Major railroad posts record earnings, spends more on share repurchases than on its employees
cnn.comSubmitted by esporx t3_10kfl58 in technology
indoninja t1_j5wfall wrote
Reply to comment by nowthenadir in Major railroad posts record earnings, spends more on share repurchases than on its employees by esporx
Republicans and Democrats overwhelmingly supported a plan that would prevent a strike that would further cripple an economy that was struggling with out of control inflation.
Democrats passed a bill in the house, and had all but one senator Supporting it, well, Republican, senators blocked it.
Pretty odd it take for you to blame Democrats for trying to give the labor union what they wanted, and making a responsible choice for the hundreds of millions of Americans would have to deal with the fall out of a strike
stuntmanbob86 t1_j5x8n2t wrote
Democrats are just as guilty as Republicans. There wouldn't had even been a bill for sick days if it wasn't for Bernie. The sick days should had been bundled with the contract. It had a way better chance of passing that way....
indoninja t1_j5y4c1h wrote
> It had a way better chance of passing that way....
It had damn near zero chance of passing if it was bundled, which would’ve meant our spiraling inflation before Christmas would’ve gotten much much worse and we’d still be suffering the consequences
stuntmanbob86 t1_j5ys2wp wrote
I am positive they wouldn't. Too much ar stake. Even if the strike did happen, it would have lasted hours, not weeks. The carriers can't afford to lose that much.
Bottom line is it never even had to go to congress. Biden could have made sure there was sick days in the TA over the summer but he didn't. Biden wasn't ever for sick days.
indoninja t1_j5yy92h wrote
Biden didn’t have the power to push that without a bill that passes the senate.
I’m positive republicans would have blocked it, and even if you dont agree it is silly to pretend Biden didn’t have to weigh that or the risk it would oppose to the rest of america.
BYW banking or Republicans being putting country over party has been a failing bet for over a decade. No idea why you would trust them no.
stuntmanbob86 t1_j5yznzu wrote
He absolutely did have the power. He created an emergency board that basically made the tenative agreement. They thought the workers should only have one "personal" day. Never did Biden mention sick days. It was Biden and his board that are responsible for the TA.
Why wouldn't you risk it? If republicans let the economy be destroyed over 7 sick days then fuck all of them. Regardless, I never said i trusted them, i dont trust either. You don't seem to understand that carriers pay both sides.
indoninja t1_j5z165p wrote
> Why wouldn't you risk it? If republicans let the economy be destroyed over 7 sick days then fuck all of them
Saying “fuck all of them” doesn’t help the millions of American trying to get by.
stuntmanbob86 t1_j5z1zv1 wrote
Listen, the point is it never had to go to congress. Biden had many options before that should have happened. Why Biden and his board never mentioned sick days should be pretty telling.
indoninja t1_j5z4jfl wrote
Biden alone couldn’t decide a plan and force it. And the one the put forth with an additional personal day did get company and half the union support
For a stick to force 7 sick days he needed the senate. The only people in the senate who voted against sick days were republicans and joe manchin.
stuntmanbob86 t1_j5z58pk wrote
The 4 of the 12 unions it didn't pass made up more than half the workers. That's how unions work it has to pass all the unions.
indoninja t1_j5z5yv2 wrote
For a stick to force 7 sick days he needed the senate. The only people in the senate who voted against sick days were republicans and joe manchin.
There was zero path for Biden to get 7 sick days without republican support in senate.
It want there.
stuntmanbob86 t1_j5z7eyv wrote
Again. The emergency board he created could had made sure it was in the contract months ago... He could had made a second emergency board of different members instead of forcing the failed contract....
indoninja t1_j5zpsu1 wrote
He can’t make people accept what the board says without a law.
stuntmanbob86 t1_j5zrab7 wrote
No it has to be voted on by the unions. Every single thing that was in the report was in the TA. If that would had been in the report and voted on by the unions it would had been passed and there wouldn't be a need for congress. Biden thought one personal day was enough...
indoninja t1_j5ztskn wrote
The unions and the company.
The companies would have said no.
Meaning strike, unless a law was passed.
Again, this is simple , there was no path biden could take to get seven days without going through the senate.
stuntmanbob86 t1_j5zvy0h wrote
If the carriers didn't agree, they'd be going against the presidents recommendation, which most likely they wouldn't. But if they did, what difference would it have made? Why wouldn't he try? Answer is he was on the side of the carriers which the TA was leaning towards. Biden never wanted to give them sick days. Bernie was the only one who did anything.
indoninja t1_j5zz2e0 wrote
You are asking why he didn’t try something he knew the companies would say no to?
