ShoeboxKiller

Ouch

Ok 👍

Ok 👍

In one comment you say I insinuate disingenuousness and in another you say I called you disingenuous. I stated that presenting just a piece of the whole situation and omitting the rest is disingenuous. I stand by this as being disingenuous can be, quite literally, defined as slightly dishonest, or not speaking the complete truth.

So your stance is that rail workers work for private enterprises but simply cannot strike.

No, that’s not my stance, and it’s not what I stated. My stance is that rail workers can strike, and the elected officials can use the Railway Labor Act to force a contract and delay a strike. My stance on the Railway Labor Act, the Taft-Hartley Act and any number of other pieces of legislation over the decades should be repealed and replaced with more modern legislation that favors workers.

Yeah, Truman nationalized rails multiple times. Do you know what else he did? During the 1946 rail strike, President Harry Truman at one point called for a law to allow him to draft striking rail workers into the military. Even after the strike ended, the House of Representatives passed a bill to draft striking workers (it died in the Senate). In 1950, Truman ordered the U.S. Army to seize control of the country’s railroads in anticipation of a strike.

The picture often changes when you provide all the information.

I’m sorry you feel the need to turn to insults and derision. That does nothing to support you position and serves only to make you an unlikable person.

If they all had decided to just quit their jobs instead of entering the bargaining process in good faith, would you have been in support of forcing those people to work those jobs against their will because of the economic fallout? There is no difference between these two paths in my mind.

Then this discussion is moot. The difference between these two is distinct and to suggest otherwise is a false equivalence.

The problem is that if you're willing to sacrifice the good of the minority for the stagnation of the masses, everyone is going to suffer.

The benefit is that if you’re willing to protect the good of the majority for the prevention of greater harm to the masses, everyone is going to benefit.

Changing a few words in your statement flips it the other way.

Breaking the strike didn't make anyone's life better... just made it less inconvenient for people who wouldn't benefit from the strike.

It didn’t make lives better, it worked to prevent further harm. The making lives better should be coming after the fact in the forms of new legislation be pushed to prevent this scenario while protecting the workers and the unions at the same time.

This is why it bothers me so much when people allude to one action taken as if it means something more while also excluding additional details that don’t support what’s being alluded to.

It’s ok to be upset about blocking the strike while also acknowledging the tough decision to prevent harm to the majority.

What is wrong with stating the president broke the strike but continued to work after the fact to get the unions what they were looking for to begin with?

Then you can focus your criticism on what action has or hasn’t been taken to prevent this situation in the future while protecting the rights of workers or unions?

Every strike causes disruptions, and the bigger the disruption the stronger the strike. Accepting that workers get to use their power to decide what deal is acceptable is part of being pro-labor, even if it means your life is disrupted.

There’s a difference between a disruption and the railroads shutting down in a country experiencing a pandemic and economic depression.

Disruption is fine, shelves being more empty, non-essential goods being harder to obtain is fine. Vital goods and services not getting where they need to, people losing their jobs, homes, health, lives etc. is not. I don’t know if all of that would have happened, I leave that to the people who should have an understanding of that impact. Those people elected for that.

But if you for some reason don't believe that labor can engage in big disruptions to show their bosses they're serious and decide you simply must intervene in a worker-employer negotiation, then enforce the contract the workers wanted. And if you're not willing to force their bosses to accept a contract they don't like, then don't pretend you had no choice when you forced the workers.

Can the President unilaterally force the acceptance of a contract on either side? Was there a claim made that the President had no choice by me? By Biden?

It’s disingenuous to bring up the strike blocking without also acknowledging action taken afterward. It seems like narrative building used to present a skewed perspective. Especially when it’s often brought up not as a statement of fact but as an allusion to something else.

Is that what you want to hear when it's your turn? Fuck this scab ass take. "I support workers rights, no really, it's just I need my treats."

I would expect that the elected representative acted I. The best interests of the majority of their constituents over that of a few. That’s literally what an elected officials job is supposed to be.

I can be both upset that action against a subset of the population and acknowledge the persons responsibility to work in the best interests of the majority.

That’s why what happens after is so important.

A lot of people in the US seem to tie their emotions up in their politics.

As to a subjective statement like Biden being the most union friendly president, I just ignore comments like that. There are people who claim Trump was the best president ever too. These are opinion statements, not measurable in any form of empirical data.

That was one concern. Another is our specific situation. Our foundation square footage is 972, our lot is 3,991 in total, none of it yard, half is all wild growth and weed trees, the rest is clover we planted to replace the grass and support pollinators. Our property tax is $3,750 this year, our land value is $46,400. I understand the calculation would be different on LVT but if I’d end up paying more on an LVT scheme then I wouldn’t want to have it in place.

I’d be more in favor if the county determined it’s annual budget costs and then divided that by the total acreage of privately owned land and you paid the percentage equal to your total land value.

I may be misunderstanding but it reads like .09 acres I have may be assessed as more valuable because of where it is than .09 acres 20 miles away in Tre same state and county.

Why does everybody post this tidbit but not the fact that the White House continued working with the rail companies after all of the strike talk and the Tentative Agreement and many rail workers got sick time as well?

I’m not speaking to their stance on unions, just the fact that the President’s job is to represent their constituency, just like all politicians. An economic crash due to a rail shutdown doesn’t benefit any person in the US.

I support unions and workers right to strike but at the cost of potential economic collapse?

I think more focus should be given to the lack of visible support on pro union/worker legislation.

Oh boy! I guess I see why people are against it. Probably should come up with a better plan.