As other commenters have pointed out, the UAW is meant to highlight the grotesque income inequality of the Big Three, and make up for forty years of strategic blunders. While this post describes well a systemic issue that the Japanese and Europeans do not face, the adversarial style of labor-management relations, does appeal to the 1996-2014 generation. Generation Z, from my perspective, is more excited for labor strike action than previous generations, meaning labor’s new leadership generation will likely make bold, politically advantageous, radical moves to attract them. The new media outlet More Perfect Union’s prodigious growth in subscriptions is a great example of this. That more politicos are paying attention to Taft-Hartley and discussing its repeal (which I favor) is another example. Beyond Gen Z, the good folks of all ages at The American Prospect have taken to complimenting this year’s Hot Labor Summer. (Note that some of them have even said unions make starting wages more attractive to jobseekers, which improves labor market competition. I don’t know if this is truer to a greater extent in Japan or Europe, though.)
This post speaks more to the problems with the legality of organizing. Perhaps the strike could have been avoided with a similar plan to the Swedish Labor Party’s proposed Meidner plan that would have allowed unions to own a firm’s equity; or changes to the Wagner Act allowing for codetermination and sectoral bargaining to become more commonplace.
But I digress. I think it’s okay for Shawn Fain and his colleagues to authorize the strike, but I also think he has to be more public about planning to launch drives in “right to work” states at Honda, Toyota, VW, Hyundai, Kia, and Tesla (the Fremont factory included). Perhaps he should even break Taft-Hartley and support the strikers at the Wabtec locomotive factory in Erie, PA. In any case, he should generate publicity for a push to repeal Taft-Hartley, since that wins over the Gen Z crowd.
I think the real ask from the Union is to eliminate the two tier approach where newly hired people are compensated substantially less than existing workers with little chance of making up the difference, being treated as part time for benefit and other purposes for 5 - 7 years while working 40 or more hours and some framework for dealing with the move to electric vehicles. Management doesn’t do themselves any favor by being awarded large boosts in comp while telling the workers they have to sacrifice and adapt to a changed reality. How does Senior management compensation at Honda, Toyota and the other car companies compare to that at the big 3?
The UAW is by no means blameless, but stupidity and greed are present in both management and labor. A recognition by management that labor has made substantial concessions in the past with the expectation that there would be some catch up when times got better for the companies would be a good starting point as opposed to treating the concessions as the new ceiling. As for the UAW showing more of a willingness to function as a team with management in creating flexible, but fair, workplace rules would be helpful. Having worked both management side and Union side, I think it is not too much of a stretch to say that most of the Union workplace rules were a response to something management did to cut a corner or lessen the influence of the Union or eliminate jobs without consultation.
By the way, it looks as if there is some positive movement in the talks with Ford, which seems to have the most exposure to the UAW and also seems to have implemented some changes, such as partially addressing the “temporary” worker issue”, before they were contractually required to.
Another way to look at this is “The [company] should not be looking for a fight, but for a way to work with [labor] so that [the company] can remain competitive with those in Europe, Asia, and Latin
As other commenters have pointed out, the UAW is meant to highlight the grotesque income inequality of the Big Three, and make up for forty years of strategic blunders. While this post describes well a systemic issue that the Japanese and Europeans do not face, the adversarial style of labor-management relations, does appeal to the 1996-2014 generation. Generation Z, from my perspective, is more excited for labor strike action than previous generations, meaning labor’s new leadership generation will likely make bold, politically advantageous, radical moves to attract them. The new media outlet More Perfect Union’s prodigious growth in subscriptions is a great example of this. That more politicos are paying attention to Taft-Hartley and discussing its repeal (which I favor) is another example. Beyond Gen Z, the good folks of all ages at The American Prospect have taken to complimenting this year’s Hot Labor Summer. (Note that some of them have even said unions make starting wages more attractive to jobseekers, which improves labor market competition. I don’t know if this is truer to a greater extent in Japan or Europe, though.)
This post speaks more to the problems with the legality of organizing. Perhaps the strike could have been avoided with a similar plan to the Swedish Labor Party’s proposed Meidner plan that would have allowed unions to own a firm’s equity; or changes to the Wagner Act allowing for codetermination and sectoral bargaining to become more commonplace.
But I digress. I think it’s okay for Shawn Fain and his colleagues to authorize the strike, but I also think he has to be more public about planning to launch drives in “right to work” states at Honda, Toyota, VW, Hyundai, Kia, and Tesla (the Fremont factory included). Perhaps he should even break Taft-Hartley and support the strikers at the Wabtec locomotive factory in Erie, PA. In any case, he should generate publicity for a push to repeal Taft-Hartley, since that wins over the Gen Z crowd.
I think the real ask from the Union is to eliminate the two tier approach where newly hired people are compensated substantially less than existing workers with little chance of making up the difference, being treated as part time for benefit and other purposes for 5 - 7 years while working 40 or more hours and some framework for dealing with the move to electric vehicles. Management doesn’t do themselves any favor by being awarded large boosts in comp while telling the workers they have to sacrifice and adapt to a changed reality. How does Senior management compensation at Honda, Toyota and the other car companies compare to that at the big 3?
The UAW is by no means blameless, but stupidity and greed are present in both management and labor. A recognition by management that labor has made substantial concessions in the past with the expectation that there would be some catch up when times got better for the companies would be a good starting point as opposed to treating the concessions as the new ceiling. As for the UAW showing more of a willingness to function as a team with management in creating flexible, but fair, workplace rules would be helpful. Having worked both management side and Union side, I think it is not too much of a stretch to say that most of the Union workplace rules were a response to something management did to cut a corner or lessen the influence of the Union or eliminate jobs without consultation.
When I said part time above, I meant temporary.
Yes, I agree that management is way out of line with its own compensation. This is something I think the Feds should address.
By the way, it looks as if there is some positive movement in the talks with Ford, which seems to have the most exposure to the UAW and also seems to have implemented some changes, such as partially addressing the “temporary” worker issue”, before they were contractually required to.
Another way to look at this is “The [company] should not be looking for a fight, but for a way to work with [labor] so that [the company] can remain competitive with those in Europe, Asia, and Latin
I think the companies were not looking for a fight. they made what look to me to be generous offers and the Union is rejecting them.