Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

Guntcher1423 t1_jdoxd8n wrote

"the Department of Justice brokered a consent decree with the union that gave UAW members the ability to choose leadership by direct vote, as opposed to a system of delegates, which critics said encouraged cronyism."

Electoral college, anyone?

191

Cfwydirk t1_jdok73n wrote

A bigger win for the rank and file than for Mr. Fain.

Bravo Shawn Fain you got this! Prove yourself to the membership and you will someday retire as head of UAW!

103

kstinfo t1_jdoqbma wrote

Number one on the agenda should be repealing the Taft–Hartley Act which restricts the activities and power of labor unions. It was enacted by the 80th United States Congress over the veto of President Harry S. Truman, becoming law on June 23, 1947.

However, all unions should prioritize their allegiance to their respective professions not individual members.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taft%e2%80%93Hartley_Act

64

Jerrymoviefan3 t1_jdox6nv wrote

That can’t be a priority since it would take at least a decade to have a filibuster proof Democratic Senate.

20

kstinfo t1_jdozaqz wrote

What makes you think Dems would be for it? There are a whole lot of corporate Dems in Congress. None-the-less, unions should never have stopped trying to get rid of it. It was only after (many) unions became corrupt little fiefdoms that they gave up.

−12

Jerrymoviefan3 t1_jdp51da wrote

Well why in the world do you think it should be a priority when you think it has even less chance of becoming a law than do?

17

kstinfo t1_jdp79kw wrote

That's the heart. Everything is about being pragmatic. Let's nominate sucky candidates because they have the best chance of winning. Let's let economic concerns dictate our domestic and global activity because that way we'll remain strong. Let's only fight battles we're sure we can win.

You fight because it's the right thing to do.

−21

Jerrymoviefan3 t1_jdpdeck wrote

Why should a union waste money campaigning for something they know has absolutely no chance of passing in the next few decades? The have an obligation to their members to not waste funds on pipe dreams.

14

PenguinSunday t1_jdpo2fo wrote

Because it takes time to convince a lot of people, and some things are worth repeating.

−6

iChronocos t1_jdqeooe wrote

Nothing changes until taft hartley is repealed.

3

AshtonKoocher t1_jdq0drx wrote

I am not in the UAW, but am a manager that relies on UAW skilled tradesmen at a plant in the south.

I hope this brings change because I am hamstrung by our current contract. I cant pay a competitive wage which is well lower than non union shops around us.

I am losing good workers and can't get any valuable replacements.

I already bring everyone in at top pay because I cant get an electrician or robot tech for 22 dollars an hour with a 3 year progression to 30 dollars an hour.

The ones I get at 30 are usually no good, though there is an occasional gem.

1

DigiDee t1_jdqob49 wrote

I am a UAW tradesman and you're absolutely right. I'm glad you realize it. I think all the other companies that employ UAW labor realize that as well.

The rigidity of a union contract cuts both ways. We're currently bringing in production techs for around 16 an hour because that's what the contract dictates. There's a 4 year grow in. Now who in their right mind is going to switch to factory work for 16 an hour when Target will pay you the same amount to stock shelves in an air conditioned environment that doesn't stink like cutting fluid? What good employee is going to jump ship from their current job and come work with us for that paltry amount?

As a result, most of the new hires either couldn't find work elsewhere (for a whole assortment of reasons) or is fresh out of high school. No offense to them, because most of them are fine workers, but you tend to get a lower caliber employee when you can't pay enough for a better, more seasoned one. It really is a case of "you get what you pay for."

I do think our upcoming contract will be good because it HAS to be. Whether that's because of Fain or not is uncertain; he's unproven and already starting off late due to the recounts etc. It's going to take a while to get him up to speed.

19

boobiecousins t1_jdq1pcs wrote

You can't pay a union member more to stay competitive? What kinds of backwards shit is that?

14

DigiDee t1_jdqpfds wrote

The contract dictates what the wages will be and most of those contracts were finalized a few years ago. So we have to wait until a new contract is negotiated before wages are updated. It's a double-edged sword because while it guarantees us a certain wage and a certain wage progression, if something happens between contract negotiations, we're kind of stuck until they come up with a new contract.

Typically, contract year is when the companies start to publicly decry poverty despite years of record profits. So when it's time to negotiate that contract, everyone believes the company is in a tight spot and can't afford to pay people more, again, despite years of record profits. So when the union goes out on strike for better pay and benefits, they lose in the court of public opinion and there's not much support for the striking workers.

It's a really infuriating thing about America. When their neighbors and family and peers are on strike for a means to a better life, they get called spoiled and entitled. But, simultaneously, the companies are lauded and celebrated and we wear clothing with their logos plastered all over them. The American public largely loves and supports these massive corporations over their friends and family and neighbors that are just trying to get ahead in life.

Rant over. Sorry.

25

Blueskyways t1_jds4crk wrote

>You can't pay a union member more to stay competitive?

Because you have a contract that guides everything. The contract is collectively bargained between employer and union. If your contract sucks then you're screwed. Find better union leadership, find a new union or find a new job.

6

AshtonKoocher t1_jdsn0ju wrote

The pay is set by our contract. It would be a breach of contract to pay someone more money than the contract says they are entitled to.

5

BAG1 t1_jdqjxgx wrote

Wow he doesn't even look like he's had his teeth sharpened yet.

−8