politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
I'm dubious that a general strike is possible in the US. All of the other countries that have had massive strikes affecting large chunks of the market were driven by large unions. Our unions don't have that sort of sway and they rarely help others to maximize their diminishing bargaining power with the ongoing degradation of workers rights. Importantly this also happens on the supply side, the consumer side will just buy it tomorrow instead usually. A day of no productivity has much bigger consequences.
That being said, I'll definitely participate.
I fear that the average american can't afford to strike, because of the lingering threat of poverty from losing employment and getting crushed by outstanding debt. But this is a sign, that there are already not enough worker's rights.
From far away it looks like a construct.
Far too many Americans don't even get sick leave at their jobs.
And many, many more rely on their jobs not only for income, but also for access to healthcare. Something seems wrong here.
The UAW was planning a general strike for May 1st 2028. I don't know how willing they'd be to start a wildcat general strike, but they may join one.
https://may1.uaw.org/
What is the point if scheduling a strike so far in advance? Also, aren't UAW leadership aligned with Trump?
The point as I understand it is that they're allowing other unions to set their contract expiration to the same date, which increases the potential for pain during their next negotiations and makes for a quasi general strike across all unions who participated. It's a pretty good idea all in all.
Also, it's complicated who Sean Fain aligns with. He's pro-tariff and praised Trump for incentivizing cars to be made in the US, although it seems like that's the extent of it, and I wonder how he feels about it now that it's been fully unmasked to just be market manipulation by Trump's circle of billionaires. Sean's speech still hit most of the socialist talking points of pro labor even though it was to a bunch of Republican donors, leading to the funniest and most revealing awkward silences after sections about how the working class is who provides all of the value in an economy.
Pro-tariff makes sense purely from a "protecting American labor" point of view. The ideal of them is to encourage internal markets to favor domestic production. However, that first requires domestic production to exist, and it also needs to be done in a way that doesn't harm domestic production. The Trump tariffs aren't this, obviously.
Historically, what the UAW wants isn't necessarily good for the rest of us. The "chicken tax" that pushes larger and larger trucks in the US was done as part of LBJ negotiating with the UAW. The result was that foreign small trucks couldn't possibly be profitable, and thus had no competition for domestic manufacturing to make the largest trucks possible and nothing else.
What they are doing is asking all unions to set May 1st 2028 as the expiration date for their next labor contract. They aren't actually scheduling a strike, just laying the groundwork.
It was planned before the election, and they likely didn't anticipate Trump would win again.
From what I've seen the UAW leader is fairly left leaning.
Basically letting the turnip destroy the country for nearly 4 years...
The article says that a 1947 law makes it almost impossible for unions to organize a general strike.
Anything that would cause real economic damage and put power back in the hands of workers will be treated as "illegal" regardless of what the books say. But what could they realistically do, arrest everyone in their homes who didn't go to work that day?
Wildcat strikes are "illegal" in the sense that your employer is allowed to retaliate with firing you or docking pay if you do so. I highly doubt someone's going to prison for not showing up at a regular job.
Considering that the US has the highest incarcerated population in the world, it's not like they aren't trying to do this very thing.
It's preferable to break that anti-labour red scare law if it means avoiding the country getting to the point where civil war happens instead.
Most strikes were illegal by polit definitions. Teamsters got into pitched club battles with cops and mob organized strike breakers.
Had guys with guns on standby in case of escalation too.
And they won, circa 19teens.
Just corporate dictatorship things...
When the economy falls we can organize enough to strike to hit critical mass, not yet.