Obama order blocks railroad workers strike. Says strike by 92,000 workers would damage the economy!

[Better Believe It]

Obama order averts rail strike for now
From staff and wire reports
October 6, 2011

President Barack Obama has created a special board to help resolve a dispute between major U.S. freight railroads and their unions, averting a costly strike for at least 60 days.

Eleven unions representing about 92,000 railway workers have been unable to reach agreement on a new contract with the railroads, including Union Pacific Corp., Kansas City Southern, CSX Corp. and Burlington Northern Santa Fe.

Several of the unions had voted to begin striking at midnight Thursday.

Obama says it is in the national interest to avoid any disruption to the nation’s freight rail system that could damage the economy. Kansas City is one of the nation’s largest rail hubs.

http://www.kansascity.com/2011/10/06/3191661/obama-order-averts-rail-strike.html

President Obama said: “Freight rail is vital to our economy and our future. It’s in our national interest to make sure our freight rail system runs smoothly, since a disruption could affect businesses across the country and cause unnecessary damage to our already-fragile economy." President Obama is a real warrior for railroad workers and all working class people as one can clearly see. BBI

[RaleighNCDUer]

1. Isn't that the same argument that Reagan used for shutting down the

air controllers union?

[msanthrope]

11. No--he fired the union. Here, Obama is helping the union by forcing management back

to the table--the unions expected it.

The dispute has been going on for a year. Starting the 60 day clock means that management has to make some kind of definitive action to the government board. Here's an article that describes it...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/obama-order-averts-freight-railroad-strike-for-at-least-60-days/2011/10/06/gIQAzgK4QL_story.html

[AverageJoe90]

53. I sure hope you're right on this.

Checking the Wash. Post article now.

[elleng]

14. No. See facts and history in other posts.

This is the way the law designed, to allow for negotiations, NOT shutting anything down.

[pinto]

2. Actual headline reads - "Obama order averts rail strike for now"

from the article - "The five members that Obama has appointed to the Presidential Emergency Board have 30 days to recommend a settlement. The unions and railroads will then have another 30 days to approve it."

Read more: http://www.kansascity.com/2011/10/06/3191661/obama-order-averts-rail-strike.html#ixzz1aUbbJjeb

[Better Believe It]

7. That's in the post. So what's your point?

And why did you find it necessary to repeat the link I posted?

Perhaps you need to read more carefully. If you do, you'll notice that I also included some personal comments and a fuller quote from President Obama justifying his order stopping a railroad strike for 60 days.

Thanks.

[pinto]

12. Link apparently is automatically inserted on a cut 'n paste from this source.

Some sites do that routinely, mainly to insure accuracy and sourcing info. That looks to be the case here.

[Name removed]

13. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[snooper2]

30. Any word on that freaking new albumn yet!

[dionysus]

92. delete

[Name removed]

29. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Ignis]

65. ...And?

Does the LBN rule regarding use of actual headlines for posts now apply to all other fora, or does this new "rule" only apply to any posts that dare to be critical of our President's policies?

Because I've seen a DAMN lot of hagiographic GDP post topics that had no relation to the headline of the linked articles contained therein.

[truebrit71]

3. This is bullshit....

...way to stand up for the working man Obama....:eyes:

[msanthrope]

8. Um, you do realize it's the only way to make the railroad come back to the table, right? The unions

were expecting this--Here's an article that explains the dance, and union expectation of this.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/obama-order-averts-freight-railroad-strike-for-at-least-60-days/2011/10/06/gIQAzgK4QL_story.html

[HereSince1628]

4. Obama channeling Harry Truman? n/t

[msanthrope]

9. No--he's forcing the railroads back to the table, but could not do it until a strike vote.

HEre's an article that explains the process.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/obama-order-averts-freight-railroad-strike-for-at-least-60-days/2011/10/06/gIQAzgK4QL_story.html

[Better Believe It]

18. They've been at the table for many months. That's not the problem.

The problem is the railroad corporations feel absolutely no pressure to negotiate in good faith because they are certain President Obama and/or Congress will prohibit any strike action by railroad workers and will instead pressure the railroad workers and their unin officials to accept a contract and conditions dictated by President Obama's board.

