Quote:
Originally Posted by rubecube
I've already answered this. Why does the government need to intervene in a way that is more favourable to big business? Why not implement a deal that is more favourable to the workers? Do you not see how this sets a precedent for other critical industries to lowball their unions?
|
You kind of started this by saying Biden and the democrats were gross for getting involved at all. If you softened on that, that's cool, but it would have probably been a more civil argument if you started with that. I don't think that this is that precedent setting since they aren't passing a new law or anything but utilizing the tools in the Railroad act that only cover railroads and airlines.
"Favorable to the workers" is obviously going to be subjective. From what I read, it sounded like the unions prioritized raises and bonuses over adding sick days, and part of the reason the financial increase was quite significant was in exchange for that. There probably was some gamesmanship on the union side by taking the money in negotiations, knowing they could get more public empathy by fighting for sick days in public by framing the argument in a way that is somewhat misleading. I imagine they got there because the different unions were prioritizing different things.
It was a mediated agreement, not forcing them to take the companies offers. You see the agreement as favoring the companies and that's fair enough. It looks fairly generous to the workers in my eyes. I am just on the side of "no strike" though, so it would bother me none if the workers got more. I have a hard time seeing this as Biden being a gross, corporate bootlicker or whatever you like to say. It seems he is doing a pretty decent job of brokering a compromise that can pass in both houses.