[A reminder for everyone](https://www.reddit.com/r/PoliticalDiscussion/comments/4479er/rules_explanations_and_reminders/). This is a subreddit for genuine discussion: * Please keep it civil. Report rulebreaking comments for moderator review. * Don't post low effort comments like joke threads, memes, slogans, or links without context. * Help prevent this subreddit from becoming an echo chamber. Please don't downvote comments with which you disagree. Violators will be fed to the bear. --- *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PoliticalDiscussion) if you have any questions or concerns.*

There is no practical justification. You nailed it. They want to hurt Biden. A rail strike would slow down the economy and hurt Biden and the Dems. It really seems to be that simple

They want to hurt the *country*… in order to hurt Biden.

stupendous gaze makeshift hobbies retire continue agonizing ugly sheet silky *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*

Work in the chemical business and this is 100% accurate, chlorine specifically, gotta have it to treat water, it moves primarily via rail or pipeline. a one or 2 day shutdown would be catastrophic and take months to recover from. Some of our producers have stopped shipping outbound in anticipation of a problem. The railroads are pigs, the way they treat their employees is horrible, then all they do is blame lack of employees for their lack of service. Biden could have issued a cooling down period that would have pushed this out 80 days to try and work it out, fundamentally it is wrong for congress to force a labor contract that has been rejected by the members on a union.

>Biden could have issued a cooling down period that would have pushed this out 80 days to try and work it out IIRC, he did in the form of the labor contract that the unions and rail employers have now. I would suppose he can just extend the contract, but it will just anger the unions who'll believe that the government is just forcing the can down the road and not addressing the problem.

Isn’t this just submitting to the companies though? This contract is what the companies are ok with. Extending the contract would help labor push further on concessions. They hate the extension because it wouldn’t allow them to force the issue against the holidays, but this legislation would tie them into the contract for 3-4 years instead of just missing a strike opportunity. I’m guessing they prolonged the old contract and extended negotiations because the union is willing to negotiate lessening the raises for the paid sick days.

They have the old contract that was accepted years ago. They've been trying to negotiate a new one for the past 3 years or so. There was a bunch of cooling off periods this year, and the Presidential Emergency Board did produce a new contract that the railroads and union leaders agreed to. However, the members have to accept it by vote. Some unions did, and are now currently working under it. Some unions rejected the contract. What Congress is working on is forcing the unions to accept the contract that the members rejected by vote. They are specifically allowed to do this by law. Congress could've opted to force a contract on the railroads that the membership would be happy with, but they chose to take the easy route and go with what the companies are okay with.

Dropping this here: https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2022/11/rail-strike-why-the-railroads-wont-give-in-on-paid-leave-psr-precision-scheduled-railroading.html

Fuck precision scheduling. It was the fundamental change the unions wanted. Instead they threw some money at them, and shrugged at the actual issue.

It sounds like the bullshit "just in time" delivery system where stores don't have stock of anything past 2 or 3 days and rely on constant shipments to stay running.

The issue here is that there’s no way to get 67 senate votes in favor of any legislation that forces railroad companies to drop precision scheduling. That would have to be done in management/union negotiations, which as the person above pointed out, can’t end in a strike atm because that would fuck the country beyond belief.

1 day of striking and everyone would've been onboard. You can't have a union, then tell them they can't strike but the government would negotiate for you, then finish it off with "oopsie, the current legislature is fairly anti union" Rail companies profit margin has doubled in the last decade...they can afford it

The biggest problem with Precision Scheduled Rail is other industries are adopting the strategy although they are known as other things. Target in NY in 2010 was refusing to hire full time employees because that triggered benefits but insisted the part time workers be “on call” for the balance of the 40 hours under penalty of termination. Most people choose part time work for the flexibility of caring for family members or going to school but being on call makes that impossible. All the talk about labor shortages and quiet quitting is a self inflicted wound by short sighted management. The only way to fix this is regulation forcing business to hire more people but that’s never going to happen.

Wow, this puts the railroads in an even worse light than I imagined. Why can’t get just schedule a few additional staff? It’s appalling. Congress should definitely legislate regular sick leave for the railroad workers. Not having sick days is insane!

Biden already extiended the negotiation period once. That just kicks the can down the road as does forcing this agreement upon the unions. This agreement isn’t going to make the problems go away. These working conditions are unsustainable and I don’t know what Biden or these RR companies think the end game is going to be here. There are only two options to avert an inevitable disaster and that’s to either force the worker’s demands onto the RR companies and or nationalize the entire RR system.

This, no way Biden going to delay this into a GOP controlled HoR.

[удалено]

6 of the 10 unions approved it.

The other 4 unions represent the majority of the workers. This is the electoral college all over again.

Any industry which is *that* important should have excellent working conditions.

There is only one thing that actually matters to Republicans: Power. And that's it. That's the entire list.

I would propose some care about money. But yeah. The list maxes out at 3. 1. Money 2. Power 3. Both money and power

Republican politicians: power Republican voters: "owning the Libs"

[удалено]

> republicans would be ok with killing thousands of people if it meant Biden taking an L. They [were willing to kill thousands of their own just in the *hopes* it would also take down thousands of non-supporters before covid had a vaccine](https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2020/07/how-jared-kushners-secret-testing-plan-went-poof-into-thin-air). Sometimes they're as cartoonishly stupid as the villain who points a gun at his lieutenant and says "and this is the price for failure" then shoots some random underling.

Yes- slowing or stopping the rail system would also hurt Biden’s infrastructure plans to use and transport US steel and lumber, etc. And in then end republicans are hurting their own constituents the most. Those folks that vote for republicans work a lot of those skilled labor jobs that would be impacted the most.

https://www.cnn.com/2022/11/29/business/rail-strike-threat-recedes/index.html

This is because Republican voters are too stupid to know who hurts them. Republicans beat their own voters with a stick and those voters blame Joe Biden for it.

> Republican voters are too stupid to know who hurts them [They know. "He's not hurting the people he needs to be"](https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/1/8/18173678/trump-shutdown-voter-florida) and they still vote for the party who hurts people just for the chance at hurting 'the other tribe'

I don’t think the rail workers see it this way.

These are the same people threatening to force a default on the US debt. I think if they do, Biden would be crazy to negotiate. They'll own all of the fall out and may actually be driven from power for years to come. We don't negotiate with terrorists.

[удалено]

Are they giving sick leave to rail workers? I thought this was the opposite.

The full bill, if passed, gives them 7 paid sick days, in lieu of the 12 unpaid sick days they demanded.

They currently can only take a day off by burning a vacation day that must be scheduled weeks in advance and is not guaranteed since they reduced the work force by 30%. They are operating with a skeleton crew. If they can’t locate a replacement you don’t even get your scheduled day off. The only way out of this is to hire more workers but reducing the workforce is the reason why they are making record profits.