The railroads have always supported this kind of government intervention under the Railway Labor Act. In past disputes, Congress has even passed legislation dictating the contracts of railroad workers beased on PEB recommendations while prohibiting strike action!

Congress will do that again with President Obama's backing if the railroad union officials refuse to accept the PEB recommendations and again threaten strike action.

[msanthrope]

21. Wrong. They were released from mediation Sept. 6. The railroads haven't been back to the table,

but this forces them. Nice try...but facts don't bear your claims out.

[ProSense]

5. Obama appoints PEB 243 to investigate BLET contract dispute

The Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen: Obama appoints PEB 243 to investigate BLET contract dispute

CLEVELAND, October 6 — President Barack Obama today established Emergency Board (PEB) No. 243, to investigate and make recommendations for settlement of the current disputes between the Rail Labor Bargaining Coalition (RLBC) and five other unions, and the National Carriers Conference Committee (NCCC). The Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen (BLET) is one of the 6 unions that comprise the RLBC.

The PEB is empanelled effective October 7, 2011.

In total, the 11 rail labor unions involved in the dispute represent 75 percent of all rail workers in the United States who work for major Class 1 railroads.

The five-member PEB now has 30 days to investigate the dispute and make recommendations to President Obama regarding a settlement of the contract disputes. There is another mandatory 30-day cooling off period that follows.

<...>

[msanthrope]

6. Wasn't this last week's outrage? And funny how you fail to report that the unions were expecting

this to happen--it's the only way to get management back to the table.

The railroads and the unions were released from mediation in September. Until a strike is threatened, the President can't force management back to the table--which he has done.

"The National Mediation Board, a federal agency that usually tries to resolve labor disputes in the airline and railroad industries, had tried for more than a year without success to help the parties reach an agreement. The president is allowed to create a Presidential Emergency Board to oversee contract talks if a strike would interfere with interstate commerce.

The five members that Obama has appointed to the board have 30 days to recommend a settlement. The unions and railroads will then have another 30 days to approve it.

Roland Wilder, attorney for six of the unions involved in the dispute, said the unions are eager to present their position to the board. The largest union in the bargaining coalition is the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen.

“We hope with the board’s help, we’ll achieve a final settlement of this dispute,” Wilder said."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/obama-order-averts-freight-railroad-strike-for-at-least-60-days/2011/10/06/gIQAzgK4QL_story.html

[Better Believe It]

15. Funny you neglected to mention that Obama is not required to issue that order.

If you know anything about the Railway Labor Act and past practice you surely understand that the railroad carriers have always depended on Presidents to prevent railroad strike action via the use of Presidential Emergency Boards.

The purpose of the order was not to force the employers "back to the table" to negotiate with the railroad unions. It was to prevent a strike that would "damage the economy". Such negotiations have been taking place every month for over one year now. You didn't know that? You should read President Obama's statement. I did.

President Obama had another option which he choose not to use. And that was to simply permit the railroad workers to strike thereby putting the heat on the employers to finally negotiate in good faith. And if the railroad carriers forced a strike and refused to seriously negotiate with the workers President Obama could have publicly sided with the workers against the railroad corporations.

But, he doesn't do that sort of thing .... this warrior for the working class .... does he?

[msanthrope]

24. Thank you for proving my point. Since the railroad left the table Sept, 6, this was the only way to

force them back. You see, you should read up on how mediation ended last month. A strike would not force management back to the table--but this order will.

Facts do not bear out your claims.

[Enrique]

10. the strike isn't the goal

it's the last resort and all parties would probably like to avoid it.

[Better Believe It]

16. The goal is to win this battle. And without the ability to strike railroad unions are powerless.

They can put no economic/political pressure on the railroad corporations.

