U.S. auto workers launch first simultaneous strike at Detroit Three

The United Auto Workers union launched simultaneous strikes at three factories owned by General Motors, Ford and Chrysler parent Stellantis early on Friday, kicking off the most ambitious U.S. industrial labor action in decades.

And some folks said that U.S. was not a good example of syndicalism, hehe.

- https://www.theflipside.io/ — Leontiskos

Very interesting. Thanks for sharing it with us. It holds neutral and substantive information. The design of the web page is cool too. I like how in the news says: "From the right" and "From the left", to understand how people see it politically. Instead of manipulating the truth using biased opinions.
Nonetheless, it only focuses on American topics. I miss more reviews on European matters.

The BBC (as you pointed out) is the answer which comes to my mind, firstly.

When I was in Scotland, I liked to read "The Scotsman". It is true that it contains different topics, but as much as I remember, there was a clear neutrality in the articles.

that has every time bounced back, actually important in the transformation after Franco's death? — ssu

First of all, the monarchy always bounces back because Spain is not mature enough to be a Republic. All republicans dream that Spain would be like France and Germany if we get rid of the king. Well, this has zero basis and our left (where republicans are allocated the most) tend to copy the behaviour of socialist Latin American countries rather than Western Europeans. I agree, in short, that, thanks to our monarchy, there won't be a Coup de Etat because the military structure is loyal to him.

Interesting, a bit off the topic, but I would love to hear just why some think so. — ssu

The Habsburg family represents the Golden era of Spain worldwide. Unification of the country, moors are kicked off from the peninsula, empire, resources from colonies, literature and art flowing around and a big presence in both European and Vatican power relationships. A pure nostalgic would feel nostalgic of this royal family. Since Charles II (the witched) dead without descents, the fall of Spain started on. His successors inherited an empire that remained largely intact, but Philip of Anjou had little sense of Spanish interests and needs. When a conflict came up between the interests of Spain and France, he usually favored France. Ferdinand VII was the worst of them: Spain lost nearly all of its American possessions. Incompetent, despotic, and short-sighted.

But again, Spain is not ready to be responsible for a republican state.

You have to plenty believe in universals and abstracts to follow up something like socialism. It is a political basis that only exists in abstraction of ideas, but it has never been applied practically. Even those nations which considered themselves as socialists hardly maintained the praxis with the pass of the years. Something like "common ownership" cannot be applied to subjects, because it is absorbed by the collective itself and disappears into the mass. So no, their politics are not concerned with something apart from their ideas and dreams.

I think the question isn't discerned in Platonic nor conceptualist, but over socialization. A person is said to be well socialized if he believes in and obeys the moral code of his society and fits in well as a functioning part of that society. Even though he doesn't understand the conceptualisation. The collective tells you what to think and how to be a good neighbour, easy. They generalise the behaviour and the basic values of society. Generally speaking, the goals of today’s socialists are not in conflict with the accepted morality. On the contrary, the left takes an accepted moral principle, adopts it as its own, and then accuses mainstream society of violating that principle. More fundamentally, the duty of the individual to serve society and the duty of society to take care of the individual.

I agree with unabomber when he explained in his manifesto: One of the most important means by which our society socializes children is by making them feel ashamed of behavior or speech that is contrary to society’s expectations. If this is overdone, or if a particular child is especially susceptible to such feelings, he ends by feeling ashamed of himself.

My intention is not to go off the topic of your post, but I fully recommend a look on Unabomber's manifesto: Industrial society and its future, You may find some related points to your arguments, and maybe you will consider them useful.

I think the bitter civil war and the Franco's regime still has made the divide in Spain a painful issue. Unlike Finland, Spain didn't have it's "Winter War" that would have united the people to fight a common enemy and thus create social cohesion between the left and the right — ssu

I agree :up:

We are so divided that it is impossible for us to agree on the lyrics of the national anthem. But the division goes further in all possible areas. I am not an expert in the history of my country, but I bet that if we had never developed as well as the rest of EU countries it is for the next reasons:

1. Catholic culture instead of protestant. Having wannabe Vatican lovers have always been a pain in the ass.

2. The Bourbon dynasty won over Habsburg in the succession war. Some of us believe that our culture would be totally different if our kingdom had centre-European roots.

