I’m gonna try but I don’t have a lot of faith. The two party system makes it hard because sooner or later America gets sick of the democrats or the economy tanks or whatever. And unless republicans have moved beyond whatever anti-democratic phase they’re going through by then, it will be very bad.
For decades, UAW leaders were chosen through an indirect process common to many unions. Delegates to the UAW convention chose top officers, and regional conventions picked regional directors.
Has UAW been a sleeping giant this whole time on account of its leadership selection process?
I’m not sure how this affects overall union operations, but it appears there was a lot of corruption involved in UAW leadership that lead to this new voting process. Wikipedia has a summary on these events:
A corruption probe by the Justice Department against UAW and 3 Fiat Chrysler executives was conducted during 2020 regarding several charges such as racketeering, embezzlement, and tax evasion. It resulted in convictions of 12 union officials and 3 Fiat Chrysler executives, including two former Union Presidents, UAW paying back over $15 million in improper chargebacks to worker training centers, payment of $1.5 million to the IRS to settle tax issues, commitment to independent oversight for six years, and a referendum that reformed the election mode for leadership. The “One Member One Vote” referendum vote in 2022 determined that UAW members could directly elect the members of the UAW International Executive Board (IEB), the highest ruling body of the UAW.
Are stand up strikes common? Do they win concessions?
I can not answer to the commonality or how successful these “stand up” strikes are. Overall, striking in any capacity is a tool at the union’s disposal when contract negotiations reach a disagreement. How effective this will be is yet to be seen.
Looking at it, the Stand up strike is a smart move. By the companies inevitably having to lay off workers or lockout plants, adds to the number of people striking for the UAW, who will be able to keep people on strike pay longer from their fund.
Money. Because they were striking in December right before the holidays, and people get mad about shipments and economic problems right before the holidays. Also, he’s Biden, not Bernie Sanders. From Reuters:
A rail strike could have frozen almost 30% of U.S. cargo shipments by weight, stoked already surging inflation, cost the American economy as much as $2 billion a day, and stranded millions of rail passengers.
He wasn’t so entirely against them as people might have made it seem.
Biden deserves a lot of the credit for achieving this goal for us,” Russo said. “He and his team continued to work behind the scenes to get all of rail labor a fair agreement for paid sick leave
I feel people are way too quick to jump down Biden’s throat for the rail union.
First off, it’s worth noting he continued to work with the railroad to get the employees the sick pay they wanted on the back end.
But in the midst of the situation… I’m not going to pretend this hypothetical is completely correct. But I don’t think it’s crazy.
Imagine you’re Biden and you hear about this railroad strike. Your advisors are telling you if the strike goes through how many rail passengers are stranded in the middle of nowhere, how much food is just going to go to waste and not make it to various towns, which factories manufacturing hospital equipment will be without material and unable to continue production. On top of a gigantic economic impact there could be deaths associated with the strike.
Imagine you’re that guy and have to make the call to say nope, I don’t care, the strike continues.
I’m super pro labor and anti corporation and even I would struggle to make that call. Especially if someone proposes the idea that on the backside of forcing the railroad workers to work we could pressure the railroad to give into the demands.
I’m not saying he’s perfect and I’m not saying there wasn’t a better way. But I think that hypothetical is plausible. And I think people are too quick to forget that often times these decisions are which tragic situation would you rather allow to happen, and it’s not as clear cut as it sounds.
Edit: Oh yeah, the comparison. This time, cars don’t get built and these corporations will see problems to their bottom line. The impact to human life isn’t there. The economic impact still may be, but it’s not as devastating across the board like shutting down the railroad would be. Much easier decision to make.
Imagine you’re Biden and you hear about this railroad strike. Your advisors are telling you if the strike goes through how many rail passengers are stranded in the middle of nowhere, how much food is just going to go to waste and not make it to various towns, which factories manufacturing hospital equipment will be without material and unable to continue production.
Strikes are supposed to be inconvenient. A strike that is not inconvenient garners workers no leverage. Interfering with a strike because it is inconvenient is union busting.
On top of a gigantic economic impact there could be deaths associated with the strike.
There are deaths associated with a lot of things that the administration is not acting on. Why was this one special?
Imagine you’re that guy and have to make the call to say nope, I don’t care, the strike continues.
Imagine you're that guy, and your call isn't to tell the rail companies to negotiate in good faith and get the strike dealt with.
He sided with the companies, not the workers. He did so publicly, and with the weight of the state.
There's no nuance here. He interfered with workers' rights to strike and to negotiate, favouring business over workers.
Good point as to why Biden is siding with the auto strikers so quickly, thanks.
If we’re putting ourselves in these situations, I wouldn’t have a problem maintaining the rail strike either.
I’d rather demonstrate the necessity of treating workers right than making sure anything gets done. I want people to remember the only reason we have all of our necessities and luxuries is because real people are making it happen. If the economy is going to crash because certain workers can’t afford to live themselves, or work in unsafe environments, then the workers needs must be addressed or the economy has to crash and yes, people will get hurt because of the course correction that needs to take place.
tested his bid to be the “most pro-labor” president.
Pretty sure that taking away the right to strike from the railway workers killed THAT ridiculous lie already.
On the advice of people much more pro labor than him, he made a great choice for head of NLRB who’s much more pro labor than him. Let’s stop pretending that makes HIM the most pro labor ever.
You should read on this. Biden made good on his word and railway workers demands were met, without impacting consumers. It was a good strategy for all involved unless I’m missing something.
There was an article recently about Biden not getting credit for everything his administration has accomplished, exactly because of situations like this.
I reinforced Reagan’s precedent that workers’ right to strike is contingent on the effect to the economy that the strike would have, which is a blow to the strength of unions and to the possibility of a general strike, regardless of the results achieved for this set of workers. Not to mention that we don’t know if the unions could have got an even better deal if they had successfully engaged in the strike. Making good on his word helps to soften the blow, but it doesn’t erase it entirely
Biden made good on his word and railway workers demands were met
Bullshit. Other people in the administration who are actually pro labor picked up the pieces after he had strongarmed Congress into taking away their right to strike. And even then, they had to settle for a piss-poor agreement since their most effective weapon had been taken away from them.
It was a good strategy for all involved unless I’m missing something.
You’re missing a lot.
There was an article recently about Biden not getting credit for everything his administration has accomplished
First of all: good. The media’s obsession with giving bosses the credit for the work of others is nauseating and Presidential administrations are no exception
Second: if anything, the likes of Politico, NYT, WaPo, HuffPost etc have EXAGGERATED the accomplishments of him and the rest of the party leadership and interpreted everything they do in the most charitable light possible, like they always do.
Said one senior GOP aid to CNN: “Picking witnesses that refute House Republicans’ arguments for impeachment is mind-blowing. This is an unmitigated disaster.”
Direct evidence? They haven’t even shown Direct Evidence’s 4th cousin twice removed. They’ve shown absolutely nothing. It’s just a bunch of old white men grandstanding and whining like petulant toddlers while the clock ticks on real issues like a fucking looming shutdown
npr.org
Oldest