If there’s a red line with Ford Motor Company it’s probably striking at one of the company’s highly profitable truck plants. Ford likes to brag that its Super Duty line makes more revenue than companies like Southwest Airlines and Marriot. So the UAW’s surprise last-minute strike at the plant hurts. The way that it was done hurts even more.
What does the union want? There’s another piece from Reuters that details some of the remaining sticking points, and we can evaluate the nut kick from the UAW in the context of those outstanding details.
Taking a little brake from union stuff, let’s finish off The Morning Dump with some good news for our British readers and some interesting news for Toyota fans regarding solid-state battery plans.
UAW President Shawn Fain Hits Ford Where It Hurts
The Stand Up Strike just hit Ford's biggest plant. Here's how it went down, and why 8,700 members at Kentucky Truck Plant took action.#StandUpUAW pic.twitter.com/mzO0AZGMKS
— UAW (@UAW) October 12, 2023
While it seemed like Ford was closest to getting a deal with the UAW, the UAW pulled a real “Wildcard, Biiiitches” last night, but instead of cutting the brake lines, union President Shawn Fain abruptly called for a walkout at Ford’s Kentucky Truck Plant after a 10-minute meeting. That plant is responsible for the highly profitable Super Duty pickups, Expedition, and the Lincoln Navigator.
Here’s Automotive News on how that all went down, and it’s pretty wild:
A Ford source with knowledge of the negotiations said the union and automaker had been having constructive discussions this week, with the understanding they would focus on specific issues such as battery plants and retirement security.
YIKES! It gets stranger:
A UAW source with knowledge of the talks said the union had still been expecting Ford to enhance its offer. When Ford did not add to its economic proposal at the Wednesday meeting, the source said Fain responded: “If this is all you have for us, our members’ lives and my handshake are worth more than this. This just cost you the Kentucky Truck Plant.”
Ford is not pleased, releasing this statement last night:
The decision by the UAW to call a strike at Ford’s Kentucky Truck Plant is grossly irresponsible but unsurprising given the union leadership’s stated strategy of keeping the Detroit 3 wounded for months through “reputational damage” and “industrial chaos.”
Ford made an outstanding offer that would make a meaningful positive difference in the quality of life for our 57,000 UAW-represented workers, who are already among the best compensated hourly manufacturing workers anywhere in the world. In addition to our offer on pay and benefits, Ford has been bargaining in good faith this week on joint venture battery plants, which are slated to begin production in the coming year.
The UAW leadership’s decision to reject this record contract offer – which the UAW has publicly described as the best offer on the table – and strike Kentucky Truck Plant, carries serious consequences for our workforce, suppliers, dealers and commercial customers.
If we take everyone at their word, Ford thought it had the economic issues resolved and was ready to talk about joint venture battery plants and the UAW figured it would get a new contract with some more dollar signs attached.
Automakers have been pushing a line that the UAW is going to cut off its nose to spite its own face if it continues to go down this road, but for the moment it doesn’t seem like the UAW or its members are that worried. By carrying out these almost melodramatic strategic strikes there’s still likely money left in the UAW’s strike fund to continue to weather any immediate layoffs.
It still feels like the automakers don’t have a good plan to respond to all of this. National sentiment towards unions and unionization is high right now according to Gallup, and both major political parties in the United States have been generally supportive of the auto workers. The main leverage automakers have is with layoffs, but given a tight labor market that comes with its own downsides.
The UAW seems to have the better hand here and is milking it for all its worth. The only way it could get worse for Ford is if the UAW tried to shut down the Dearborn Truck Plant where the F-150 is built.
What Does The UAW Actually Want?
There’s a report from Reuters yesterday that was filed before the truck plant walkout and it points to the big issues still remaining before the Detroit Three and the UAW.
All of the automakers seem to be good with a base raise of 20% to 23%, Ford/Stellantis are okay with bringing back cost-of-living adjustments, and everyone seems to be pushing towards the elimination of tiers and better conditions for part-time workers. That’s a big chunk of what the UAW asked for initially.
What’s left? From Reuters:
Big obstacles remain on at least two major UAW demands: restoring the retirement security provided by pre-2007 defined benefit pension plans, and covering present and future joint-venture electric vehicle battery plants under the union’s master contracts with the automakers.
On retirement, none of the automakers has agreed to restore pre-2007 defined-benefit pension plans for workers hired after 2007. Doing so could force the automakers to again burden their balance sheets with multibillion-dollar liabilities. GM and the former Chrysler unloaded most of those liabilities in their 2009 bankruptcies.
The union and automakers have explored an approach to providing more income security by offering annuities as an investment option in their company-sponsored 401(k) savings plans, people familiar with the discussions said. Stellantis referred to an annuity option as part of a more generous 401(k) proposal on Sept. 22.
Perhaps the UAW was hoping to get more info on retirement from Ford? With GM bending a lot on battery plants it seems like that’s set a pattern for Ford.
Ford Cuts Mustang Mach-E Prices In The UK
When I was in the UK driving the excellent Puma ST I got to take a peek inside the Ford UK press garage. There were a lot of Mach-Es. I also saw a decent number of Mach-Es whilst traveling around England, though I probably saw more V8 Mustangs.
The big news in Britain is that the cost of the Mach-E has been slashed by about $9,400, or £7,700. Here’s Autocar with an explanation of what’s going on:
The Mach-E Premium, with the bigger battery and a range of up to 372 miles, now costs £52,380 while the performance-focused GT has been reduced to £67,540.
Ford bills the changes as a ‘promotion price’ rather than a long-term change but doesn’t give a date when it could be revised upward again. Finance offers currently available for the Mach-E finish at the end of December.
