Hard disagree, his interruptions were because they weren’t addressing his question.

I don’t want to see it, I want a reputable journalist to verify it’s existence.

Gross.

Examples of tankie tendencies of the DSA amd so forth? Lol this is hilarious because all the DSA does is tail democrats and cover for them.

If you want some reporting on the labor movement that isn’t anti-labor check out On Strike!, they have new episodes every Thursday.

I’ve e explained the problems ad nauseum in this thread.

• Layoffs happening during this partial strike.
• Demoralization of members due to confusion and a broken front.
• Public concerns over stretching out the strike fund when in truth it’s the strongest in the nation. Which leads many uniformed in the labor movement to question the power of a strike.

You asked for the math. I provided you the numbers, if you don’t trust me go check. It’s frustrating that I put time into looking up my response only to be met by skepticism.

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.

$825,000,000 in the current strike fund. 400,000 current active members. I’m not sure what the contract length is so let’s say 4 years, that’s a minimun.

$825,000,000 ÷ 4 years ÷ 12 months ÷ 400,000 members = 42.96 per month per member to rebuild the fund for the next contract.

That is not to mention the current fight is an existential one for the union. As EV funding coming from the state has all gone to none union shops, it has hurt the unions strength. Part of this current fight is to demand expansion of the union to EV shops, growing that member number and preventing the union from becoming irrelevant.

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.

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.

My opinion are based on what works for labor rights. A pragmatic “lets not hurt the business” approach hasn’t worked for the past 4 decades.

Having union members continue to work during this partial strike is only giving the big 3 more time to lay off workers. Fain has sold this as a positive, saying those laid off can claim unemployment instead of pulling from the strike fund. There are alot of problems with this, there is little support for laid of members to navigate claiming unemployment, with every state having different requirements it’s left many confused on where they stand with the strike and union. Also UAW has one of the biggest strike coffers in the country, at this time of unprecedented labor support they need to use that and go all out. That’s how the writers guild just got their unprecedented win last week, and most of those writers are still out on the picket lines in solidarity with the SAG, as a united front.

I’ve been hopeful of Fain’s approach but it’s doing more harm than good within the union, when members were ready to stand together they were instead left as confused as the big 3 were, which if you’re just looking at dollars in the bank was a win I guess, but moral is more important. Again they are not hurting in their strike fund, this is not a newly formed union it’s one of the oldest.

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?

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.

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.

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.

Good union representation starts from knowledge of the industry. If you want to work for a union the best thing to do is go get a job in an industry you know and get active in their union.

A union that just hires straight outside hires is going to both be difficult for you to get into a position for making positive change, and will most likely lean more bureaucratic and need change to originate from the rank and file members to begin with.

You understand what an endorsement is right?

Political power is not maintained by just giving it away in return for nothing, i.e. the union loses power by just endorsing Biden without Biden showing his support of the union.

Any organization should withhold endorsements if neither candidate represents their best interests. That is a strong indication that the political parties need to run better candidates. That kind of political pressure isn’t as prevalent as it needs to be and I am happy to see UAW applying it.

The strategy the UAW is currently employing is led by the union’s new militant president, Shawn Fain. He was elected in March after the UAW changed its election process from a delegate system to one member, one vote in the most recent leadership election. He has assumed a new posture for the union’s leadership: for example, refusing to endorse Joe Biden for president until he supports the UAW’s efforts to unionize electric vehicle facilities, and rejecting a ceremonial handshake with auto manufacturer bosses before the start of contract negotiations.

In the critical swing state of Michigan, where tens of thousands of UAW members work, the union holds an outsized influence over state politics and, in turn, nationwide races. That means union support will be crucial for Biden’s reelection chances in 2024. Capitalizing on the Biden administration’s tepid support for the UAW strike, Donald Trump announced he would speak to autoworkers this month, drawing condemnation from Fain.

So fucking good. Need this militant take in the labor movement to spread like wildfire.