Apparently you and the commentators you cite on the railroad workers issues didn't notice all the Senate Republicans and their open carrying of the filibuster?
Politics isn't static. Neither is legislation. If Democrats had wanted a different outcome here, one that favored the rail workers, they could have gotten it.
Beginning with the mildest of the editorialists taking Biden and Democratic leadership to task, Paul Waldman at the Post, we'd see Biden taking on the railroads in a big and continual way, along the lines of recognizing that workers are the one essential element in this backbone of our economy and that it is utterly appalling that they are without sick days or even a regular, predictable schedule. That's the absolute minimum tradeoff for crushing their right to strike and saddling them with this horrible settlement.
Moving along to Applebaum at the Times, we'd see Pelosi ship a bill to the Senate with the sick days included—one bill, not the two separated ones that were passed up in full knowledge that the sick day bill would fail. Then it becomes the responsibility of Republican senators to either muster the votes to get to 60, or revive the possibility of a strike which they would own if it happened.
And finally there's the option of doing nothing on the legislative front, and rhetorically making the railroads responsible for a strike if they don't concede the sick day benefit or at least reopen negotiations before the strike deadline, which at the time was more than a week away.
Instead they caved to the railroads by taking away the only leverage the workers have, and forcing on them a settlement which had been legally rejected under the terms of the agreement. And they did it with a fluttering of hands instead of a firm rhetorical rejection of the conditions under which the laborers labor.
But of course none of this was ever going to happen because Democrats don't actually give a fuck about labor, which is why we saw three GOP presidential hopefuls voting for the sick day amendment: they're hoping to use Democratic fecklessness to boost their own credibility with unions, which despite the obvious hypocrisy of it could very well work. It has before.
Apparently you and the commentators you cite on the railroad workers issues didn't notice all the Senate Republicans and their open carrying of the filibuster?
Of course it goes without saying that none of us has any idea how politics and legislation work.
O'contraire; You do but choose to ignore it because. . . reasons.
Politics isn't static. Neither is legislation. If Democrats had wanted a different outcome here, one that favored the rail workers, they could have gotten it.
What part of the filibuster do you not understand.
The part that posits passing legislation as the only way to get a good result.
And what move did you want other than legislation?
Beginning with the mildest of the editorialists taking Biden and Democratic leadership to task, Paul Waldman at the Post, we'd see Biden taking on the railroads in a big and continual way, along the lines of recognizing that workers are the one essential element in this backbone of our economy and that it is utterly appalling that they are without sick days or even a regular, predictable schedule. That's the absolute minimum tradeoff for crushing their right to strike and saddling them with this horrible settlement.
Moving along to Applebaum at the Times, we'd see Pelosi ship a bill to the Senate with the sick days included—one bill, not the two separated ones that were passed up in full knowledge that the sick day bill would fail. Then it becomes the responsibility of Republican senators to either muster the votes to get to 60, or revive the possibility of a strike which they would own if it happened.
And finally there's the option of doing nothing on the legislative front, and rhetorically making the railroads responsible for a strike if they don't concede the sick day benefit or at least reopen negotiations before the strike deadline, which at the time was more than a week away.
Instead they caved to the railroads by taking away the only leverage the workers have, and forcing on them a settlement which had been legally rejected under the terms of the agreement. And they did it with a fluttering of hands instead of a firm rhetorical rejection of the conditions under which the laborers labor.
But of course none of this was ever going to happen because Democrats don't actually give a fuck about labor, which is why we saw three GOP presidential hopefuls voting for the sick day amendment: they're hoping to use Democratic fecklessness to boost their own credibility with unions, which despite the obvious hypocrisy of it could very well work. It has before.