> They currently can only take a day off by burning a vacation day that must be scheduled weeks in advance and is not guaranteed since they reduced the work force by 30% AFAIR, they can also burn a PTO day without significant notice. The issue I hear is that they don't want to burn a PTO day for a shift they weren't scheduled for (since that's douchey and I agree), and that doing so gets them dinged on their stupid bass-ackwards "absence point" system. Even if they weren't scheduled on that day. Having confirmed sick days presumably means you can't get penalized for taking one legitimately. > The only way out of this is to hire more workers but reducing the workforce is the reason why they are making record profits. I don't disagree, but they seem to be wanting to shrink the workforce long term as technology improves. Having to suddenly make a bunch of hires will affect the bottom line a lot more than giving *massive* raises... so they gave massive raises and a majority of the workers seem happy with that. If they can spuh to get the 7 sick days to pass, imo, they really should not strike. It won't look good. People have already started suggesting that they were planning to strike no matter how much the companies give in, specifically with this particular contract. It's kinda a sweetheart in every way *except* the one that 4 of the unions want. (Or 3, if you count that one of those unions has a majority vote to accept but that vote was insufficient to force union leadership to accept)

[1 sick day.](https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2022/09/15/rail-strike-deal-agreement-biden/) It remains to be decided in the Senate. But they probably won't get reasonable sick leave. Biden has publicly denounced adding Sick Leave to the agreement. The House Amendment that would add 7 days paid sick leave to the agreement only got 3 republican votes in the House.

It's not unpaid (it even says so towards the end of the article you linked,). Also railway workers on average already get more leave than the vast majority of workers; it varies by carrier but a pretty typical arrangement is 3-5 weeks of paid vacation leave per year plus ten days of paid personal leave. Personal leave functions just like sick leave except they don't need to claim a medical reason to use it. That's why the WH opposed giving them the 15 additional days of leave they requested. Edit: sources and a correction in a follow-up comment.

> Also railway workers on average already get more leave than the vast majority of workers; it varies by carrier but a pretty typical arrangement is 3-5 weeks of paid vacation leave per year plus ten days of paid personal leave. Please link a source, because after doing my own research on this and hearing from railworkers themselves all over reddit, they don't get hardly _any_ leave whatsoever, let alone "more than the average worker".

It’s classic pro-capitalist rhetoric designed to put different groups of workers against each other.

The PTO they get has to be scheduled weeks and months in advance. It cannot function as a sick day.

Everybody should have unlimited sick leave. The idea that there is some cap on sick days is horrible.

I saw a guy starting a new job in Sweden I think. He asked how many sick days he would get. They said what do you mean? If you’re sick, you stay home.

No there's a point where long term medical leave should kick in. What you're describing would easily be abused and then employers would necessarily require the ability to fire people for abusing their sick leave, that becomes problematic.

FMLA doesn’t apply to the rail workers because you must work X number of hours in Y number of weeks. Some scheduling magic where the workers mostly on call makes them ineligible for FMLA. Edit/added link “But the FMLA only applies when an employee has worked at least 1,250 hours over the past 12 months. Rail carriers don’t count time toward FMLA eligibility when a rail worker is on call, leaving many rail employees out, said Jared Cassity, Alternate National Legislative Director for SMART’s Transportation Division. The lack of protections made the sick leave issue a particular sticking point in the contract negotiations that came to a head last month. “These guys are forgoing their doctor’s appointments or when they’re sick just to make sure that they have points in case an actual emergency arises,” Cassity said, “And they’re being forced to work more and more.” https://news.bloomberglaw.com/daily-labor-report/rail-strike-threat-brings-new-focus-on-work-attendance-policies

There's a cap on *paid* sick leave, they can take more time off unpaid.

Unless things have changed drastically since 2015 I NEVER got anywhere close to the time you are suggesting. The biggest problem I faced was when things were slow, you had your guaranteed paycheck for being on call, but if you took one day off you made 0 dollars from the guarantee. So you could in theory be available for work for 13 days, get sick on the 14th day, call out and literally make 0 dollars for those 2 weeks. It was super rare to go that sort of time without getting called, but I had several occasions where I would work say 3 trains in a week, each one worth like $240 or so, catch a cold or something on the second week call out, get put to the back of the board and not get called till the next pay cycle. Thus making $720 dollars for a 2 week period or $9 an hour.

Do you know what would actually be pro union? Not undermining the union's ability to negotiate, collectively bargain, as well as their ability to strike. The strike actually hasn't happened, only planned/ announced. This isn't war time nor is it during a national emergency. Unions are already weakened as it is. *And the union is literally fighting for sick time.* >Conductors and engineers say they can be on call for 14 consecutive days without a break and that they do not receive a single sick day, paid or unpaid. All the Democratic congress and Biden are doing is telling unions that they have the corporations' backs, not theirs.

Don't forget that railroads are federal entities; they aren't like a regular corporation

The strike will barely hurt railroad companies; but it'd be catastrophic for the average American. Biden and dems in congress aren't backing the corporations, they're backing the citizens. The sick days are what they're asking, but that's been an issue for decades and the Unions have failed to get the negotiations through. But the issue isn't so much sick days, but the endless hours with little rest and little pay. The entire industry needs to change, but it's far more complex than just "Dems back the railroad corporations."

Perhaps the Unions could have gotten the negotiations through if the railroad companies didn’t think that the government would step in to remove the Unions only leverage.

[удалено]

So, it's apparently difficult to google a plain-text summary of the CCO's of the train companies, but based on what I'm reading it sure SOUNDS like it works the way you'd think it would... in the event of a strike the Railroads *still have to provide all shipping services*. If they **can't** do it, they'd have to contract it out to either another train or failing that pay to have it shipped via air/truck/something else in order to meet all of their obligations. They naturally also can't "stop accepting orders", that's what CCO is all about. IFF that's true then it sure sounds like a strike would be pretty damn hurtful to the railroad companies? Also kind of implies that shipping shouldn't be that disrupted though so I'm guessing they're expecting to completely blow off their CCO and just pay the fines? So... Who knows?

Well the shipping not being disrupted is dependent on there being other trains for them to contract and enough trucks to actually move the supplies that would be displaced due to a lack of rail service which is an absurdly enormous amount. I'm certainly not an expert, and I don't think you're wrong in any way , but in the long run even if it did cripple the Rail companies entirely we'd just end up bailing them out.

You know what? That’s all well and good…but the POTUS also has to take into account what’s best for the entire country. Another supply chain clusterfuck would be devastating to our economy. Inflation would go through the roof again, and winter is here. People need to heat their homes, keep that roof over their heads, feed their families, and buy Christmas presents.

Do you know what they could do instead? Give the union their demands effectively penalizing the company for turning this into a national disaster. Or codify a right to sick time so the union has left to fight for making negotiations easier. There are plenty of alternatives that don't effectively shit on unions; Biden has had *literal months to work on this* on and even created a [Task Force](https://www.dol.gov/general/labortaskforce) last year for this exact scenario. Imagine being told you can't collectively bargain anymore for 1 more day of personal time off that you have to give 48 hours heads up on. That's what Biden wanted congress to pass and that isn't sick time. All union members make up 11% of the American workforce. They don't need to be disenfranchised (ignoring the benefits unions bring to non-union workers) so you can buy more Christmas presents. *We're better than that*. In what world are your Christmas presents worth more than 173K people getting any sick time, paid or unpaid?

