nationalize them.
hey me, angey and ill informed child, shut your face
How does that not sound like a complete violation of the constitution. "We voted to give you 7 days to not work somtimes and in exchange took your right to not work"They're the ones that made the call to split the bill saying it was guaranteed to pass which made no sense
We need to stop saying "if there were more democrats" and start saying "if there were more socialists"
Yeah, it boggles my mind that the bills were split. The only reason I can think of to explain that is that they simply knew what was going to happen and any other explanation is just gaslighting us into thinking that they were doing something.
The only reason to split a bill is to pass the centrist/republican portion and let the progressive portion fail.
Sorry, gotta pull and old Reddit classic here:
This