This is always the argument that people bring up around this, and its woefully misrepresented. Biden signed a bill that 75% of the railroad unions agreed on. The bill was designed to be the bare minimum needed by the unions to continue their work. He stated after signing the bill that work still needed to be done, and that the fight for the unions for better wages and safety was not over, but he was signing this bill to prevent a total shut down of the economy that relies heavily on railroad infrastructure. Biden never said that the unions couldn’t continue to address the shortcomings of the system. He didn’t take away their rights to strike, or force them into compliance. He merely signed a bill (again, approved by the majority of the unions) to make sure that the railways stay open. If there is a continued failure of the railways, it’s not on him, it is because nothing has changed since then. There is still work to be done, it was only ever meant to be a stopgap to avoid a much larger crisis. If you think the writer’s strike and SAG-AFTRA was a big deal because movies couldn’t be made, imagine what would happen to the US if food supply lines were completely severed. Do you think the produce you get in the grocery store was all farmed within walking distance?
Hey maybe if it’s such a point of national security, and halting the trains would have such catastrophic consequences, maybe it’s time we nationalized the rail systems? Maybe having these rails in the hands of greedy profiteers who have demonstrated that they are willing to shirk on safety regulations is a terrible idea?
“The government is corrupt, and they can’t be trusted to run things. Our infrastructure should be in the hands of the people.”
“The people are corrupt, and they can’t be trusted to run things. Our infrastructure should be regulated by the government.”
Pick a side, but in either case, the only way that we overcome these obstacles is with oversight. It doesn’t matter who controls anything, all that matters is how much we hold them accountable for the greater good. You want to really solve the problem, figure out how to get everyone to agree on what’s best. Until then, we’ll have milquetoast regulations, oligarchs too preoccupied with someone’s sexual orientation to actually do anything, and allegiances that change depending on the signature line on the checks.
I’ve never heard someone say the government is corrupt and infrastructure should be in the hands of the people. The government is the people. Most people say it should be taken out of the hands of private companies and put into the hands of the people, managed by the government. Workers controlling the means of production and all that.
Why did such legislation come at the expense of the workers?
It was the company that built every one of these problems. It was the company that was responsible. It’s the company that has the resources and power to make changes.
But when Biden stepped in to keep the economy open, he punished the workers instead.
So there’s an option to support the working class and option to support the rich, and he chose to support the rich, and only came back for workers later.
Why can’t we just expect him to do better for the workers in the first place?
It’s that bad, and he didn’t just give the workers what they wanted immediately? If they’re that important, why is it even a debate? If the country depends on them, give them what they want.
This is always the argument that people bring up around this, and its woefully misrepresented. Biden signed a bill that 75% of the railroad unions agreed on. The bill was designed to be the bare minimum needed by the unions to continue their work. He stated after signing the bill that work still needed to be done, and that the fight for the unions for better wages and safety was not over, but he was signing this bill to prevent a total shut down of the economy that relies heavily on railroad infrastructure. Biden never said that the unions couldn’t continue to address the shortcomings of the system. He didn’t take away their rights to strike, or force them into compliance. He merely signed a bill (again, approved by the majority of the unions) to make sure that the railways stay open. If there is a continued failure of the railways, it’s not on him, it is because nothing has changed since then. There is still work to be done, it was only ever meant to be a stopgap to avoid a much larger crisis. If you think the writer’s strike and SAG-AFTRA was a big deal because movies couldn’t be made, imagine what would happen to the US if food supply lines were completely severed. Do you think the produce you get in the grocery store was all farmed within walking distance?
Hey maybe if it’s such a point of national security, and halting the trains would have such catastrophic consequences, maybe it’s time we nationalized the rail systems? Maybe having these rails in the hands of greedy profiteers who have demonstrated that they are willing to shirk on safety regulations is a terrible idea?
“The government is corrupt, and they can’t be trusted to run things. Our infrastructure should be in the hands of the people.”
“The people are corrupt, and they can’t be trusted to run things. Our infrastructure should be regulated by the government.”
Pick a side, but in either case, the only way that we overcome these obstacles is with oversight. It doesn’t matter who controls anything, all that matters is how much we hold them accountable for the greater good. You want to really solve the problem, figure out how to get everyone to agree on what’s best. Until then, we’ll have milquetoast regulations, oligarchs too preoccupied with someone’s sexual orientation to actually do anything, and allegiances that change depending on the signature line on the checks.
I’ve never heard someone say the government is corrupt and infrastructure should be in the hands of the people. The government is the people. Most people say it should be taken out of the hands of private companies and put into the hands of the people, managed by the government. Workers controlling the means of production and all that.
Apparently you have not met many people from eastern Europe.
Why did such legislation come at the expense of the workers?
It was the company that built every one of these problems. It was the company that was responsible. It’s the company that has the resources and power to make changes.
But when Biden stepped in to keep the economy open, he punished the workers instead.
He didn’t “punish” anyone. He made a decision with two bad options, of which he had to pick one. That’s what being President is.
He also worked after this bill was passed and got them what they wanted anyway.
https://www.ibew.org/media-center/Articles/22Daily/2208/220917_thanks
So there’s an option to support the working class and option to support the rich, and he chose to support the rich, and only came back for workers later.
Why can’t we just expect him to do better for the workers in the first place?
The people who would have been negatively impacted by the strike would be working class people. If trains shut down, people die.
Every city is less than 48 hours from a starvation crisis, all the time.
It’s that bad, and he didn’t just give the workers what they wanted immediately? If they’re that important, why is it even a debate? If the country depends on them, give them what they want.
A) it’s not “bad” it’s just the way cities work. Always has been, and will be the case until we truly master vertical farming.
B) Presidents aren’t kings. There is a sizable portion of Congress that is extremely anti-Union.
Edit: lmao it should read “union” with lower-case but fuck it because those people tend to be anti-Union too
You keep saying this like a majority of people agreeing to something somehow prevents them from being fleeced.