[Enrique]

17. this doesn't take away their ability to strike

but thanks for posting the story (not sarcastic), I hadn't even heard about this dispute. :thumbsup:

[Better Believe It]

20. It does for 60 days. And if the union officials don't accept the PEB recommendations ....

Congress along with President Obama will take further action to stop a strike if one is called.

[EdMaven]

27. Yes. The commission will make some tepid recommendation & if the strikers don't take it --

air traffic control time.

[msanthrope]

32. Funny how the unions' lawyer disagrees with you....

The five members that Obama has appointed to the board have 30 days to recommend a settlement. The unions and railroads will then have another 30 days to approve it.

Roland Wilder, attorney for six of the unions involved in the dispute, said the unions are eager to present their position to the board. The largest union in the bargaining coalition is the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen.

“We hope with the board’s help, we’ll achieve a final settlement of this dispute,” Wilder said.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/obama-order-averts-freight-railroad-strike-for-at-least-60-days/2011/10/06/gIQAzgK4QL_story.html

and funny how you haven't found a single union source to back your complaint.

[Name removed]

43. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Better Believe It]

48. Do you even know what issues are in dispute or are you shooting from the lip?

[Name removed]

52. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Historic NY]

33. Its called a "cooling off period"............

the Union knows a strike would shut down commerce. The Presidents actions force the railroads back to the table. The railroads would have no means to operate if a general strike was called.

[JVS]

59. The goal is a good contract. And what do you think the odds are that Obama can get this mediated...

in a way that doesn't force the union to "eat their peas"?

[blindpig]

19. Which side are you on President Obama?

Which side are you on?

[msanthrope]

22. The union. This forces management back to the table. Here's an article that explains how.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/obama-order-averts-freight-railroad-strike-for-at-least-60-days/2011/10/06/gIQAzgK4QL_story.html

[blindpig]

25. That's disingenuous......

As long as the stock is rolling management is happy. I'm quite sure this was no favor to labor.

[msanthrope]

26. No, it's facts. Management hasn't been at the table since September 6.

Issuing this order, pursuant to a strike vote, forces them back in a month. That's why the unions quoted in the source I posted expected this.


Funny how neither you, nor the OP could find a single union voice that was upset with this.

[EdMaven]

28. It doesn't force management back to the table at all. It forces the union to accept

whatever bullshit recommendation the commission makes.

[msanthrope]

31. Funny how the unions' lawyer disagrees with you....

"The five members that Obama has appointed to the board have 30 days to recommend a settlement. The unions and railroads will then have another 30 days to approve it.

Roland Wilder, attorney for six of the unions involved in the dispute, said the unions are eager to present their position to the board. The largest union in the bargaining coalition is the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen.

“We hope with the board’s help, we’ll achieve a final settlement of this dispute,” Wilder said.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/obama-order-averts-freight-railroad-strike-for-at-least-60-days/2011/10/06/gIQAzgK4QL_story.html

[EdMaven]

36. we'll see.

[Robb]

40. Completely incorrect.

Welcome to DU.

[EdMaven]

49. we'll see. Thanks. :)

[Bobbie Jo]

23. Read the thread.

I mean past the misleading headline.

[Desertrose]

34. So if it hurts the 1%'s "economy" ...it's all "oh noes!1!1 Can't do THAT!1!"

But never mind while the 99% suffer in this economy.....then its just "tough..suck it up whiners".


My question...if freight rail is so damn important to our economy & our future, then why did they let the infrastructure crumble so much in the past 50+ years?? And then why did we turn so exclusively to petrol based transportation....hmmm??

[Historic NY]

37. cough.....w/o the rails we would starve...........

Railsroads carry 19 commodities: Aluminum, Cocoa, Coffee, Copper, Corn, Cotton, Crude Oil, Gold, Heating Oil, Lean Hogs, Live Cattle, Natural Gas, Nickel, Orange Juice, Silver, Soybeans, Sugar, Unleaded Gas and Wheat, from all points on the compass. These are the focal point of the economic engine.

Additionally they carry freight, coal, retail items, lumber, petro, chemicals, autos, auto parts and other items .

