In September, Donald Trump’s advisers leaked word that he would travel to Detroit to show support for striking members of the United Auto Workers. In reality, he ended up addressing workers at a nonunion shop, bashing the strike as useless given that electric vehicles will inevitably destroy their jobs — unless they elect him president in 2024, of course.
Now that UAW has reached tentative deals with Ford, General Motors and Stellantis (formerly Chrysler) after six weeks of picketing, that Trumpian episode takes on a glaring new meaning. On multiple levels, this whole affair captures the vacuity of the right-wing populism espoused by Trump and other Republicans eager to give the GOP a “working class” makeover.
Though UAW members must ratify the agreements, the provisions would constitute their largest gains in decades. Among other things, they include a 25 percent raise in base wages over the next 4½ years, lifting the top pay to more than $40 per hour.
Again and again, UAW’s president, Shawn Fain, has stressed that this strike is not just about his workers’ bottom lines, but about the country’s class structure. He regularly lambastes the dramatic upward redistribution of wealth of the past few decades, blaming top-down assaults on workers’ bargaining power and the systematic erosion in wages they have wrought.
Press Enter to skip to end of carousel
“The billionaire class,” Fain said recently, has “spent decades” convincing workers that “we are weak,” that “it’s futile to fight” and that workers “should be grateful for the scraps that they decide to give us.” Fain relentlessly argues that this strike is about defeating an idea, that what’s good for the wealthy is synonymous with what’s good for our country because it showers benefits on everyone else.
“The labor movement has been most successful when it embodies the larger aspirations and values of working people throughout society,” Damon Silvers, the former political director for the AFL-CIO, told me. He said Fain made the strike about “inequality, wage stagnation, the rich getting everything — the fundamental problem that has been growing in the U.S. economy for 50 years.”
President Biden told a similar story when he visited strikers in late September. But this is not the story that Trump and other right-wing populists tell. Speaking in Detroit, Trump attacked the Big Three, but mainly criticized their investments in electric vehicles, insisting Biden’s policies — which incentivize the transition to decarbonized vehicles — will destroy the auto industry entirely.
Similarly, Sen. J.D. Vance (R-Ohio) has acknowledged that autoworkers deserve better wages. But he, too, says their main enemy is Biden’s “premature” transition to electric vehicles.
Unfortunately for Trump and Vance, the striking workers are showing otherwise. True, in some ways this transition does threaten autoworkers. Assembling electric vehicles requires fewer workers than making gas-powered cars. And the big automakers manufacture electric vehicle batteries domestically in partnership with foreign companies, keeping these plants outside UAW contracts, thus resulting in lower wages.
But this is exactly what the striking workers have been trying to address — and they appear to be having some success. The New York Times reports that Ford and GM workers at battery plants will be covered by the new UAW contracts, which suggests that some EV-related gigs will be union jobs with benefits.
Gene Sperling, a senior economics adviser to Biden and the White House’s point person on the negotiations, says the agreement “refutes virtually every conservative critique of a new auto future made in America.”
Press Enter to skip to end of carousel
“The UAW even made serious gains on ensuring that future EV battery jobs are strong, middle class union jobs,” Sperling told me.
The truth is that no one knows exactly what the long term transition holds for workers. But Fain and Biden recognize that change is inevitable, so they work on designing policy — while supporting striking workers — to ensure they have a meaningful place in its future.
That’s why Fain says the UAW does not oppose the green transition but merely wants a “just transition” for workers. By contrast, in the Trump faction’s worldview, the green transition can only be understood as a threat to them.
What’s more, you rarely, if ever, hear Trump or Vance say this strike should succeed specifically to revitalize unions and boost worker bargaining power. While some right-wing populist thinkers do favor stronger unions, this is almost never foregrounded by GOP lawmakers, as Sohrab Ahmari lamented to Vox’s Sean Illing.
Yet, this is the core of what those on strike aspire to. As historian Erik Baker details, Fain’s vision is ultimately about recapturing a sense that class-based organizing can make lasting change. That spirit will be essential as UAW thinks about how to organize the nonunion Tesla, a goal that’s critical to ensuring that EV-manufacturing can supply good jobs long into the future.