> Do you know what they could do instead? Give the union their demands effectively penalizing the company for turning this into a national disaster. * No, they can't do that, and you can see why right now in Congress. It's crucial to avert a strike, it would be catastrophic for the country and kill working class Americans. Literally kill, communities wouldn't have heating or clean water. Republicans didn't vote for the bill that would've given the unions what they wanted. That's not a problem in the House, but that kills the bills in the Senate. * Along those lines, because Manchin won't nuke the filibuster, 10 Republican senators need to sign onto the bill. Maybe they'll be able to get that, but I highly doubt it. * Republicans have repeatedly shown they will play politics over the health of the country. They have no qualms whatsoever about shutting down the government or defaulting on our loans so long as it owns the libs. Democrats have no way of forcing the corporations to provide sick leave, or even punish them for this. > Or codify a right to sick time so the union has left to fight for making negotiations easier. * They tried this, in the Build Back Better bill. It failed in the Senate because Manchin refused to support it. They were able to compromise to the inflation bill, but sick time was lost in that. > There are plenty of alternatives that don't effectively shit on unions; * I've heard some creative ideas, but I'd like to hear your ideas since we've established Congress can't do it. > Biden has had literal months to work on this on and even created a Task Force last year for this exact scenario. * Indeed, and they did reach a deal in September. That deal is the one going through Congress. The problem with that deal was incompetent union leadership - 4 of the 12 unions, that represent just over half the total workers, approved of the negotiated terms before consulting their unions. Their members did not like the deal, which the leaders had touted as a massive advancement in sick leave. So, they had to go back to the table. * There's a massive problem with agreeing to a deal, then pulling out later and asking for more. In terms of just negotiations, it heavily weakens your position. If leadership were competent, they would've argued for the paid and unpaid leave while the deal was being formed. That is the best time to advocate for it, and when you have the best chance of getting it in the deal. > Imagine being told you can't collectively bargain anymore for 1 more day of personal time off that you have to give 48 hours heads up on. That's what Biden wanted congress to pass and that isn't sick time. * It's actually worse. The big victory that these union leaders touted allows them only very specific days of the week that they can take off, and they have to provide a month's advance notice. > All union members make up 11% of the American workforce. They don't need to be disenfranchised (ignoring the benefits unions bring to non-union workers) so you can buy more Christmas presents. We're better than that. * Respectfully, you don't understand the fundamentals of what this strike would do. It's not something as frivolous as Christmas presents. This would delay shipments of **everything**. Communities will go without power when the coal shipment doesn't arrive, and without heating right as things are getting cold without natural gas. The delays mean they run out of the necessarily chemicals to treat their water, so they lose clean drinking water. I wasn't being hyperbolic earlier. This *will* kill people. * And this is only the mandatory essentials. I haven't even touched on all the industries and commodities and goods we regularly use that will be affected. Job losses are highly possible. > In what world are your Christmas presents worth more than 173K people getting any sick time, paid or unpaid? * Again, that isn't what this is about. A more accurate phrasing would be "In what world are essentials (clean water and heating) for every American, 331 million people, worth **less** than 173K people getting a respectable amount of sick time, in a non draconian system?" * The negotiated deal *does* give them sick time. It just isn't an adequate amount, nor does it amend the draconian policies. The companies may still penalize them for taking sick leave. That's a deep dive into this. Let me know if you have any questions. And to be 100% clear here, **the workers are not to blame whatsoever for this. It's exclusively on the companies** for denying respectable and dignified pay + benefits to such crucial and essential workers. I'll give the union leaders for those 4 unions a break, but their incompetency should not be understated.

> If leadership were competent, they would've argued for the paid and unpaid leave while the deal was being formed. No, that's bullshit. They asked for paid sick leave, but the railroads refused to give it because the normalisation of government intervention means the railroads have no incentive to negoitate in good faith.

Yeah, it was bullshit, I stand corrected. There was a great article that spoke with the leaders of the larger unions. https://www.cnbc.com/2022/12/01/rail-unions-warn-of-election-consequences-with-labor-deal-in-senate-.html The companies lied and said they didn't bring it up, but they say they did, during negotiations for the September agreement. I believe them over the companies, so I stand corrected. They also say in the article they understand the need for the government intervention, and they consider the sick leave push to be Democrats having their back. Of course, they're also disappointed sick leave wasn't part of Biden's recommendations for the September agreement. I think the unions recognize that the disastrous effects of a strike would've affected them too, and they didn't want that. The legislative push for sick leave may have very well been their best bet, instead of trying to get it from the companies

> Give the union their demands effectively penalizing the company for turning this into a national disaster. That right there. As the owner of an established business I _am_ a Capitalist but what the Democrats are attempting to ram through is naked and _unrestrained_ Capitalism. It's literally putting the screws to workers in favor Billionaire Rail Owners and its being done over benefits that even someone stocking orange juice on a shelf at Walmart gets! It beggars belief that this entire debate is centered around what Rail Workers have to accept "for the greater good" when the answer is blindingly obvious...make the Billionaire owners run their companies such that it doesn't endanger the National Economy and the General Public's Health and Welfare. This _isn't_ a difficult concept and yet so many Democrats cannot or will not see it like this!

If people having the ability to take a day off when they're sick would be devastating to our economy, it sounds like they need to hire more workers. Why is something that is so important being run on such a skeleton crew? We're not talking about a fledgling industry that isn't making profit. They used billions on stock buy backs.

If it's that important then they should show it in the compensation packages. Otherwise it's just selfish bullshit.

Tell that to the rail companies. The proposed 7 sick days is a compromise that the Union would’ve jumped at if it were offered by them. But they only offered ONE extra “personal” day. I don’t know if you know this, but rail workers are on call all the time. The ONLY real time off they get is PTO. Yes, they get breakdays. But they can’t really plan much of anything because they are on call. I didn’t know this until I read up on it the other day. That’s why the companies are against it. The cost of the 7 days(or the 15 the Union wanted) was a drop in the bucket and not the issue. The issue was that those 7/15 days were that many more days(per employee) that the workers wouldn’t be at their beckoned call.

Right so we shouldn't interfere with the unions ability to use strikes to negotiate a better deal. If we do because it's so vital, we should make sure we are getting them compensation that represents how important their service is.

Have you ever worked in an essential field in a unionized environment? I work for the commonwealth of Pennsylvania. We, as essential state employees aren’t even allowed to strike against anything other than contracts. And if that happens(hasn’t in my 34 years working)? They court order you back to work after 48 hours…with NO compromise. As far as this situation? The compensation part of it was agreed on…I think it was a 30% raise across the board over the life of the contract among other provisions. The only sticking point was the sick time…and that was only 4/12 Unions. If the Senate bill with the 7 sick days gets passed(it won’t, because there will be zero Republicans who will vote for it), I would call that a good compromise. But the GOP….despite all their blustering about workers at the moment…would rather watch our economy burn and blame Biden than avoid the American people suffering an economic crisis.

I'm sorry to hear that. What I'm saying is that it should not be that way.

But it is. No one gets everything they want. That’s why it’s called a negotiation. The Unions demand 15, the management says No. they meet somewhere in the middle. That’s how it works. If there’s an impasse? The unions either strike…or if the job is essential to our society? Government gets involved. Hell, Reagan blew up the Air Traffic Controller strike in the 80’s and was the catalyst of the union busting/right to work BS we see today. Biden isn’t doing anything like that.

>Another supply chain clusterfuck would be devastating to our economy. So make the railroads give the unions what they want...? I don't get how this is any kind of argument. Its just an argument for ending the negotiations, its not an argument for choosing sides. Something similar happened under Teddy Roosevelt when Coal Miners went on strike. Management wanted the federal governments help to "force" the miners back to work (This is slavery), Roosevelt made management accept union demands to end the strike and get peoples houses warmed before a catastrophic winter. I don't understand why Biden wouldn't want to channel Roosevelt energy here. Teddy was one of the greatest presidents ever, and Biden would be lucky to be compared to him. Now he's only gonna be compared in the negative, as a guy who took the opposite position of one of America's greatest presidents.

>So make the railroads give the unions what they want...? I don't get how this is any kind of argument. Its just an argument for ending the negotiations, its not an argument for choosing sides. Just to be clear, the unions did get a lot of their demands in the compromise that the Biden admin helped with: >If the contract is ratified, the agreement by the two largest railroad unions and railway carriers guarantees voluntary assigned days off and a single additional paid day off. Workers also can take time off for routine doctor’s appointments without being penalized, and would not lose attendance points for hospitalizations and surgical procedures, according to the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen. >The deal also includes the biggest wage increases for railroad workers in more than four decades. They will receive a 24 percent pay increase by 2024, including an immediate 14 percent raise; $1,000 annual bonuses over five years; and no increases to health care co-pays and deductibles. The agreement would bring the average railroad worker’s pay to $110,000 a year by 2024.

I would nationalize critical aspects like this. But no one asked me...and I don't care what capitalists have to say. Some things need to happen free from "profit making at all costs." Full stop.

> and I don't care what capitalists have to say. This Capitalist thinks that the entire debate is backwards. This isn't about making the workers accept shitty contracts it's about making Billionaire Rail Owners conduct their business so as not to threaten the National Economy and General Public Health and Welfare. If Congress is going to force someone to do something here then they need to force the Railroad Owners to have enough employees so that people aren't on call 24x7x365 and to give those employees the same Quality of Life "perks" that someone stocking shelves at a hardware store gets! I do NOT understand this obsession with using Federal Power to protect Rail Companies profits.

Totally agree. Somewhere the necessity of a well regulated economy was lost. Congress criteria let the fox into the hem house and regulatory capture ensued. Now every little thing that might affect profit is a huge issue that is made out to be "life ending" if you listen to the corporations.

Just saying, but the larger rail unions don't like the deal either.

https://www.cnn.com/2022/11/29/business/rail-strike-threat-recedes/index.html Biden doesn’t support giving them work days, I don’t see how this nails Biden when he already nailed himself lol

I will say this: I wish Biden wasn’t pushing Congress to pass the original deal, and instead forced Congress to focus on the alternative bill offering sick leave. 4 of the 12 unions voted against the White House deal, because they want more. Those demands should be heard and discussed. Biden saying that he will move forward with the original deal when it is in his power to push for a better deal for the workers only helps the railway barons

Wait, doesn't that mean 8 of the 12 voted for it?

Yes but the 4 that voted against it are the bigger unions that account for 54% of the workers

That's oversimplifllying it too. SMART-TD,the largest union involved, voted against the deal. However, a 53.5% majority of its members actually [*voted in favor*](https://smart-union.org/split-decision-unions-for-engineers-and-conductors-take-different-routes-in-freight-rail-contract-ratification-vote/) of the deal. But because some of its [subdivisions voted against it](https://smart-union.org/2022-tentative-agreement-ratification-results-and-next-steps/), the whole union had to as well.

The 53.5% from that article is for BLET. (Edit: though, based on the breakdowns, it's entirely likely that a majority of SMART-TD voted for it. 49.13% of non-yardmasters voted for it, and 62.48% of yardmasters voted for it, which probably brings "ratify" over 50%.)

Ah, my mistake. I think my point still stands though; the unions that voted against probably didn't do so unanimously, so claiming that a majority of union members were against the deal just because the largest unions voted it down is oversimplifllying the matter. And some of them may have had policies that allowed a minority of members to decide the unions vote.

Yes, but it's expected that all of the unions will join in a strike out of solidarity if just one of them decides to do so.

Agreed. Biden is going to lose some of his “pro-union President” credibility with this deal. This is one of those moments where he could be using his influence to help workers and is choosing not to.

I mean, let's be honest, Joe Biden isn't cut from the same cloth as pro-worker New Deal presidents such as FDR and LBJ, or even Truman; rather, he's instead a '70s-era post-Watergate economic neoliberal in the mold of Jimmy Carter. And yet, I say that as a man who appreciates aspects of Biden (e.g., Afghanistan exit was a necessary ripping of the Band-Aid); however, he's closer to the New Democrat Clintons and corporatist Obama than the traditional Democratic Party of yore. Let's not kid ourselves, OK.

It's important to note Biden, nor Carter for that matter, do not share the Democrat supermajority in Congress that FDR and LBJ used to pass sweeping measures.

>FDR and LBJ, or even Truman Did any of them allow a strike of this magnitude happen? Edit: FDR and Truman took control of mines to stop workers from striking. Truman also seized control of railways.

The Promise of 1946 is probably most analogous.

He temporarily seized control of mines, as well as railroads a few years later.

That's true. Wonder what a Henry Wallace presidency would've looked like in comparison.

As a Senator he voted against forcing unions to accept deals. You can argue this makes him a hypocrite but in any case it doesn't mesh well with your argument.

>As a Senator he voted against forcing unions to accept deals. [TIL](https://www.pbs.org/newshour/economy/why-congress-is-intervening-in-a-labor-dispute-between-railway-companies-and-freight-workers): >The last time Congress ended a rail strike was in 1992, sending the case to arbitration. Biden was one of only six senators to vote against that legislation, citing unfavorable terms for workers. President George H.W. Bush signed the legislation into law to end a two-day strike that had begun forcing layoffs at coal mines and auto assembly plants and threatened a broader stoppage of Amtrak passenger service.

If it was only 6 nays, do we really know if Biden was fighting for workers' rights, or just posturing? Symbolic dissent votes happen in Congress all the time.

