• Rodeo@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    So there’s an option to support the working class and option to support the rich, and he chose to support the rich, and only came back for workers later.

    Why can’t we just expect him to do better for the workers in the first place?

    • SCB@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      The people who would have been negatively impacted by the strike would be working class people. If trains shut down, people die.

      Every city is less than 48 hours from a starvation crisis, all the time.

      • Rodeo@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        It’s that bad, and he didn’t just give the workers what they wanted immediately? If they’re that important, why is it even a debate? If the country depends on them, give them what they want.

        • SCB@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          It’s that bad, and he didn’t just give the workers what they wanted immediately?

          A) it’s not “bad” it’s just the way cities work. Always has been, and will be the case until we truly master vertical farming.

          B) Presidents aren’t kings. There is a sizable portion of Congress that is extremely anti-Union.

          Edit: lmao it should read “union” with lower-case but fuck it because those people tend to be anti-Union too