politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
That bar has been lying on the ground for decades. Clearing it is not an accomplishment.
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.
Yes, they do. The article dedicates half a sentence of the second paragraph generously giving them partial credit for Biden's Glorious Accomplishment.
From the article:
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.
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."
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.