The price cuts effectively reverse the increases of up to £7700 that Ford levied across 2022 on the Mach-E on the back of rising raw material costs. Inflation had “wiped out” profit on the car, company chief financial officer John Lawler said.
By comparison, a Mach-E Premium in the United States starts at a much lower $46,995 before delivery (compared to $64k in the UK) or a partial Federal Tax Credit. The Mach-E GT is also much cheaper at $59,995 (compared to a wild $82k in the UK).
Toyota And Idemitsu See Solid-State Battery Breakthrough By 2028
Toyota will have to build many, many cars with lithium-ion and iron-phosphate batteries. It’s doing it now and it’ll have to do it for the foreseeable future. So will BMW and GM and Tesla and just about everyone. The future every automaker is hoping for, however, is the day when the current liquid electrolyte batteries can be swapped for more efficient solid-state batteries.
If they work, solid-state batteries should hold more energy, be lighter, easier to package, faster to charge, and less prone to fires. That little lava lamp in the photo above is a jar of solid electrolytes.
This makes Toyota’s announcement that it’s making a deal with Japanese petrochemical company Idemitsu Kosan that much bigger of a deal.
Here’s what Toyota CEO Koji Sato had to say about it earlier today in Japan:
“[O]ur two companies will combine their separate efforts to mass-produce new materials and establish a supply chain for solid electrolytes, which hold the key to the commercialization of solid-state batteries.
First, between 2027 and 2028, we will start to produce solid-state batteries for use in battery electric vehicles. We will then lay the foundation for mass production.
These batteries are not yet perfect, as Sato acknowledged:
A longstanding technical issue has been that repeatedly charging and discharging the battery causes cracks between the cathodes and anodes and the solid electrolytes, degrading battery performance.
Since 2013, our partner in working together to solve this issue has been Idemitsu, which was one of the first companies to conduct the development of elemental technologies for solid-state batteries.
One such elemental technology is a highly flexible, adhesive, and crack-resistant solid electrolyte.
Through repeated trial and error and by combining the material technologies of both companies, we have been able to develop a crack-resistant material that demonstrates high performance.
By combining this new solid electrolyte with the Toyota Group’s cathode and anode materials and battery technologies, we are now on the path toward achieving both performance and durability in solid-state batteries.
It’s great if it works.
The Big Question
What will it take for EVs to be palatable for 99% of drivers. For you battery nerds: How far away are we from a mass-produced solid-state battery? Can Toyota get them in cars by 2030 or is that wishful thinking? Will BMW beat them there?
[Editor’s Note: We changed the headline from “sucker punch” to “hit,” because let’s be honest, Ford knew a strike was possible, and “sucker punch” is kind of an adversarial term. This was not our intent; we just meant that the strike was a surprise. -DT].
We’re so deep in the culture wars that a significant portion of the population is scared of vaccines. When immunologists presented proof that vaccines are safe, the anti-vaxxers just kept moving the goalposts and inventing new concerns. They don’t have genuine concerns about the tradeoffs of vaccines, they simply can’t stand that they’re not the ones everyone is listening to. In other words, 36% of Americans say they don’t trust vaccines because 57% think that vaccinating is a necessary part of being a responsible member of your community.
Today, EVs have compromises. Like other green tech, they work, they’re just not convenient. Tomorrow, who knows. But prominent GOP politicians are actively promoting climate denial and leveraging the resulting controversy, just as they did with vaccines. So as long as the majority of people think getting rid of fossil fuels is the responsible thing to do, regardless of their objective capabilities, reactionaries will continue invent new concerns over green tech simply because they feel like they’re losing control over the world.
Worse than climate deniers is climate change supporters that believe enough changes are possible to reverse global warming. We are way past the point from a population stand point where it’s possible to stop. Net Zero is possibly not even achievable by 2100. Even a 90% pollution reduction per capita by 2050 and you will still be at 1000M tons vs 6000M in the US. Global warming started about 1950 when worldwide pollution was 6000M tons, a global reduction of today by 90% and you are about 4000M tons with zero population growth, is that even feasible? The world is doomed, just enjoy the ride.
For me, the biggest surprise in the climate crisis has been seeing how seamlessly people transitioned from saying “It’s not real, so don’t bother trying to fix it,” to “It’s too late, so don’t bother trying to fix it.”
Anyway, regardless of whatever is circulating on Twitter lately, if the IPCC, the UN, NOAA, the EPA, NASA, and MIT all say there’s still time to avoid the worst effects of climate change, then there’s still time.
Thing is they don’t exactly say there is time. Since the new goals laid out in 2010 was a 45% reduction to “slow” increases in global warming. 2010 was the new goals, because from the original goals set in 1990, pollution increased globally by 50% to 2010. US pollution in 2010 was 7100M tons, reducing it to 3900M by 2030 would require per capita of about 10M tons, which is unlikely but could maybe get to 12. When an EV is worth 2-3M tons of pollution annually today considering everything, massive reductions in the impact of EVs is what is needed but besides from electrical sources, how much can that be reduced. Even at Net Zero, climate change from 70yrs of pollution is not going to be stopped, you would need negative pollution. If global pollution in 1950 was 6000M tons when climate change started, then is that a global level for global warming to not increase anymore? I doubt that is even possible by 2050 let alone Net Zero. EV’s are made to be the end all solution to global warming. If you replaced every car in the US with an EV, the environmental impact would be more than the total US pollution from 1950.
Of course all the authorities will tell the people it’s possible, saying global warming is unstoppable would create more anarchy then we already have.
