this post was submitted on 02 Feb 2025
96 points (99.0% liked)

El Chisme

322 readers
1 users here now

Place for posting about the dumb shit public figures say.

Rules:

Rule 1: The subject of a post must be a public person.

Rule 2: All posts must include links to the subject matter, and no identifying information should be redacted.

Rule 3: If your source is a reactionary website, please use archive.is instead of linking directly.

Rule 4: No sectarianism.

Rule 5: TERF/SWERFs Not Welcome

Rule 6: No ableism of any kind (that includes stuff like libt*rd)

Rule 7: Do not post fellow hexbears.

Rule 8: Do not individually target other instances' admins or moderators.

founded 3 months ago
MODERATORS
 

Tweet

Full text

From UAW President Shawn Fain:

"The UAW supports aggressive tariff action to protect American manufacturing jobs as a good first step to undoing decades of anti-worker trade policy. We do not support using factory workers as pawns in a fight over immigration or drug policy.

We are willing to support the Trump Administration’s use of tariffs to stop plant closures and curb the power of corporations that pit US workers against workers in other countries.

But so far, Trump’s anti-worker policy at home, including dissolving collective bargaining agreements and gutting the National Labor Relations Board, leaves American workers facing worsening wages and working conditions even while the administration takes aggressive tariff action.

If Trump is serious about bringing back good blue collar jobs destroyed by NAFTA, the USMCA, and the WTO, he should go a step further and immediately seek to renegotiate our broken trade deals.

The national emergency we face is not about drugs or immigration, but about a working class that has fallen behind for generations while corporate America exploits workers abroad and consumers at home for massive Wall Street paydays.

We need to stop plant closures, bring back American jobs, and stop the global race to the bottom immediately. Any tariff action must be followed with a renegotiation of the USMCA, and a full review of the corporate trade regime that has devastated the American and global working class.”

treatler

We need an emote that just a picture of Settlers

all 21 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Dimmer06@hexbear.net 41 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

UAW is technically an international union with members in Canada lol. Way to go Shawn, just throw them under the bus.

[–] Drewfro66@lemmygrad.ml 18 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

Since America is still in NAFTA, doesn't that mean that Trump's tariffs don't apply to Canada anyways?

[–] queermunist@lemmy.ml 21 points 3 weeks ago

He's made up some lie about these being retaliatory tariffs because of fentanyl, which skirts NAFTA rules.

[–] godlessworm@hexbear.net 13 points 3 weeks ago

im stupid but didn’t he specifically sanction canada at like 25%?

[–] Alaskaball@hexbear.net 40 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

This is literally the best you'll get if communists aren't a part of unions. Join or build a union and help lead the workers forward.

[–] Dimmer06@hexbear.net 35 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

What's funny is that UAW has lots of communists (and even worse, Communists) in it and probably one of the most storied histories of radical labor organizing in the US. The union is just dominated by a reactionary old guard and is thoroughly undemocratic and corrupt. Shawn Fain was effectively the compromise candidate imposed on them by the DoL and was only elected by a tiny portion of the membership.

[–] Alaskaball@hexbear.net 20 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

communists (and even worse, Communists)

Which ones are we talking about here? I'm just passingly familiar with CPUSA's helping hand in the founding of UAW and the sit-down strikes and their purging from the union shortly after, but UAWs so outside of my sphere I don't really know what kinds of folks are running around their shop floors today.

[–] Dimmer06@hexbear.net 11 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

Around a quarter of UAW members work in higher education, mostly as graduate workers/PhD students. A lot of these efforts are led by student activists who are usually some kind of radical. Where I live an ongoing campaign has deep ties to the CPUSA and basically revitalized their chapter here. I'm assuming that's generally the case though idk if the CP is as deeply rooted in all the campaigns as the one I'm familiar with because they're very quiet about it.

Also an openly Trotskyist WSWS candidate ran in the first round of their election fof their president and got like 5% of the vote.

[–] Alaskaball@hexbear.net 4 points 3 weeks ago

Thank you for sharing, it's always a surprise to know how many pies unions have their fingers in. From teamsters nurses to UAW grad workers. Really helps elucidate the fact that unions are much more than a bunch of schluby pawpawps in hard hats and reflective vests.

[–] TotalBrownout@hexbear.net 15 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Most (all?) unions currently have in their constitution a clause where all members must attest that they are not a communist. Openly endorsing communism gets you kicked out. Interestingly enough, this also applies to fascism...

Openly endorsing communism gets you kicked out. Interestingly enough, this also applies to fascism...

What is this? The Iron Front?

