AnybodyMassive1610

AnybodyMassive1610 t1_j5rngp8 wrote

I do realize that it isn't new per se. But, I went for something easy to define rather than that level of nuance.

However, you're absolutely right that they had the power to force an agreement and, as you've pointed out, it amounts to union busting.

The exercise of that older legislation, in effect, did remove their right to legally strike by allowing the government to force the union and railroad into an agreement.

It was the choice of this administration to favor the railroad companies that just posted record profits OVER that of the workers and their basic rights.

To be clear, Joe Biden, Chuck Schumer, and Nancy Pelosi --along with all of the current Democratic party leadership-- sided with the railroads & shareholders (like Warren Buffett) over that of the workers and their ability to negotiate collectively as a union.

It is deplorable to me that the party of FDR -- the party that has been supported by labor unions for decades -- whiffed so badly on what could've been a lesson in compassion, fairness, and support for critical workers having to suffer deplorable conditions. Instead it was a lesson in greed that further divides the ruling class from the working class - irrespective of party affiliation.

40

AnybodyMassive1610 t1_j5r4798 wrote

No, this is what vulture capitalists & corporate raiders want - a large portion of these stocks are held in pensions and funds - they are controlled by a small percentage of the actually “shareholders” and they are purely driven by “profit at all costs” not the long term success of the company (which shareholders used to care about)

7

AnybodyMassive1610 t1_j5r3388 wrote

Didn’t the federal government remove their workers right to strike because “national security” or something - cause the companies couldn’t possibly afford to pay a living wage or vacation or sick days? Isn’t that something Joe “I’m all for the unions until I’m not” Biden did just a bit ago?!

171