this post was submitted on 26 Sep 2023
64 points (100.0% liked)

Politics

10527 readers
79 users here now

In-depth political discussion from around the world; if it's a political happening, you can post it here.


Guidelines for submissions:

These guidelines will be enforced on a know-it-when-I-see-it basis.


Subcommunities on Beehaw:


This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Bartsbigbugbag@lemmy.ml 7 points 2 years ago (1 children)

No, he got them 4 of the 14 sick days they were trying to get, and NONE of the safety changes they were trying to get.

[–] silence7@slrpnk.net 10 points 2 years ago (2 children)

I don't think I've ever seen a union get everything they asked for. It's not as good as it might have been, but it's a lot better than nothing.

[–] Zaktor@sopuli.xyz 5 points 2 years ago

When a union tries and fails to get things, that's the harsh nature of bargaining and limits of worker power. They decide when the contract is the best they're gonna get. When they're prevented from striking and then someone else decides they can have some benefits, it's absolutely a different arrangement and doesn't inherently have worker approval.

[–] Bartsbigbugbag@lemmy.ml 3 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

Do you think they would have gotten nothing if they had struck? Absolutely nothing? And you’re so certain of this, despite knowing that the strike would have cost billions of dollars for the rail corps?

Well, if they had decided to accept nothing, that’s their Perogative, but it’s not the place of the President to negate their rights to collectively bargain and negotiate on their behalf after gutting 100% of their leverage.