• BartsBigBugBag@lemmy.tf
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    4 sick days, and the ability to sacrifice earned vacation days for 3 more. You really think they would have had to settle for that if they were allowed to strike? It’s not even close to what they asked for, and they had significantly more leverage than the company until the Biden admin stepped in and defanged the union entirely.

      • BartsBigBugBag@lemmy.tf
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        They specifically asked the president to not interfere with their right to strike. Once he had taken their rights away from them, they lost nearly all leverage they had, and so the agreement negotiated is better than they would’ve been able to get themselves, but worse than if their rights hadn’t been infringed. Of course it’s a win, it’s more than the 0 they had before, but it’s not sufficient, and still leaves our railroads dangerously understaffed, and does nothing about the other components the workers had demanded, such as the points based attendance systems that are themselves leading to significant safety concerns among railworkers.

    • assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Prove it then. You’re moving the goalposts here, so explain why you’re so sure that they can be moved. What evidence is there that the rail companies, who were refusing to give any sick days, would have capitulated to more than what they’ve agreed to now?

      For that matter, I’m not convinced that the public would overall support the striking workers. If towns lost electricity, heating, and/or clean drinking water because of delays caused by the strike, I couldn’t see them standing behind the workers. Even though of course the rail companies are to blame.

      • BartsBigBugBag@lemmy.tf
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Which would a rail company rather do, lose hundreds of millions of dollars a week? Or, negotiate with the union? Why does the public need to support the strike? The public didn’t support the strikes in the 1890s-1930s that won the 40 hour week, overtime, minimum wage, and various other labor benefits. They were too busy being propagandized by the complicit media of their day.

        • assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          If that logic worked, every strike would instantly win because the company loses out on millions of dollars. Writers have been striking for quite a while now and you don’t see any capitulation. Just losing money isn’t enough.

          And this is why the public opinion matters. If the company thinks they can wait out the strike, they’re going to choose that. In that time period, public opinion can either strengthen or weaken their position.

          This isn’t the 1890s-1930s. The head of the factory isn’t onsite when the workers decide to go on strike. The head of the factory isn’t unfathomably richer than the workers. Income inequality has escalated to the point that owners aren’t going to feel the hit of a strike immediately. The rich CEOs can afford to wait without their lives being affected. It’s cheaper for them to work towards the end of an unsuccessful strike than to capitulate.

          Just so you don’t get the wrong idea, I think the solution is actually nationalizing industries, at least partially. Rail service has become too crucial to our way of life to let a private business handle it. We’re seeing how they abuse their position to neglect workers and enrich themselves.

          • BartsBigBugBag@lemmy.tf
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Yeah, I’m with you there, though I’m likely further to the left than you, I believe all industries should either be nationalized or socialized depending on its function.

            • assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              I think we’d be much better served trying to make that happen than argue if a strike would’ve been more successful or not. At the end of the day, we’ll never know the answer there. It’s better we agree that good was done. We disagree on if that was the most good possible or not, but we agree it was good. We’re better off trying to do more good than figure out if we maximized that previous good. One in the hand is worth two in the bush after all.

            • Chetzemoka@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              Ok, now on this point I agree with you completely. If losing a service will do that much damage to the public, then that service should be socialized.