Biden pushed for a law that Democrats overwhelmingly supported that was blocked in the senate to give the union what you are talking about.
And the only people you are blaming is Biden and democrats, not the people who actually blocked it.
stuntmanbob86 t1_j600w69 wrote
How do you know that they would say no? We dont, cause he didnt even try. Why would he push the agreement he helped create if he knew the workers werent going to pass it? Like I said, the bill was only on the table because of Sanders, Biden didn't do dick. I dont know hoe many times I have to say that Republicans are just as much garbage as democrats are in Congress.
indoninja t1_j601dsf wrote
> Why would he push the agreement he helped create if he knew the workers werent going to pass it?
He didn’t know that and almost half did accept that.
He clearly knew the companies would t take it because they didn’t have to ask thousands to find out, they had a no for that at the table
> Republicans are just as much garbage as democrats are in Congress.
Almost every democratic supported it while majority of republicans were against it and Biden clearly was for it.
I dont get the mental gymnastics to look at that and say both sides, and I am done repeating the ame facts you are ignoring.
stuntmanbob86 t1_j603zev wrote
Almost half accepted it? You think if Trump got almost half the votes and they just said "fuck it, he almost got half the votes he's president", lol..... How would he think that a contract that literally gave the workers nothing that they asked for would pass? Biden was clearly for forcing the contract. That was it. The sick days was Bernies bill. All of Congress damaged unions in general for years to come. Guess what's gonna happen in a couple years? Carriers will push as hard as they can and the workers will get fucked. The carriers knew the government was on their side. Tell me you're anti-union without telling me you're anti-union, lol.......
indoninja t1_j607aid wrote
Do you not know how this works?
The meeting was between union ladies and the corporations. They knew corporations would say no to the sick days. They had a plan corp would accept and union would vote on. And about half accepted it.
That doesn’t mean I like it or think it was good, but it does mean it had a decent level of support.
You keep pretending Biden had powe to do something else to force companies to take the seven sick days and that is flat out wrong.
Almost every democratic supported it while majority of republicans were against it and Biden clearly was for it. I dont get the mental gymnastics to look at that and say both sides, and I am done repeating the ame facts you are ignoring.
stuntmanbob86 t1_j60u5z0 wrote
You dont seem to understand how it works. The panel is supposed to be indepedent, they dont make the contract. They write a report with what should go into the contract. That doesn't mean they had to put it in the contract, there was no risk in doing that other than it makes the carriers look bad. If Biden was for sick days he would had made sure there was sick days in the contract.
Workers didn't get anything they wanted. The only reason some passed was because they were scared that they would have a worse one forced on them. The unions that passed it were close, not any landslides by any means.
Like I said, logical next step was a second EB. A different perspective with different members. There is no logical reason he didn't do that. It set a dangerous precedent.
We will just have to keep fighting until the government comes in and shuts us down. You don't find it disturbing congress, even democrats, take money from the carriers?
stuntmanbob86 t1_j6056uw wrote
Honestly though, why did he not just make a new board and see what happens vs forcing a failed contract? That would had extended things and avoid the strike.
indoninja t1_j606see wrote
A new board wouldn’t extend it.
stuntmanbob86 t1_j608g1n wrote
Yes it would. A second board would allow 30 days for a new report and 60 for cooldown.
nowthenadir t1_j5xhev2 wrote
You want to go around thinking that modern day democrats are more like FDR than conservatives from 40 years ago, go ahead. Simple fact is though, had they wanted to, sick days could have been included in the bill. Stop acting like the only choice in front of them was to fuck workers.
indoninja t1_j5y31er wrote
> You want to go around thinking that modern day democrats are more like FDR than conservatives from 40 years ago, go ahead.
I think they clearly are.
> Simple fact is though, had they wanted to, sick days could have been included in the bill.
They could have.
The question is if you think it kills have had any chance to pass.
> Stop acting like the only choice in front of them was to fuck workers.
See above republicans would have certainly blocked it.
Stop acting like this was in a vacuum and democrats didn’t have to worry about actually governing, spiraling inflation a shaky economy and a financial crisis from a strike, where the only way ti avoid it was a law to get the workers to accept something.