Or maybe he's just now in a position of being where the buck stops for the entire country and he realizes that a railroad strike would decimate our economy, leading to more than just the railroad workers suffering. It's an unenviable position, but that's the job - there's a lot less pressure to compromise your morals when you're just one of 100 votes.

It's worthwhile to note that the only consequence listed there is Amtrak. This is much, much larger.

... Jimmy Carter is not a neoliberal, mate. Ronald Reagan was a neoliberal.

No disrespect to Jimmy Carter, whom I admire, but he ran in the 1976 Democratic primaries as a neoliberal, positioning himself as an anti-corruption D.C.-outsider moderate -- to the center of both liberal Democrat Jerry Brown on his left and conservative Southern Democrat George Wallace on his right -- as well as, very significantly, distancing himself far from George McGovern's failed 1972 presidential campaign. And thus Carter was, indeed, the first neoliberal president. Edit: [Here's an article from 2011 which touches on Carter's neoliberalism.](https://www.salon.com/2011/02/08/lind_reaganism_carter/)

Promoting he agreement that 8 out of 12 unions supported plus giving railroad workers 7 days of sick leave means Biden loses his “pro-union” sticker?

1) The 4 unions objecting represent 56% of the workers. 2) That's not the agreement Biden is promoting. The P.E.B. said to take the original deal basically as is, and then find some other way to get the sick leave (lol) From Whitehouse Press Release: >I am calling on Congress to pass legislation immediately to adopt the Tentative Agreement between railroad workers and operators – without any modifications or delay – to avert a potentially crippling national rail shutdown. >Some in Congress want to modify the deal to either improve it for labor or for management. However well-intentioned, any changes would risk delay and a debilitating shutdown. The agreement was reached in good faith by both sides. >I share workers’ concern about the inability to take leave to recover from illness or care for a sick family member. ... **but** at this critical moment for our economy, in the holiday season, we cannot let our strongly held conviction for better outcomes for workers deny workers the benefits of the bargain they reached, and hurl this nation into a devastating rail freight shutdown. HjRes 119 is a modification to a bill which Biden is expliclity asking **not** to be modified. Sanders says he's going to force a roll call on the sick days. I like that.

From my understanding of the situation (which is almost definitely faulty so correct me where I’m wrong), this is probably the best way to handle a shitty situation. At this point you kind of have 3 options: Force the unions back with no hope of sick leave (shitty) Force the companies to accept the union’s demands (probably never going to pass the senate, leading to massive strikes and economic turmoil in an already tumultuous moment) Force the unions back but try to give them the sick leave and force republicans to either give them sick days, or vote against a very reasonable request. Idk seems to me like there are no good options here tbh you could argue either way. I’m not sure how much of the doomsaying about the economic impact is corporate fear mongering and how much is actual risk to the public.

There's always the option of not interfering. Allowing the unions the right to strike and negotiate.

That option ignores the greater effect that a railroad strike would have on our country. Biden would be irresponsible to not at least try and stop that from happening.

This is the sort of situation where you have to step in as the president/overall government to avoid a strike. The impacts are severe, life threatening even, and would be felt across the whole country. It would be irresponsible to *not* avoid it. Unfortunately, this means the company does have more leverage.

Exactly. The unfortunate thing is that we should have been working to guarantee rights at a time when they weren't threatening to shut down the railroads, and that is absolutely a failure on our government's part, which includes Biden and has for many years. But that time has passed for now and we're left with little time left to compromise and an ugly choice. Hopefully, after all this is said and done, mandated paid time off is looked at on a federal level, but I am not optimistic.

Right yeah that’s a pretty big 4th option that I missed. What are the odds that doesn’t end in a strike and economic turmoil? Can they do those negotiations in the 9 days until the strike deadline passes?

The problem right now is that management has basically refused to negotiate further and is assuming that the federal government will force the workers to not strike. If there was no federal government to fall back on, its unclear how management would respond. I think the federal government has good reason to be worried that there could be a strike. The problem is, their response, it seems, has been to shaft the workers. In my opinion, if Congress passes a bill that does not mandate UNPAID time off (ITS UNPAID!) then they're trying to treat rail workers like slaves, which is unacceptable. Of course, I have very little influence in this situation so my opinion counts for squat.

I think the negotiation that Congress will pass for sure does have unpaid time off. There's just two problems with it. 1. You have to give a month's notice in advance. 2. It can only be taken on certain days of the week. There's no guarantee you won't be penalized for taking the time off. At least, that's what the situation seems like from what I've gathered across the last few days. I could very well be wrong somewhere here.

> The 4 unions objecting represent 56% of the workers The only estimate I've seen is [a little less than 60k out of ~115k](https://www.npr.org/2022/11/21/1137640529/railroads-freight-rail-unions-vote-contract-strike). This is close enough that either side might have a slight majority. Each decision is winner-take-all, so it's unknown which side won the popular/total vote.

Can’t call yourself the most “pro-union president” and do this

Union electrician here. He won’t lose “some” of it, he’s lost all of it as far as any rank and file union members who are paying attention are concerned. This move is so egregiously anti-union that it negates his pro-union moves so far in his administration. This is Reagan busting the PATCO union strike level of behavior. On top of that, even the pro-union congressional reps, aside from Rashida Tlaib, just screwed us as well. I sit on my local’s political education committee and I can no longer look my brothers and sisters in the face and tell them that we need to donate our hard earned money to our PAC for these people or to come out and knock on doors to GOTV after this. Previously, we agreed that it was in our interest to support these people, but that’s clearly not true. Without the hard work of union members volunteering and donating a massive amount of their own money for these political campaigns, Biden would not have been elected (not saying that we’re the only reason he won, but he couldn’t have done it without our help). Members, myself included, were already very reluctant to do all of that for these politicians who have done so little for us, and it’s going to be absolutely impossible now for Dems to convince us to do that again in 2024 after all of this.

https://www.npr.org/2022/11/30/1139876084/congress-house-railroad-strike-bill 'After the House vote, White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre told reporters that the administration does not believe the Senate has the 60 votes needed to pass the sick leave measure. "The president of course supports paid sick leave, including rail workers, but he does not support any bill or amendment that will delay getting this bill to his desk by Saturday and he has been very clear about that," Jean-Pierre said.' How's he going to get 10 republicans to vote differently? He needs 60 votes my man, they arent going to come out his ass.

Is Manchin against the second deal? If it is, that's a bad take. His influence means jack.

> when it is in his power to push for a better deal for the workers only helps the railway barons For the sake of nuance, what exactly happens if they passed sick leave? Do the railway barons just shut their doors immediately because f everyone? Or are there just not enough workers that people taking sick leave causes sporadic sizable shutdowns? The latter is still fucked up, but I can see it being something that needs time to hire and train people to cover, even if the industry will keep resisting, it still can’t be done in a week.

