Economically this seems like a ripe time for striking.
US wants to onshore/friend shore production, so there is a demand for US workers at any cost. Barring automation replacements.
Tesla is moving to a McDonald style system; create a few big giga-castings of the main car body parts; create modules that fit exactly into those castings, assemble the few modules and castings in a few simple steps.
these steps minimise human or eliminate human use, and encourage either robotization, or task simplification to such an extent that labour can easily be replaced with another with minimal training.
example from autoline channel, showing how simplified the assembly system can become with the casting base:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lawGMl8sHzc
And Tesla is just going further with the casting
https://www.reuters.com/technology/gigacasting-20-tesla-rein...
https://youtu.be/0Ukp4tm0JkM?t=196
this means that ICE vehicle skills are becoming exceedingly irrelevant. Obviously not everything is gone, but imagine how simple it is to train or replace fast food workers; or how easy it is to assemble furniture ikea-style. A lot of ICE- skills are now not required in EVs, and these workers will have to find alternatives.
Striking just delays the inevitable.
I wonder if they'd settle for a (retroactive relatively) reduction in CEO Pay, coupled by an increase of at least the CEO's pay increase or better relative to the last contract period.
## HYPOTHETICAL EXAMPLE ##
+ Prior to contract CEO made 10,000,000 per year. Since then they (currently) make 14,000,000 per year.
+ Union is asking for 40% increase to match CEO's increase.
? Would the union accept CEO's total compensation package, including retroactive to cover the same period, decrease to E.G. 20% (CEO now makes 12,000,000 per year in this hypothetical) with a union member INCREASE of 20% or greater (possibly including a one time contract signing bonus to cover the back period)?
Similar to the writers strike and AI, auto workers are facing a future of electric cars that require less labor to build.
"... in the US" - that is missing in the title.
Unions: organizations whose sole purpose is to acquire a monopoly on the means of production. They’re parasites, but corporations are worse. Don’t let either ever gain the upper hand.
Is this just a final battle for the remaining scraps of money in a dying industry? Or is this a real, substantive negotiation that will push the industry to a better place?
lots of talk of automation and Tesla - can anyone give more insight into Teslas purported new building technique and whether it’s actually innovative? https://www.theverge.com/2023/9/14/23873345/tesla-gigapress-...
It makes sense that in such a tight labor market, unions would be flexing their strength. What would really be a big deal is if union participation starts taking off, e.g. by some of the car plants in the South unionizing
Can Youtube/Twitch/etc manage to fulfill this product gap too?
Seriously though, yes... Support The Unions! Stay strong!
> During the 2008 financial crisis, the UAW made major concessions to help auto companies get back on their feet. Workers are still feeling the effects of those concessions to this day...
> Collectively, the Big Three automakers have seen their profits soar
This is why you need unions. Most businesses will happily screw over workers whenever they can to maximize profits and the workers are lucky if they get peanuts back when they're swimming in cash. Ford makes the hyperbolic claim that agreeing to UAW demands would bankrupt them as it would cost $15 billion. Their profit in the last 12 months is $25 billion. The maths is more complex than simply 25-15 but shows how companies will obviously lie to protect their shareholder profits.
In case anybody else was wondering who the Big 3 are: the article talks about the Detroit 3, which are Ford, General Motors, and Stellantis (the merger of Fiat-Chrysler and Peugeot with Dutch headquarter).