Again the only group blocking sick days was republicans . You ignoring everything else about the date of the country and the risk of the strike isn’t an honest view of the situation.
nowthenadir t1_j5y4nb9 wrote
I mean, we disagree. What are you gonna do?
indoninja t1_j5y5btz wrote
Republicans at one point filibustered a law strictly to protect sick veterans. It’s completely on track for them to be completely against helping out unions with sick days, if you really wanna insist, you think they would’ve seen the light and supported it, despite them actually voting against that position, when given a chance, nothing I can say will change your mind.
nowthenadir t1_j5ybu99 wrote
I mean, Ted Cruz voted for the sick days as a separate bill. So we can postulate whether or not the republicans would have “crashed the economy” rather than give some blue collar guys a few sick days, but the bottom line is, we’ll never know, because the fight wasn’t framed that way.
The right to strike is exactly that, a right. It’s part of the NLRA signed in 1935 or something. You may be comfortable stripping rights away from people in the name of the economy, but I’m not. If we can’t engineer an healthy economy based on a fair exchange between labor and capital on a leveled playing field, then I don’t give a shit if we have one or not.
You may be able to convince me that, in general, the Democrats are incompetent rather than complicit, but the end result when it comes to income inequality and the decline of the working class is the same, and so my original point is the same. Some Dems are awesome and have their hearts in the right place; I’m thinking specifically of Warren and AOC. In general, establishment Dems don’t have a great track record.
My argument is absolutely flawed in that it ignores important social issues like bodily autonomy, but my original point wasn’t that the Dems were just as bad as Republicans when it comes to everything. It’s my opinion that we have a very flawed political system that basically presents the average American with a choice between awful and bad.
indoninja t1_j5yg7xm wrote
> So we can postulate whether or not the republicans would have “crashed the economy” rather than give some blue collar guys a few sick days, but the bottom line is, we’ll never know, because the fight wasn’t framed that way.
It was framed that way and recognized that way by all the adults paying attention.
> If we can’t engineer an healthy economy based on a fair exchange between labor and capital on a leveled playing field, then I don’t give a shit if we have one or not.
I dont think we should cut off or nose to spite our face.
And those are the options as long as we need 11 republicans to support sick days for rail workers.
> In general, establishment Dems don’t have a great track record.
dont have a great track record of helping against x isnt in the same league as actively working against.
And you can insert anything in as x from education and healthcare to labor rights and environment.
nowthenadir t1_j5z0ra7 wrote
Look, I don’t need you to agree with me. This is my opinion. It’s based on my experience and my knowledge. You’re entitled to have a different one. My point is that neither party has a track record of advocating for the working class in both words and actions.
There has been a steady decline in the share of wealth controlled by the middle class for decades. This has occurred under administrations of both parties. The economy was great under Clinton, it was also the period of the greatest redistribution of wealth to the upper class in the last 50 years.
You’re allowed to think the democrats have the working classes interests at heart if you want. I’m pretty convinced that while their words appear to, their record doesn’t. Was it a Republican president that kicked thousands of people off welfare with the welfare reform bill? Was it a Republican president that lowered the capital gains tax? Was it a Republican president that presided over the recovery from the 2008 financial crisis where 95% of the wealth created went to the top 1%?
I’m not sure what you’re trying to do. Like, are you trying to have a discussion based on good faith? Or are you trying to prove my opinion wrong and yours right? Because it seems more the latter than the former.
indoninja t1_j5z1usa wrote
Looks like you are ignoring congress under Clinton.
Looks like you are hlossing over the republicans threatening to shut down the givt over Obama wanting to end bush tax cuts for people making over 250k.
Looks like you are ignoring Bidens plan to tax any increase in wealth for people who have over a billion (ie directly adress the gross growth in income inequality from on people who make most their money outside “income”).
Edit-way ti back up your well points by blocking me.
nowthenadir t1_j5z67jk wrote
Nope, not ignoring congress at all. At no point did I give Republicans a bye. The laws I mentioned were signed by a Democratic president however. The recovery that I mentioned with Obama was under a unified democratic government.
I am ignoring Biden’s plan until it becomes a reality.
I don’t know what your problem is, but you’re obviously more into proving my opinion wrong than having a discussion based on good faith. I don’t give a shit what you think. You want to root for Dems like they’re you’re local football team, have fun. I think it’s naive, but it’s your life and you’re allowed to believe what you want.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments