Think about it from a moderate perspective.

Why? "You can't force people to work" isn't a position to compromise on. He didn't have to please everyone, he only had to stick up for the inherent rights of workers. I don't have any right to tell you to work, even if you not working would harm me. It's not a position you need to compromise with me on. It's entirely right and good for at least one party to unequivocally side with labor.

And if a strike is just unacceptable, force the labor-friendly contract and then nationalize the railroads. People act like it was the workers against the economy when the whole issue came about because a private for-profit entity wasn't willing to give them sick days. There were two parties that could have been made to sacrifice for the greater good, but for some reason people think the only option was screwing the workers.

And, for what it’s worth, 4-7 paid sick days (dependent on the employer) is pretty standard for most jobs in the US.

"Well X job also gets 4" is irrelevant. Some jobs are less safety critical so an employee working sick won't endanger others and other jobs should be striking for more. It's to the workers themselves to decide what a reasonable contract is.

…it’s still overall a good thing and could lay the rails so to speak for future improvements as well.

Except breaking a strike means the employers don't need to fear one as much in future negotiations. The likelihood of Congressional intervention was reportedly a factor in their willingness to take a demand of 15 days and counter with 1. Next time around they'll be even more confident that they don't need to listen to worker demands. Establishing a "too big to strike" norm means their unions are kind of just for show, because work stoppages are the primary tool unions have to negotiate.