O’Brien acknowledges Biden has been a “great” president for organized labor. But he told the Globe that Biden hasn’t delivered on all his promises and the Teamsters are worried their backing is being taken for granted.
Oh, and also he broke a rail strike that would have caused some inflation (which I know the media and the people on Lemmy would have been super understanding of the full context of and wouldn’t have caused any problems), and then once no one was paying attention anymore,
Of course, anyone saying they would have gotten any better treatment under a Republican administration is delusional or lying, and there is some pretty smoking gun evidence of racism from this particular union president (see: my other comment in this thread), which is probably why basically every other union has endorsed Biden except this one (like, unions are savvy political organizations that know to not make the perfect the enemy of the good, they do it all the time), but the fact is on at least one occasion when some unions needed Biden to stand up for them he threw them straight under the bus, and acting like he didn’t or it’s no big deal is extremely unhelpful to Biden’s reelection efforts.
Hm… I think you might be right. The White House sort of took credit for it, and I thought I remembered that they were in on some of the negotiations and I’ve been saying they were, but everything I can find now seems to indicate that it was just the unions pressuring the railroads. I can’t find anything to indicate that Biden’s people were involved.
Moreover, saying unions can’t strike when it’s economically or politically inconvenient is tantamount to saying that can’t strike at all. There’s a reason hundreds of labor historians wrote Biden and his labor secretary an open letter condemning them for what they did with this strike.
100%. I agree. Like I say, my personal feeling is that, if the workers want to strike, then fuck the economy. If the economy tanks and we get some level of “oh god I’m really struggling with the price of hot dogs / with how my stocks are doing,” then maybe all of those people who are unhappy about that happening should live for a year in the railroad workers’ shoes.
I’m just saying, it’s extremely relevant what all other actions Biden did for unions when it wasn’t the whole economy at stake, and that I kind of get why he did it. I’m not saying I think that’s the right way for the US government to react to a big rail strike or that the Biden administration is a good ending point for progress.
acting like he didn’t or it’s no big deal is extremely unhelpful to Biden’s reelection efforts.
Fair enough. Acting like the other 95% of his union actions didn’t happen is also unhelpful to Biden’s reelection efforts, though.
Regarding Biden and his administration’s involvement, I’ve had to explain this to people before so I keep the info saved:
Biden deserves a lot of the credit for achieving this goal for us,” Russo said. “He and his team continued to work behind the scenes to get all of rail labor a fair agreement for paid sick leave
The railroad in question reached an agreement with some but not all of their unions to give them some of the sick days they had been asking for, Biden’s administration had no official role in it. Moreover, saying unions can’t strike when it’s economically or politically inconvenient is tantamount to saying that can’t strike at all. There’s a reason hundreds of labor historians wrote Biden and his labor secretary an open letter condemning them for what they did with this strike.
Of course, anyone saying they would have gotten any better treatment under a Republican administration is delusional or lying, and there is some pretty smoking gun evidence of racism from this particular union president (see: my other comment in this thread), which is probably why basically every other union has endorsed Biden except this one (like, unions are savvy political organizations that know to not make the perfect the enemy of the good, they do it all the time), but the fact is on at least one occasion when some unions needed Biden to stand up for them he threw them straight under the bus, and acting like he didn’t or it’s no big deal is extremely unhelpful to Biden’s reelection efforts.
Hm… I think you might be right. The White House sort of took credit for it, and I thought I remembered that they were in on some of the negotiations and I’ve been saying they were, but everything I can find now seems to indicate that it was just the unions pressuring the railroads. I can’t find anything to indicate that Biden’s people were involved.
100%. I agree. Like I say, my personal feeling is that, if the workers want to strike, then fuck the economy. If the economy tanks and we get some level of “oh god I’m really struggling with the price of hot dogs / with how my stocks are doing,” then maybe all of those people who are unhappy about that happening should live for a year in the railroad workers’ shoes.
I’m just saying, it’s extremely relevant what all other actions Biden did for unions when it wasn’t the whole economy at stake, and that I kind of get why he did it. I’m not saying I think that’s the right way for the US government to react to a big rail strike or that the Biden administration is a good ending point for progress.
Fair enough. Acting like the other 95% of his union actions didn’t happen is also unhelpful to Biden’s reelection efforts, though.
Regarding Biden and his administration’s involvement, I’ve had to explain this to people before so I keep the info saved:
https://web.archive.org/web/20230620220325/https://www.ibew.org/media-center/Articles/23Daily/2306/230620_IBEWandPaid
Got it. Yeah. I thought I had seen something like that. I just couldn’t find it on the spot just now when looking for it.