politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
beats me. in the healthcare world kaiser is pretty polarizing. the effectiveness of having the entire healthcare system in one network has a lot of benefits (patient access, communication between physicians, billing) - but of course with that level of vertical power means that there's ample room for greed to get in the way of prioritizing patient care and dignified treatment of their providers. So it's possible they have a lot more money than we think, which means more time to try to demoralize the strikers.
It could be an emotional/ego factor as well... execs who feel too proud to fold.
what are your thoughts?
I really don’t know. I was surprised to read that statement from the Hollywood exec that said they were planning on starving out the writers, and thought that not only was he idiotically saying the quiet part out loud, but he was guaranteeing the strike would go on just because of the level odd moral offense.
I think where we go wrong is when we expect businesses to act as rational actors as if philosophical capitalism described real phenomena. For all I know, there is no spreadsheet saying that they’ll be bleeding $500M per month so fallback to negotiates a settlement if the strike lasts for more than five weeks. But that’s what I’d expect and want to see. I mean, I side with the strike, but also don’t want to think there’s some Elon fanboy calling the shots for Kaiser.