349
submitted 1 year ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world

President Joe Biden is set to join members of the United Auto Workers union Tuesday in Wayne County, Michigan, walking the picket line on the eve of a visit from former President Donald Trump.

The trip comes as Biden faces consistently low polling numbers on his handling of economic issues, and, back in Washington, the looming threat of a government shutdown this week. Both a prolonged strike and a shutdown could have economic consequences – something the White House is seeking to avoid as Biden tries to convince voters his economic policies are working. He’s also appearing in the battleground state of Michigan just one day before his chief political rival – whom he defeated in the 2020 presidential election – comes to the crucial swing state to make his own appeal to union workers.

Trump, the front-runner in the GOP presidential primary race, is scheduled to skip the second Republican debate to deliver a prime-time speech to an audience of current and former union members, including from the UAW, in Detroit on Wednesday. Trump has slammed the president for the visit, claiming Biden “had no intention” of walking the picket line until Trump said he would make a speech in Michigan.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] holiday@lemmy.world 41 points 1 year ago

A far cry from just 10 months ago when he blew up the railway picket line.

[-] Sorchist@kbin.social 64 points 1 year ago

I had read that the Biden administration kept pressuring the railways behind the scenes after the strike was averted till the unions got what they had wanted in the first place anyway.

I don't know where I first read it but this link seems to confirm it.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/may/01/railroad-workers-union-win-sick-leave

“We’re very happy about this. We’ve been trying to get this for decades,” said Artie Maratea, president of the Transportation Communications Union. “It was public pressure and political pressure that got them to come to the table.”

[-] Bitrot 62 points 1 year ago

Or from the union themselves at https://www.ibew.org/media-center/Articles/23Daily/2306/230620_IBEWandPaid

We’re thankful that the Biden administration played the long game on sick days and stuck with us for months after Congress imposed our updated national agreement. Without making a big show of it, Joe Biden and members of his administration in the Transportation and Labor departments have been working continuously to get guaranteed paid sick days for all railroad workers.

[-] gAlienLifeform@lemmy.world 20 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

That really doesn't mean anything since the IBEW was one of the unions that was willing to sign the railroads' contract before the strike. It was the other unions that railroads dealt with that rejected that deal and would've gone on strike if Biden and Congress hadn't stopped them.

[-] gAlienLifeform@lemmy.world 26 points 1 year ago

Only some unions got part of what they wanted

Further on in that article,

But the unions representing workers who operate the trains day to day, such as the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen, have had far less success reaching agreement on paid sick days. “The railroads went to the non-operating crafts first and cut a deal with them,” said Mark Wallace, first vice-president of the Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen. “If a carman [who inspects and repairs railcars] has to call in sick and doesn’t come to work, the train will still run. If the engineer or conductor has to call in sick, the train is probably not going to go that day.”

Wallace said his union was negotiating with the major railroads, but said they were seeking to make it harder for the operations workers than non-operational workers to take paid sick days – perhaps by giving them demerits when they do.

[-] harpuajim@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 year ago

I saw that story from a distance but didn't really follow it. How did Biden negatively impact the workers striking against the railroads?

[-] mpa92643@lemmy.world 46 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

The railway strike would've caused shortages of chlorine for city water supplies, shortages of essential medicines like insulin and antibiotics, severe food insecurity and inflation, and would've led to millions of people losing their jobs. Railway freight accounts for 40% of freight transport in the US. Imagine 40% of everything that's made every day suddenly not getting to where it needs to go. There's a reason Congress has never refused to block a railway strike every time it's been threatened over the last 150 years.

The contract was good for the workers but didn't include paid sick days. Congress imposed the contract on the rail workers when a couple of unions didn't ratify it (although most of the unions did).

Biden kept working behind the scenes after signing the law Congress passed to block the strike and got the rail workers their sick days without the suffering a rail strike would've had on the millions of Americans who were already struggling with high inflation on essentials. The IBEW union explicitly thanked him for it: https://www.ibew.org/media-center/Articles/23Daily/2306/230620_IBEWandPaid

[-] CluelessLemmyng 23 points 1 year ago

Imagine if more people knew this. They only saw "Biden bad for unions" and parrot the line while it's more "Biden administration weighs the challenges of a strike that would hurt common people, finds alternate path to satisfy all parties."

[-] antizero99@lemmynsfw.com 3 points 1 year ago

Sir/Mam, this is the internet. There is no place for nuance and full understanding of a topic around these parts.

Raaar, hiss, Biden bad, trump good, Biden good, trump bad, yada yada etc.

[-] mpa92643@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I've tried to make this argument on the more extreme political communities and the arguments supporting a strike ranged from "everyone would blame the rail companies" to "the damage to unions is worse" to "all those people without jobs would rise up in protest to support the unions" to "it wouldn't be that bad, it's being exaggerated by the corporate media."

It shows just how privileged those people are to actually think that when people who are already living paycheck to paycheck, rationing insulin to survive, and barely managing to feed their families suddenly lose their income, can't get insulin, see food prices double, and can't even drink the tap water anymore because of a "rail strike", they're going to understand the nuance of the situation and blame rail companies for not giving the workers sick days.

[-] VentraSqwal@links.dartboard.social 15 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Why not force the companies to accept the union terms then instead of the other way around? Why is it always workers who have to capitulate to capital? The reason the government always interferes because we're ruled by capital and business interests.

If they're that important then they should have had all their issues addressed, including safety issues.

Also, the original contract was not good for the workers and that's why it wasn't ratified. The higher up union officials haven't been connected to the rank and file, hence their bad original deals and the IBEW boot licking statement. To be honest the safety issues from Presision Schedules Railroading still aren't addressed and they've only gotten a small amount of the sick days they asked for (Europe gets like 10-15, they got 4-6). It's something, but it's pathetic. You can't say you're the most friendly labor president and then sign a law destroying a strike. Instead, he should have made speeches blaming the railroad companies and tried to negotiate without signing the law destroying the strike, instead using the threat of a Congress law to force them to come to the table (which it sounds like he did, but only after destroying the unions leverage and absorbing the only power workers have). This was after the midterms so it's not like he had to worry about an immediate election.

For the record, I get why he did it, but I still disagree that it was the right move, or the only move. There are European countries that have rail strikes, and they manage to survive those apocalypses, and keep a healthier labor movement at the same time.

[-] odium@programming.dev 21 points 1 year ago

By saying that he would intervene with the national guard if railway workers actually striked.

[-] Sabata11792@kbin.social 10 points 1 year ago

100 years later, and still willing to gun down workers if profitable.

[-] Dark_Arc@social.packetloss.gg 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I don't know anything about this claim that the national guard would be used. BUT, I think that would be more so the national guard would be used to move anyone blocking rail lines and possibly compelled to operate the railway.

The national guard has no power to "force" a rail worker to work on the railroad.

[-] Quill7513@slrpnk.net 15 points 1 year ago

He actively pushed for, and passed, legislation that effectively forbade rail workers from picketing

[-] oatscoop@midwest.social 2 points 1 year ago

Weird how he both ended the strike and the striking workers got everything they asked for soon after.

It's almost as if he were a competent president that was working towards the best outcome for Americans in that situation.

this post was submitted on 26 Sep 2023
349 points (96.3% liked)

News

23422 readers
3565 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS