floridays
Well-Known Member
Good humor.Tentatively .

Good humor.Tentatively .
The don't think the union would want the negative PR certain to come if they were to turn down the deal. Continuing to work without a contract is a show of good faith and not only will acceptance of the deal be good PR it might also be kind of preserving some degree of public tolerance the Teamsters will desperately need next summer if they walk.Has the deal been signed?
Until has been nothing has been averted. One comes before the other, one is dependent on the other.
The don't think the union would want the negative PR certain to come if they were to turn down the deal. Continuing to work without a contract is a show of good faith and not only will acceptance of the deal be good PR it might also be kind of preserving some degree of public tolerance the Teamsters will desperately need next summer if they walk.
That’s a good thing![]()
U.S. rail strike averted, but labor deal faces tough union votes
President Joe Biden's administration secured a tentative deal on Thursday to avert a railway strike that could have wreaked havoc on the U.S. economy, but union members angered by tough work conditions have yet to ratify the agreement.www.reuters.com
That’s not a worry anymore either.
Nobody does.. The President can order them back to work should they strike, a Federal judge can do the same.
Biden doesn't want to go down that road.
The well known fact is that the reason Clinton refused to intervene in the 97 Teamsters strike was because he got word that the Teamsters had a federal judge somewhere here in the US lined ready to hit Clinton with an injunction if he tried to get in the fray. Biden and Marty Walsh DOL politely but firmly pushed both sides toward and agreement. The President can order them back to work should they strike, a Federal judge can do the same.
Biden doesn't want to go down that road.
Even with the pain that would be inflicted I think a showdown maybe what is needed.Nobody does.
Commerce clause maybe?Even with the pain that would be inflicted I think a showdown maybe what is needed.
I wouldn't like the consequences, but I think t maybe what is needed. I'm not aware where the president gets the power to broker a deal between a union and management.
Nope.Commerce clause maybe?
Sam on a different point, Biden or a Federal judge can order railroad strikers back to work (under the RLA), neither has the authority (legally) to broker a deal however.Commerce clause maybe?
Could issue an executive order and make them go back to work and into negotiations if he can make it stick. Some quiet sabre rattling was all it took to make both sides more agreeable to each others demands.Even with the pain that would be inflicted I think a showdown maybe what is needed.
I wouldn't like the consequences, but I think t maybe what is needed. I'm not aware where the president gets the power to broker a deal between a union and management.
What the hell are you talking about? You are smart by 1/2.Could issue an executive order and make them go back to work and into negotiations if he can make it stick. Some quiet sabre rattling was all it took to make both sides more agreeable to each others demands.
Raj got the red squirrel treatment from Cramer tonight on Mad Money. Cramer always worshipped the ground Fat Freddy walked on and it was clear that he has little trust in what Raj had been saying in recent weeks since he officially took over. Tonight was clearly Raj's "come to Jesus moment" where he finally admitted the fact that things are bad and are not going to get better anytime soon.
You've made it thoroughly clear that you hope the current contractors lose theirGod help you if you're a contractor and you've got every cent of money to your name tied up in this company.
What you said made me curious so I undertook a quick lookup. As it turns out the president lacks statute of law to order strikers back to work but he does have a long history of past presidential precedent to support a back to work order. Under emergency powers exclusive to the president he could state that the welfare of the nation as a whole is being threatened and order a back to work order stating as well the need for "cooling off" period.What the hell are you talking about? You are smart by 1/2.
I already said he could order them back to work, an executive order is not needed. Negotiations would go on.
Under the RLA he does.What you said made me curious so I undertook a quick lookup. As it turns out the president lacks statute of law to order strikers back to work but he does have a long history of past presidential precedent to support a back to work order. Under emergency powers exclusive to the president he could state that the welfare of the nation as a whole is being threatened and order a back to work order stating as well the need for "cooling off" period.
I take no comfort in the realization that many contractors are going to experience some very difficult times ahead. perhaps the worst they've ever experienced as contractors. As the same time trucking is an extremely recession sensitive business and it now appears that is where we're headed. It's certainly not the first and won't be the last but that's trucking for you. In past recessions RPS/FXG did do a little bit here and there to help contractors to keep going. That willingness no longer appears to be there and I think it's due to too many contractors projecting a certain image of excessive prosperity. In other words in the eyes of X they were making out TOO good at this and are now expected to be able to endure some tough times ahead because they are perceived as being capable of doing so.You've made it thoroughly clear that you hope the current contractors lose their.
Deny it, I read your heart in every post.