I don’t think that was a party-line thing for AOC. It was an incredibly complex issue because many of the Rail Unions were locked in strike from inter-union agreements. Sure they were wililng to continue, but it had become a giant morass of red tape.
In fact, if you read the bill, it did not ban striking, despite Congress having the express power to do so if they choose in this situation. The Unions retained the ability to strike, and the bill expressly allowed them to come to a superceding agreement should they do so. All it did was bind terms that were largely acceptable and had already been agreed upon by many of the unions. Did it take ammo away from unions? YES, because several unions perfectly happy with the agreed-upon terms were no longer willing to strike.
I have absolutely come to understand the folks who felt the government should stay out of business and Union negotations. I continue to see them a lot like Republicans, but I understand the nuances of it all. As a Demsoc myself, however, I feel there is sufficient justification for someone like AOC to believe that a Yes vote on the bill (not quite a "No on allowing the rail workers to strike) was the right choice.
Sometimes our congressmen will vote differently than we wish. Sometimes it doesn’t make them sellouts to do so.
EDIT: To be clear, I understand that there were very specific issues that some unions wanted resolution on, related to Overwork and “no PTO” being used to avoid hiring more people. There should be regulations to handle that, and I do wish the "enforced agreement’ Had provided more than it did.
I appreciate you taking the time to explain that in detail. I think you make a good point, and I wasn’t aware that the unions were still allowed to strike even with a No vote. In that case, my fears for AOC ‘selling out’ have lessened.
Honestly, I’ve gone back and forth at least 5 times on my opinion of that vote. Each time, I find myself feeling strongly about the side I agree with, only to find some details that shift me to the other side.
The ultimate outcome for me is to realize that both sides have potentially compelling reasons that are not “sellout”.
It’s actually weird. By my breed of Democratic Socialism, I see Labor Unions as a band-aid for underregulated capitalism. It was a struggle for me for a while to see why other Demsocs have put so much weight into the “let the labor unions have freedom to strike without intervention” side. Some demsocs and other progressive types were doubling down that even if Democrats agreed to force ALL the demands of the unions it was a failure… but isn’t it what most of us want for the government to guarantee wages and work quality to protect workers?
I mean, isn’t the one thing we don’t wanna do just embracing Neoliberalism and being “pro-regulation” about it?
But then I flip-flopped because I wes convinced for a while there was a threat of force against labor. Only after reading the bill a few times and reading some legal analyses did I come to my current position.
I don’t think that was a party-line thing for AOC. It was an incredibly complex issue because many of the Rail Unions were locked in strike from inter-union agreements. Sure they were wililng to continue, but it had become a giant morass of red tape.
In fact, if you read the bill, it did not ban striking, despite Congress having the express power to do so if they choose in this situation. The Unions retained the ability to strike, and the bill expressly allowed them to come to a superceding agreement should they do so. All it did was bind terms that were largely acceptable and had already been agreed upon by many of the unions. Did it take ammo away from unions? YES, because several unions perfectly happy with the agreed-upon terms were no longer willing to strike.
I have absolutely come to understand the folks who felt the government should stay out of business and Union negotations. I continue to see them a lot like Republicans, but I understand the nuances of it all. As a Demsoc myself, however, I feel there is sufficient justification for someone like AOC to believe that a Yes vote on the bill (not quite a "No on allowing the rail workers to strike) was the right choice.
Sometimes our congressmen will vote differently than we wish. Sometimes it doesn’t make them sellouts to do so.
EDIT: To be clear, I understand that there were very specific issues that some unions wanted resolution on, related to Overwork and “no PTO” being used to avoid hiring more people. There should be regulations to handle that, and I do wish the "enforced agreement’ Had provided more than it did.
I appreciate you taking the time to explain that in detail. I think you make a good point, and I wasn’t aware that the unions were still allowed to strike even with a No vote. In that case, my fears for AOC ‘selling out’ have lessened.
Honestly, I’ve gone back and forth at least 5 times on my opinion of that vote. Each time, I find myself feeling strongly about the side I agree with, only to find some details that shift me to the other side.
The ultimate outcome for me is to realize that both sides have potentially compelling reasons that are not “sellout”.
It’s actually weird. By my breed of Democratic Socialism, I see Labor Unions as a band-aid for underregulated capitalism. It was a struggle for me for a while to see why other Demsocs have put so much weight into the “let the labor unions have freedom to strike without intervention” side. Some demsocs and other progressive types were doubling down that even if Democrats agreed to force ALL the demands of the unions it was a failure… but isn’t it what most of us want for the government to guarantee wages and work quality to protect workers?
I mean, isn’t the one thing we don’t wanna do just embracing Neoliberalism and being “pro-regulation” about it?
But then I flip-flopped because I wes convinced for a while there was a threat of force against labor. Only after reading the bill a few times and reading some legal analyses did I come to my current position.