[–] Dessa@hexbear.net 29 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

Every time I try to make a union, people hem and haw endlessly. "Oh I don't know. Oh, it's not really necessary." As the conditions slowly deteriorate. It's infuriating

[–] Alaskaball@hexbear.net 23 points 3 weeks ago

headpat you're trying your best

[–] jack@hexbear.net 8 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)
[–] Coolkidbozzy@hexbear.net 38 points 3 weeks ago

bro I know plenty of non-unionized factory workers in Mexico that have a good shot at losing their jobs

Engels, On the Question of Free Trade (1888):

The consciousness is gaining ground in England that that country's industrial monopoly is irretrievably lost, that she is still relatively losing ground, while her rivals are making progress, and that she is drifting into a position where she will have to be content with being one manufacturing nation among many, instead of, as she once dreamt, "the workshop of the world". It is to stave off this impending fate that Protection, scarcely disguised under the veil of "fair trade" and retaliatory tariffs, is now invoked with such fervor by the sons of the very men who, 40 years ago, knew no salvation but in Free Trade. And when English manufacturers begin to find that Free Trade is ruining them, and ask the government to protect them against their foreign competitors, then, surely, the moment has come for these competitors to retaliate by throwing overboard a protective system henceforth useless, to fight the fading industrial monopoly of England with its own weapon: Free Trade.

The question of Free Trade or Protection moves entirely within the bounds of the present system of capitalist production, and has, therefore, no direct interest for us socialists who want to do away with that system.

Indirectly, however, it interests us inasmuch as we must desire as the present system of production to develop and expand as freely and as quickly as possible: because along with it will develop also those economic phenomena which are its necessary consequences, and which must destroy the whole system: misery of the great mass of the people, in consequence of overproduction. This overproduction engendering either periodical gluts and revulsions, accompanied by panic, or else a chronic stagnation of trade; division of society into a small class of large capitalist, and a large one of practically hereditary wage-slaves, proletarians, who, while their numbers increase constantly, are at the same time constantly being superseded by new labor-saving machinery; in short, society brought to a deadlock, out of which there is no escaping but by a complete remodeling of the economic structure which forms it basis.

From this point of view, 40 years ago Marx pronounced, in principle, in favor of Free Trade as the more progressive plan, and therefore the plan which would soonest bring capitalist society to that deadlock. But if Marx declared in favor of Free Trade on that ground, is that not a reason for every supporter of the present order of society to declare against Free Trade? If Free Trade is stated to be revolutionary, must not all good citizens vote for Protection as a conservative plan?

If a country nowadays accepts Free Trade, it will certainly not do so to please the socialists. It will do so because Free trade has become a necessity for the industrial capitalists. But if it should reject Free Trade and stick to Protection, in order to cheat the socialists out of the expected social catastrophe, that will not hurt the prospects of socialism in the least. Protection is a plan for artificially manufacturing manufacturers, and therefore also a plan for artificially manufacturing wage laborers. You cannot breed the one without breeding the other.

The wage laborer everywhere follows in the footsteps of the manufacturer; he is like the "gloomy care" of Horace, that sits behind the rider, and that he cannot shake off wherever he go. You cannot escape fate; in other words, you cannot escape the necessary consequences of your own actions. A system of production based upon the exploitation of wage labor, in which wealth increases in proportion to the number of laborers employed and exploited, such a system is bound to increase the class of wage laborers, that is to say, the class which is fated one day to destroy the system itself. In the meantime, there is no help for it: you must go on developing the capitalist system, you must accelerate the production, accumulation, and centralization of capitalist wealth, and, along with it, the production of a revolutionary class of laborers. Whether you try the Protectionist or the Free Trade will make no difference in the end, and hardly any in the length of the respite left to you until the day when that end will come. For long before that day will protection have become an unbearable shackle to any country aspiring, with a chance of success, to hold its own in the world market.

[–] Terrarium@hexbear.net 34 points 3 weeks ago

Behold: the petty bourgeois nature of imperial core trade unions.

Bask in it. Understand it. And then overcome it, using them to your advantage despite the despicable aspects.

[–] CyborgMarx@hexbear.net 27 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

Does he seriously believe American companies would ever bring back manufacturing jobs if it meant giving them to unionized high wage labor?

This isn't even trade unionism, this is vulgar class collaboration with a side of utopianism

[–] DragonBallZinn@hexbear.net 16 points 3 weeks ago

"Noooo leopards! You were supposed to eat someone ELSE'S face! I thought I was a leopard too! Nooooo!"

[–] infuziSporg@hexbear.net 6 points 3 weeks ago

and curb the power of corporations that pit US workers against workers in other countries.

the corporate trade regime that has devastated the American and global working class

This sounds fairly internationalist, as far as you can expect in America. Perhaps it's just lip service?