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.
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.
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?
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.
Then get the asshole executives to compromise instead? Why is the blame here being put on the workers being exploited?
Oh duh! Why didn't they think of that!? Just compromise with the fucking scumbags, easy!
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!
My point is that I think they've been trying to compromise with the executive scumbags for a long time
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.
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.
deleted by creator