Trump and Vance can do all the pro-worker posturing they want. But in the end, the future envisioned by UAW strikers is just not a future either of them seems to want.
Now that UAW has reached tentative deals with Ford, General Motors and Stellantis (formerly Chrysler) after six weeks of picketing, that Trumpian episode takes on a glaring new meaning. On multiple levels, this whole affair captures the vacuity of the right-wing populism espoused by Trump and other Republicans eager to give the GOP a “working class” makeover.
Though UAW members must ratify the agreements, the provisions would constitute their largest gains in decades. Among other things, they include a 25 percent raise in base wages over the next 4½ years, lifting the top pay to more than $40 per hour.
Again and again, UAW’s president, Shawn Fain, has stressed that this strike is not just about his workers’ bottom lines, but about the country’s class structure. He regularly lambastes the dramatic upward redistribution of wealth of the past few decades, blaming top-down assaults on workers’ bargaining power and the systematic erosion in wages they have wrought.
Press Enter to skip to end of carousel
“The billionaire class,” Fain said recently, has “spent decades” convincing workers that “we are weak,” that “it’s futile to fight” and that workers “should be grateful for the scraps that they decide to give us.” Fain relentlessly argues that this strike is about defeating an idea, that what’s good for the wealthy is synonymous with what’s good for our country because it showers benefits on everyone else.
“The labor movement has been most successful when it embodies the larger aspirations and values of working people throughout society,” Damon Silvers, the former political director for the AFL-CIO, told me. He said Fain made the strike about “inequality, wage stagnation, the rich getting everything — the fundamental problem that has been growing in the U.S. economy for 50 years.”
Loading…
www.washingtonpost.com
President Biden told a similar story when he visited strikers in late September. But this is not the story that Trump and other right-wing populists tell. Speaking in Detroit, Trump attacked the Big Three, but mainly criticized their investments in electric vehicles, insisting Biden’s policies — which incentivize the transition to decarbonized vehicles — will destroy the auto industry entirely.
Similarly, Sen. J.D. Vance (R-Ohio) has acknowledged that autoworkers deserve better wages. But he, too, says their main enemy is Biden’s “premature” transition to electric vehicles.
Unfortunately for Trump and Vance, the striking workers are showing otherwise. True, in some ways this transition does threaten autoworkers. Assembling electric vehicles requires fewer workers than making gas-powered cars. And the big automakers manufacture electric vehicle batteries domestically in partnership with foreign companies, keeping these plants outside UAW contracts, thus resulting in lower wages.
But this is exactly what the striking workers have been trying to address — and they appear to be having some success. The New York Times reports that Ford and GM workers at battery plants will be covered by the new UAW contracts, which suggests that some EV-related gigs will be union jobs with benefits.
Gene Sperling, a senior economics adviser to Biden and the White House’s point person on the negotiations, says the agreement “refutes virtually every conservative critique of a new auto future made in America.”
Press Enter to skip to end of carousel
“The UAW even made serious gains on ensuring that future EV battery jobs are strong, middle class union jobs,” Sperling told me.
The truth is that no one knows exactly what the long term transition holds for workers. But Fain and Biden recognize that change is inevitable, so they work on designing policy — while supporting striking workers — to ensure they have a meaningful place in its future.
That’s why Fain says the UAW does not oppose the green transition but merely wants a “just transition” for workers. By contrast, in the Trump faction’s worldview, the green transition can only be understood as a threat to them.
What’s more, you rarely, if ever, hear Trump or Vance say this strike should succeed specifically to revitalize unions and boost worker bargaining power. While some right-wing populist thinkers do favor stronger unions, this is almost never foregrounded by GOP lawmakers, as Sohrab Ahmari lamented to Vox’s Sean Illing.
Yet, this is the core of what those on strike aspire to. As historian Erik Baker details, Fain’s vision is ultimately about recapturing a sense that class-based organizing can make lasting change. That spirit will be essential as UAW thinks about how to organize the nonunion Tesla, a goal that’s critical to ensuring that EV-manufacturing can supply good jobs long into the future.
Trump and Vance can do all the pro-worker posturing they want. But in the end, the future envisioned by UAW strikers is just not a future either of them seems to want.
