• @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    41 year ago

    Alternatively, you could look at it as the Biden administration declared that strikes above a certain level of disruption to critical infrastructure warrant the government stepping in, even if the demands are valid.
    Something about the administration unambiguously endorsing a large but not critical infrastructure strike, like they are with the UAW, implies that maybe the point isn’t to signal that strikes are unacceptable.

    It’s almost like the executive branch has to balance a myriad of competing interests, all of which are important.

    • Ech
      link
      fedilink
      English
      21 year ago

      The government could’ve stepped in in support of the striking workers, but they didn’t. Now that the strike isn’t causing “problems”, they’re all for it!

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        21 year ago

        Yes, that’s almost precisely it. The administration wants to avoid problems with critical infrastructure, but supports strikes that aren’t threatening critical infrastructure.

        It’s why you see the administration negotiate to prevent a strike, block the strike, and then help negotiate for what the strike was aiming to get, and then go on to support workers who are on strike.

        That’s not hypocrisy, that’s nuance.

        • Ech
          link
          fedilink
          English
          -1
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          I never claimed it was hypocritical. I’m saying it’s duplicitous. When the chips were down, Biden chose corporate interests over workers when he just as well could have pressured the corpos instead. Now he’s acting chummy-chummy with workers when it suites him better.