this post was submitted on 01 Oct 2023
252 points (94.7% liked)
World News
32283 readers
760 users here now
News from around the world!
Rules:
-
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
-
No NSFW content
-
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Strike pay is only $500 a week plus insurance coverage. It's hard to live on that when strikes can last 6 months or even a year
What kind of strikes last 6 months to a year???
99% of strikes last much, much less. No manufacturer in the world can last 6 months without workers. No software company can last 6 months without workers. No fast food company lasts 6 months without workers. No train, bus or airplane company lasts 6 months without workers.
Small ones that you don't hear about. Locals with less than 200 members wind up striking much longer because they're less threatening. The longest strike in US history was 11 years. Strikes can last longer than you might think. The company just hires scabs. A couple years ago, 200 miners were on strike for 1029 days under the United Steelworkers.
Playing devil’s advocate but what would be the point in working if you got paid similarly by just striking? A worker’s strike is a gamble and always has been. In this instance the workers do not have the upper hand because demand for domestic made vehicles has plummeted and automation is nearly capable of replacing the workers.
Another thing I don’t understand is this isn’t unemployment. This is chosen by the worker and the union and so it’s not unemployment but refusal to work.
The other side of the argument is how can you get away with exploiting your workers if they have the option of striking comfortably?
Never forget history too, people died for this shit only for it to become a reality during this time period.
Then what of all those who wouldn’t get unemployment when they’re laid off because a union decided to strike for more favorable conditions.
I had typed out this HUGE rant about how it would hurt Ford’s bottom line severely to give into the UAW strike demands. So I did some research to help my stance. I was wrong. Year over year, for the past 3 years, Ford Motor has shown an increase of at least 9% gross profit. Ford could very easily afford to cut into some of the more than $24 billion dollar gross profit to give into the 40% raise the UAW are requesting. I’d be willing to bet GM and others involved are in nearly the same boat.
Edit: That being said their net profit has taken a steep dive in the last few years so I’d assume there is some cooking of the books going on.
Without looking at the numbers, gross profit is before expenditures, so it's not like Ford has 24 billion in surplus money.
"I assume that there is some cooking of the books"
Or maybe there is stronger competition and profit margins have fallen?
Their net profits have fallen considerably since 2021 but that can be attributed to the chip shortage. I chose gross profit because you take the 40% increase for the 57,000 hourly ford employees making on average $19/hr and you’d end up reducing their gross profit by $900 million. That’s a large amount of money but in general would only be around 25% of their net profit (going off pre COVID numbers) annually. Those same workers would then be able to afford the vehicles they’re building day in and day out. As it stands $19 an hour is just $39,520 a year which means it’s not likely they can afford a new car that they themselves are building.
Edit: Looks like their heaviest expenditures lately were factory overhauls for redesigned F-150 pickups thus causing their net profit losses.
A number that isn't taken into account is GM spent $3.4 billion in stock buybacks in the last 12 months. They count this as operating expenses even though it only serves to artificially inflate their share prices so they can pay dividends to shareholders. A truly unnecessary expense that could be used for workers.
Ever been to France? Ever heard of the SNCF?
I understand that. But a strike isn't them being forced to stop working by their employer. It isn't like being laid off. They chose to stop working when the alternative is to work and get paid.
You don't get employment insurance when you voluntarily quit a job.
If they want a bigger strike pay, they need to either contribute more or join a bigger union that has the financial means to support them thanks to higher number of participants.
Maybe I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure UAW is the best paying strike pay in the US. It's also the 6th biggest union. The point is that the company has a much bigger advantage for surviving a strike than workers do. Getting unemployment would help level the playing field.
UAW fucked over the UC graduate students.
How? UC isn't paying their students, sure, but that's not the UAW's fault.
UAW is applying zero pressure to UC after they misappropriated money to spread anti-union propaganda, retaliated against the students at UCSD by having them arrested, and violated our bylaws at basically every point in this process.
That's true though. It used to be that a general strike would have a big impact on an industry, but with the wealth that the companies have accumulated in past decades, it's not even enough to strike anymore.
The real answer to this would be a universal basic income for everybody. If you're either fired, laid off, on strike or voluntarily quit, you should still receive a sufficient form of income.
People sometimes quit for good reasons like toxic environnements or for health reasons or because they need to take care of someone. They shouldn't be penalized.
What you claim is your position. Some agree. Others don't.