Let’s face it, EVs are a drop in the bucket. Governments and corporations like to talk about them because nobody’s got the spine to do the serious (and disruptive) changes that are needed. And even EVs are mostly a talking point, to speed their adoption would require serious actions to cut petroleum use, either actions on the petro companies or massive hikes in fuel taxes, and to improve the electric supply.
Why allow the perfect to be the enemy of the good? If we can make changes to help, then we should help. Sticking our heads in the sand is irresponsible and immoral
I am not the greenest, nor am I the most polluting, I can not even fathom how my life could have a 95% reduction in pollution by 2050. If the govt was serious, they would pay 100% to put solar on everyone’s house, you would trade your ICE car in for a free EV, they would ban all plastics, styrofoam, and any other material damaging to the environment, recycling would be mandatory and those materials would be recycled no matter the cost benefit, air travel would be banned, all kids toys need to be made from a synthetic green material which requires no pollution to make. I’m just realistic that almost no adults today can accept most of that besides the free stuff, we’ll it wouldn’t be free cause taxes would have to be 100% to cover all of it.
Even if that’s the case, it’s not all-or-nothing. There’s a huge difference between a 2-3C increase that would be unpleasant for a substantial portion of the world’s population but generally something that could be dealt with, and an 8C increase that would be apocalyptic.
This is my concern too. How can we expect people to take climate change seriously when they threw a temper tantrum over a mask and a vaccine? There’s something deeply broken in our society in the mass inability to be considerate of others
Lets say we stop increases in global warming by 2050 which would require about 95% reduction in pollution, the world by then will be about 3F above pre-industrial levels. They say Net Zero is required for the world to naturally reduce its temperature on its own, perhaps that is possible by 2100. For the worlds temp to reduce to pre-industrial levels it will take between 300-1000 years. Surely we will have destroyed ourselves by then.
You want some more culture war, vaccine hesitancy garbage that will make your head spin? I heard today on NPR that some dog owners are refusing to get their dogs the rabies vaccine, which is mandatory in a great deal of the developed world, and has been around for decades. Some dog rescue momma said she never hears stories about rabid wild animals, but she has seen dogs ‘act strangely’ after vaccination. She doesn’t have a clue that the canine rabies vaccine is a primary tool to halt the resurgence of rabies transmission through dog and wild animal populations. If rabies vaccination goes from 80->70%, then we should expect rabies outbreaks on a regular basis. The reason why rabid wild animals and dogs aren’t ‘seen’ is because of vaccination. Rabies is still out there, it just isn’t common.
Don’t feed the troll.
Lava lamp? Huh. That is … not what I saw in the photo.
dead lol
Limit labor union’s power and MAGA
AMERICA CAN ONLY BE GREAT IF WE ALL MAKE SHIT WAGES AND GIVE THE BILLIONAIRES EVERYTHING THEY WANT. PLEASE PICK ME ELON AND DON
Yeah, these workers are being greedy, what about the executives? Think about THEIR sacrifices. I heard one shareholder had to get a standard color for his private jet since he couldn’t afford the upcharge for special paint.
You actually think that people who own shares of Ford stock all have private jets?
All of them? Nah, most shareholders are nickel & dime. The banks, speculators, and other financial institutions that own the bulk of the shares? Yes.
That’s one way to let the world know you’re an asshole.
I’m confused. How is it a “sucker-punch” when someone has a balled up fist, has hit you a couple times already, and is saying, “I’m going to hit you, I’m going to hit you, I’m going to hit you…”?
I changed that term. We just meant that it was a surprise, but we don’t want to seem anti-union.
I can’t see any way that a company that has to compete with low cost labor from outside the US can offer a pension anymore. The only way that is really going to work is with some big import tariffs so that Chinese built stuff has a similar landed cost to what is made in the US. I work at a place that makes almost all our manufactured goods in the US but I have also looked at part quotes from low cost regions and the cost differential is real for any items that have some minimum amount of labor content. I’ve never worked anywhere that had a pension, it has all been 401k style retirement plans. These days everyone with a pension works in professions that don’t have to compete with low cost out of country labor. Government employees, teachers, medical workers, and the like.
Even the Govt is working on getting out of pensions. look at military retirement now…its 401K style.
Those are mostly jobs where there is no competition full stop, and the government can steal more money from taxpayers every year until they move. Look at the states with the most generous pensions and you will see the states that are on population death spirals. IL and NJ lead the way.
I don’t need HUGE range from an EV. I think 200-300 is likely OK, as I don’t really want to haul around a giant/heavy battery pack (5000+ lb cars/SUVs is too much). However, I need a good, easy and reliable charging infrastructure.
What will it take for EVs to be palatable for 99% of drivers?
400 miles of range in any weather.
Functional and readily available charging stations with all in charging costs including taxes under the equivalence of $2.50/gallon of gas.
< 10 minute 0-100% charging times.
$18-25k purchase price for stripper* economy models.
ALL the stalks, knobs, gauges and buttons.
Double DIN hole in dash.
Big F.R.U.N.K.
200k warranty on drive train, 500k lifetime if taken care of.
Ubiquitous home charging (including apartments).
No damn subscriptions!
No damn spyware!
Seats 5 very comfortably.
Very low NVH.
Cheap consumables and parts (tires, windshields, bumper covers, etc).
MIRRORS!
Airbags that don't kill you! (I know, I know, its a big ask)
Batteries that are no more likely to roast your house than a gas tank.
Low guilt by association with corporate shenanigans or rabid wierdo fanbois.
