Doug

It's been a long time since I watched this one. Do they explain why Thomas has a beard?

That is goofy as fuck. Glad I didn't make any such claim.

To borrow from the theme song of the place that gave Selena her start:

Yes please

I didn't know that, thanks for the info. I honestly wasn't even sure if it was still a thing or it had dissolved when we weren't actively caring about it.

It's definitely a legal quagmire that hopefully they considered when creating it. Or at least will now.

I also agree that it's incredibly unlikely to happen this cycle even if it were active. The party that keeps flirting with candidates that may not be eligible in all states has a terrible track record of getting the popular vote.

Do you know if any states happened to pass the requirement to release tax documents in order to be on the presidential ballot? I recall there being talk of that

I agree that's what should have happened. But if it was always on the union side it wouldn't take long for the right wing to start dismantling those protections.

Really if they're instrumental to national security they shouldn't be privatized either. But just like internet should be classified under the same utility regulations as electric et al, it's not gonna happen in the existing state of affairs.

For anyone looking for a relevant source to "but those 8 represent far less than half of the affected workforce." I don't have that but I will offer this

If you want the cliff notes rather than read it, it mentions that BLET, possibly the second largest from what I've seen, with about 24,000 voted to accept the offer by about 53.5%. The largest, about 28,000, voted against 50.87%. Total union rail workers looks to be around 115,000. Really calls the claim into question so I'll wait here for the source that backs it up since I apparently know "dick about dick".

Pretty sure for people who aren't self important jackasses the point of a strike is to demonstrate to the upper parts of a company that the workers are a vital part of operations and force them into giving better conditions. Not actively making life worse for countless uninvolved people.

It's almost like you can't separate purpose and impact.

Because my ability to see a position means I support it? Well done.

8 out of 12 orgs agreed, but those 8 represent far less than half of the affected workforce.

You got a source on that? Because I heard it differently. The statement remains true regardless but I'll happily admit if I'm wrong there.

Fun how the people who love to shriek about

Why is it always severe? Where did I "shriek"? It tracks with your assumptive behavior. Maybe take a moment to breathe and realize we are complex beings that are capable of seeing outside our own points of view.

If their jobs are so fucking critical we should probably take care of those employees, shouldn't we

Yes. Wholeheartedly yes. Anyone essential which clearly needs to include retail workers along side EMTs and plenty more. You say this like you think I'll argue against it, but that's probably because you assumed more about me than you bothered to consider.

instead of stripping their legal right to collective bargaining?

Is "you can't strike right now" the same as stripping those rights? Are the unions dismantled or has one option, admittedly a large important one, been denied in a way everyone knew was a possibility when it was being discussed?

It's neat how the slightest labor action or a single Mom being able to afford rent is always the base cause of inflation but years of ballooning pricing to brag about "record profits" have nothing to do with anything.

What? Companies making record profits is absolutely the cause. I didn't even imply otherwise. But if your arm is broken do you push your car uphill or do you put it in a cast (assuming you have the means to afford healthcare)? A thing can exacerbate a thing without being a cause in the first place.

Eat my whole ass faschie.

You aren't nearly as insightful or helpful as you think you are

I'm very much with you there. The other option was rooted in the idea of being invested in improvement for their constituants. As long as you crack down on "contributions" you'd probably also see a lot less PAC money in a whole lot of areas too.

But there should be more motivation for them to see the people succeed. The job itself clearly isn't enough for a lot of them.

I was thinking about this concept the other day.

As I recall a few states joined an agreement to give their vote to whoever won the popular vote regardless. Assuming that were still to happen, what if the popular vote went to someone who wasn't on the ballot in their state?

I doubt it's going to come up here, but it does make me curious.

You realize that a rail strike would cripple the US, skyrocket inflation, and create shortages all over, right?

Also that the unions overall didn't want to strike, but if everyone in all but the smallest rail union voted not to strike and the smallest one voted to with the smallest majority they could they'd all be obligated to?

By all means criticize as you feel it's appropriate, but be informed about how you do.

There are a few things that should be tied to other things imo.

Congressional salary? Median income for your district might be a good one. Something related to minimum wage could also work.