[Better Believe It]

42. And that is the raw economic power of railroad workers that the labor law was set-up to prevent .

The whole intention of those who promoted the Railway Labor Act was to cripple the bargaining power of railroad workers by severely restricting their right to withhold their labor via legal strike action.

The federal government has never sanctioned, approved or recognized the right of railroad workers to engage in effective national strikes against the railroad bosses. Never. And this administration is no different even with a self-proclaimed "warrior for the working class" at the helm.

[paulk]

89. rail infrastructure is private not public

it's not crumbling...

and it's not just the 1% that would be hurt by a nationwide railstrike.

It's one thing to support OWS, it's another to be ignorant.

You don't help the goals of the OWS movement with ignorant posts.

[Historic NY]

35. Boy if people opened a history book once in a while they would know ...

how Presidential authority allows him to intervene in labors disputes.

search Railway Labor Act...its all about mediation, collective bargaining....you know things Unions like.


http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/10/06/executive-order-emergency-board-investigate-disputes-between-certain-rai

[Better Believe It]

39. "Presidential authority allows him to intervene in labors disputes" Yes. But, on whose side?

You seem to be remarkedly unfamiliar with the anti-labor nature of the Railway Labor Act and Presidential Emergency Boards and how they have been used for decades by employers to weaken railroad workers and their unions.

So, the bottom line in this conflict between railroad labor and the railroad bosses is .... whose side is President Obama on?

If he's on the side of railroad workers he should take a clear public stand in support of their position as the self-proclaimed "warrior for the working class". Or at the very least and out of common decency he should butt out and permit railroad workers to assert their economic power via strike action.

Is that really so hard for you to understand?

Perhaps you have just never been a union member and had the whip of the Railroad Labor Act used by an employer against you.

[Robb]

41. I forget what union you belong to again?

Just getting old, I think.

[Ignis]

66. Why not just ask the OP to post his/her home address and phone #?

But you first.

[Robb]

67. The OP just suggested a poster couldn't possibly understand without having been union.

Which seems a hypocritical thing to say if they haven't been in one, obviously. Not sure what you're on about with the "you first" silliness, but everyone who's paid attention knows I'm UA, as was dad and grandpa. You?

[Ignis]

69. Yes, I was in a union in my former profession. Any other bona fides I need to prove?

:eyes:

If you were SO incredibly offended by the OP's perceived hypocrisy, you could simply have asked, "Are you in a union?"

That would have avoided the appearance of a Mod luring an often-harrassed DUer to disclose information that could be used to personally identify him/her.

But I guess that's not as important as scoring a point. Oh well. Thanks for pulling back the curtain for a moment.

[Robb]

70. Good for you! The rest is some funny stuff, there.

I really wasn't interested in your story, I'll admit. But I'm glad to hear it. Meanwhile the question asked remains unanswered, and somehow it's supposed to be about me trying to find out where someone lives? It's a lot to unscramble!

[Ignis]

86. What an asinine, puerile, and condescending post.

I really wasn't interested in your story, I'll admit.

If you weren't interested in actually knowing whether or not I am/was a union member, why did you ask?
...Perhaps because you wanted me to sheepishly mumble "no" and slink away?

Sorry your attempt to shut me up didn't quite work out the way you'd planned.

:nopity:

I find it particularly reprehensible that you've been posting in a thread filled to the brim with personal attacks against the OP--yet rather than actually, you know, moderating the thread, you chose to join in the dog-pile.

:wtf:

I have no idea why the Admins would allow a Mod to bully and harass other DUers with impunity, but the famous words of Lord Acton to Bishop Creighton spring to mind.

[Robb]

87. In fairness, I didn't ask about you to begin with.

I think a read of this little exchange is pretty clear about that. And I don't like shutting anyone up if I don't have to -- it's a discussion board, shutting people up is counter to the point.