* 2023 definition. Power everything, climate control, 7" touchscreen SATNAV, alloys, etc. This isn't 1971!
Bonus points for:
Trucoat/sealed underbody/plastic body panels to eliminate rodent and oxidation problems. Extra bonus points for flood resistance.
Soft Corinthian leather. Or a nice wool.
AWD for regeneration as well as launch.
SIDEWALL!!
My number one thing would be cheap and affordable and simple as a Milwaukee rechargeable drill battery battery cell replacement. Nothing scarier to me than a 20-30 K battery that can be bricked by only a few bad cells. Also the fact that the pack will likely kill you if you try to fix said cells your self is a huge concern.
Two words:
Swappable battery.
IIRC, it only takes one tool to replace the battery, a chainsaw.
Well, two actually: the chainsaw and and the tool operating it.
To be fair, 1-2 cells don’t brick an entire battery. Batteries rarely go completely bad, they just get to a point where there’s less than half capacity and it’s worth refurbishing them
what seems to be the case that I am referring to is the banks of cells that have to keep the same charge level to be properly balanced and not cause problems tend to have one or two cells in the pack fail, thus degrading the max charge levels. when one whole bank has a problem then the cars seem to go into limp mode, limiting range to 50 miles and top speed is limited too I believe. at any rate the cost to fix this is 20K + on Model S teslas, or if you can find a good shop that specializes in these cars(super rare still) they can sometimes replace cells or banks for 10K and up. it basically causes cars with tons of residual payments to suddenly be fiscally scrapped at a bit under 100K miles.
Are there even ICE cars that meet all of those criteria? Or even most of them?
Well if you want to lure 99% of ICE owners to the dark side you’re gonna need to have some very tasty cookies.
For me, an EV would be great for my 60-mile round trip commute. However, I don’t have the funds to spare for a dedicated commuter vehicle, for now feeding my paid-off 4Runner is much more economical. Also, as someone among the 80% of Americans (most likely) permanently priced out of home ownership, I have no place to charge one.
Cost would have to come down of course, as well as more of a variety of vehicles. I like offroad capable 4×4 SUV’s, sorry not sorry, and right now only the Rivian fits that bill, and my average income-earning ass cannot even begin to afford one. I’ve decided economically it’s best to be a cash buyer of used cars, I’ve spent way too much on payments over the years, but that’s probably not going to feasible for a long time with EV’s.
Charging infrastructure is a big concern as well. My brother-in-law recently got an EV as a commuter, planning to charge at the lot around the corner from his work. Two weeks into ownership, he had to have my mom pick the kids up from daycare because the charging lot was closed, and he would have to stop somewhere to charge on the way home and wouldn’t be home in time.
He let me drive it, it’s an interesting experience. Regen braking is neat, and that thing is quick AF from a 30mph roll. The instant torque and acceleration really surprised me. From a stop it was OK, but when he told me to punch it at 30 I was shocked when I was immediately pushed back into the seat.
What will it take to get 99% of population to adopt EVs? About 7 billion fewer people on the planet. Good news? We’re working on it!
Don’t need that much, if 6B less people of current 8B then Net Zero is maybe possible without EVs and we can just switch to e-Fuels!
Sure..if half those 2B people left are OK with walking/biking as their personal transport system.
Not necessary, current US pollution is 6250M tons, 18t per person, cut population by 75% and pollution to 10t per person (which is complete reasonable) and we’re at 1000M tons. Climate change solved without EVs or walking.
So which is easier?
1) EV mandates
or
2) Telling the world “OK, 3 out of 4 of you gotta go. And it AIN’T gonna be me or mine!”
“Good news? We’re working on it!”
And doing a terrible job of it.
This should help out with Bidenomics.
What is Bidenomics, and how does it differ from capitalism?
A very poor term coined by the White House for our current economy.
It may have been originally coined by Fox News and intended as an insult. Biden has been pretty adept at turning little insults like this back against their origin.
Perhaps. I have heard the White House use the term. If that’s the case, well played. I also like how they used the MTG rant about him as a campaign ad.
I believe the intent of Bidenomics is investing in high-tech manufacturing, infrastructure improvements, and renewable energy to make us a leader in energy independence and to create a real and sustainable middle class.
It differs from capitalism because it focuses on a future years or decades ahead of us, rather than just on the next fiscal quarter.
I see a lot of people here complaining that new cars are too expensive, and I see almost as many people saying that billion dollar companies are fine and that the people who build those cars are a bunch of obnoxious whiners who should be grateful for their table scraps… I wonder if they will ever put two and two together.
“Toyota And Idemitsu See Solid-State Battery Breakthrough By 2028”
I recall reading something a year or two ago where Toyota stated they’ll have solid state batteries by 2025. And now it’s 2028.
Here’s the thing… it seems to me that Toyota was/is using solid state batteries as an excuse to not do anything.
And the reality is that there already is a very good variety of battery cells that would get the job done. And picking one type of cell does not limit a company to just that cell.
Solid state batteries will probably happen eventually. But even if they get perfected by 2028, it will still take years to get their production ramped up.
Toyota needs to stop giving us lame excuses and just get down to business on the BEV front.
“What will it take for EVs to be palatable for 99% of drivers. “
Greater availability in a greater variety of body types in a greater variety of price points.
You can’t buy what isn’t available. If you want an electric minivan, your choices are exactly Zero in North America… as one example.
“Here’s the thing… it seems to me that Toyota was/is using solid state batteries as an excuse to not do anything”
Also hydrogen.
>That little lava lamp in the photo above is a jar of solid electrolytes.
Am I supposed to boof them? Why is it shaped like that?
