this post was submitted on 10 Sep 2026
788 points (95.7% liked)

Work Reform

17675 readers
2612 users here now

A place to discuss positive changes that can make work more equitable, and to vent about current practices. We are NOT against work; we just want the fruits of our labor to be recognized better.

Our Philosophies:

Our Goals

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] BluescreenOfDeath@lemmy.world 60 points 3 weeks ago (22 children)

I'll be the first one to say that the current Democratic party needs replacing, but they're not wrong.

Or did everyone forget that you need a supermajority in the Senate to get past the Presidential veto?

Is anyone truly naive enough to think that Donald Trump would sign anything the Democrats put forward? The man who told Republicans to tank legislation with things they wanted in it to avoid giving Democrats a win?

Unless you're advocating for a revolution, you have to work within the system. And it's not the Democrats fault that is easier to break a thing than to fix it.

It's always easy to point out a problem. Solutions are what we need, and all this kind of post does is discourage left-leaning people from voting, which is what the Republicans want.

So unless you have something resembling an actual solution, this just seems like virtue signaling to me.

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 39 points 3 weeks ago (6 children)

they’re not wrong.

Why can Republicans govern with a slim majority while Democrats consistently need a supermajority?

[–] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 23 points 3 weeks ago (25 children)

The democratic party accomplished all of its goals during the biden administration: they sold weapons for genocide.

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 15 points 3 weeks ago (20 children)

People hate when you say it, but the Democratic Party is Controlled Opposition.

A bunch of them are just paid to lose.

load more comments (20 replies)
load more comments (24 replies)
[–] BeefGyro@lemmy.zip 16 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Because they also have the office of the president.

Currently anyway.

If one party controls both houses of congress and the president and has a sympathetic Supreme Court majority they can do a lot more than if they only have one or 2 of those things.

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 19 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (9 children)

Because they also have the office of the president.

"We need a supermajority" was a response Democrats gave in 2009 and 2021.

If one party controls both houses of congress and the president

Did Republicans pass legislation they supported between 2011 and 201~~7~~ 5? Did they pass legislation they supported between 2023 and 2025?

load more comments (9 replies)
[–] daychilde@lemmy.world 13 points 3 weeks ago

Republicans historically do not fucking govern. They give tax cuts to the oligarchs and otherwise have a concept of a plan in two weeks. They lie and lie and lie. They are the ones pushing the "gummit is borken" lie - and making sure it appears to be true.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] SwingingTheLamp@piefed.zip 39 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

I will say that there's immense value in symbolism, performative values, and simply being caught trying by voters. Yes the President will veto anything good, but fucking make him do it. Go on social media and the talk shows to rip him a new one for all of the good things that he's actively preventing. Move the Overton Window. Change the terms of the public discourse.

Governing long ago moved beyond mere parliamentary procedure; it also needs to be a show that the people in the cheap seats (a.k.a. low-information voters) can watch.

[–] AppleTea@lemmy.zip 23 points 3 weeks ago

Careful, that almost sounds like something a competent opposition party would do.

[–] Rentlar@lemmy.ca 19 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

The thing is that many people are looking too short-sightedly for the internal (non-revolution-like) reform path. The goal for change is 2028, but change in 2028 can't get off the ground running, if a 2026 sweep doesn't. (I wish you had a Westminster system with no-confidence votes, but alas).

What Congress can do is to compel Trump administration officials to get their asses into the chamber. They can put articles and lawsuits with appropriate standing to:

  • Halt ballroom construction.
  • Halt reckless and unnecessary tariffs.
  • Halt the endless war spending on the unauthorized military adventure Iran.
  • Halt funding for Israel.
  • Abolish/stymie/revoke funding from ICE.
  • Have the DoJ release the Epstein files.
  • Assess Trump's mental state and capacity to lead.
  • Release funding that Congress allocated but the Trump admin is withholding or disbursing unevenly (e.g. FEMA)
  • Collect evidence to make the case to impeach the justices or reform the Supreme Court in 2028.

Congress under leadership of feckless Republicans and sometimes Democrats haven't asserted the power of the purse. For budgetary matters, votes can be held without permanently removing the cloture rule. And if Trump refuses to sign a bill voted on D-party lines to fund the government while implementing changes, the government will shut down once again and the bill will await him on the desk until he signs it. He will try to shift blame as he always does, but the government has shutdown led by Republicans or Democrats, the common thread is his incompetent ass in charge for most of the time since 2016.