The good news is, and you know this as well, mods like to recuse themselves from participating in moderating threads they're already posting in. I would think you'd celebrate that, because it's given you some leeway to air your concerns here. I doubt very much you'd take kindly to any of your own words above being aimed at anyone else, would you? You'd likely hit alert on them as personal attacks, and I'd be obliged to go delete them, and rightly so, with no concern for whether or not I agreed. That's how it works.

But, I certainly won't alert on someone I'm engaged in discussion with. If the consensus were to remove the post, then of course the reasonable assumption might be unfair mod bias. You're aware of all this, too.

So instead, unless admin step in or perhaps one of us throws a racial epithet, you get to beat up on me with impunity. The irony of calling me the bully here is lost on no one, I'm certain.

But I'll just take it, mostly, or perhaps from time to time -- if I can do so without violating DU rules or the mod confidentiality agreement -- as you suggested, "pull back the veil" a bit. :)

[Ignis]

105. Kindly point out the personal attack in my post.

This is a bit rudimentary, but I'll attempt to illustrate the argumentum ad hominem fallacy via example:

1. "You are stupid." <-- This is a personal attack.
2. "What you did/said/typed is stupid." <-- This is not a personal attack.

If you feel offended or hurt by #1, you have every right to be. And yes, I am "likely" :eyes: to alert every time I see this in practice, because that's what we (DUers) have been repeatedly counseled to do by the Admins. I don't alert on instances of example #2 because that's not a personal attack; that's a criticism of an action or behavior, not a person's worth or character.

:think:

If the distinction between the two is not crystal clear to you, as a Moderator, it certainly explains why posts calling me a Nazi or a hater or a "woo" or a religious fanatic or a Republican mole have been left to stand after several alerts, while posts of mine have been swiftly deleted for simply daring to criticize the divisive word choices in DUers' posts. (Not that I'm a saint, but I've certainly made an effort over the past few years--and especially since the Skinner's big "Civility" post--to stay above the line.)

---
As to your point regarding how your poor, poor hands were absolutely tied in this case, and you couldn't possibly have deleted the completely unmissable personal attacks against the OP in this thread, I can only ask:

You couldn't have Alerted? :shrug:

[Historic NY]

64. I've been a Union member & yes I am familar......

its goes back to the time when that was the only way products were shipped. So whats your agenda?/?

[Name removed]

38. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

45. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

46. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[seabeyond]

62. you will not find me on the threads griping about obama with legitimate complaints

ever...

even if i disagree, i can do it respectfully.

i NEVER condone the fabrication or twisting or half lie to present an argument and will always speak out.

be fair and i won't be in your threads.

[SidDithers]

68. Welcome to the Ignored by BBI Club!...

It's an easy club to join, and the parties are fabulous.

:hi:

Sid

[dionysus]

93. i wasn't invited....

:cry:

[lunatica]

44. He may have to do this stuff a lot in the near future

But at least he's doing it. Good for him.

[Better Believe It]

47. What is the purpose of the Railway Labor Act and what is a Presidential Emergency Board?

The RLA was designed to avoid strikes in the transportation industry that would substantially impact interstate commerce. In a typical year, the NMB mediates nearly 100 contract disputes in the rail and airline industries. If the NMB routinely released the parties from these disputes after only a few weeks or months of mediation, the public would be faced with 5 or 6 strike deadlines a month. This would be highly disruptive to the transportation system and contrary to the stated purpose of the RLA.

What is a “Presidential Emergency Board?”

During the 30-day cooling off period, the NMB makes a determination regarding the impact of a strike. Pursuant to Section 160 of the RLA, the NMB "notifies" the President that in its "judgment" the dispute between a carrier and its employees cannot be adjusted and "threaten(s) substantially to interrupt interstate commerce to a degree such as to deprive any section of the country of essential transportation service.” Once the President receives such notification, he may, "in his discretion, create a board to investigate and report on such dispute.” The NMB submits a recommended list of potential neutrals to the President. The PEB usually has 30-days to develop a proposed agreement and present that agreement to the parties for consideration. After the PEB delivers its proposed agreement, there is a further 30-day cooling off period.

