The UAW strike on the big 3.

[KymmieL]

-This is only my opinion nothing more-

 

I have heard of some of these autoworkers demands. How outrageous can they get. A 20% increase in pay. What the F? My father in law was a line worker for 30+ years for Ford. UAW member and all. Before he retired he said he was making $32 an hour. In his words, To much for what he did. $32 an hour, that is crazy money. He retired in 1999. So speculating maybe 40 an hour now on the conservative end.

 

They are saying it is cost of living increase. I put up the Bull cookie flag on that. With the autoworkers wanting so much. Causes the auto companies to raise prices. So in a sense they are causing the rise in cost of living. But remember they HAVE to living in a Million dollar home and drive high priced cars. Which they get a discount on when they buy it anyways. It is the end consumer getting it in the end. pure and simple.

 

Then they are only wanting to work 32 hours but get paid for 40 hours. Another bull cookie flag on that. That adds more to their $$ per hour, that they actually work.

 

Every single one of their demands is horse hockey, period. Let them strike. They can walk the picket line until their strike fund is used up. Deny them unemployment.

 

Any member of the military would give their eye teeth to get $32 an hour. They deserve it. UAW doesn't.

 

Kymmie

[awkward-yet-sweet]

I'm not sure what the average pay is for auto workers.  I'm also not sure what the cost of living is where they are.  However, I DO know that while inflation has gone up tremendously, wages where I live have NOT.  I'd like to see raises for the working members of my family.  I'd also like to see HONEST calculations of inflation.  Typically, inflation reports don't include costs such as housing, food, and fuel.  Seriously?  What's more important to most people than those three things?  From our calculations here, food prices are up 30% in 3 years.  Fuel has doubled.  Rent locally is up 25% in the last couple of years, and double what it was 10 years ago.

 

We wouldn't need wage increases if we didn't have a tax-and-spend government.  We wouldn't have inflation if we were on the gold/silver standard instead of having an invented fiat currency.  A dollar buys what a nickel bought 100 years ago. 

 

What people don't get is that these things are done INTENTIONALLY.  Inflation de-incentivizes savings.  It forces people out of the bank (or the buried box in the backyard) and into the market.  Property taxes force you into trade and employment - you can't just buy a property and live totally off grid if you want to, without constantly owing money to the system.  It is all designed to keep you working, to keep you in public, and to keep you dependent.  If we were honest, we'd call it a form of slavery.  

 

Yeah, I could be jealous of the auto workers getting a big raise.  I'm more jealous that they've got the power of collective bargaining.  I wish we all had that - and I wish we could collectively bargain against the government.  We have this sham every 6-12 months of an impending "government shutdown." And it never happens.  I'd love it if the people had the power to shut things down totally.  Everybody on strike until property tax on basic homes is abolished.  Everybody on strike until we stop sending taxpayer money to foreign nations, and weapons to foreign wars.  Everybody on strike until we turn on domestic oil production and stop buying from the Saudis.  Everybody on strike until American leaders publicly commit to international negotiations toward a comprehensive global ban on nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons. 

 

I would love to see the common people able to create these basic changes through noncompliance.  Unfortunately, we've been strangled by the system for so long that I'm not sure it is possible. 

[Mirrabooka]

Maybe it's a bit different over here, IDK, but I for one, never minded paying taxes at all. It is the price you pay for living in a decent society. Anyone who tries to cheat the system I consider to be a fare evader. I'm probably an outlier though.

 

Inflation is rampant everywhere and our central bank's answer is to jack up interest rates to slow demand - monetary policy. They do this because of a lack of fiscal policy from the gov't. However it has been proven that the major single component which adds to inflation is not supply chain issues or the covid hangover or the war in Ukraine, but corporate profits. Yet we see company bosses squealing like stuck pigs when confronted with new laws designed to protect gig economy workers for example, lifting their wages from below the poverty line. "We can't afford it!" the bosses say, whereas what they really mean is that they will be forced to eat a cheaper brand of caviar.