[–] inclementimmigrant@lemmy.world 15 points 3 weeks ago

I don't think that OP is expecting Democrats or Progressives to get things through the Trump administration without a supermajority that can override his veto. What we are hoping for/expecting is that Democrats and Progressives to say "Fuck you, we're passing this bill and sending it on."

Medicare for All? "Fuck you we're passing this bill, veto it motherfucker!". Taxing rich people? "Fuck you we're passing this bill, veto this PDF". Repealing the Medicare cuts? "Hey, asshole, we passed it, oh and go fuck yourselves". Repeal the procedural filibuster? "Fuck it, we'll do it live!". Impeachment? "Hey, it's Tuesday, this asshole just did something unbecoming of the office, guess it's time to have another impeachment hearing, oh and fuck you, that's why."

Just try instead of rolling over on day one, what we're asking for even if you know it's destined to fail and show that you're willing to do the work. Back your shit up with actions instead of just words of "Well it'll never pass so we'll never try". Say what you will about Republicans, when they get in power, they do not give a fuck and will introduce every bad idea in their head and dare the President to veto it and that's why their base votes for them consistently.

That's what OP I think is asking people to remember.

[–] Mulligrubs@lemmy.world 13 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

They never, ever need a super majority. EVER.

That rule can be changed at any time by simple majority vote. That cloture rule is a parliamentary rule and is not law.

Don't be duped. Please look at what they call "the nuclear option."

There are over 180 exceptions to the super majority so far (last time I checked a few years ago).

(fun fact: the "nuclear option" was first called that by Trent Lott, a Republican, in the 2000s. Both parties immediately adopted the term because it scares the shit out of voters. What was it called before that? "the constitutional option").

Don't be a sucker. If they want to pass something, viola! It's an exception (like our budgets). If they don't want to pass something, but they want the voters to think that they do, "oh no, we need a super majority, super sorry we tried so hard!"

The solution is very simple. No other nation requires super majority votes for a reason.

No laws need to be changed.

[–] BillyClark@piefed.social 26 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

You are thinking of filibuster, which I agree is just like you're saying.

However, they were talking about overriding the presidential veto, which is specifically defined in Article 1, Section 7 of the Constitution as needing a 2/3 majority in both houses. Not a simple majority. You also cannot adopt a rule that supersedes the Constitution.

Here's the specific paragraph that I copied from Wikipedia

Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States; If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law. But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively. If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law.

[–] zbyte64@awful.systems 19 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

I remember how the current congress led us to a government shutdown only to fold like lawn chairs in return for a pinky promise that was later broken. There are options that don't require overriding the president because congress has the power of the purse and the power to investigate.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (17 replies)
[–] samus12345@sh.itjust.works 42 points 3 weeks ago
[–] aesthelete@lemmy.world 42 points 3 weeks ago (28 children)

When apparently you can just rename everything America and after yourself at whim as President, the never-ending excuses for getting nothing done during Democratic presidential administrations will not cut it for me this time.

load more comments (28 replies)
[–] BarneyPiccolo@lemmy.today 28 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

My favorite Mamdani quote:

"For far too long, our party has seen its job as managing decline instead of delivering material change for working people,” Mamdani said at a rally headlined by Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders. “It has seen its job as explaining why we cannot instead of showing how we can"

The Corpo-Establishment, MAGA Lite Dems are going to try to be losers again, but the new DemSocs aren't going to allow it, and more importantly, neither are we. They will do their jobs this time, or they will be treated as harshly as MAGAs.

If they try to sandbag the next Dem administration again, in another transparent attempt to hand it back to the MAGAs, then they will be treated the same as MAGAs, and end up in prison or at the end a rope.

We're nearly as fed up with Dems as we are with MAGAs, and it starts with Schmuck & Jeffries. They are the first to go, to make way for real Democratic Leadership, and not just Manchurian MAGAs.

[–] almost_genocide@lemmy.world 11 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

Exactly. Obama's

Yes we can

Resonated with a lot of people and then it turned out he and the Democratic senators of the 111th congress had no intention on following through.

[–] uriel238@lemmy.blahaj.zone 25 points 3 weeks ago (7 children)

We need to organize twelve million Americans under a common manifesto.

If the Democrats don't take power in 2029 (both houses of the legislature and the executive), if they fail to move quickly, overhauling SCOTUS and ironcladding elections to stop tampering and voter suppression cold, then the US public needs to occupy Washington by multiple millions with a list of demands.

Or general strike.

Or riot in multiple municipal areas hard enough to overwhelm responders.

Or go on a billionaire assassination spree.

If we cannot do that, then we're all going to be packed onto the cattle cars. Not necessarily all together, but the US will fall to one-party autocracy.