What happens if either party rejects the PEB's proposed agreement?
If either party rejects the PEB's proposal, the parties may, after the second 30-day cooling off period, engage in self-help (strikes, lock-outs).

Is there any circumstance in which the parties are constrained from engaging in self-help after rejecting a PEB's proposal?
Yes. It is possible for Congress to intervene and legislatively mandate a settlement. If this is done, Congress most typically would simply take the recommendations of the PEB and write them into law. This would mean that a contract would be legislated by Congress and no strike or no membership ratification would be allowed.

http://courierexpressandpostal.blogspot.com/2009/11/negotiating-under-railway-labor-act.html

And Congress has in the past dictated the wages, benefits and working conditions in union contracts on terms favorable to employers while prohibiting union members from voting on such labor contracts! BBI

[SidDithers]

50. Unrec...

keep trying.

Sid

[uppityperson]

51. Unrec for misleading headline. NOTHING in article about him blocking a strike.

"Obama order averts rail strike for now

President Barack Obama has created a special board to help resolve a dispute between major U.S. freight railroads and their unions, averting a costly strike for at least 60 days." is very different from "Obama order blocks railroad workers strike"

It is true, a strike would disrupt things and I see no issue at him trying to resolve the dispute. Damned if he does, damned if he doesn't.

[Better Believe It]

55. Setting up a PEB automatically blocks a strike for 60 days. Read the article and the law.

Are you really confused by the words "order averts rail strike"?

A PEB averts a rail strike by forbidding one, it blocks one, it stops one for 60 days!

Get it?

Are you also confused by that sentence and do you also need a futher explanation from me on what a Presidential Emergency Board is and how it operates?

[uppityperson]

56. Aw you wrote: If you'd rather engage in trash talk and personal attacks and dislike civil debate....

"If you'd rather engage in trash talk and personal attacks and dislike civil debate and discussion perhaps you kind find a trash talk board that would be more to your liking."

Unrec for misleading subject line and no inability to consider all the comments showing you it is wrong. Read the thread.

"Avert" does not = "block". Unrec again.

[Better Believe It]

57. I posted a "misleading headline."???!!!

I just demonstrated to you that the headline is totally accurate and you failed to respond to my comment.

Now explain to me, in a civil way without claiming I'm trying to mislead people, how blocking the strike using a PEB does not avert one?

A strike has been blocked for 60 days by the Obama administration.

Period.

CASE CLOSED.

Do you still dispute that fact?

I'm listening.

[uppityperson]

58. Yes, you did!!!!! Try reading these and you might get an answer. CASE CLOSED

You may be listening but can you process what is being said or just argue?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=2097436&mesg_id=2097552
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=2097436&mesg_id=2097515
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=2097436&mesg_id=2097524
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=2097436&mesg_id=2097719
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=2097436&mesg_id=2097500
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=2097436&mesg_id=2097752
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=2097436&mesg_id=2097525
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=2097436&mesg_id=2097890
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=post&forum=439&topic_id=2097436&mesg_id=2097987
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=2097436&mesg_id=2097731
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=2097436&mesg_id=2097795
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=2097436&mesg_id=2097869
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=2097436&mesg_id=2098080

[Better Believe It]

61. Well, nothing like changing the subject!!!!! That's a none response on your part..

The fact is some of the railroad unions had planned to strike last Thursday. Isn't that right?

And President Obama's appointment of a Presidential Emergency Board prohibits any strike action for 60 days. Isn't that right?

Therefore President Obama's action prohibiting a strike blocks any strike action. Isn't that right?

While it appears that you like playing semantical games the fact of the matter is .... a railroad strike has been prohibited (blocked) by Presidential action. And that's bad in my opinion, even if a highly paid union official or attorney hopes that a PEB might propose a contract that is acceptable to union officials, if not the rank and file.

Case closed.

[Starry Messenger]

54. Well, Occupy just gained thousands of new allies.

That's the only nice thing I can think of to say.

[SomethingFishy]

60. "Freight rail is vital to our economy and our future."

