"Now let the court enforce it." -Andrew Jackson
Below is a comprehensive description of how the US removed Indian's from their land. Andrew Jackson plays a prominent role.
They Were Just in the Way | Indian Removal https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A5P6vJs1jmY
The supply chains are a mess as it is, the US can’t stomach a rail shutdown this winter, and the votes aren’t there to pass sick leave.
Biden isn’t a hypocrite; he’s never been a union absolutist.
And the deal the unions were forced to accept was one brokered by the White House after the unions and rail companies couldn't come to agreement. So presumably more than the rail companies would have been willing to settle on, on their own.
So in terms of voters pissed off vs voters pleased, he probably comes out ahead on this one.
But I may be in a bubble.
Though, sure, a few days of that and we'd not be happy. Mostly for heating-related and food-spoilage reasons. All the more reason for Congress to force the railroads to cave—which is to say, to behave halfway reasonably. But, instead they screwed the workers.
I'm curious how hiring's going to go for them, as they start to run out of workers with a bunch of money in the pension system who can't afford to leave, and now that everyone knows what abusive employers they are. I suppose eventually they'll have to relent and go back to pre-Covid staffing levels, or something like it. Guessing they'll fund that by ditching the pensions entirely, or at least scaling them way back. Great excuse to do that, that they've created for themselves.
I believe it's been mostly homogenized with SS at this point, so distinct in name only, but I expect there are still active laws on the books from the 30s and 40s that govern it?
[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railroad_Retirement_Board
From what I read, they'd basically converged its cost of living and payouts to be Social Security-equivalent (and tied to it for the future), but I believe it's still a distinct program (that just happens to pay the same amount).
There were also some oddities with porting between the two systems (railroad work -> social security work, or vice versa).
It stuck in my mind because the idea of a government-backed retirement system before social security seemed such a weird historical quirk!
And rail is pretty unique in terms of transport cost : weight. There is no substitute.
On the one hand, I'm not in favor of any industry being required to work. On the other, I do recognize critical industries have responsibilities as well as rights.
A 14% raise w/ back pay + 24% raises (in total over 5 years) + no copay or deductible increases (or changes to healthcare for 5 years) isn't nothing.
In general, they face the same issue airlines do: their primary cost and schedule (aka revenue) limiter is skilled labor. So they try to limit that by maximizing utilization of a minimal number of employees.
It looks like in the US Congress controls railroad labor rules directly via Hours of Service laws [0], so could hypothetically create better scheduling for life events by altering the requirements (e.g. larger blocks of time, at home, in-between shifts) without railroad companies' involvement.
[0] https://railroads.dot.gov/legislation-regulations/current-in...
If their service is so essential, they should be granted some sick days.
It is possible to compete, confront, and negotiate for more.
So when Joe Senator votes against (and, to a much lesser degree, for) something you can't ever really be sure they really do oppose/support it. The TPP was one of the most exceptionally visible examples of this with overt bipartisan strategizing against the voter. By contrast when Joe President signs a bill (or vetoes) it you have 100% certainty that it's his "real" agenda, because that is the ultimate and deciding "vote" excepting the increasingly rare scenario of a congressional veto override.
Put more succinctly, in our original hypothetical changing out those 50 senators who voted for the unpopular bill would have literally 0 impact on its passage. Yet changing the 1 president would. Even if congress might have the ability to override his veto of it, they would be unlikely to do so for an unpopular bill. In reality the bill would never be voted on unless the congress knew the president was on board.
Quite frankly, imprisoning the company is the next step - no access to, control or operation of funds, assets or company systems for the duration of imprisonment. It should be as much of a threat to a company's wellbeing as it is to the average man.