Butt chug the electrolyte butt plug.
This is Step 1 introduction to Mr. Garrison’s IT bike!
Also, lololol at “little lava lamp”!
Glad I’m not the only who’s mind went there.
yeah that’s what I saw as well
Implying that it was an unfair target, and that The Autopian has picked sides on this debate?
Implying it was slimy and counterproductive, yes it was. I see this move as the watershed “ain’t going to build plants in USA anymore” move.
That would really drive home the point that these companies care more about their shareholders than the good of this country.
Err, no. It will drive home the point that they have to compete, and adding a huge overburden isn’t acceptable. And these companies *have* to care about the shareholders, and getting the rank and file into 401k’s would have them care too. I don’t see anything stated about how much more value that the union brings than, “The workers will probably show up.” I can get robots that never leave, and soon I’ll be able to get better ones. The lack of respect engendered by the last union move will only bring that day sooner. Not a smart thing to do.
“I can get robots that never leave, and soon I’ll be able to get better ones.”
Will they? They’ve had robots for decades already and they still need human workers. Even industry disruptor and employee hating Tesla needs humans on the assembly line.
Remember we’ve heard the same pie in the sky claims from the trucking industry for years. How’s that been working out?
Coming faster now with the AI and compute gains. I’m just saying it’s a very bad idea for the union to be making enemies they don’t have to. There are alternatives, and they will be executed if the pain gets high enough. This is supposed to be a negotiation.
“Coming faster now with the AI and compute gains”
If that’s all it took we’d have eliminated 95% of pharmacists a decade ago. Robot pharmacies aren’t that much more than an ATM, yet every pharmacy has 3-4 humans still running around doing a robot’s job.
And don’t get me started on “astronauts”.
I don’t see everything going away, but given the amount of mistakes pharmacies and hospitals make there’s a lot more automation there than you know, and it’s going to increase. Human error in medical treatment is a leading cause of death in the USA.
It’s all a trade-off, and there’s a lot of nuance. However, this much is now clear: the future is going to be split by the people that can integrate AI and automation into their life, and the ones that can’t. Previous shifts have always been greeted with doomsayers but we seem to all find something to do.
I’m not so sure. The robots came for bank tellers over 30 years ago for similar jobs. Pharmacists should have been the next on the chopping block, especially as they cost a lot more than bank tellers. Pharmacist mistakes are also literally more grave.
So what’s the holdup?
The number of US based pharmacists is GROWING despite the enormous expenses and human errors:
https://www.statista.com/statistics/185723/number-of-pharmacists-in-the-us-since-2001/
Computers that can instantly cross reference prescriptions to the entire pharmaceutical library and medical database have existed for decades, robots that can compound pills and dispense them on demand since the late 1960s.
For those fringe cases secure videoconferencing with much cheaper and still very capable remote teams of human pharmacists anywhere in the world 24/7/365 aka Zoom has been around for at least a few years already, probably much longer as well.
In addition human pharmacies are very vulnerable to being robbed and pharmacy workers hurt or killed. Robot pharmacies can be made invulnerable to all but a military grade assault and if the robot gets damaged, well, that’s what insurance is for.
As far as employee theft goes robots cannot become drug addicts so they can’t get high on their own supply.
It seems an obvious move to replace human pharmacists with robots, yet those expensive, very mortal and very human pharmacists are still with us.
So once we have this post-scarcity economy with perfect robot laborers and 80%+ unemployment, then what? Is everyone supposed to starve while the robot owners enjoy a life of decadence? Newsflash, the odds are against you and your descendants when it comes to being a robo-baron. Is it just tough cookies for them, or are we gonna have to do something about wealth consolidation?
It’s coming whether you like it or not, but the big variable is how fast it will come and how we’ll deal with it. I want it to come slower if possible. I think it’s more likely that Ford will go out of business than go full robotic, if only because their competition will beat them to it.
We’ll have to come up with a new system, likely based on capitalism because everything else sucks way more.
So we have to come up with a new system because robots do all the work for us and nobody has a financial incentive to work.
But we can’t do a socialism because that word is scary and it means that lazy people (aka: fucking EVERYBODY) would get something for nothing.
Idk man, the plan where everyone starves or does busy work for no discernable output sounds like it sucks pretty bad…
Edit:
I saw someone mention the military above, in the context of pensions. I guess one way we could have capitalism and post-scarcity is to implement a military-based economy. Picture the military industrial complex on steroids, with a 90%+ indentured servant population. Wanna eat today? Go murder some people with a different color skin. Truly a future worth looking forward to.
Possibly. The issue with socialism is that it fails in terrible ways, as the body counts from last century have shown. And as a veteran, I’m very very unlikely to put my faith in a government dependent solution, because I’ve seen too many of those fail as well. I prefer some sort of capitalistic based solution because peoples choices (as they vote with resources) do a much better job of aligning resources than anything else we’ve ever tried. It sucks, but it sucks less.
How many people in the 21st century will die from starvation, malnutrition, dirty water, or lack of sanitation? Those are all deaths to lay at the feet of capitalism, even if you don’t count it because it feels “normal” to you. How many people will die because they can’t buy insulin or pay their medical bills? That is a failure of capitalism.
We are already post-scarcity in these regards. Insulin costs a buck to make and we throw almost as much food away as we eat. As a veteran you already have direct experience with being a government dependent so to say it is unworkable feels kinda sus.
As a veteran with direct experience……it is unworkable. Nothing sus about that fact.
Let me be blunt in my response: Bullshit. Those people that are dying of starvation, malnutrition and pollution are overwhelmingly in oligarch or dictatorship situation and don’t have access to a free market or any options.
