On September 15, the United Auto Workers began a targeted strike against Ford, GM, and Stellantis (the conglomerate that includes Chrysler) in an effort to secure higher wages, a four-day work week, and other protections in the union’s next contract. The strike is a huge development for American workers, but it’s also a big deal for President Joe Biden—these car companies are central to his green-infrastructure agenda. The union wants assurances that the industry’s historic, heavily subsidized transition toward electric vehicles will work for them, too.

Biden, whose National Labor Relations Board has been an ally of labor organizers in fights against companies such as Amazon and Starbucks, has called himself “the most pro-union president in American history.” He has expressed support for the UAW’s cause (workers “deserve their fair share of the benefits they helped create,” he said last week) and has sent aides to Michigan to assist in the negotiations.

  • protist@mander.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    50
    arrow-down
    17
    ·
    1 year ago

    Well Congress did vote on a bill to give rail workers 7 days of sick leave at the same time as the vote preventing the strike. One bill got enough Republican support to pass, the other didn’t. If there were more Democrats in Congress, the outcome would have been more favorable to the unions, hands down

    • MonkCanatella
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      37
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      the cool thing about strikes is congress doesn’t have to vote for a company to give in to the demands of the workers. As a matter of fact congress has fuck all to do with it

      • protist@mander.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        12
        ·
        1 year ago

        Congress has the authority to require a company to give in to the demands of the workers, just not enough people in it who are willing to vote to do it

    • bdonvr@thelemmy.club
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      31
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      If they’d not intervened AT ALL they could’ve gotten even more by striking.

      Or even better just make a reasonable amount of sick days federal law for all, and also put better safety legislation for trains.

      • protist@mander.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        arrow-down
        24
        ·
        1 year ago

        Ok, and at real risk to many thousands of other people’s jobs when the rail system ground to a halt. When nurses go on strike, it’s expected more expensive travel nurses are going to step in to do patient care, because otherwise innocent people will be harmed. UAW goes on strike, no one steps in to take over because all that happens is corporate revenue starts to suffer, car prices may go up, repair parts may become harder to find or more expensive.

        If rail workers go on strike, the entire United States manufacturing sector grinds to a halt, plus serious impact on imports/exports, military readiness, and even food availability. Inflation would almost immediately have become much worse. Right wing and corporate media would have been running rampant with anti-union stories because public sentiment would have quickly shifted against the strike once the implications became clear. All this is ok though, because after devastating the US economy, the rail workers walk away with a slightly better contract than this one?

        • skulbuny
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          34
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          If the entire US economy necessitates oppressing rail workers, then yes, rail workers striking is a good thing. It sounds like they are extremely important, according to you, and should be listened to.

        • Ech@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          16
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Then get the asshole executives to compromise instead? Why is the blame here being put on the workers being exploited?

            • Ech@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              6
              ·
              1 year ago

              Maybe take a second pass at reading what I actually said, bud, unless you’re calling the workers “fucking scumbags”, and if that’s the case, right back at ya!

        • Hello Hotel@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          12
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          If i keep slaves, and those slaves feed my children. If they escape my children will starve, the whole negborhood will! Therefore it is immoral to let the slaves become free persons, EVER. /s

          The trolly problem clasically has no good answer, however the above statement has held down thousands of slaves in all but name. You are saying perpetuating slavery indefinitly causes less suffering than an unknown amount of starvation.

        • Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Sounds like the railroads are mismanaged to the point where the entire industry is so brittle that one strike of any duration at all would be a catastrophe.

          Sounds like a job for antitrust or nationalization. Of course, if we can’t muster the political will to impose terms on rail bosses, we’re sure as hell not gonna break them up or nationalize them.

    • Hello Hotel@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago
      hey me, angey and ill informed child, shut your face

      How does that not sound like a complete violation of the constitution. “We voted to give you 7 days to not work somtimes and in exchange took your right to not work”

    • Pectin8747@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      They’re the ones that made the call to split the bill saying it was guaranteed to pass which made no sense

      We need to stop saying “if there were more democrats” and start saying “if there were more socialists”

      • CoderKat@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yeah, it boggles my mind that the bills were split. The only reason I can think of to explain that is that they simply knew what was going to happen and any other explanation is just gaslighting us into thinking that they were doing something.

        • Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          Yeah, it boggles my mind that the bills were split.

          The only reason to split a bill is to pass the centrist/republican portion and let the progressive portion fail.