3. Not allowing Catalonia and Basque country decide their own destiny. Believe it or not, (probably) the polls would result on NO to independence. But the block from the state to celebrate a referendum only leads us to regional conflicts and having citizens who hate Spain because their father did so, and grandparents, and so on...

I think that if the trade unions are apolitical would be better as then their members understand that the union is simply for there for their salaries and working conditions — ssu

I agree too, and I wish trade unions simply act in such a way.

September 13th.

Are these the largest trade unions and are they really Marxist? — ssu

Yes, they are the largest trade unions and represent the most workers of different areas in the country. They also act as a mediator when they have to negotiate with employers and Ministry of Labour.

On the other hand, they are recognised Marxists absolutely! But I am not the one who says so, it is written in their bylaws with subtle words.

Comisiones Obreras: CCOO claims the principles of justice, freedom, equality and solidarity. It defends the demands of working men and women; It is oriented towards the suppression of capitalism and the construction of a democratic socialist society.

UGT (Unión General de Trabajadores) UGT: The Unión General de Trabajadoras y Trabajadores is a progressive, committed, vindicating, democratic and independent organization with presence in all sectors of activity and throughout Spain. A society in which fundamental social rights have priority over economic freedoms and in which the benefits derived from digital or technological development revert to society as a whole. To reach this stage, the role of social dialogue and greater worker participation in company's decisions will be essential.

Yep, they seem to be pretty Marxist to me...

But I imagine you still have police and fire departments, roads, bridges, harbours, traffic lights, schools, hospitals, old age pensions, media and communication network, electricity, public transit and sanitation, running water and sewer systems... those benefits. — Vera Mont

Those are public services which are covered up by taxes. I do not know why it should be related to trade unions.

The CNT was a key actor in the development of workers' rights in the 20th Spain. My grandparents were members, like most of the families, because back in the day only the bourgeois were able to run a company or even the country. So, I understand the context of the necessity of being part of such collectivism.

Although, CNT considers itself anarchist, it had a big participation of the Second Republic and lefties brigades against Franco, which in the same period time emerged another trade union of the regime: J.O.N.S. a syndicate of the working class but with conservative and far-right vibes.

After Franco's death, both trade unions disappeared. It is true that CNT remains "active" but it is no longer important because in 1977 were born the two main syndicates of Spain: UGT (Unión General de Trabajadores) and CC.OO (Comisiones Obreras). These two are Marxist, and they refuse to recognise other classes of trade unions, such as UFPOL (a police syndicate, that it is fascist, supposedly)

Conclusion: Despite CNT had a good start defending the rights of the Spanish middle-class, their "children" ended up fighting each other because they became in political lobbies.

End of this class of History.

Where, BTW syndicalism is considered by many as a permanent ode to the evils of the Greek economy and development. Working for the state and knowning that it is very difficult to get fired, makes for lazy and incometent employees and workers. That is why Greece is so much behind in infrastructures, public services and facilities, etc. than other members of the EU. — Alkis Piskas

I know what you feel because it happens the same here. Trade unions are considered as a socialist lobby. But this is not a complot from the media, it is literally a leftist thing and they do not operate objectively against companies. Although I understand that syndicalism comes from Marxism, I think that they are scavengers of resources nowadays.

On the other hand, trade unions tend to parasite in some working areas. For example: trucks, trains, and everything related to transportation. Most of the members of these lobbies have been there for decades and just face the system or government for personal and selfish aims.

Spain is behind in all of those resources as well. I think this is due to how our representatives act. Instead of looking for a real collective goal, most of them act selfishly and make traps during the process. They are not Alternative Dispute Resolution. They are the ones who create the dispute!

but if you want the benefits of a society, pay your dues and mind the rules. — Vera Mont

Which are those "benefits"?