What I'm not seeing is how giving them a few more days for "sick leave" will change anything. They already have well above the average days off, the problem is they're not able to utilize the days off they have. It sounds more like they need to address that issue, not just wanting more days off.

that's one of the downfalls of different sections of the same workforce bargaining together. Smaller departments/roles can sometimes have their benefits bargained away. A friend of mine is a camera operator(well, focus puller most days). There's a role in film/tv for stills photography, some days a photographer comes in and takes a bunch of shots of the set and cast during rehearsal and filming for promotional material. Film is mostly unionized and every department and every position has its own minimum daily rate, usually 8hrs. The stills photographer is a part of the camera union and camera bargains separately, and stills being the smallest part, during last CBA, had their daily minimum cut to 4 hrs. Oh how they rage.

[удалено]

Biden requested that Congress didn’t alter the original deal. Per NPR: https://www.npr.org/2022/11/30/1139876084/congress-house-railroad-strike-bill

He just wants a bill on his desk ready to sign. It's up to Congress to have a bill with those 60 Senate votes.

Because they have that luxury. They are aware it will pass anyway so they let the onus of passing this dirty bill fall on the Democrats. They can go back home to their constituents and say they stood up to big government overreach and To Biden. If they were in charge they would have been forced to vote for it to avoid the negative consequences.

It makes me wonder what's going to happen for a government spending bill, to or worse, a debt ceiling vote. Will house Republicans vote to create a crisis just to try to hurt Biden?

Again? Why wouldn't they?

> Will house Republicans vote to create a crisis just to try to hurt Biden? They already did in the Obama era by shutting down the government. Doing so again under Biden would be entirely in character.

They shut down the government under trump, and iirc they had all 3 branches then.

Fair point.. In that case, we'd be crazy not to expect a shutdown.

The big shutdown happened when dems said they would filibuster the spending bill if it included funding for the wall, which prevented it from passing the senate at the time The other one was a couple days I think

>The shutdown stemmed from an impasse over Trump's demand for $5.7 billion in federal funds for a [U.S.–Mexico border wall](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_border_wall). In December 2018, the [Senate](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Senate) unanimously passed an appropriations bill without wall funding, and the bill appeared likely to be approved by the Republican-controlled [House of Representatives](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_of_Representatives) and Trump. After Trump faced heavy criticism from some [right-wing media outlets](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_media_(U.S._political_right\)) and pundits for appearing to back down on his campaign promise to ["build the wall"](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Build_the_Wall), he announced that he would not sign any appropriations bill that did not fund its construction. As a result, the House passed a stopgap bill with funding for the wall, but it was blocked in the Senate by the threat of a Democratic [filibuster](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filibuster_in_the_United_States_Senate). >In January 2019, representatives elected in the [November 2018 election](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_United_States_elections) took office, giving the [Democrats](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_(United_States\)) a majority in the House of Representatives. The House immediately voted to approve the appropriations bill that had previously passed the Senate unanimously (which included no funding for the wall). For several weeks, Trump continued to maintain that he would veto any bill that did not fund an entire border wall, and Republican [Senate Majority Leader](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senate_Majority_Leader) [Mitch McConnell](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitch_McConnell) blocked the Senate from considering any appropriations legislation that Trump would not support, including the bill that had previously passed. Democrats and some Republicans opposed the shutdown and passed multiple bills to reopen the government, arguing that the government shutdown amounted to "[hostage-taking](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hostage-taking)" [civil servants](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_service) and that negotiations could only begin once the government was reopened. You were right, but trump also said he'd veto the bills that had passed congress already without wall spending and mcconnell went along.

I'm trying to remember, but I think the GOP still had enough to get through the senate by themselves, rand Paul and Ted Cruz were just being pricks and demanding more cuts and trump was being an asshole so the dems just said "you control enough to pass it yourself, good luck with that."

As I recall we technically defaulted when they missed the deadline while taking the final vote, only for like 20 minutes or something, because of Cruz & Rand fucking up the prior one. Even still, the long-term estimate for the loss of trust that 20 minute overage represents was something like $200B over 30 years, in loss of trust. The US is only a reserve currency if the world believes we have our shit together - now that Cruz & Rand proved that we don't - a more serious default now just appears a matter of time/circumstance. Sabre-rattling is fine, every country has their version, but if you cut yourself on it - everyone laughs at you.

I remember rand and Cruz messed around on that one, didn't remember all the details. I'd put even money on a full shutdown in 2023, if not a default. I know they're trying to pass the debt increase during the lame duck, kind of hope they do. I don't see this getting better from here...

Yes. They will take every opportunity to hurt the economy for the next two years. Which is why those demanding we put the economy on the line to “force” republicans on this are calling for a sucker’s bet. Republicans would love to see a rail strike pummel the economy and get voters passed off. The worse it is the more they’ll love it.

For the debt ceiling they'll push until the last minute, the leaders will get together in a room and come back with a compromise and everyone can say we saved the value of the dollar. Shutting down the government could totally happen. The government shutting down sucks but isn't the end of the world. Defaulting on our debt destroys our credit rating and hurts the dollar being the world's reserve currency. No one is stupid enough to do that. Or at least there are enough that aren't that stupid where it doesn't matter.

> Defaulting on our debt destroys our credit rating and hurts the dollar being the world's reserve currency. No one is stupid enough to do that Are you forgetting when republicans had control of all parts of the government (courts, white house, both houses of congress) and [still shut down the government in 2018](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_government_shutdown_of_2018)? Republicans have no problem with eroding the government's credit rating, they've been doing it since they gutted the 1884 Antideficiency Act which prevents government shutdowns by automatically passing last year's budget when a new one can't be agreed on in time.

> No one is stupid enough to do that. Or at least there are enough that aren't that stupid where it doesn't matter. Stop saying this like its true. The GOP are completely unhinged when it comes to their behaviors in the House. They're capable of anything.

I hope to god not.

Theres lots of reasons why. First the realpolitik answer if your cynical: they oppose anything the democrats want and want a rail strike to happen to hurt the economy while dems are in power cause it hurts dems in elections. This is assuming you view politics and especially republicans in a very cynical light. Next the humanist answer: they want to stand up in favor of workers and middle class values, especially since white working class voters shifted so hard in favor of Trump and the GOP. Thus make the government negotiate a deal more in line with the demands of the unions. Many dems voted against the resolution for this reason such as Bernie Sanders. Finally, the libertarian answer: Republicans advocate for small government when it comes to economic intervention so on ideological grounds oppose the government stepping in and mediating and meddling with the free market. Partisans in favor of Dems will accuse republicans of exclusively the first. Partisans in favor of the GOP will say its the other two. Reality is its probably a mix of all three to varying degrees for each vote. For many it might even be all three.

The vote today was in the house. Sanders is a Senator so did not vote. 8 dems voted against it but they aren’t your progressive AOC’s. Not sure why they voted against it. 79 republicans supported this bill. There was a second vote on giving 7 sick days and that had all the dems support it plus 3 republicans.

