207

Biden helped end the dockers strike by saying reopening the ports to help Hurricane Helene victims would be patriotic (fortune.com)

submitted 1 day ago by Rapidcreek@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world

42 comments fedilink hide all child comments

top 42 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] CondensedPossum@lemmy.world 12 points 19 hours ago

fortune magazine

"i wonder what capitalism wants me to think is going on today?"

[-] stoly@lemmy.world 2 points 18 hours ago

lol someone downvoted you for calling out that rag

[-] EatATaco@lemm.ee -4 points 17 hours ago

I don't downvoted often, but I downvoted because it added nothing to the conversation, coupled with not making any sense in the context.

[-] cypherpunks@lemmy.ml 5 points 17 hours ago

The article text doesn't support the headline ("Biden helped end the dockers strike by saying reopening the ports to help Hurricane Helene victims would be patriotic"):

“ With the grace of God, and the goodwill of neighbors, it’s gonna hold,” President Joe Biden told reporters Thursday night after the agreement.

In a statement later, Biden applauded both sides “for acting patriotically to reopen our ports and ensure the availability of critical supplies for Hurricane Helene recovery and rebuilding.”

[...]

Thursday’s deal came after Biden administration officials met with foreign-owned shipping companies before dawn on Zoom, according to a person briefed on the day’s events who asked not to be identified because the talks were private. The White House wanted to increase pressure to settle, emphasizing the responsibility to reopen the ports to help with recovery from Hurricane Helene, the person said.

Acting Labor Secretary Julie Su told them she could get the union to the bargaining table to extend the contract if the carriers made a higher wage offer. Chief of Staff Jeff Zients told the carriers they had to make an offer by the end of the day so a manmade strike wouldn’t worsen a natural disaster, the person said.

By midday the Maritime Alliance members agreed to a large increase, bringing about the agreement, according to the person.

[-] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 40 points 1 day ago

We had a major infrastructure strike. It was brief, workers got more of what they wanted on their terms. The sky didn't fall, the entire economy didn't immediately collapse.

All the fearmongering surrounding rail workers being able to strike was anti-labor bullshit.

[-] brygphilomena@lemmy.world 8 points 16 hours ago

Everyone talks like it's the dock workers going on strike that's the issue and not the corporations refusing to pay more.

Businesses make decisions to have a strike by refusing to listen to their hundreds or thousands of workers.

[-] Rapidcreek@lemmy.world 94 points 1 day ago

Joe doesn't have a big mouth like Trump, but he actually does accomplish things. Trump's jealous because he has no clue about how

Pete Buttigieg was point man and mentioned by both sides. History will tell a story about Pete IMO.

[-] popcap200@lemmy.ml 33 points 1 day ago

It's still crazy to me that Trump has all three branches and didn't pass a single piece of major legislation.

[-] InverseParallax@lemmy.world 38 points 1 day ago

He passed 1 major piece of legislation.

Absolutely nothing got in the way of his capital gains tax cut.

[-] popcap200@lemmy.ml 8 points 1 day ago

Lmao that's true. Does that count as major? It PALES in comparison to the Biden Infrastructure bill in terms of scope.

[-] InverseParallax@lemmy.world 9 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

It's the only thing he cared about.

And it pulled the last frail harness off the billionaire class.

[-] idiomaddict@lemmy.world 12 points 1 day ago

That’s because he’s a patsy. The judges he put through have done enough and will do more

[+] knightly@pawb.social -41 points 1 day ago

Biden didn't have anything to do with this..

[-] laverabe@lemmy.world 23 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Thursday’s deal came after Biden administration officials met with foreign-owned shipping companies before dawn on Zoom, according to a person briefed on the day’s events who asked not to be identified because the talks were private. The White House wanted to increase pressure to settle, emphasizing the responsibility to reopen the ports to help with recovery from Hurricane Helene, the person said.

Acting Labor Secretary Julie Su told them she could get the union to the bargaining table to extend the contract if the carriers made a higher wage offer. Chief of Staff Jeff Zients told the carriers they had to make an offer by the end of the day so a manmade strike wouldn’t worsen a natural disaster, the person said.

By midday the Maritime Alliance members agreed to a large increase, bringing about the agreement.

[-] knightly@pawb.social -3 points 18 hours ago

You seem to be proving my point, in what way does Biden deserve credit for not squashing the longshoreman's strike like he did the railworkers'?

[+] knightly@pawb.social -32 points 1 day ago

Getting downvotes because Liberals want to give Biden credit for the union's achievements. XD

[-] one_knight_scripting@lemmy.world 19 points 1 day ago

Getting downvotes because you didn't read the article. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[-] banshee@lemmy.world 11 points 1 day ago

Is liberal supposed to have a negative connotation?