Unions are paid by their members; they don't pay their members! — Alkis Piskas

My understanding is that American unions generally pay their members during a strike. — BC

In Spain, as well as in Greece, the trade unions do not pay their members whether they want to strike or not. It is the opposite, the workers are the ones who pay fees to the trade union that are part in, but the unions are not a guarantee for the worker's incomes if they go on strike.

I thought this as granted, but I learnt in this thread that it is obvious some unions are more effective than others. I started this OP in my own national perspective and maybe that's why some of you see it as unrealistic, because in your country the scab is covered by the trade union. Well, that's not the reality of each nation...

Now, I can understand why some of you folks consider the scab a selfish relatively.

In fact, only social democratic countries --real ones, not those governed by leftish (allegedly "socialist") parties, in alternation with rightist ones-- that is, European Nordic countries (Denmark, Sweden, Finland, and then Norway) are good examples. — Alkis Piskas

I fully agree with you!

My intention wasn't ignore the other families. I am aware that every home has its own problems and we should not put someone's above the other's.

According to your argument, you consider scabs as selfish people. And I think it depends on the context, that's why I put a sensitive example in the dilemma. It is not the same crossing the picket line just because you are afraid of being sacked than having other kind of duties.

To be honest, I think that judging a scab is pretty easy because he is the "bad apple". Yet, I wanted to (at least) give a try and reasoning, and see why some workers scab instead of acting collectively.
On the other hand, I feel bad for the scab, because when the strike ends the rest of the works would ghosting them. Even though that he acted in good faith in every moment, and I do not consider them vicious.

It is fascinating because the act of acting individually in modern society is punished by the group, whether you have reasons to do so. My conclusion is that we have to cooperate, because others would see us as "selfish", "traitor", "a black sheep", etc.

Now where’s my union strike check? :wink: — 0 thru 9

Hehe :snicker:

But I understand the position and choice of those who cross the picket line. — 0 thru 9

Yes, exactly. That was the main point of this thread, trying to understand why some workers decide to go to work, or at least have some empathy instead of calling them "scabs!"

I think your argument is pretty state/government dependent. You are trying to give as granted that we cannot live without state intervention, despite that even most of the cases this operation ends up terribly. One of the main points is that most of the governments, in the long term, become useless and they will not work to make the things altogether.

Deep social divisions and dysfunctional political environment are big issues and they affect the management of the state. But this is usually caused by governments and not citizens who try to live individually and they cannot do so, because the state (or local government) forces you to have "ideologies" to be part of a "community".

Good question. I think not, and Mishima had his own style. I consider him as romantic with a mix of bellicism.

Ha ha. First, Somalia isn't merely "worse than us", it's total chaos. Why? Specifically because of a lack of government. — LuckyR

As well as here in Spain then. :roll:
It is not necessary to go to Africa to see chaotic nations. We have a tumultuous public administration too.
We are just lucky because we are the summer resort of the rest of the European Union members. We would be completely ignored otherwise...

The Kamogawa food detectives, Hisashi Kashiwai.

I am not a big fan of noir novels, but all the people are recommending me this book. Let's see...

Hey if you don't like government, check out Somalia. Let us know what you think about it. — LuckyR

Hey, the fact that some nations are worse than us, doesn't mean that our system works perfectly.

I can understand why he posts, but I don't know why you don't just ignore him. — T Clark

Because ignoring someone is a very disrespectful act. I read all the posts from NOS and I find them interesting, whether I end up answering them or not, but it is true that he is one of the main TPF members I interact with the most.

Ok I understand your point. However, I think that if they scab, then the union might oust them from the union as they scabbed even if it is unsuccessful. This will lead to the consequence of starving further down the road. — Justin5679

And that's how a coercive mobster works, folks!

By the way, I think @Vera Mont is a leader of a Canadian writers trade union, and that's why she is defending this collective so hardly. :razz:

Please share. — Vera Mont

Two important examples:

Strike of October 1972 (Chile)

Jimmy Hoffa

Well, it is interesting to see that mafia trade unions share the same industry/commerce: trucks and transportation. To understand how poisonous can a trade union be, we have to look at Jimmy Hoffa's story. Hoffa became involved with organized crime from the early years of his Teamsters work, a connection that continued until his disappearance in 1975. He was convicted of jury tampering, attempted bribery, conspiracy, and mail and wire fraud in 1964 in two separate trials. He was imprisoned in 1967 and sentenced to 13 years. In mid-1971.

