Most union-friendly president in 40 years. Which is perhaps more damning about the state of American politics for the past 40 years, but fuck, man, I'll take what improvements I can get. Even the longest journeys begin with a single step.
I think he might be the most union friendly president period. FDR busted a federal employee union, but I don't think he ever joined a picket line
FDR was also supported by many labor unions and by some standards the most pro union president. Taft-Hartley act under Truman (despite his veto) was probably the worst thing for labor since the Populist movement was dealt with.
Of course. Biden also has that support. What I'm saying is that regardless of who the most pro union president is, they've done anti union things as well.
Yeah ultimately they all serve the system that exploits people, and are more representative of the time period they served in than individual personalities who altered the course of history. They didn't make history, history made them.
Glad he didn't work with Congress to break this strike.
That's only a thing with unions that are covered by the railway labor act rather than the NLRA
Good thing he also worked to get those rail strikers everything they wanted, then did nothing to make sure anybody knew.
Another article trying to give Biden credit for the UAW's work.
Why not just say he makes cars while we're at it?
Most union president in decades, first ever to visit the picket line; but go ahead and tell us that union wins are not his wins and his wins are not union wins. It is a massive step in the right direction, further supported by Bernie and his progressives
They don’t agree 1:1 by ANY means, but it’s not just Biden pointing and saying “I did that” either. Your comment is disingenuous at best
Most union president in decades
That bar has been lying on the ground for decades. Clearing it is not an accomplishment.
first ever to visit the picket line; but go ahead and tell us that union wins are not his wins
He did a photo op, therefore he deserves the credit for work he didn't do? Absurd. Article doesn't even mention Shawn Fain.
The sun came up this morning. Did Biden cause the Earth to turn?
The UAW deserves the credit for succeeding with the strike, but it's disingenuous to suggest Biden had no effect at all. It's pretty significant to have the president of the United States say he supports your strike and then actually show up physically. He didn't just tweet a nice message and then be done with it.
There's one thing you're missing in your criticism of calling it a photo op – why was it a photo op for him? To be a photo op, it had to have been significant and good PR in his eyes, and it matters that he thinks supporting unions is just that.
At the absolute very least, take it as an acknowledgement by Biden that union support is the majority in popular opinion.
The UAW deserves the credit for succeeding with the strike,
Yes, they do. The article dedicates half a sentence of the second paragraph generously giving them partial credit for Biden's Glorious Accomplishment.
but it’s disingenuous to suggest Biden had no effect at all.
From the article:
This is mostly a story about victorious workers and the power of collective bargaining, but by the transferative property, which I just invented, it should also be a victory for Biden, who sided with the workers, walked a picket line with them, and can rightfully note that their success is evidence of a strong economy, with tight labor markets.
The author makes up a fucking word to transfer credit from the people who earned it to the guy who showed up and made a speech. The article goes on to call it "his (Biden's) substantive success." Don't get me wrong, it's nice to finally have a president who is openly on the side of unions, but let's not credit him with the heavy lifting, because he didn't do any.
There’s one thing you’re missing in your criticism of calling it a photo op – why was it a photo op for him?
Because people still saw him as a strikebreaker. Yes, I know, the rail workers got some of what they wanted thanks to him. But let's not pretend the word of that actually got out, because Democrats suck at messaging. He needed to be seen as supporting unions so his "most pro union president in decades" thing didn't ring hollow. It was damage control. Which continues with articles like this that are basically "sure the workers did stuff or whatever, but here's why Biden made it happen."
At the absolute very least, take it as an acknowledgement by Biden that union support is the majority in popular opinion.
I'm glad that unions are back to the point where Democrats realize they need union support. They've been chopped liver at best as far as the party is concerned since Carter lost to Reagan.
EDIT: The article gave Biden credit for a substantive success, not a substantive accomplishment.
Still, even knowing he needed to make up for the rail strike says a lot. And I'm quite pleased with everything his administration did in the background to continue advocating for the workers until the companies relented. I do largely agree though, this isn't Biden's W. He helped get them there, but he shouldn't be credited for the whole thing.
Yeah a US president can only be symbolically pro-union at this point, the institution they represent is inherently in conflict with workers and directly kept in power by employers and corporations.
Bidens' biggest impact on workers was reducing ways to escape bankruptcy and file chapter 11 through the Consumer Protection Act. He's spent his whole political career helping corporations and credit card companies in Delaware.
This is an indication that the Democrat party sees an advantage in pandering to union workers, maybe it will benefit workers a bit too, it's not a bad thing. The problem is as you say, the unions and labor relation isn't the point when this is covered, it's about making a politician look a certain way.
Clearly you didn’t read it. Your opinion on this is the stupidest take possible and you should feel ashamed.
Probably just another shitbag republican stirring up shit.
Do you have something to contribute other than baseless abuse and wild accusations?
Yeah I’m pointing out to others that who also may have not read the article that you have misrepresented it to them. That’s my contribution. I’m done with you now. Blocked.
Yeah I’m pointing out to others that who also may have not read the article that you have misrepresented it to them.
If my characterization of the article was in any way misleading, abuse and accusations wouldn't have been necessary. Simply posting a portion of the article that indicates otherwise would suffice.
I’m done with you now. Blocked.
Oh darn. Guess I'll have to get my abuse and accusations from another provider.
