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.
A far cry from just 10 months ago when he blew up the railway picket line.
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
Or from the union themselves at https://www.ibew.org/media-center/Articles/23Daily/2306/230620_IBEWandPaid
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.
Only some unions got part of what they wanted
Further on in that article,
I saw that story from a distance but didn’t really follow it. How did Biden negatively impact the workers striking against the railroads?
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
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.”
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.
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.
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.
deleted by creator
Removed by mod
By saying that he would intervene with the national guard if railway workers actually striked.
100 years later, and still willing to gun down workers if profitable.
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.
deleted by creator
That’s exactly what I said. The national guard did not force anyone to work
as the person I responded to implied(edit: I think I misread their comment in part, so that’s part of the confusion). In any case, to they were deployed to allow strike breakers to get to work, and to reduce violence. Ultimately, they screwed up when their forces were cut and became the violence they were deployed to prevent; these old strikes were not the “peaceful protest” strikes we see today, they could get quite violent.He actively pushed for, and passed, legislation that effectively forbade rail workers from picketing
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.
11/12 of those railway unions had agreed to the newly achieved negotiated terms.