trade unions

By Steve Hanley - Clean Technica, September 21, 2023

Hamilton Nolan purports to be a writer whose topics are labor, politics, and power. According to his website, he has over 8,000 subscribers. Frankly, I have never heard of him and I’m quite sure he has never heard of me either. In an op-ed for The Guardian on September 21, 2023, he says that Tesla “is now US labor’s most important target. If Musk doesn’t like that, he’s welcome to settle it with an auto worker by cage match.”

Shawn Fain vs. Elon Musk. Now, there’s an image you can’t unsee! For your own consideration and general amusement, go ahead and read the full story before moving on to my takeaway on it.

The Takeaway

I have made my own pro-union proclivities abundantly clear (the evils of Jimmie Hoffa notwithstanding). On the other hand, I am also one of those “cult-like investors” Hamilton speaks of, so I am of two minds about his screed op-ed. To me, it comes down to this: Should American workers be able to lead a solidly middle-class lifestyle or are they wage slaves who must work two or sometimes three jobs while living in their mother’s garage?

The weaponized capitalist system has given us a class of wealthy plutocrats who, thanks to the ignorance of John Roberts, can plow endless amounts of money into supporting political candidates who will promise to cut taxes on the rich. It has also given us globalization, a system that outsources jobs to the lowest wage areas of the world where people labor in slave-like conditions to fill the shelves at Walmart with cheap imported goods.

There are so many moving pieces to globalization, not the least of which are the enormous carbon emissions created when millions of containers are sent across oceans to be distributed by millions of tractor trailers. Since there is no international price on carbon, that cost never gets added to the sales price of those goods, which is a gross distortion of the economic system and creates a “Heads we win, tails you lose” situation.

By Kyle Davidson - Michigan Advance, September 21, 2023

As Democratic lawmakers continue pushing on policy to transition Michigan to clean energy sources, members of the state Senate Labor Committee heard testimony Thursday on a bill to ensure workers are not left behind in a switch to renewables. 

Senate Bill 519, introduced by State Sen. Sam Singh (D-East Lansing), would create a community and worker economic transition office within the Department of Labor and Economic Opportunity (LEO). The office would seek to aid workers and communities whose jobs are impacted in the transition from fossil fuel energy to renewable sources. 

As Michigan begins to move away from coal, energy utilities have done a good job of helping workers through the transition to new technology and avoiding large layoffs, Singh said. However, concerns about the future of Michigan’s energy transition remain.

“I think we’re always concerned whenever you’re making a transition that you should have a system in place that makes sure that we are protecting workers,” Singh said.

By Martha Grevatt, Auston Gore, Nick Livick, and Max Alvarez - Working People, September 21, 2023

By Darnell, Union Jake and Adam Keller - Valley Labor Report, September 21, 2023

By Luke Savage - Jacobin, September 20, 2023

From the moment it was declared, the United Auto Workers’ (UAW) strike has presented Republican politicians with something of a dilemma. The immediate reason is that public opinion is firmly and overwhelmingly behind the union and its demands. More broadly, the GOP has in recent years gone to great pains to rebrand itself as a party of the working class. That’s always been nonsense, of course, and the rhetorical gymnastics offered by leading conservative politicians over the past few days is an excellent case in point.

Quick out of the gate was Missouri senator Josh Hawley, who remarked, “Auto workers deserve a raise — and they deserve to have their jobs protected from Joe Biden’s stupid climate mandates that are destroying the US auto industry and making China rich.” As media critic Adam Johnson pointed out, Hawley’s superficially pro-worker statement contained a number of revealing evasions and omissions. Most obviously, it referred to autoworkers without actually mentioning their union. And while Hawley did endorse an unspecified raise, that position is by no means in tension with the current posture of management at the Big Three automakers — all of whom have offered raises significantly below what the union has demanded.

Particularly emblematic, and equally disingenuous, was Hawley’s attempt to represent the strike as a regrettable by-product of the Biden administration’s (rather moderate) green policies while invoking geopolitical rivalry with China. Donald Trump, for his part, has triangulated in much the same way: issuing statements vaguely supportive of “autoworkers” while openly attacking the UAW and misrepresenting the dispute as a case of liberal green quackery run amok. Florida governor Ron DeSantis and North Dakota governor Doug Burgum both offered variations on the same themes, with the former blaming “Biden’s push for electric vehicles” and the latter commenting, “The union workers are going, wow, we’re gonna switch to all EVs, we’re going to have less jobs, we’re gonna switch to all EVs, you know, we’re shipping our future and you are going to be dependent on China for our transportation needs.”