Hello Alkis!

As it is, and I totally back up your argument. I didn't think of that, but you are right. The co-workers are just colleagues in an industrial activity and we only share time and space. While our family is more personal. A wife and the children are those who (in most of the cases) will accompany you in all the moments in the life.

Furthermore, those personal and sensitive arguments, I think there is a rational one: What kind of person am I if I can't help my home? Why can't I act individually and stay away from the stubborn behaviour of trade unions? I think it is crazy to postpone trade union's interests to my family's.

Exactly, NOS.

There are a lot of evidences which prove that trade unions act as a mafia group. Paradoxically, they can be even more oppressive than the entrepreneur himself. I like how you highlight that the taken decisions by the leaders are accepted whether the workers like it or not, or affects or not their income or rights. If you want to make an individualistic move, they quickly will call you scab.

I agree, and your post explains very clearly what I - somehow - tried to tell in the OP. Although I do not pretend to delegitimize the role of trade unions has had during the development of the working-class, I think these groups have some shadows in the structures too. And, of course, they are and will always be the main interlocutor between the workers and the enterprises/government.

This is why I wanted to know if there is a possibility for a worker to disengage from this structure. When I read papers and news related to this issue, I figured out that a "scab" is badly seen among workers and most of them end up disowned. Yet, I was curious to understand the purposes of a scab and then some delicate situations like my OP could exist. Even, the trade unions can act aggressively towards the workers and threaten them. Acting like a gang, as you explained.

Because of the way you set it up, with no regard to the government's role, the employer's side of it, or the union's rationale for calling a strike. — Vera Mont

I didn't know a dilemma needed to be that realistic... I guess that if you put a lot of information, the debate we are currently having can decay. That's why I decided to start this OP, to read different opinions.

The employers have no duty to anyone, — Vera Mont

Of course they have and a lot. Starting with the entrepreneur who pays their income and ending up with the state when taxes are paid.

Thank you, ssu. I think you are the only who actually understood what I proposed on this dilemma. Maybe, it is a matter of culture and circumstances. Most of the users of TPF are citizens from Anglo-Saxon countries which their economy goes on forward and they tend to have a lot of job opportunities. So, they give for granted that if a strike fails, well just go to another job or whatever.

One of the things that surprised me the most is that some members don't get why the worker's wife is unemployed. Welcome to the reality of other countries. How lucky they are for not living in Spain, when it is common for women to stay at home and raising the kids and the family depends on the husband's income, which tends to be low. Usually, those women perceive a compensation from the state, but it is low too.

On the other hand, I will be honest. I see trade unions as political lobbies. Simple as that, and sometimes they do not care enough about their workers. It is a utopia because the worker is attached to both the enterprise and the trade union. Is there a possibility for the worker to make decisions individually? This is why I started this OP.

This is to the detriment of the strikers, whose families are similarly unstable, have needs, and so forth. It's not a neutral act of duty, it's a person actively sabotaging the efforts of strikers in the name of their family: Family over Union. — Moliere

Good point, Molliere and thanks for providing your arguments. I am seeing the dilemma in a different perspective now. Despite I didn't consider the familiar context of the rest of the workers, I wanted to use as an example a miner who is in a more "delicate" position than the others. I mean, there is always one specific person who, for whatever reason, is in a worse position than the rest.

What is the objective of the strike? — Vera Mont

Avoid the closure of the colliery. Thus, they would keep their jobs.

What are the employer's options? — Vera Mont

I do not consider it as "option" but a duty. The worker of this example is already represented by their secretary of miner's trade union. This is who proposes the strike, expecting that every miner will go because it is their moral duty.

If the strike succeeds, what does the worker gain? — Vera Mont

He keeps his job at the colliery, but...

