The United Auto Workers will not expand strikes against GM, Ford or Stellantis this week amid progress in the talks, UAW President Shawn Fain said Friday.
The difference is that Hollywood was actually at a much weaker position for a number of reasons. The first is that the nature of the business means the production house had many projects in the can, waiting to release. This meant the impact of the strike could be rode out for longer before releases began being impacted by the strike. In comparison as soon as UAW closes down a shop the big 3 start losing money.
The second is Hollywood was up against wall street, there was a strong interest by investors to break up the strike, not just in Hollywood but in all industries. The reasoning is that labor wins translate to more labor fights, they want to demoralize any attempt to get a fair share and reduce profits. UAW is in a stronger position today than the writers and actors were when they started, so why is Fain pumping the breaks when he could be building more momentum (for both his members and the labor movement at large) with a full strike?
You might disagree but my criticism is a valid one, moral within the union isn’t great and it would be easy to fix by fighting together.
In comparison as soon as UAW closes down a shop the big 3 start losing money.
The observation seems to challenge your own premise.
Why is Fain pumping the breaks when he could be building more momentum (for both his members and the labor movement at large) with a full strike?
The current strategy seems to be winning, unless I am unaware of deeper problems. I am not understanding why you are displeased, or what you realistically expect that would be much better.
I’ve e explained the problems ad nauseum in this thread.
Layoffs happening during this partial strike.
Demoralization of members due to confusion and a broken front.
Public concerns over stretching out the strike fund when in truth it’s the strongest in the nation. Which leads many uniformed in the labor movement to question the power of a strike.
I feel you may be cherry picking arguments in order to support a conclusion you have reached for reasons that are emotional. Otherwise, I have little more to offer.
The difference is that Hollywood was actually at a much weaker position for a number of reasons. The first is that the nature of the business means the production house had many projects in the can, waiting to release. This meant the impact of the strike could be rode out for longer before releases began being impacted by the strike. In comparison as soon as UAW closes down a shop the big 3 start losing money.
The second is Hollywood was up against wall street, there was a strong interest by investors to break up the strike, not just in Hollywood but in all industries. The reasoning is that labor wins translate to more labor fights, they want to demoralize any attempt to get a fair share and reduce profits. UAW is in a stronger position today than the writers and actors were when they started, so why is Fain pumping the breaks when he could be building more momentum (for both his members and the labor movement at large) with a full strike?
You might disagree but my criticism is a valid one, moral within the union isn’t great and it would be easy to fix by fighting together.
The observation seems to challenge your own premise.
The current strategy seems to be winning, unless I am unaware of deeper problems. I am not understanding why you are displeased, or what you realistically expect that would be much better.
I’ve e explained the problems ad nauseum in this thread.
I feel you may be cherry picking arguments in order to support a conclusion you have reached for reasons that are emotional. Otherwise, I have little more to offer.