17% of union membership is on strike. They need to go full 100% and show who has the power and stand in solidarity as one.
They’re trying a new strike strategy that plays the companies against one another. By rewarding companies when they play ball they can allow them to get a potential leg up on their compeition who maybe decided against a particular thing.
It allows the union to better pressure the companies and allows the union strike funds to go further. It’s a novel approach, and is working so far. Hopefully it will bear fruit.
And it allows the strike fund to go a lot further too.
I understand what the goal is and the theory behind it. The thing is the strike fund has enough funds for an all out strike that is 10 months long. That would be billions lost for the big three if they wanted to try to outlast the union, not to mention fund raising the union could do to extend it if needed.
Easing the strike up this week because one came to the table isn’t great. With only 17% striking, that leaves 83% working without a contract, that’s a big problem especially if this approach is going to be a drawn out process.
Elsewhere they have pointed out that the rotating strikes allow the still working members to inform on attempts to move production around the strikes, and move the strikes in kind.
That has resulted in Ford giving some big concessions.
I have been following this strike very closely, I understand the theory behind it. Do you know what is more costly to the big three than forcing a shell game? A full on strike.
Shawn Fain wants to eat the rich? Hit them hard and make them hurt. Three weeks of gamesmanship is enough. You want the big three to play off each other? Full strike until all three come to the same agreement.
deleted by creator
This is so shortsighted that I feel I need to recommend a good optometrist.
Class struggle entails shifting balances of power.
Many groups are interacting within each side.
Workers currently have little power, but the UAW action has so far seemed as one of the most momentous opportunities in recent memory.
Building power depends on seeking gains that may be expected to be both reached and to be held. Once a stronger position is reached, then the even stronger position becomes closer at hand.
You are suggesting throwing everything at a single opportunity within a hostile and untested climate.
It is wise to seek modest gains one at a time, trying to encourage everyone that better days are coming soon.
At the moment, even a substantial symbolic victory in one area would be quite significant in terms of building momentum to expand movements across the working class. When one group of workers rises, even by only a modest increment, we all gain power in the shared struggle, power we can use to climb higher.
I am so confused by this comment. Your talking like we have nothing in history to compare this to when the writers strike won after a 3 month strike just last week.
I question the comparison, implying that an entire union must strike in one particular case, simply because such a strategy was successful in another case. Many strong differences in circumstances are relevant.
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.
