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.

    • dannoffs@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      36
      arrow-down
      9
      ·
      9 months ago

      It’s wild to me that Biden broke the strike then got them the tiniest fucking concession afterwards and people think that’s an argument that he somehow was on the side of the union the whole time. Getting 4 sick days a year is absolutely nothing compared to the whole list of grievances and it’s embarrassing that people bring this up in response to him breaking the strike.

    • bdonvr@thelemmy.club
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      36
      arrow-down
      9
      ·
      9 months ago

      A fraction of the paid sick days they were asking for, while also not meeting their other major demands at all. Ending Precision Scheduled Railroading was a big one. Still going on.

      They stopped them from striking and potentially making greater gains, then tossed them some crumbs.

      They should have stayed the hell out of it or used the government’s power to stop the rail companies not the strikers.

      • protist@mander.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        24
        arrow-down
        10
        ·
        9 months 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@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          21
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          9 months 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
            4
            arrow-down
            6
            ·
            9 months 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
          18
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          9 months 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
            7
            arrow-down
            11
            ·
            9 months 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@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              19
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              9 months 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
              1
              ·
              9 months ago

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

        • Hello Hotel@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          9 months ago

          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”