Liberalism is a political and moral philosophy based on the rights of the individual, liberty, consent of the governed, political equality, right to private property and equality before the law.

[-] TexMexBazooka@lemm.ee 9 points 1 day ago

To those who don’t know what words mean, yea.

[-] knightly@pawb.social -1 points 18 hours ago* (last edited 18 hours ago)

Read David Graeber: https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/david-graeber-the-utopia-of-rules

The Iron Law of Liberalism states that any market reform, any government initiative intended to reduce red tape and promote market forces will have the ultimate effect of increasing the total number of regulations, the total amount of paperwork, and the total number of bureaucrats the government employs.

History reveals that political policies that favor “the market” have always meant even more people in offices to administer things, but it also reveals that they also mean an increase of the range and density of social relations that are ultimately regulated by the threat of violence. This obviously flies in the face of everything we’ve been taught to believe about the market, but if you observe what actually happens, it’s clearly true. The bureaucratization of daily life means the imposition of impersonal rules and regulations; impersonal rules and regulations, in turn, can only operate if they are backed up by the threat of force. And indeed, in this most recent phase of total bureaucratization, we’ve seen security cameras, police scooters, issuers of temporary ID cards, and men and women in a variety of uniforms acting in either public or private capacities, trained in tactics of menacing, intimidating, and ultimately deploying physical violence, appear just about everywhere—even in places such as playgrounds, primary schools, college campuses, hospitals, libraries, parks, or beach resorts, where fifty years ago their presence would have been considered scandalous, or simply weird.

[-] banshee@lemmy.world 3 points 12 hours ago

I used to hold the same belief and considered myself a proponent of limited governance. However, the individuals I know that advocated for smaller government did so because they preferred to be governed by the church instead.

I don't believe that labeling others as liberal or conservative helps anything.

[-] knightly@pawb.social 0 points 11 hours ago

Conservatives are also liberal, and I'm not interested in helping any government they're considered a valid part of. In a sane world they'd be trying every living president at The Hague.

[-] frunch@lemmy.world 0 points 19 hours ago

Have another! 😉

[-] NateNate60@lemmy.world 15 points 1 day ago

I cannot believe that actually worked.

[-] RestrictedAccount@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago

He is right!

[+] lennybird@lemmy.world -45 points 1 day ago

Not that I oppose union strikes but it's kind of dirty to do that to Democrats in the 11th hour. Not like their conditions would improve under Trump...

So associating bad publicity of obstructing hurricane aid is genius.

[-] Keeponstalin@lemmy.world 18 points 1 day ago

The union demands were extremely reasonable. What's dirty is that the company would prefer it to get to this stage than actually pay the workers fairly.

[-] Cephalotrocity@biglemmowski.win 25 points 1 day ago

Dirty is how this would have played out had the strike occurred at any other time. Congress would have legislated back to work orders and that's assuming POTUS couldn't just use an executive order to do it.

Striking now meant honest negotiations instead of BS federal interference.

[+] lennybird@lemmy.world -11 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Yeah I'm sure the maga union boss was totally acting in good faith on behalf of his workers here...

Again, short-sighted. The damage may very well be done and this could jeopardize 4 years of someone who definitely will do jack shit for unions.

I know the tankies are upset, here, but here's a dose of reality:

Union leader asking members to "pray" for Trump and his wonderful meeting with him.
Biden joining striking automotive workers in Sept. 2023;
Worth noting to the inevitable raising of the Rail Strike break-up that he intervened to keep supplies coming for December of that year would ultimately have hit the poor and middle class the hardest... .All the while he still managed to include half of their demands by way of a pay raise.

[-] knightly@pawb.social 6 points 1 day ago

Actually, it would hit the wallets of the rail company shareholders hardest.

Also, don't pretend that the rail strikers came out on top in that negotiation. Their #1 issue was understaffing and the total lack of sick time, neither of which were addressed.

[-] TransplantedSconie@lemm.ee 6 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Norfolk Southern and the International Association of Sheet Metal, Air, Rail and Transportation Workers -Transportation Division (SMART-TD) said Monday they reached an agreement that immediately provides nearly 300 yardmasters with four new days of paid sick leave per year while also offering flexibility to use up to three additional days of existing paid time off as sick leave.

Norfolk Southern said all of its unionized workers are now covered by sick leave agreements.

Also on Monday, Union Pacific reached an agreement with the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen (BLET) to provide paid sick leave to for its 5,600 locomotive engineers.

Under the agreement effective Aug. 1, members will have up to seven paid days of sick leave. Five days will be considered paid sick days with the ability to convert two additional paid leave days for use as paid sick time.

