Joe Biden doesn't need to take a position on the filibuster. Those arguing that the filibuster is stalling legislation important to the American people are probably wrong. Ending the filibuster will not make things better in the Senate, the political gridlock will continue regardless of whether the filibuster exists or not.
Here is a good explanation why from By Richard A. Arenberg on The Washington Post:
"Making her case against the filibuster in 2017, the New Yorker’s Amy Davidson Sorkin argued that a 60-vote requirement 'led to gridlock, not to governance. Instead of pushing Senators to compromise, it protected them from the consequences of their rhetoric and their extremism.' President Trump agrees: During the 2017 congressional debate on the fate of Obamacare, he tweeted, 'Get rid of Filibuster Rule!'
But leaving most questions to a simple majority vote would render the Senate much like the House of Representatives, with tightly controlled debate time and restrictions on amending legislation. Once the majority no longer needed to negotiate with the minority to pass bills, compromise would become more elusive, not less, unless one party controlled both houses and the White House.
And even when bills pass in the Senate, opportunities for gridlock remain. The filibuster played no role, for instance, in the partisan gridlock that killed the “Gang of Eight” immigration bill in 2013. A bipartisan majority passed it in the Senate, but the Republican speaker, John Boehner, refused to take it up in the House."
Removing the filibuster will stop the public relations debate on an issue that really doesn't solve political dysfunction in The Senate. The filibuster is not the problem, it is the people being elected to the Senate that are the problem.
There are four more myths about the filibuster written by Richard A. Arenberg on the Washington Post. It is worth the read.