Government dependence doesn’t scale. We know this. We’ve seen it. It’s stupid to go down this path again. Learn from history for once. I advocate a balance of power; representative democracy with checks and balances fed by a capitalist system produces the greatest outcome. It works.
Be as blunt as you want, I take no offense. I disagree with some of your conclusions though.
Pollution comes from capitalist economics. There is an incentive to maximize profits and minimize expenses, meaning it is cheaper to pay a third world country to hold all your garbage for you than it is to find a way to not make garbage. It is cheaper to cheat than it is to play by the rules, meaning there is always an incentive to do as little as possible (and sometimes even less than that). We could provide clean drinking water to people if we wanted to, but since nobody is paying us, why should we?
You say government dependency doesn’t scale. When the alternative is sharecropping under little robo-fiefdoms, I say it better.
Thank you. The challenge with your assertion is that all production produces pollution, not just capitalist production. Want an example? Look at how many waste sites the Soviets left behind. Pollution comes from making stuff. Capitalism allows more stuff to be made, so that reach might work.
You assumption that the alternative to government control is sharecropping. That’s not the only possible outcome, or even the most likely one, but we already know how things end under government control: badly.
Just for the record, we are NOT anti-union. At all! And we debated about the use of that term in the headline, and, upon reflection, changed it, because it really doesn’t convey the tone we want. It was the wrong term. We grope, we make mistakes. We’ll keep trying.
Honest mistake. The contract negotiation coverage here has been solid so far
We’ve removed that term from the headline. It was meant to signal “surprise hit” but we realize it’s got a negative connotation. That was a mistake.
I’m anti union and I didn’t read sucker punch as anti union, I read it as a “surpise hit”. It’s a common way to say a surprise hit.
Want EVs to be palatable to 99% of drivers?
First and foremost, they must become greatly less expensive than they are now in terms of purchase price. Doable. Focus on load reduction so you can get acceptable range with small, inexpensive battery packs.
Second, they must be repairable with basic tools, so that those who buy used aren’t forced to get wallet-raped by a dealership or for a car with otherwise good components to end up as scrap because accessing some proprietary software or tool costs more than the car is worth. Doable, if the car is designed with this in mind instead of trying to nickel and dime people.
Third, infrastructure must be widely and consistently available. Fast charge stations are becoming more common, but there aren’t enough of them and because of SUVs/trucks with massive 200+ kWh batteries long queues are forming at them, and the companies that own the existing ones are neglecting maintenance. We also need more charge stations for those who park on the street or in a parking garage if they live in an apartment or townhome of a big city. For many apartment dwellers, there is nowhere to charge their EVs other than overpriced charging stations. This problem is of IMO lesser importance than the first two above.
There are ways to do this, but it will kill many sacred cash cows. EV drive systems are so reliable, that if an EV was designed to be reliable, robust, and repairable, it could end up lasting a lifetime, which the industry adamantly seems to be against. Instead, we’re likely to see the bottom 80% of Americans become priced out of automobile ownership altogether in the coming decades as a result of the industry refusing to adapt properly to the new reality.
I am afraid you will need to look to the hackers and tuners to keep the 2nd point alive. The more connected the systems get the more difficult they’ll be to work on if only due to communication security overhead.
Can’t wait to have to pull the SSL keys from my failed telematics module.
Automakers are starting to encrypt their software, and if an SSL key never gets released to the public, broken cars will be bricks, unless taken to the dealership. Then once hacked, the car companies could issue an over-the-air update to re-encrypt everything and reverse the hack. Expect them to do exactly that. They’d rather the cars fill landfills than for people to operate them for decades into the future without being nickle-and-dimed to death along the way. Remember cash for clunkers? Written by industry lobbyists. They want you in constant debt for the “privilege” of having the ability to leave your city or go places. The car companies make more money financing the cars, than building them. Try going into a dealership and buying a new car in full with cash, and note all the dirty looks you get as if you’re some kind of terrorist. They won’t be cooperative, in spite of you trying to buy a car from them.
I bought a new Toyota 2 months ago and the salesman just said that that is exactly what he always tries to do.
If I could have gotten a lower interest rate than my home loan I probably would have taken it and started making accelerated payments on that.
My step mother bought a new car in 2021, in full, cash. She had to go to 4 different dealerships before they’d take her money, and it took hours of haggling. They wanted her in debt, paying interest, so they could milk more money out of her. Many places even insert terms into contracts that penalize you for paying it off before a certain period.
Automobiles, not just the manufacture and purchase thereof, but all of the government associated with them, is just a vile, broken system all around with too many hands in your wallet feeling entitled to your money that they didn’t work for, all for your supposed safety, convenience, and protection. The whole thing, top to bottom, is a racket scientifically formulated to extract as much wealth as possible from you. THIS is why I like bicycles.
A reset switch on this paradigm would be nice. Get rid of the parasites, have a society where car dependence is not forced and alternatives are available, and have simple, repairable vehicles that are highly efficient and cost as little as possible to operate, and since they would be optional rather than necessary, there could be an emphasis on enthusiast-oriented vehicles and fun cars rather than CUV-blobs.
Now I see I didn’t put the words “in cash” in the first sentence. That wouldn’t change the fact that your step mom had a less ok experience while buying her car.
I’ll not argue any of your other points but I feel you’re peeing in the wind. Keep on peeing, I enjoy your rants. Who knows, maybe it’ll make a difference.
