United Steelworkers officially endorsed President Biden for the 2024 election, after hinting earlier this week they would be backing him over former President Trump. The 1.2 million-member un…
The unions wanted 15 sick days, Biden forced them to accept the company’s offer of 1 day unpaid sickleave. Later it was increased to 7, plus a wage increase of 14%+4.5% per year for 5 years. That doesn’t even keep up with inflation.
Biden could have simply ordered the railroad to accept the union’s demands, hell he could have nationalized the rail companies in question, but his job is to represent capital, not labor.
To put into perspective how much of a pittance this is, BNSF is so profitable, they could afford to give every worker a raise of 100,000 and still afford to give Warren Buffet a billion dollars every year. This is the equivalent of Trump giving the .1% billions in tax breaks and telling workers they should support him because they get an extra 12 bucks in their tax returns.
Dude you just moved the goalposts a million lightyears away from what you said in your original comment.
Secondly, YOU don’t get to decide what the rail union’s opinion on the matter is, only the rail union can speak for the rail union, and they’ve all publicly said how very happy they are with the outcome of Biden’s actions
He literally required them to accept the board’s offer. The company offering minor concessions afterword doesn’t change the fact that he sided against the workers.
The U.S. Senate voted 80 to 15 on Thursday to impose a tentative contract deal reached in September on a dozen unions representing 115,000 workers, who could have gone on strike on Dec. 9.
The deal referenced was an offer by the board. Biden signed it.
Biden could have simply ordered the railroad to accept the union’s demands
Ah yes, the “president has a magic wand” theory of governance.
It is, in fact, not quite as simple as I’m trying to make it sound, and there are some things to complain about in what Biden did. Here’s a pretty good summary of the “Biden did wrong” thesis.
My take on it is that Biden launched legislation to grant them 7 days of sick leave by law. It passed the house on a party-line vote, and then failed in the senate by 8 votes. When the senate passed an amended version that would grant 1 day of sick leave, what would you want Biden to do? Assuming he doesn’t have the ability to just ignore the law and order the rail companies to give the benefits he thinks they should be giving, because we don’t have a command economy under the total authority of one person?
Here’s a partial summary of what Biden’s labor department had done by working the issue after the fuss had died down in the rest of government. It’s complicated by the fact that there are multiple companies and multiple unions all with separate agreements, but my overall take is that it looks like he’s been trying to balance securing justice for the workers, with what he can get the rest of government to cooperate with, with keeping the economy running and not grinding to a halt.
Honestly, the point of view that he should have let the economy grind to a halt if that’s what the people who actually do the work want to have happen, in order to secure some economic justice for themselves, I can understand that. It makes sense to me. Honestly, that is more or less my personal point of view on it. But I think calling him a shockingly anti-union US president because he won’t do that is overstating how pro-union people in US politics tend to be.
The unions wanted 15 sick days, Biden forced them to accept the company’s offer of 1 day unpaid sickleave. Later it was increased to 7, plus a wage increase of 14%+4.5% per year for 5 years. That doesn’t even keep up with inflation.
Biden could have simply ordered the railroad to accept the union’s demands, hell he could have nationalized the rail companies in question, but his job is to represent capital, not labor.
To put into perspective how much of a pittance this is, BNSF is so profitable, they could afford to give every worker a raise of 100,000 and still afford to give Warren Buffet a billion dollars every year. This is the equivalent of Trump giving the .1% billions in tax breaks and telling workers they should support him because they get an extra 12 bucks in their tax returns.
Dude you just moved the goalposts a million lightyears away from what you said in your original comment.
Secondly, YOU don’t get to decide what the rail union’s opinion on the matter is, only the rail union can speak for the rail union, and they’ve all publicly said how very happy they are with the outcome of Biden’s actions
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/may/01/railroad-workers-union-win-sick-leave
I cannot conceive of how the leadership could both represent their workers and be happy Biden sided with the board, against the workers.
Because that’s not what happened.
He literally required them to accept the board’s offer. The company offering minor concessions afterword doesn’t change the fact that he sided against the workers.
No, he literally did not. And the concessions he got were basically everything the union was trying to get.
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/biden-signs-bill-block-us-railroad-strike-2022-12-02/
The deal referenced was an offer by the board. Biden signed it.
Ah yes, the “president has a magic wand” theory of governance.
It is, in fact, not quite as simple as I’m trying to make it sound, and there are some things to complain about in what Biden did. Here’s a pretty good summary of the “Biden did wrong” thesis.
My take on it is that Biden launched legislation to grant them 7 days of sick leave by law. It passed the house on a party-line vote, and then failed in the senate by 8 votes. When the senate passed an amended version that would grant 1 day of sick leave, what would you want Biden to do? Assuming he doesn’t have the ability to just ignore the law and order the rail companies to give the benefits he thinks they should be giving, because we don’t have a command economy under the total authority of one person?
Here’s a partial summary of what Biden’s labor department had done by working the issue after the fuss had died down in the rest of government. It’s complicated by the fact that there are multiple companies and multiple unions all with separate agreements, but my overall take is that it looks like he’s been trying to balance securing justice for the workers, with what he can get the rest of government to cooperate with, with keeping the economy running and not grinding to a halt.
Honestly, the point of view that he should have let the economy grind to a halt if that’s what the people who actually do the work want to have happen, in order to secure some economic justice for themselves, I can understand that. It makes sense to me. Honestly, that is more or less my personal point of view on it. But I think calling him a shockingly anti-union US president because he won’t do that is overstating how pro-union people in US politics tend to be.