Thread by @magi_jay

I'm loathe to step into Railroad Debate, as I'm not an expert, but I wish people would acknowledge the following:
-This deal has been worked on for years
-8/12 of the unions voted for it. That doesn't mean the 4 that rejected it don't matter. But the 8 who ratified matter too

This has been a lengthy process. The contract was voted on by multiple unions; 8 ratified; 4 rejected. Those unions then entered into a "cooling off" period wherein union leaders began negotiating with *one another* about ratification. So there has been an inter-union debate.

The deal that was reached between union leaders & the railroads did not include paid sick leave, which was the real sticking point. Other benefits were gained: wage increases, healthcare, etc. That's not enough, imo. But it's not on *me* to tell the 8/12 unions "So now strike."

Now, I'm not even going to go into defending/criticizing Biden, here. But there's a lot of important information missing from this convo, for example: *do* the members of the 8/12 unions who ratified want to be compelled to strike? Or do they want to keep the deal they voted on?

There's a lot of complicated questions to resolve if one is taking a truly "pro-worker" position but, frankly, I don't see a lot of "complicated question asking." More flat-out misinformation, much of which includes no voices from the "workers" we're apparently fighting for

Turnout was also up for most unions during the latest round of voting. For example, only 28% of the Brotherhood of Railway Carmen voted in 2018; this surged to 58% in Sept, 2022. The union ratified. TCIU voting increased from 34% to 49%. Also ratified.

Now, am I saying this means you should feel one way or another about Biden, Congress, or the RLA? No, but the dynamics between the RELEVANT WORKERS are much more complicated than they are made out to be & the more you realize that, the more facile the online debate becomes

People say "The 4 that voted against represent more members than in the other 8." I understand why people find this a compelling point (I did), but the more I think about it, the less sense I can make of it. Are we going to hammer out the intricacies of union power on twitter?

The way the rail unions work now, if not all ratify the agreement, all must go on strike unless other steps are taken. I guess we could debate how this should all work, but, in reality, this process was decided on by unions, so I'm not gonna step in like "this % matters more"

These unions represent different* workers with different jobs. Different risk/strain/time away. I can hazard a real guess that many unions would actually NOT want us to push for "majority rules" in terms of members, as that could lessen power for smaller workforces in more danger

This whole situation raises a lot of really interesting questions about worker power, union power, the balance of fighting for rights thru strikes vs. protecting the public (including other workers!) from strike-induced harm, the threat of strike-induced harm being misused, etc

At the end of the day, tho, we can't begin to have any of those conversations with how much misinformation there is out there. Nor can we claim to stand up for workers when we're not even aware of the fact that these workers have been negotiating *amongst one another for years*

For my part, I'd start with asking, "Do any of these unions actually want to strike?" Did those who voted in favor of the contract want Congress to step in or not? And what distinguishes those unions who did not ratify--Boilermakers, Signalmen, etc--from those who did?

I've been trying to puzzle through the bigger Qs--shutting down the economy to secure sick leave (which I believe is a right) for some, whereas other workers w/in this same economy who also don't have sick leave will suffer. Is that "pro-worker?"

At the same time, economic suffering is the leverage of the strike. "Don't do this because it will cause harm" could be taken as an argument against any strike. These are, again, truly complicated, theoretical questions.

But I really just care about this right now, in terms of the current debate: people need to stop claiming they're standing up for "workers" when workers' are themselves in enough dispute about their best interests, here. We're not even talking about the same workforce here.

Here is what union leaders from the dissenting unions had to say about Congressional action last night. It amounts to: Democrats are sticking with us; Republicans aren't. Keep fighting for sick leave.