I bought a used car from a dealership with cash and it took hours. I kept asking why it was taking so long. They kept trying to sell me warranties and stuff and then leaving for 30 minutes to talk to the finance guy. I then had to sit in his office and formally deny all of the extra “stuff” by signing all sorts of forms. Even with cash, it can be a ridiculous process.
you sure are presuming alot of effort from automakers on behalf of products that presumably will be several generations out of date by the time they really need the loving hand of the aftermarket to keep chugging.
the automakers will be busy enough keeping the security buttoned down on their newest generations of cars by that point
The bottom 80% are likely to be pushed out of anything ownership.
For me, an EV would be great for my 60-mile round trip commute. However, I don’t have the funds to spare for a commuter vehicle, for now feeding my paid-off 4Runner is much more economical. Also, as someone in the 80% that is (most likely) permanently priced out of home ownership, I have no place to charge one.
My brother-in-law recently got an EV as a commuter, planning to charge at the lot around the corner from his work. Two weeks into ownership, he had to have my mom pick the kids up from daycare because the charging lot was closed, and he would have to stop somewhere to charge on the way home.
The tragedy is that EVs should be significantly cheaper to operate than their gasoline counterparts, and would be if they were built properly. The industry is finding ways to make them more expensive, in the interest of planned obsolescence and trying to nickel and dime people.
The U.S. market is being primed for the taking by some Chinese company to come in and offer inexpensive, simple, repairable EVs. What may prevent this is endless government bailouts, which is money taken from the bottom 80%…
Cars that can last a lifetime with care have existed since at least the 1960s. People trash cars for many reasons other than wear.
Cars that have been built to such a spec were generally never built again by the same manufacturer. Mercedes at one time deliberately built their cars to this sort of spec, and management decided to stop doing this in the 1990s in the interest of profit maximization. Modern Mercedes are disposable junk, and if they build their EVs to be disposable junk, it will be a massive waste of expensive resources and embodied energy, defeating the supposed purpose of building EVs tio begin with(saving the environment).
The W123 diesels are some of the finest built cars in the world, and to this day, are still coveted for use as taxicabs in 3rd and 5th world countries worldwide.
Ahem? Toyota has built the Camry, reliably in multiple flavors for a few generations.
I’m pretty happy with my 16yo Accord.
I just sold my 2000 Accord to a cousin with 262k. Still running great
“Cars that have been built to such a spec were generally never built again by the same manufacturer.”
I guess I wouldn’t know. I’m still driving my ’06 Honda and ’10 Mazda. Both are still going strong with not a whole lot more than fluids, rubber and basic maintainence all done by myself with sometimes bad, usually good advice from the internet.
It helps we don’t have what you’d call “winter” so no rust to deal with. If you want to point fingers save one for those who salt roads.
“Mercedes at one time deliberately built their cars to this sort of spec, and management decided to stop doing this in the 1990s in the interest of profit maximization.”
Mercedes famously used biodegradable soya based wiring insulation at that time either because (depending on who you talk to) the EU demanded it or it was cheaper and greenwashier.
Not only did the insulation auto destruct starting within a couple of years it also turned out to be tasty to rodents. Somehow that didn’t stop other manufacturers from using soya based wiring even decades later.
Are the savings really enough to offset the costs of warranty claims, class action lawsuits and a damaged reputation that manufacturers know is to follow? Or is it just the cost of following regulations?
Just curious, what are you picturing as “basic tools” in this scenario?
I wouldn’t try to fix an EV without a multimeter, IR thermometer, a cell capacity testing setup, a multiphase power supply to operate motors, an oscilloscope to check the inverters, and solder/rework/crimping tools. I’d say those are accessible for a hobbyist; is that about where you’re setting your sights?
Basically, multimeter, soldering iron, spot welder, screwdrivers and other basic hand tools, crimpers, wire cutters, battery charge/discharge/balancing device(I use a Powerlab 8 Battery Workstation)…
Basically most of what you outlined, so yes…
Ahh. The old four to five years into the future promise for a new, untested technology. Hmm. Let’s all see how imminent solid state batteries will be in 2027.
I distinctly remember solid state being 4-5 years away…..4-5 years ago.
My point exactly. I’m bullish on EVs, too, but not a fan of “ready five years from now” promises CEOs make on behalf of their engineers. In practice, “ready five years from now” is just a code phrase for, “looks promising enough for us to work on it, but we really have no clue when it’ll work.” For examples, see flying cars, electric airplanes, hydrogen-powered anything, cold fusion, and room-temperature hyperconductors.
Considering how Toyota lives and dies on it’s quality reputation and generally follows the old GM model of take longer and let others fail at it first before changing, I have a hard time believing Toyota will be all electric Solid state by 2028. But considering they were the Hybrid kings with the Prius almost 25 years ago now, it seems plausible they might have had time to get as far as they promise I suppose.
They’re being delivered by Cybertruck.
Yeah, I might very likely be misremembering, but it seems like a matter of months ago, Toyota said 2026.
I scrolled down all giddy at the prospect of good news for British readers only to find that the price of a car I can’t afford has been slashed to a price I still can’t afford.
The only good news is it’s a car I don’t want.
Then I scrolled down a bit further and had a good laugh at Toyota’s butt plug. Good luck at your gross misconduct hearing brave PR intern.
“Good luck at your gross misconduct hearing brave PR intern.”
In your defense it wasn’t as grossly misconduct as this:
https://nationalpost.com/news/sum-ting-wong-intern-blamed-for-leaking-fake-names-of-pilots-aboard-plane-that-crashed-in-san-francisco
And yes, that did make it to broadcast. I saw it live myself.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=CaOkTKfxu44
I always assumed that clip was from an Onion esque news site. I cannot believe it’s actually real.