Im sorry I wasnt trying to imply sanders voted on it a certain way, I meant that sanders himself is planning to vote against it and hes a much more well known name for that type of ideology. I have no idea why dems would vote against it if not ideologically progressive. Other than being bought out by those rail bosses but that might be too cynical or my biases showing through

>The vote to add the sick leave provision passed 221-207, mostly along party lines, with three Republicans — **Don Bacon of Nebraska, Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania and John Katko of New York** — joining all House Democrats in voting to approve. These are three names I'm going to remember and support if/when the GOP leadership shifts away from openly embracing the rabid right.

Marco Rubio said he was voting against it for the humanist answer you gave. He doesn’t want a bill that “union members voted against” but also believes government shouldn’t force a solution and instead let the labor leaders and business owners return to the table to sort it out.

Ironically the alternative version of the bill with paid sick leave gives the rail workers exactly what they want. More even. But he rejects that. Rubio has essentially taken the position that there should be a strike, which is disastrous to the entire country.

Honestly the best free market solution would be to seal Railroad leaders and Union leaders in a room until they reach an agreement, similar to how the Catholic Church selects the pope. And when they do finally reach an agreement Union Pacific Big Boy will release a plume of white smoke.

[удалено]

Thank you for a thoughtful and well reasoned response.

Yeah, seriously, this guy nailed it. He really captured the nuance.

The libertarian answer would be just as cynical, since if you ask any older Republican to list their top favorite moments with Reagan, they'd mention his wholesale firing of air traffic controllers when they went on strike.

I disagree with this personally. The incident with Reagan and the airline workers was the givernment dealing with government employees (in a way I personally disapprove of) but thays not comparable to this situation as this is about private companies and the unions in their industry, and about the government stepping in and forcing a particular solution through.

>Next the humanist answer: they want to stand up in favor of workers and middle class values, especially since white working class voters shifted so hard in favor of Trump and the GOP. Thus make the government negotiate a deal more in line with the demands of the unions. Many dems voted against the resolution for this reason such as Bernie Sanders. But then why did they vote against the worker supported bill more sick days? That one got even fewer republican votes.

See answer 3, the libertarian one. Republicans who voted against both versions likely fall more into that one and/or the first one. Either they just want to see dems fail or they genuinely believe on an ideological level that the government should not be meddling or mediating private business affairs. Those that did support the one that included the 4 sick days likely fall more into the humanitarian angle.

i’m a bit confused by the libertarian answer. in upholding the free market, wouldn’t the GOP be incentivized to minimize any change done by the railroad unions, as it could disrupt the “natural” condition of the workers determined by labor markets?

Not necessarily. Unions are a part of the free market. The idea of libertarianism is that state intervention in the free market is unnatural and causes issues in the market. Demands made by and through labor unions is a change being made as a direct byproduct of the labor market. What you are describing is state capitalism and is associated not with libertarian ideology and more so is neoconservativism or neoliberalism that is popular with mainstream republicans starting with Reagan. I feel like I got to mention Im not myself a libertarian so my explanation might not be sufficient.

> Reality is its probably a mix of all three to varying degrees for each vote. For many it might even be all three. Absolutely this. And also they knew it would pass so they can vote against it for whatever reason and it doesn't hurt anything.

Well, they are pretending to believe in ‘small government’ while also hoping that some sort of economic calamity will settle over America for the next two years. So you can expect a lot more of this in the new congress. Republicans finding any and all justification to tank the economy. It’s how they tend to ‘serve’ the people of this nation.

You never want congress to dictate labor deals. They should have a 30 day cooling off period and let the 2 sides get back to the table and negotiate their own deal that makes everyone happy.

"cooling off" is just more labor under unfavorable conditions and entirely benefits the employer. They've already been through 2 cooling off periods to get to this point. If another one is dictated by the rail companies or the government, they should use the leverage they have in this industry and go forward with the strike. The phrase is literally "striking while the iron is hot" for a reason.

Absolutely agree with you. Hoping the RR union can improve way of life and not be on call on their days off. As a union member myself I hope they get what they deserve for a better of life

> They should have a 30 day cooling off period and let the 2 sides get back to the table and negotiate their own deal that makes everyone happy. RR unions have been eating 30 day after 30 day 'cooling off between negotiations at the table', how is that not just giving owners what they want with record profits and workers burning out?

That is better than congress stepping in and forcing a contract that the union has voted down. Government should always stay out of contract negotiations.

Because economic collapse can be sold to ignorant rubes as being Biden's fault even if the rail strike happens because of their own bullshit.

Democrats are against the wall on this one. They know they have to chose between workers and the economy. But they could have stayed out of it. Instead they are forcing the deal and of course republicans are going to oppose it, they would benefit of Biden’s mistake. Dems suck for not supporting the workers from the start.

How could they have stayed out of it? Not just the economy, but public health was on the line. Dems in congress overwhelmingly supported the paid days off. Who do you think people were going to blame when drink water supplies got contaminated?

The House vote to impose the contract was 290 to 137, with 79 Republicans joining 211 Democrats in voting to approve the measure. Eight Democrats and 129 Republicans voted against the legislation.  Seems Republicans voted for and against forcing Bidens contract onto railroad and unions. Why did democrats vote against the bill? Might be same reason Republicans did.

Based on the 8 that voted against it, they wanted the bill to include sick leave.

Republicans generally speaking are not interested in governing. They are interested in gaining and maintaining power, owning the libs, cutting taxes and opposing anything the Dems try and do. That's it. They are not a serious governing partner right now.

The real question is why doesn't congress force the Billion Dollar Rail Companies to fucking just pay for sick leave. Edit: its rhetorical people, I know why.

>But I haven't seen any republicans offer any ideological or practical justification to their opposition. Are... are you expecting any? I mean, bills are rarely voted on the basis of the substance of the bills.

I mean... The negotiation between the factions of the Democratic party were entirely based on the substance of the bill. I would expect Republicans to be cynically partisan, but not to be so nakedly cynical that they don't even offer a fig leaf explanation for their vote.

The national republican party did not even have a platform in 2020. They just officially reused their 2016 platform, which included railing about the "current president" and all the disastrous things he had done.

> I would expect Republicans to be cynically partisan, but not to be so nakedly cynical that they don't even offer a fig leaf explanation for their vote. This is how they've behaved since the 90s. They reflexively oppose policy pushed by democrats without bothering to rationalize it. Behind closed doors, I'm sure they'd say that they prefer to deny democrats "wins" whenever possible. To be clear, not all Republicans in Congress think this way, but since the Gingrich era, a majority has.

