- Union strategy: 13,000 autoworkers at the three Midwest plants, about 9% of the unionized workforce at the Big Three automakers, were the first to walk off the job. Now, more workers are temporarily out of work as the automakers are asking hundreds of non-striking workers not to show up to work.
- Negotiation and demands: The UAW’s call for a 40% pay increase is still intact as negotiations continue. Also on the docket are pensions, cost-of-living adjustments and quality-of-life improvements.
- Reactions: President Biden urged automakers to share their profits with workers as the strike tested his bid to be the “most pro-labor” president. He is dispatching Julie Su, the acting labor secretary, and Gene Sperling, a White House senior adviser, to Detroit to help with negotiations.
Does someone know why Biden is siding with the auto union here when he was so against the rail Union a couple years ago?
Mm okay, thanks. Do you know why he was so staunchly against the rail workers?
He wasn’t so entirely against them as people might have made it seem.
https://web.archive.org/web/20230620220325/https://www.ibew.org/media-center/Articles/23Daily/2306/230620_IBEWandPaid
Thank you for sharing this article, I didn’t know about it and It provides context to help me understand the entire situation way better.
Money. Because they were striking in December right before the holidays, and people get mad about shipments and economic problems right before the holidays. Also, he’s Biden, not Bernie Sanders. From Reuters:
Damn thirty percent. Thank you. Wow.
Yeah, knowing what I knew about Biden, I have been shocked at how many of his presidential decisions and policies I’ve agreed with.
The media always frames it like it’s the workers costing the economy, not the greedy mfers at the top.
Not sure but guessing it’s because the UAW has significantly more members?
I feel people are way too quick to jump down Biden’s throat for the rail union.
First off, it’s worth noting he continued to work with the railroad to get the employees the sick pay they wanted on the back end.
But in the midst of the situation… I’m not going to pretend this hypothetical is completely correct. But I don’t think it’s crazy.
Imagine you’re Biden and you hear about this railroad strike. Your advisors are telling you if the strike goes through how many rail passengers are stranded in the middle of nowhere, how much food is just going to go to waste and not make it to various towns, which factories manufacturing hospital equipment will be without material and unable to continue production. On top of a gigantic economic impact there could be deaths associated with the strike.
Imagine you’re that guy and have to make the call to say nope, I don’t care, the strike continues.
I’m super pro labor and anti corporation and even I would struggle to make that call. Especially if someone proposes the idea that on the backside of forcing the railroad workers to work we could pressure the railroad to give into the demands.
I’m not saying he’s perfect and I’m not saying there wasn’t a better way. But I think that hypothetical is plausible. And I think people are too quick to forget that often times these decisions are which tragic situation would you rather allow to happen, and it’s not as clear cut as it sounds.
Edit: Oh yeah, the comparison. This time, cars don’t get built and these corporations will see problems to their bottom line. The impact to human life isn’t there. The economic impact still may be, but it’s not as devastating across the board like shutting down the railroad would be. Much easier decision to make.
Good point as to why Biden is siding with the auto strikers so quickly, thanks.
If we’re putting ourselves in these situations, I wouldn’t have a problem maintaining the rail strike either.
I’d rather demonstrate the necessity of treating workers right than making sure anything gets done. I want people to remember the only reason we have all of our necessities and luxuries is because real people are making it happen. If the economy is going to crash because certain workers can’t afford to live themselves, or work in unsafe environments, then the workers needs must be addressed or the economy has to crash and yes, people will get hurt because of the course correction that needs to take place.
Strikes are supposed to be inconvenient. A strike that is not inconvenient garners workers no leverage. Interfering with a strike because it is inconvenient is union busting.
There are deaths associated with a lot of things that the administration is not acting on. Why was this one special?
Imagine you’re that guy, and your call isn’t to tell the rail companies to negotiate in good faith and get the strike dealt with.
He sided with the companies, not the workers. He did so publicly, and with the weight of the state.
There’s no nuance here. He interfered with workers’ rights to strike and to negotiate, favouring business over workers.