Last month it appeared the threat of a railroad strike had been averted. Yesterday, a union vote rejected the negotiated contract and the threat of a strike landed back on the table.
“Railroaders are discouraged and upset with working conditions and compensation and hold their employer in low regard. Railroaders do not feel valued,” Cardwell said in a statement. “They resent the fact that management holds no regard for their quality of life, illustrated by their stubborn reluctance to provide a higher quantity of paid time off, especially for sickness.”
The group that represents the railroads in negotiations said they were disappointed the union rejected the agreement, but emphasized that no immediate threat of a strike exists because the union agreed to keep working for now.
If just one union strikes, the trains do not run. Cargoes do not get delivered. The “spice" does not flow.
For most Americans, these are higher stakes than the brinksmanship game NATO is playing with Putin. Whether the players realize this is an open question.
The President does not have that authority, or anything close to it.
"Martial law" on a nationwide basis is an impossibility, given that the Posse Comitatus Act precludes using the military in any law enforcement role except at the direction of Congress.
Remember, the President is only the Commander-In-Chief. The Congress has final say over how the military is to be utilized in this country.
Possibly. It's also possible that the negotiators, having gotten some (but not all) of what the union rank and file wanted, figured it was time to put a bona fide contract proposal before the union to vote up or down.
Either way, the negotiations will continue, and whether a strike ensues depends on who blinks first.
Ah, Biden will declare martial law national security emergency to cancel mid term elections.
No. He will not.
The President does not have that authority, or anything close to it.
"Martial law" on a nationwide basis is an impossibility, given that the Posse Comitatus Act precludes using the military in any law enforcement role except at the direction of Congress.
Remember, the President is only the Commander-In-Chief. The Congress has final say over how the military is to be utilized in this country.
Sounds like the union negotiators and the members are not on the same page.
Possibly. It's also possible that the negotiators, having gotten some (but not all) of what the union rank and file wanted, figured it was time to put a bona fide contract proposal before the union to vote up or down.
Either way, the negotiations will continue, and whether a strike ensues depends on who blinks first.