If it fails, what does the worker lose? — Vera Mont

Here is the main problem and the uncertainty of the worker. What will happen if the strike doesn't succeed? Most important: who covers up the situation of his family during the strike? Because this issue can take months...

The worker's choice is purported to be between loyalties to union and family, but that is not the case in real life. — Vera Mont

It is interesting that you all say this is not a realistic scenario. :lol:
To be honest, I still do not understand why you see it that way...

What does this particular worker want? — Vera Mont

If you were the worker, what would you want?

Understood.

But my aim of publishing this post was not finding a solution, but to see what people think towards individualism. To be honest, in the specific case of the example, I'd choose to scab and provide my family an income despite that my co-workers would see me a very selfish person.

Although, there could be many alternatives and "additions" in these dilemmas, I think it is worthy to debate on how the individual decides to not follow up the group (duty of omission) because of personal circumstances.

Yep. The pretence here is that this is an attempt to make an impossibly intractable situation appear realistic. — Banno

I do not understand why you don't see this as realistic. I can share your arguments on the fact that we can always add something to that renders the individual choice void. This only makes the dilemma endless or difficult to solve, but not "unrealistic"

Hello Justin.

I understand your point, but I disagree with the fact of only caring about the devastated consequences on the enterprise and not the family. You explained that, in the long term, it will be worse if the colliery closes because they all can lose their employment.

Nonetheless, this is not plausible. You are considering that the strike has 100 % chances of succeeding, which it isn't. But, on the other hand, feeding your family is more granted if you "scab"

I fully agree with your argument seeing the individualistic point of view. Nonetheless, I think it is important to consider that going to strike is not a guarantee to cover up your rights. As @BC perfectly explained, not all strikes succeed at the end.

So, joining the strike has a lot of uncertainty while the possibility of feeding your family is more granted.

Why can't the wife work? — RogueAI

She can work, but she is unemployed. She was kicked off from her job due to the bankruptcy of the enterprise.

Can the guy on strike get a temporary job outside the field he's in? — RogueAI

Excellent question and that happens in real life too. For me, it will not be a problem and I will fully understand if the worker gets a temporary job. Yet, the trade unions would not be happy and would consider him a "scab"



Despite I agree that co-workers have the "duty" of showing compromise and loyalty, I think that individualism should be in the spot depending on the circumstances. Specifically, in this case, the worker has a lot of problems in his home and it seems that the trade union is not covering him put but coercing him to go on strike. At least that's how I see it...

I think what is key in this dilemma is who the worker owes more loyalty: his family or the miner's trade union (another kind of family)

You may have a family. But do you think that the other strikers don't? — Moliere

True.

But keep in mind that the worker of the example has problems in his family: the wife is already unemployed, one kid is sick and the other goes to college. Maybe the rest of the workers are covered up thanks to the incomes of their respective families...

Workers do face difficult decisions in supporting a union drive, becoming active in the union, and in striking, especially when the employer is hostile. The risks are not a pretense. Strikes do not always succeed, and a failed strike can leave the union members broke and out in the cold. — BC

I agree.

Furthermore, your good points BC, my intention in this OP was to highlight the personal/familiar context, which tend to be sensitive. One worker could scab because of he feels at the risk he faces losing both employment and income. But his attitude is not selfish at all, because he does such act in benefit of another group: his family.

I like your point that strikes not always succeed, and that's why I guess there is a dilemma on the worker's context of this OP. What solution is most worthy to him to sacrifice?

is mostly pretence. — Banno

Pretence means: an attempt to make something that is not the case appear true.

My intention was not to "pretend", and believe it or not, the case I used as a dilemma, is more common in real life than we tend to think.

I do not get why you think the dilemma itself forces you to choose one option instead of the other.

What's your point? Seems like more thinly veiled anti-union stuff to me. — Mikie

My point was to know if "individual" choices in edge circumstances are or not plausible. I think this is a good example, because the worker is not necessarily against trade unions but his personal situation is even more complex. I already know that in some countries the rights of the workers are covered if the go to strike. If I had put such guarantees in my OP, the dilemma would be senseless.