Well then I have an idea... how about we PAY THEM WHAT THEY ARE FUCKING WORTH..

If their gig is so fucking important to the economy then there shouldn't be a single rail worker who is worried about paying his bills.

[badtoworse]

63. Obama is correct

[Better Believe It]

71. So you believe that Obama was correct in stopping, at least for 60 days, a railroad workers strike?

I don't think that's what a "warrior for the working class" would do. Such a "warrior" would clearly take the side of the railroad workers.

[Bobbie Jo]

73. Good Lord.

You have been shown to have been misleading and flat out WRONG throughout this entire thread.

Your continued insistence to disregard the facts and regurgitate the same disingenuous talking points makes you look incredibly foolish.

Not to mention, agenda driven.

[badtoworse]

79. I don't believe that any labor union should be able to jeopardize the national economy - full stop

[Better Believe It]

80. Sure. Blame the workers. Only Wall Street and big business should be permitted to do that!

And exactly how do you think railroad workers would "jeopardize" the national economy?

If the railroad corporations insist on forcing railroad workers to strike as their only alternative to accepting management demands you think the workers should surrender to railroad management?

[badtoworse]

81. Rail transport is of such national importance that interrupting it would damage our economy.

There should be limits on power and that means Wall Street as well as labor. Labor striking against management's interests is one thing, but striking against the country's interest is a different matter. Sorry, the railroad workers should not have that much power.

[Better Believe It]

84. There are no limits on corporate power. Just working class people and their organizations.

Right. We sure can't have workers excercising any economic power by refusing to work.

And if the railroad owners force railroad workers into a strike hoping the government would intervene on their side and against the workers by breaking a strike I take it you would support the railroad companies.

And exactly how do you propose to force railroad workers to return to their jobs on conditions dictated by the employers. Heavy union/personal fines, threat of imprisonment or the old tried and true technique of using professional strike-breakers/union busters?
When the federal government threatened to break a coal miners strike using federal troops because the strike was "damaging the economy, John L. Lewis, president of the Mine Workers Union, dared the government to try saying "You can't pick coal with bayonets".

There is no middle ground in such class matters and battles.

Either you support ordinary working people, including railroad workers, or you support Wall Street and corporate America.

So which side are you on?

[badtoworse]

90. I'm on the side of the millions of innocent bystanders.

When products and materials stop showing up at factories and stores, the people who work with them will likely get laid off. There will be a ripple effect through an already fragile economy and millions of uninvolved people will be hurt. I'm on their side.

[Better Believe It]

98. Are you also shedding tears for "innocent Greek bystanders" who are "victims" of needless strikes?

I have to wonder what measures you think the Greek government should take to break the workers anti-austerity strikes and demonstrations that are allegedly hurting so many "innocent bystanders".

You seem to be absolutely 100% certain that the railroad companies would win in any strike battle with the railroad workers and could hold out for months without having to make concessions to their employees. Well, that certainly couldn't happen with your "warrior for working class" in the White House now, could it?

So you believe the American people should/would be mere "Innocent bystanders" and would not take sides in such a labor confrontation with big business? You don't think railroad workers should or would have the backing of other workers and true progressives. While you might side with the employers and approve government efforts to bust the railroad workers and their unions, please don't put most of us in that union busting camp. We would be working on building a massive movement in solidarity with the railroad workers from one end of this nation to the other. And you would be ..... ?

I take it you would totally freak out if tens of millions of ordinary working people in the United States got organized and called a general strike against the ruling rich as the workers in Greece and other European nations are doing.

[badtoworse]

99. I do not believe striking railroad workers would have much suppport from the public.

As for the Greek situation, I don't know what the government can do other than improve its tax collection methods and agree to the austerity measures the rest of the EU is demanding. Suppose they default on their debt; they will have no access to the credit markets and will not have the cash to pay workers or provide services. I don't see the strikers being any better off under that scenario.

[Better Believe It]

100. Not if you had it your way!

So what economic sacrifices do you think Greek workers and American workers should make in order to guarantee the wealth of the top 1%?

