The UAW deserves the credit for succeeding with the strike,
Yes, they do. The article dedicates half a sentence of the second paragraph generously giving them partial credit for Biden’s Glorious Accomplishment.
but it’s disingenuous to suggest Biden had no effect at all.
From the article:
This is mostly a story about victorious workers and the power of collective bargaining, but by the transferative property, which I just invented, it should also be a victory for Biden, who sided with the workers, walked a picket line with them, and can rightfully note that their success is evidence of a strong economy, with tight labor markets.
The author makes up a fucking word to transfer credit from the people who earned it to the guy who showed up and made a speech. The article goes on to call it “his (Biden’s) substantive success.” Don’t get me wrong, it’s nice to finally have a president who is openly on the side of unions, but let’s not credit him with the heavy lifting, because he didn’t do any.
There’s one thing you’re missing in your criticism of calling it a photo op – why was it a photo op for him?
Because people still saw him as a strikebreaker. Yes, I know, the rail workers got some of what they wanted thanks to him. But let’s not pretend the word of that actually got out, because Democrats suck at messaging. He needed to be seen as supporting unions so his “most pro union president in decades” thing didn’t ring hollow. It was damage control. Which continues with articles like this that are basically “sure the workers did stuff or whatever, but here’s why Biden made it happen.”
At the absolute very least, take it as an acknowledgement by Biden that union support is the majority in popular opinion.
I’m glad that unions are back to the point where Democrats realize they need union support. They’ve been chopped liver at best as far as the party is concerned since Carter lost to Reagan.
EDIT: The article gave Biden credit for a substantive success, not a substantive accomplishment.
Still, even knowing he needed to make up for the rail strike says a lot. And I’m quite pleased with everything his administration did in the background to continue advocating for the workers until the companies relented. I do largely agree though, this isn’t Biden’s W. He helped get them there, but he shouldn’t be credited for the whole thing.
Yes, they do. The article dedicates half a sentence of the second paragraph generously giving them partial credit for Biden’s Glorious Accomplishment.
From the article:
The author makes up a fucking word to transfer credit from the people who earned it to the guy who showed up and made a speech. The article goes on to call it “his (Biden’s) substantive success.” Don’t get me wrong, it’s nice to finally have a president who is openly on the side of unions, but let’s not credit him with the heavy lifting, because he didn’t do any.
Because people still saw him as a strikebreaker. Yes, I know, the rail workers got some of what they wanted thanks to him. But let’s not pretend the word of that actually got out, because Democrats suck at messaging. He needed to be seen as supporting unions so his “most pro union president in decades” thing didn’t ring hollow. It was damage control. Which continues with articles like this that are basically “sure the workers did stuff or whatever, but here’s why Biden made it happen.”
I’m glad that unions are back to the point where Democrats realize they need union support. They’ve been chopped liver at best as far as the party is concerned since Carter lost to Reagan.
EDIT: The article gave Biden credit for a substantive success, not a substantive accomplishment.
Still, even knowing he needed to make up for the rail strike says a lot. And I’m quite pleased with everything his administration did in the background to continue advocating for the workers until the companies relented. I do largely agree though, this isn’t Biden’s W. He helped get them there, but he shouldn’t be credited for the whole thing.