• grte
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    16
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Because if you sign back to work legislation you are a worthless fuck.

    I support unions and workers right to strike but at the cost of potential economic collapse?

    Is that what you want to hear when it’s your turn? Fuck this scab ass take. “I support workers rights, no really, it’s just I need my treats.”

    When the working class is expressing it’s power and one wants to claim they are “the most union friendly president you’ve ever seen,” you get the fuck out of the way and let it happen.

    • ShoeboxKiller@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Is that what you want to hear when it’s your turn? Fuck this scab ass take. “I support workers rights, no really, it’s just I need my treats.”

      I would expect that the elected representative acted I. The best interests of the majority of their constituents over that of a few. That’s literally what an elected officials job is supposed to be.

      I can be both upset that action against a subset of the population and acknowledge the persons responsibility to work in the best interests of the majority.

      That’s why what happens after is so important.

      A lot of people in the US seem to tie their emotions up in their politics.

      As to a subjective statement like Biden being the most union friendly president, I just ignore comments like that. There are people who claim Trump was the best president ever too. These are opinion statements, not measurable in any form of empirical data.

      • SimpleMachine@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        I would expect that the elected representative acted I. The best interests of the majority of their constituents over that of a few. That’s literally what an elected officials job is supposed to be.

        From what perspective though? Because you could also look at this as the erosion of the bargaining power of every US worker. From that perspective the majority was absolutely not served.

        The entire point of the collective bargaining process is that it’s supposed to cause disruption. The scope of the disruption should not matter. If your workers not working would cause the collapse of the economy, they should probably be getting whatever they want. If you ask me, taking someone’s ability to determine the value of their work is basically slavery. If they all had decided to just quit their jobs instead of entering the bargaining process in good faith, would you have been in support of forcing those people to work those jobs against their will because of the economic fallout? There is no difference between these two paths in my mind.

        • ShoeboxKiller@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          If they all had decided to just quit their jobs instead of entering the bargaining process in good faith, would you have been in support of forcing those people to work those jobs against their will because of the economic fallout? There is no difference between these two paths in my mind.

          Then this discussion is moot. The difference between these two is distinct and to suggest otherwise is a false equivalence.

          • sadreality@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            You are doing serious mental gymnastics to make these arguments work…

            When capital fucks labour, there is no release valve ;)

            • ShoeboxKiller@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              1 year ago

              I’m sorry you feel the need to turn to insults and derision. That does nothing to support you position and serves only to make you an unlikable person.

      • Shadywack@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        You’re wrong, and back to work legislation defanged the main leverage the Union had in the first place. The whole point is being able to strike so you can force the business to accommodate your demands. Take the ability to strike away, and you’ve just gutted a big point of the Union’s power.

        Biden signing that into law was incredibly anti-worker, anti-union, and pro-corporate. This just falls back into the “too big to fail” scare tactic, and as someone else pointed out, a scab-ass take.

        No matter how you dress this up, you’re wrong, and I don’t care if you ignore the comments. This point is going to be continually brought up. This is the slippery slope back to the literal wars we use to fight over working conditions because it was illegal to strike. Would you rather us return to civil war?

        Let’s talk about the history of copper mining in Montana, since you think what Biden did was so fucking great. Those people literally shot at law enforcement officers because it was “illegal to stop working” and the corporations brought in both pinkertons and law enforcement to force people to work.

        Those are the stakes, and you can take your scab-ass fucked up opinion and fuck off. Biden was terrible for Unions across this country, and that single move set the stage for a terrible outcome for the American worker.