[badtoworse]

103. I don't agree with your premise

I believe the 99 percent in both countries should blame government policy, not the wealthy 1 percent. And no, I don't believe government policy is based on preserving the wealth of the 1 percenters. The problem is that government adopted policies that made us very uncompetitive in the world market and signed free trade agreements on top of that. Surprise, companies invested where they got a better deal and the jobs moved offshore. For political reasons, both our government and the Greek government promised way more than they could deliver. We're paying the price for all that, but no one in government is going to wear the blame for it. It's much easier to blame the 1 percent.

[Better Believe It]

104. Now I understand you perfectly and where you are coming from. I take it you oppose OWS protests

in addition to backing employers against workers and their unions.

Not much more to discuss given our polar opposite views on such basic matters.

[Bobbie Jo]

91. Once again....

Your borrowed platitudes have nothing to do with the FACTS of THIS matter.

Obtuse, or.......?

[DireStrike]

72. LOL NO SHIT! The point of a strike is to damage the economy!

At least they're up front about it now.

So now that striking is illegal, looks like there will be no justice till we are willing to break the law.

[Name removed]

74. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Better Believe It]

75. You're obviously not familiar with the Railroad Labor Act, however, that does not excuse

your personal attack and total evasion on basic question which is .... should railroad workers have the right to strike against their employers?

Your personal attack just won a place on my ignore list since you apparently would rather engage in trash talk and personal attacks than civil debate I had no choice but to ignore your future posts.

[Number23]

83. And for that you got put on IGNORE!!!eleven1

However will you post through the pain???

[Bobbie Jo]

95. There was just no choice....

:rofl:

[Number23]

101. I know. He brung it on himself

As we all have, you know. :(

[LadyInAZ]

76. likes this...

the idea of holding out on economic good and services seems to get the government and elites attention... way to go railroad...

let them strike
let them strike
let them strike

[L0oniX]

77. What economy?

[Better Believe It]

78. The booming economy .... for Wall Street banks, the railroads and big business

[inna]

82. omfg. when cynics/absolute agnostics like moi are crushed.... nfm. i'm done

with Obama at this point, i'm afraid.

[Name removed]

85. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Bobbie Jo]

96. LOL

:rofl:

NOW you're done? :rofl:

[SidDithers]

97. +1...

Wonder how many more times they'll be done before November 2012? :rofl:

Sid

[inna]

102. :puke:

:puke:

[paulk]

88. this has happened before

a rail strike would do damage to the economy, and this move was to be expected.

The important thing to focus on is who Obama appoints to the PEB.

Those appointments will show his true colors.

[dionysus]

94. unrec for fabricated headline.

[StreetKnowledge]

106. Think this through for a minute.

Leaving aside the fact that as a former railroad employee, I will obviously be siding with the workers on this one. But that isn't important to the argument.

92,000 workers on strike would effectively shut down the United States' freight railroad system. Whether you agree with the workers or not, that's BAD. That's very bad, because it causes many more additional problems for many other workers. The whole point of this 60-day cool-off period (which has been used plenty of times before, and it doesn't usually go against the unions) is to keep the trains running and get everyone to cool it. The recommendation does not have to be accepted by the union, and if isn't, at the end of the 60 day period they can, and likely will, go back to strike conditions.

As for legislating them back to work again, that's a possibility, but its not a likely one. Four times out of five these recommendations are accepted by both sides and no more strike results. The companies won't want strikes, either - that's a lot of lost revenue, and being that freight railroads are service-driven organizations, labor problems nine times out of ten come back to bite them in the ass, and rail workers are very well aware of the sort of garbage the companies can come up with. A strike that lasts a couple weeks will do considerable damage to all of the companies in question, so this will likely end up being solved - honestly, the companies have more to lose here.

Trust those of us who know - this will probably be a good thing for both sides.

And for the record, I was one of the first people here to call for Obama's head. I am a former rail worker, and support these guys 200%, so DO NOT try to say I am against these workers. Twenty years ago, I WAS one of them.