Statements like these all express the rather challenging predicament of right-wing politicians keen to brandish their workerist credentials without actually supporting the aspirations of workers themselves. Needless to say, the act is unconvincing.

By Luis Leon, Union Jake, and Adam Keller - Valley Labor Report, September 20, 2023

By Union Jake and Adam Keller - Valley Labor Report, September 20, 2023

By Union Jake and Adam Keller - Valley Labor Report, September 19, 2023

By Akielly Hu and Katie Myers - Grist, September 18, 2023

At the stroke of midnight on Friday, in three automotive factories across the Rust Belt, nightshift workers left their posts and poured out onto the streets to join whistling, cheering crowds. TV news footage from the night showed picketers intermingled with cars honking in support as R&B blared from sound systems on the sidewalks in front of the factory gates. For the first time in history, the United Auto Workers union, or UAW, initiated a strike targeting all of the Big Three automakers: Ford, General Motors, and Stellantis, which owns brands like Chrysler, Jeep, and Dodge. 

The strike marks a breaking point after months of negotiations failed to result in a deal to renew the union’s contract with Big Three automakers, which expired on Friday. For now, the strike covers only 13,000 workers at a General Motors plant in Wentzville, Missouri; a Stellantis plant in Toledo, Ohio; and a Ford assembly plant in Wayne, Michigan. But the three closures could be just the beginning. UAW president Shawn Fain has warned that all 146,000 union workers are ready to strike at a moment’s notice. “If we need to go all out, we will,” said Fain Thursday night on Facebook Live. “Everything is on the table.” 

If the work stoppage goes on for more than 10 days, analysts estimate it could cost automakers over $1 billion and hurt plans to push new electric vehicles onto the market.

EVs, and what they mean for the future of union labor in the automotive sector, loom large over the picket line. Automakers say meeting the union’s demands would threaten their ability to compete with nonunionized EV producers like Tesla, adding burdensome labor costs just as they’re making expensive investments in EVs. Workers, meanwhile, worry that billions in EV investments aren’t translating into good-paying, union jobs.

By Sarah Lazare - In These Times, September 18, 2023

In recent media coverage of the United Auto Workers’ stand-up strike against the Big Three car makers — Stellantis, Ford and General Motors — a false narrative is circulating: that the walkout is in conflict with the urgent need to mitigate climate change. The basic argument is that if wages and benefits were to improve, this would make the transition to electric vehicle manufacturing unprofitable, and would therefore imperil a centerpiece of President Joe Biden’s environmental policy. 

“Union demands would force Ford to scrap its investments in electric vehicles, Jim Farley, the company’s chief executive, said in an interview on Friday,” reporter Jack Ewing wrote for the New York Times on September 16. Ewing goes on to quote Farley saying, ​“We want to actually have a conversation about a sustainable future, not one that forces us to choose between going out of business and rewarding our workers.”

In an article that ran on September 13, the day before the strike began, New York Times reporter Noam Scheiber put it similarly: ​“The companies say that even if they could raise wages for battery workers to the rate set under their national U.A.W. contract, doing so could make them uncompetitive with nonunion rivals, like Tesla.”

These reports echo the talking points of the same companies that have had a direct hand in slowing the transition to electric vehicles. All of the Big Three automakers are members of the Alliance for Automotive Innovation, a trade group, that lobbied against a proposed Biden administration rule to require that two out of three new passenger cars sold in the United States are electric vehicles by 2032. 

These companies have also played a key role in fueling climate change. Scientists at Ford and General Motors knew about the impacts of global warming as early as the 1960s, yet the companies intensified their fossil-fuel heavy business model, turning to the manufacturing of trucks and SUVs over the ensuing decades while donating ​“hundreds of thousands of dollars to groups that cast doubt on the scientific consensus on global warming,” as revealed in a 2020 investigation by E&E News. Ford, General Motors and Fiat Chrysler (now owned by Stellantis) are among ​“the strongest opponents of regulations to help countries meet the 1.5C warming limit in the Paris agreement,” according to an investigation by The Guardian published in 2019.

Yet this vital context is largely being left out of ongoing coverage and, instead, companies’ supposed concerns about the environment are being reported at face value.