US Dictatorship by 2033 is on the BINGO card.

[–] almost_genocide@lemmy.world 12 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Or general strike.

This tbh. I've got very little faith in politicians to do something at this point. I would have been happy if 2022 Democratic senators and Biden did nothing and refused to get involved with the rail strike. Yet in another display of solidarity with corporations and billionaires they moved quickly to pass a bipartisan bill to block the rail strike. Wild.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (6 replies)
[–] Avicenna@programming.dev 20 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

I wonder if even after Trump they will run with the "Change takes time you have to be patient" bullshit again. That is if they ever get relected.

[–] Squirrelknight@lemmy.world 19 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

They'll do the "We look forward, we don't look back" bullshit that Obama pulled post Bush.

Nobody important in the Trump administration will be prosecuted or punished in any meaningful way. Just you watch, we've been here before.

[–] SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca 17 points 3 weeks ago (12 children)

The real trick: Republicans know their best shot of winning elections is to energize their base with "Democrats are going to destroy the country so you must go vote" while at the same time promoting the narrative "Democrats won't do anything so you should bother voting" to de-energize the opposition.

It's a very very obvious strategy being deployed here.

But go on and pretend you're an edgy contrarian while spreading the exact narrative the fascists want you to spread.

[–] almost_genocide@lemmy.world 8 points 3 weeks ago (5 children)

Democrats won’t do anything

Why do you suppose this is effective?

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (11 replies)
[–] mlg@lemmy.world 17 points 3 weeks ago (3 children)

Lol I already said a year ago that even if they gain a supermajority, they'll still somehow fail to successfully impeach Trump.

For the third time.

[–] myyass@lemmy.world 13 points 3 weeks ago

I got the notion of this a long time ago. I mean like Obama expanding the Patriot Act. Like thanks for doing what I voted for you not to do. The opposite of progress is Congress. And there's a whole lot of Cons.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Doc_Crankenstein@slrpnk.net 16 points 2 weeks ago

It's almost like the system is designed to prevent the working class from gaining any headway while consistently capitulating to the whims of capital.

The intrinsic failure of arbitrarily hierarchical systems. When the working class demands change, it can't happen because [arbitrary barriers we blindly obey] while anytime the owning-class demands it, suddenly we must make compromises for the benefit of the "county's economy"

Never forget the state and the economy are intrinsically linked. The state is a tool of the ruling class to oppress the working class. It is fundamental to the system itself.

[–] knobbysideup@sh.itjust.works 14 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Primaries are the time to do this. It's the reason I moved from independent to democrat as PA only lets you vote in primaries with party affiliation.

[–] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 11 points 3 weeks ago (3 children)

Those things we didn't get in 2024?

[–] i_need_your_bones@piefed.social 10 points 3 weeks ago

Democrat primaries, famous for listening to the voters and propping up who they vote for. Never any fuckery in a democratic primary

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works 14 points 3 weeks ago (15 children)

Yeah - Biden tried that, and literally nothing impactful actually happened, and then they all just threw up their hands and said “well, we tried, that should be good enough”

[–] schipelblorp@sh.itjust.works 9 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

The United States has a huge problem with presidential pardon power. Anyone serious about accountability needs to advocate for getting rid of it.

[–] Keilik@lemmy.world 11 points 3 weeks ago

It’s not even just the pardons really, it’s the fact that so much of government runs on vibes^tm^ and the belief that elected officials will always act in good faith. So the pardons need to be reformed but a lot more things do as well. Like the fact it’s literally impossible to do a constitutional amendment now.

load more comments (14 replies)
[–] chunes@lemmy.world 13 points 3 weeks ago

I'm not convinced they'll regain power. The fucking president just promised to pay $5,000 per vote. He is trying to gain power over mail-in votes. He prevents interviews with democrats from airing on TV. He has friends that admit to messing with voting machines.

THIS IS NOT DEMOCRACY.

[–] dream_weasel@sh.itjust.works 9 points 3 weeks ago (5 children)

Let's get to that point and at the same time run candidates to prevent it happening again.

"Oh my God he's bleeding out! We have to stop the bleeding"

"Yeah I've seen this before, he's just going to start bleeding again. Do you want Arby's?"

Let's fix problems, take incremental wins where available, and not be morons about it.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] SoloCritical@lemmy.world 9 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] cyclonedusk@lemmy.blahaj.zone 9 points 3 weeks ago (5 children)

if we were smart, we'd prosecute the centrists as accomplices. because they are.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] HalfSalesman@lemmy.world 8 points 3 weeks ago

"When" lots of optimism in that word.

load more comments
view more: next ›