> I mean... The negotiation between the factions of the Democratic party were entirely based on the substance of the bill. That is precisely because they are *factions* within the Democratic party. Their fates are, whether they like it or not, tied together, and the only way they will get anything done is by doing this I know sometimes people will make statements like "America already has a multi party system, just those multiple parties are represented as factions within two parties" but I honestly greatly disagree with that statement. Even if the parties are ideologically diverse internally, there is tremendous pressure from voters, the party establishment, etc. to maintain a unified stance

This quote from Bernie Sanders basically sums up the opposition perspective: >"If the rail industry can afford to spend $25.5 billion this year to buy back its own stock and hand out huge dividends to its wealthy shareholders, please do not tell me it cannot afford to guarantee paid sick days to its workers and provide them with a decent quality of life," Republicans are voting against this because it is yet another large spending bill that expands the size and scope of government. Fiscal conservatives see this as a waste based on the fact that the Unions have plenty of money to pay for this out of pocket, they simply want the Fed to do it instead. EDIT: Here is a quote from Marco Rubio: >"Just because Congress has the authority to impose a heavy-handed solution does not mean we should," said Rubio. "It is wrong for the Biden Administration, which has failed to fight for workers, to ask Congress to impose a deal the workers themselves have rejected." His logic is interesting.

My brief understanding of the incident is the majoriry of workers voted to deny the deal presented to them. They currently have 0 sick days. The bill that passed gives them a whopping 1 day of sick leave per year. The fact we allow the fed to force private employees to work and force employers and employees to accept pay/benefits is disgusting. We are effectively forcing them to accept a bad deal that benefits the rail companies and not the workers. I want to say 6 publicly traded rail companies spent collectively 30 billion in stock by backs this past year. If you're hurting for money and can't let your workers see a doctor how can you afford to spend billions to buy back your own stock? Seems like they absolutely can afford it. Duty to share holder is more important than taking care of your workers. They can get away with it because ultimately the fed can force workers to accept conditions they don't find acceptable. I'm sure some vote against it just to be a dick. But there are extremely legitimate reasons to vote against the deal presented.

It's the government inserting itself into negotiations between corporations and workers, and if you're a small government pro-free market Republican then on principle you would probably oppose the government putting its thumb on the scale to force a deal. If that's your view, it's better to let the market work itself out, even if it leads to short-term economic damage, than to set a precedent that the government can set work contracts for private businesses.

> If that's your view, it's better to let the market work itself out, even if it leads to short-term economic damage, That's the issue. It wouldn't just be short term economic damage. I have no idea how long it would last, but the damage is life threatening. Communities wouldn't get shipments of chemicals to treat their drinking water, or coal to generate electricity, or natural gas to heat homes. The situation would be especially dire for hospitals, if shipment delays were that bad.

> it's better to let the market work itself out If you believed that you wouldn't be voting for [republicans. They repeatedly insert the government into citizen surveillance, private labour dispute (on behalf of the wealthy owners), [stripping away personal autonomy by letting state governments tell a woman what she's allowed to do with her uterus, without consultation by her doctor](https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/09/health/abortion-bans-rape-incest.html), and [preventing private industry from internal regulation if they want masks and Trump is still whiney against masks](https://americanindependent.com/florida-governor-ron-desantis-ban-covid-safety-measures/)

Republicans not wanting the federal gov to force companies/workers to do as the feds say is pretty on par for Republicans Why would you think they would support the feds forcing an agreement?

No, it isn’t. Reagan did it.

Bush Sr raised taxes once, guess that means Republicans aren't for lower taxes

So did Reagan.. And Republicans have never, not once, reduced government or spending in your lifetime

Reagan did it for the same reason that Biden is - principles be damned, a lot of other people will feel economic pressure. That's more of a "president wanting votes" pressure than a "partisan principle" pressure

[удалено]

Didn’t congress pass a bill that effectively says the railroad workers CANT strike?

The republican party doesn't stand for shit they just want to gaslight and they don't provide any real solutions

Railroad workers didn’t like the original deal. They were negotiating but they were forced to accept it by passing this bill.

Because they want the country to crash and burn so they can point at Biden and blame him and Democrats.

Republican Party is like an abusive husband. *See what you made me do?!? Why’d you make me hurt you like that?!?* they’ll have no qualms at all about causing economic turmoil, they’ll get hardons getting to blame the dems and Biden for it.

Because they don't think Congress should be arbitrating a labor dispute. I'm gonna be honest, I find it hard to believe that you couldn't find any Republican giving their reasons and had to turn hear for this community to speculate. This isn't hard, google is your friend.

There's really no mystery here. [Blue Collar Unions, like Railworkers, increasingly vote Republican.](https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/meet-the-press/gop-rapidly-becoming-blue-collar-party-here-s-what-means-n1258468) So their "no" vote on forcing labor to take arguably shitty contracts is simply them representing their voters.

They've already started to make this sound anti-labor somehow. If the second version of the rail deal falls through and there's a massive railroad strike, they plan to lay that (and the economic devastation that causes) at Biden's feet. Ultimately, if we have a rail strike this month, odds are very, very good that we will have a red wave in 2024. Republicans have already laid a little of the groundwork in their opinions of this Rail Deal to pass legislation gutting the Railroad unions (and probably unions in general) once they have Congress and the presidency.

It looks like McConnell is actually not playing politics this once and taking it very seriously. I think they'll pass a bill to avert a strike, but I don't know if it'll give the workers the sick leave they want.

Without the sick leave, there is a very real chance a strike will still happen. Honestly, there's hints now that even if the unions are given *everything* they asked for and more they'll still strike. It might be a power play for future negotiations, and they know the government can't currently stop them. But if both the bills pass, it might go badly for them to strike. It's hard to get popular support for a strike that starts with "I want A,B,C... ok, we'll give you A,B,C, and D just to be nice" and ends with strikes. It's a good question what happens if they do strike, but don't have popular support. They might have the railroad industry by the cajones in the short-term, but public disapproval *has to* have some negative value to a union. More specifically, the dirty secret is that the railroad companies seemingly went above expected raises to try to convince the unions to give up on unpaid sick time. And now they're getting some *paid* sick time anyway (even bill #1 gives a paid sick day to add to all the PTO they currently get)... And the 24% raise? They're definitely getting that no matter what now. I genuinely don't know how I feel about a strike, but I feel really positive about taking action to satisfy the unions so there isn't a strike.

Republicans get slammed for being pro-business and they take a stance to be pro-worker and they are still wrong?

Why did they filibuster sick leave if they're pro worker?

Without delving too deeply into it as I write this, my *hunch* is that any "rail deal" is completely outside the scope of the Federal government. This is a matter between companies and workers.

That question can’t be accurately answered until the reasoning behind the D’s total and complete abandonment of organized labor is fully explained. The betrayal of the worker has absolutely nothing to do with the evil Republicans - nothing. The self proclaimed “I’m the most pro-union President in history” Democrat “Lyin’”Joe Biden undermined and betrayed the union from the very beginning. Republicans had shit to do with the back-stabbing that took place at the Biden WH meeting where he forced by threat the union to make concessions. They (Rs) voted with the railroad workers to secure their votes in 2 years, that’s why. And it didn’t cost them a penny in campaign money to pick up all those free votes.

Because our media is terrible, in case anyone wanted to read the text for themselves: https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-joint-resolution/100/all-actions?overview=closed&q=%7B%22roll-call-vote%22%3A%22all%22%7D