This is so shortsighted that I feel I need to recommend a good optometrist.
Comment on UAW will not expand strikes at Detroit automakers after last-minute GM proposal
Sunforged@lemmy.world 8 months ago
17% of union membership is on strike. They need to go full 100% and show who has the power and stand in solidarity as one.
surewhynotlem@lemmy.world 8 months ago
unfreeradical@lemmy.world 8 months ago
Class struggle entails shifting balances of power.
Many groups are interacting within each side.
Workers currently have little power, but the UAW action has so far seemed as one of the most momentous opportunities in recent memory.
Building power depends on seeking gains that may be expected to be both reached and held. Once a stronger position is reached, then the even stronger position becomes closer at hand.
You are suggesting throwing everything at a single opportunity within hostile and untested climate.
It is wise to seek modest gains one at a time, trying to encourage everyone that better days are coming soon.
At the moment, even a substantial symbolic victory in one area would be quite significant in terms of building momentum to expand movements across the working class. When one group of workers rises, even by only a modest increment, we all gain power in the shared struggle, power we can use to climb higher.
Sunforged@lemmy.world 8 months ago
I am so confused by this comment. Your talking like we have nothing in history to compare this to when the writers strike won after a 3 month strike just last week.
unfreeradical@lemmy.world 8 months ago
I question the comparison that an entire union must strike in one particular case, simply because such a strategy was successful in another case. Many strong differences in circumstances are relevant.
Sunforged@lemmy.world 8 months ago
The difference is that Hollywood was actually at a much weaker position for a number of reasons. The first is that the nature of the business means the production house had many projects in the can, waiting to release. This meant the impact of the strike could be rode out for longer before releases began being impacted by the strike. In comparison as soon as UAW closes down a shop the big 3 start losing money.
The second is Hollywood was up against wall street, there was a strong interest by investors to break up the strike, not just in Hollywood but in all industries. The reasoning is that labor wins translate to more labor fights, they want to demoralize any attempt to get a fair share and reduce profits. UAW is in a stronger position today than the writers and actors were when they started, so why is Fain pumping the breaks when he could be building more momentum (for both his members and the labor movement at large) with a full strike?
You might disagree but my criticism is a valid one, moral within the union isn’t great and it would be easy to fix by fighting together.
tsz@lemmy.world 8 months ago
How old are you, honestly?
what_is_a_name@lemmy.world 8 months ago
It’s expensive to be on strike. Also for the union and its members. They are making sure they do not lose the war of attrition.
Sunforged@lemmy.world 8 months ago
Union members are being laid off, leading to confusion and hurting moral. The war of attrition is more than just the strike fund, and it is sad one of the largest and well funded unions is making a show of worrying over their coffers when they have more than enough to win three contract fights.
Kbin_space_program@kbin.social 8 months ago
They're trying a new strike strategy that plays the companies against one another. By rewarding companies when they play ball they can allow them to get a potential leg up on their compeition who maybe decided against a particular thing.
It allows the union to better pressure the companies and allows the union strike funds to go further. It's a novel approach, and is working so far. Hopefully it will bear fruit.
jonne@infosec.pub 8 months ago
And it allows the strike fund to go a lot further too.
Sunforged@lemmy.world 8 months ago
They have enough in their strike fund for an all out strike for 10 months. How long do you think these negotiations should be stretched out?
tsz@lemmy.world 8 months ago
This kind of ridiculous black and white opinion that completely ignores the reality of the situation and the goals of the groups involved has become way too prevalent on here. All it says to me is that you have no legitimate experience working, losing money, or for that matter, striking. I’m so sick of lemmy and these attitudes. Just calm the fuck down and think before you speak. You are contributing to the dumbest echo chamber to have ever seen. You’re out of touch with reality. Grow up.
Stovetop@lemmy.world 8 months ago
Until they get exactly what they ask for.
Could they hurt the corporations more? Sure. But it’s pragmatic, really. If they’re getting what they want, no need to make it a bigger, more expensive thing than it needs to be.
unfreeradical@lemmy.world 8 months ago
Do you know how long it would take to accumulate the same amount of funds?
jonne@infosec.pub 8 months ago
They don’t have to spend it all, you know. If they can reward corporations for negotiating in good faith by limiting the damage of the strike, they’re retaining leverage. They can still go full strike later, but it looks like it’s not necessary.
I’m sure the UAW knows what they’re doing.
Sunforged@lemmy.world 8 months ago
I understand what the goal is and the theory behind it. The thing is the strike fund has enough funds for an all out strike that is 10 months long. That would be billions lost for the big three if they wanted to try to outlast the union, not to mention fund raising the union could do to extend it if needed.
Easing the strike up this week because one came to the table isn’t great. With only 17% striking, that leaves 83% working without a contract, that’s a big problem especially if this approach is going to be a drawn out process.
Kbin_space_program@kbin.social 8 months ago
Elsewhere they have pointed out that the rotating strikes allow the still working members to inform on attempts to move production around the strikes, and move the strikes in kind.
That has resulted in Ford giving some big concessions.
Sunforged@lemmy.world 8 months ago
I have been following this strike very closely, I understand the theory behind it. Do you know what is more costly to the big three than forcing a shell game? A full on strike.
Shawn Fain wants to eat the rich? Hit them hard and make them hurt. Three weeks of gamesmanship is enough. You want the big three to play off each other? Full strike until all three come to the same agreement.