Matthew H Fish
Lead Service Attendant
- Joined
- May 28, 2019
- Messages
- 499
I left a Facebook group over this today, because someone posted a bunch of jargon about the "violence of the ruling class". Probably a LARPing college kid.
It is a complicated issue for several reasons, and some of the articles I read about it seem very...overblown. Like, The Guardian had an article with the title "Biden just knifed labor unions in the back" which seems like hyperbole to me.
There are three reasons why I think that this makes sense. Not even that I agree with it, but that I think it makes sense:
1. Most of the unions (if not most of their members), had ratified the agreement. Even the ones who didn't were close in the vote. Most of what the unions were seeking was granted. The remaining item was paid leave, which is a really reasonable thing to want. But it was at least a partial victory for the unions, including a retroactive pay raise.
2. The people that would suffer most from this are the poorest people, both because it is going to disrupt employment, and also because if there is inflation in the price of food, they are going to be hit the hardest. Which brings up a second issue---railroad workers are union workers, but they are also paid more like professionals. I've read different estimates (people on here can probably correct me about this) but engineers/conductors make anywhere from around $60-100,000 a year. There are many people in the US making much less than that. It turns into a decision about a small amount of workers that are already making in the high five or low six figures, versus millions and millions of retail and other low wage earners that might be making $20,000 a year or less. I can certainly understand the utilitarian argument that they are weighing a few hundred thousand people who are already middle class against millions of people who are hovering next to poverty.
3. At least in the house, the vote included most of the leave provisions that were the next thing that the Unions wanted to win. The problem is that the Senate is much more conservative. And that is something that neither the Administration or the House can do anything about. And the incoming house is more conservative. So they basically had three weeks to think of something.
I am not saying it is a perfect solution, but the people who are suggesting, quite seriously, that "the solution is just to nationalize the railroads" are...playing Fantasy Football, not trying to actually come up with solutions.
So my opinion is---the Unions got most of what they wanted, the Democratic Administration and Congress had limited political resources, and had to use them to help millions of people at or below the poverty line that could have been devastated.
At least...that is one way to look at it.
It is a complicated issue for several reasons, and some of the articles I read about it seem very...overblown. Like, The Guardian had an article with the title "Biden just knifed labor unions in the back" which seems like hyperbole to me.
There are three reasons why I think that this makes sense. Not even that I agree with it, but that I think it makes sense:
1. Most of the unions (if not most of their members), had ratified the agreement. Even the ones who didn't were close in the vote. Most of what the unions were seeking was granted. The remaining item was paid leave, which is a really reasonable thing to want. But it was at least a partial victory for the unions, including a retroactive pay raise.
2. The people that would suffer most from this are the poorest people, both because it is going to disrupt employment, and also because if there is inflation in the price of food, they are going to be hit the hardest. Which brings up a second issue---railroad workers are union workers, but they are also paid more like professionals. I've read different estimates (people on here can probably correct me about this) but engineers/conductors make anywhere from around $60-100,000 a year. There are many people in the US making much less than that. It turns into a decision about a small amount of workers that are already making in the high five or low six figures, versus millions and millions of retail and other low wage earners that might be making $20,000 a year or less. I can certainly understand the utilitarian argument that they are weighing a few hundred thousand people who are already middle class against millions of people who are hovering next to poverty.
3. At least in the house, the vote included most of the leave provisions that were the next thing that the Unions wanted to win. The problem is that the Senate is much more conservative. And that is something that neither the Administration or the House can do anything about. And the incoming house is more conservative. So they basically had three weeks to think of something.
I am not saying it is a perfect solution, but the people who are suggesting, quite seriously, that "the solution is just to nationalize the railroads" are...playing Fantasy Football, not trying to actually come up with solutions.
So my opinion is---the Unions got most of what they wanted, the Democratic Administration and Congress had limited political resources, and had to use them to help millions of people at or below the poverty line that could have been devastated.
At least...that is one way to look at it.
