Edg4rAllanBro

Edg4rAllanBro t1_iviuzv8 wrote

  1. Strikes are scary and difficult, especially when strikes means that food and energy doesn't get where it needs to go. People don't want to strike, but they have to.

  2. Different unions have difference grievances. IAM does maintenance on the trains, it does not drive the trains themselves. For this particular union, this contract might work out for them.

  3. The unions to look out for, the biggest ones and the ones who actually operate the trains, the BLET and SMART-TD, are poised to reject the deal. You'll get your strike.

1

Edg4rAllanBro t1_iviumdh wrote

Plus them getting a better job means society fucking collapses. Not like you can't get a big mac from mcdonalds, stuff like "coal doesn't make it to power plants" and "food rots because no one's transporting them". A good amount of society is predicated on having these people basically take it on the chin for 3 years.

2

Edg4rAllanBro t1_ivi5wn8 wrote

Two have rejected the deal and I remember both headlines. This is actually the first headline I remember seeing about a ratification.

Only waiting for 3 to return results now, IBB, BLET, and SMART-TD. I don't know about IBB, but from what I've heard, BLET and SMART-TD are very in favor about striking, and they are the ones that actually are on the trains.

https://www.supplychaindive.com/news/rail-strike-tracker-ratification-vote/634821/

1

Edg4rAllanBro t1_ivi4xso wrote

> Also, who's gonna step in if enough rail workers decide to become former rail workers?

This is a really interesting question because there isn't a branch of the military dedicated to railroads like they are with aircraft. Maybe some part of the army corps of the engineer, but I vaguely remember hearing BNSF planned on having its white collar workers drive trains in the event of a strike.

They tried doing this during the John Deere strike and a few ambulances had to be dispatched, so I'm excited to see the results of making an accountant drive a mile long train alone.

2