 

In reference to auto workers, in 1914 Henry Ford famously doubled wages and cut hours for his employees. It actualy resulted in a decrease in total labour costs because it arrested the turnover rate and training costs. Production shot up 20% too.

[Vidanjali]

I believe it's more nuanced than that. From what I understand equality of pay is the greater issue. They are currently paid on a tiered system where pay and benefits increase over time. They argue the discrepancy between tiers is too great, money/benefits-wise and time-wise. For instance, you can have 3 workers at 3 different tiers doing the exact identical job, but being compensated vastly differently. This creates multiple economic classes within the same job type, impovereshes lower tier workers (from a relative point of view), and threatens workers with seniority (because the company can clearly replace them with lower tier workers doing the same job). Meanwhile electric vehicle autoworkers who are not union are paid less overall. 

 

For perspective, a similar thing was happening at my old job. I was working with colleagues who had the same job title as me, who did the same job as me, but whose salaries were several tens of thousands of dollars more than mine because they just happened to be around for a few more years - and "good ol day" years during which there were better relations between bargaining units when they received regular pay increases greater than or equal to cost of living. Then, those higher salaries increase exponentially higher than lower ones even during years when we were only able to bargain for a miniscule %. Then, on the other hand, during some years new hires were brought on at starting salaries higher than extant employees. Same job. Over a very long and arduous haul, bargaining units agreed on a complex formula to reasonably equalize salaries based on seniority, although those astronomically high salaries were not lowered, but not before the employer unit decimated all tiers and provided no increases for a few years. All things considered, I've heard several first hand accounts that it's even rougher going for colleagues in the same industry I was in who are not unionized. 

[Ivy]

39 minutes ago, Vidanjali said:

I believe it's more nuanced than that.

Yeah, for sure.

 

In this case, the government bailed out the industry when they were in trouble.  I think they might have paid this back maybe?  But still, help when they needed it.  The workers also took pay cuts to help keep the industry afloat.  Now the companies are making record profits.  Of course the workers want a cut, I mean they are providing the labor it's all based on.  Perhaps their demands seem excessive based on the pittance many other workers get.  

 

During the covid shut-downs, "essential workers" were still required to work because they were, essential.  People were very appreciative and said so.  Once things eased up they were forgotten.  These "essential workers" are still some of the lowest paid.  Kinda funny what we as a society value, innit?

 

We have this weird religion of worshiping "Capitalism."  We're led to believe it's all about working hard and someday, maybe, owning our own home, etc.  Something that is actually becoming impossible for most young working class people.  You want to buy a modest house?  Someone with deeper pockets will outbid you, as an "investment."  Then, you can rent the house from them, but never own it, although you're actually paying for it - for them.  It's just Capitalism, and therefore good, right?  

 

If you are running a (truly) small business, you are (hopefully) profiting from your own labor.  In the case of large, or huge business, its investors profiting from the labor of the workers.  At this level the point of "Capitalism" is to increase profits.  Managers are rewarded (well) for doing this.  One way to do this is by decreasing labor costs.  If the production is moved offshore, labor costs are reduced.  If your neighbors lose their jobs, well, that's unfortunate, but not your problem.  And then you can pay off the politicians to keep your taxes low.

 

This is why we no longer produce so much of what we need in the US anymore.  Sacred Capitalism.  In the past, this town was a "mill town" with several textile mills.  Those mills are empty now - or torn down.  Sure there are jobs here, some newer businesses.  And, you can always go to work for WallyWorld.  Of course then you'll still need Food Stamps and Medicaid.  They know how to keep their labor costs down too.  

 

Personally, I'm kinda lucky.  I'm retired and able to live frugally off of my small pension and social security.  When I started working there, pensions were still a thing.  My youngest (20 something) daughter has moved back in with me.  She works, but can't afford her own place.

 

Yeah, it's nuanced.