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/most-unionized-us-rail-workers-now-have-new-sick-leave-2023-06-05/

[-] knightly@pawb.social -2 points 1 day ago

You left out the important part at the top of the article:

WASHINGTON, June 5 [more than 6 months after the fact] (Reuters) - More than 60% of U.S. unionized railroad workers at major railroads are now are covered by new sick leave agreements, a trade group said Monday. Last year railroads came under fire for not agreeing to paid sick leave during labor negotiations. In December, President Joe Biden signed legislation to block a national U.S. railroad strike after some unions voted against the deal over a lack of paid sick leave.

[-] lennybird@lemmy.world 5 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Biden said he is not giving up on paid sick leave for rail workers and other Americans who don't receive such benefits. But he made it clear that he was not prepared to see freight trains stopped and food, water, clothing, and holiday gifts stranged in empty depots.

This mind you as we were just getting past the worst of the covid pandemic. Do you have any source to suggest this would impact the shareholders "the hardest"?

Reminder that yet again — this per Bernie Sanders — the expanded sick leave for all rail workers was obstructed by Republicans. Screwing over Democrats during election season is, again, short-sighted. Perhaps those unions from the Teamsters to the longshoremen should rally to get Republicans out of the way?

[-] knightly@pawb.social -2 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Do you have any source to suggest this would impact the shareholders "the hardest"?

What do you mean "source"?

This is basic microeconomics, if the company can't sell its services due to labor action then it can't generate profits for the shareholders, so they get hit directly in the wallet.

Everyone has to put up with downstream effects, but only the shareholders get the direct impacts on top of that, so obviously they're getting hit the hardest.

Perhaps those unions from the Teamsters to the longshoremen should rally to get Republicans out of the way?

Most (like 60%) of the Teamsters are Republicans, and I'd bet the same applies to the Longshoremen. That's why the Teamsters hasn't endorsed anyone this year.

[-] sartalon@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago

I'm gonna have to go with Bernie's leadership on this one.

I trust him more than either of negotiating leads.

Your point on the demographics is key though. At some point, something's got to give. Unions and GoP don't mix, and for labor to not actively fight Trump is like shooting yourself in the face. It is so fucking short sighted and TERRIBLE leadership. It is leopards ate my face level stupidity.

[-] lennybird@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

You said it hits them "hardest," but how do you know it doesn't hit the poor and middle class down the pipeline harder, comparatively? What you're talking about is profits; what I'm talking about is clothing and food for actual people and a raising of bottom-line prices. Make no mistake — the consequence of such a strike comes at the cost of holding those down the line hostage. Naturally the shareholders tend to have a rainy-day fund in order to ride out the storm. Naturally the wealthy can weather such storms easier than the poor and middle class, yes?

In fact this goes back to this very strike covered in this submission, in which Biden pointed out to the nnion that their strike would effect... Who? Those impacted by Hurricane Helene.

Hardest is therefore relative.

[-] knightly@pawb.social 1 points 18 hours ago

What you're talking about is profits; what I'm talking about is clothing and food for actual people and a raising of bottom-line prices.

Exactly. Actual people can't eat profits but there are other logistical methods of getting goods and services to where they are needed, while shareholders are invested and would have to sell their holdings at a loss if they wanted to get their profits elsewhere.

Make no mistake — the consequence of such a strike comes at the cost of holding those down the line hostage.

Again, precisely. The larger the group pf people inconvenienced by a work stoppage, the greater the pressure on management to offer the workers an acceptable contract.

Naturally the shareholders tend to have a rainy-day fund in order to ride out the storm. Naturally the wealthy can weather such storms easier than the poor and middle class, yes?

Naturally, the shareholders don't want to keep a rainy-day fund, because every dollar that isn't invested in revenue generation is losing value to inflation. That's why just-in-time logistics is so huge, and why our supply chains are so brittle. Reserve capacity is an expense to Capital.

Naturally, poor folk who have very little to lose and everything to gain have a desperate need to secure the best contracts possible. And, as examples like the Montgomery Bus Boycott demonstrate, even state-backed enterprises can't persist in the face of organized and persistent strikes by the poorest folks in the country.

Hardest is therefore relative

Agreed. Your only misconception is a failure to grasp just how astronomically steep our economic inequality has become.

In relative terms, the business losses due to work stoppage are monumental compared to the cost of labor itself. Businesses regularly spend ten or 100x more on "union avoidance" than the added costs of a decent contract.

[-] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago

I'm not sorry in the slightest that workers exercised their right to withhold their labor in order to get more favorable terms.

If you interpret workers having rights as an attack, you should examine what that says about you and your wing of the party.

[-] lennybird@lemmy.world 0 points 20 hours ago

Supporting the exercising of worker's rights != exercising them effectively.

Again, they were short-sighted.

[-] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 1 points 19 hours ago

Again, they were short-sighted.

Yeah, it's never the fucking time, is it?

this post was submitted on 04 Oct 2024

207 points (95.2% liked)

politics

18992 readers

2295 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! 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.
No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News