It was. I couldn’t believe it either.
They need to be interchangeable with ICE cars people want, as in the BEV should be able to do all the things the other can do. Even excluding range and refueling speed current BEVs cannot do the things that current ICE vehicles can. The ICE F-150 comes is a ton of cab, bed, and seating configurations, for the “F-150” Lightning BEV you have one cab, bed, and seating configuration. The F-150 Lightning cannot replace the ICE F-150 currently (excluding range and refueling speed) unless all you want and ever need is a super crew 5 seat short bed F-150 with hardly any ground clearance.
Just like all the neat tech people buy that ends up dying a couple years later most modern BEVs are built like that, massive reliance on “neat” tech that when it fails you car is hardly operable if operable at all. Why do I have to have doors that open and close with electricity, that way I need a jump if I have a dead battery but I left something in the car? Why do I have to put vital driving inputs through a touchscreen with no tactile feedback?
Automakers have the means and the technology to make BEVs like regular cars (excluding range and fueling time currently) they just chose not to. Why?
Because when the government mandates you HAVE to buy something by X date the companies who produce that something are going to sell them no matter how shitty they are. They have minimal incentive to make something people want to buy,
I won’t buy any mass production car made after 2026 because of bad government Regs. I’m just hoping there will be some new BEVs I want on the market before then so I can stock up for the rest of my life.
When they offer zero downsides to drivers making the switch. Most people aren’t early adopters and aren’t willing to put up with broken chargers, long recharge times, finding charging at apartments, weird design choices, higher TCO despite using no gas, severe range loss in normal weather conditions, etc.
I’ve been saying for years that a vehicle capable of 500 miles in all four seasons, and/or a recharging process as easy, quick, and ubiquitous as gas refueling is now will be the tipping point. That is certainly what it would take to get me to buy one.
Even that won’t get you to 99% though, because for as much as people don’t like to believe it, a lot more than 1% of people tow campers, boats, trailers, etc. Getting any kind of towing range in winter is going to require something like 1000 miles of EPA range. We are a long ways from that.
You are ( ◑ω◑☞)☞ Spot on, V10omous!!!
I’m pretty sure folks will be happy to deal with a few downsides if the alternatives are:
$23/gallon black market gasoline of questionable quality from sketchy guys selling it in jerry cans out the back of a truck.
Going to a proper station and pay an extra $45/gallon in convenience fees, bullshit corporate surcharges, gov’mint taxes and other *reasons*. Mostly convenience fees, surcharges and reasons.
Can’t afford either? Well…
DIY ethanol from lawn clippings. Just make sure to hide your moonshine from the revenuers!
Walk
Pedal
Scoot
The 9th level HELL that is the other people on the bus. And being seen riding the bus. Oh the shame!
Can’t make EV ownership better? Make ICE ownership worse!
“That little lava lamp in the photo above is a jar of solid electrolytes.”
:nathanfilliontonguetiedgif:
https://media.tenor.com/cH9gfgKqp-cAAAAC/umm-wait.gif
There you go.
Lava lamp? Right.
User name checks out.
Toyota proves that plugs, are indeed, for butts.
I’m so annoyed over the UAW stuff. I am not generally anti union, and I want them to get a good deal, but the theatrics of it all drives me nuts. Fain is just milking his 15 minutes of fame, and all indications seem to me that he is not actually trying to negotiate. Rarely has the UAW sent in counter offers in this fiasco, they just look at the automakers’ proposals, and pull out the trash can prop, telling them to do better. Then they sit back and wait. That’s not negotiating, that’s holding them hostage. With the strike at Mack plants now too, it just reeks of attention seeking, not actually trying to accomplish anything. Time will tell.
I think Toyota forgot which end you’re supposed to consume electrolytes through.
In my uneducated opinion, Ford’s deal seemed reasonable. Kinda seems like a bit of a power trip.
It really looks like a product from Goop that can be found right next to the Jade suppository.
Suker punch. The UAW is dooming the big 3 to the scrap heap of history. The big 3 are making record profits now, but not too long ago they were all facing bankruptcy because of the exact things the UAW is demanding again. Business is cyclical, and the good times won’t last forever. They are putting their companies at a competitive disadvantage with the demands they are making. It’s hard to argue that some of their demand aren’t valid (pay and tiers), but they are overreaching with the retirement and 4 day work week demands.
Agreed. Man I wish I could demand a 40% raise with a 20% reduction in work hours!
You could if you had a union
That remains to be seen. At this point I’ve had exactly as much success demanding those things from my boss as the UAW has from the automakers.
Good thing about a union is you don’t get fired for asking about a raise.
I don’t know that I’ve ever heard of anyone, union or not, getting fired for asking for a raise. And if the company is so toxic that they would do that I probably don’t want to work there anyway.
What if they ALL do that?
Then you would definitely need to unionize. But they don’t, so we’re talking about a hypothetical that doesn’t actually exist.
To be clear, I’m not arguing against unions in general, I’m arguing against this particular point which I think is not especially compelling. If anything, I think the more common shitty tactic companies use in this area is to require employees to ask for raises rather than just giving them when they should.
I tried that once when I was young and naive. My CEO laughed in my face. She told me my benchmark from salary.com (the only thing I had access to at the time) was employee reported and therefore worthless.
I later heard secondhand the only benchmark that IS worth a damn was the Radford survey which gathers data from HR departments and – of course – is generally only available to HR departments.
My company actually just started a pay transparency system where they’re flat out telling us where we land in the range for our job type and performance level. It was one of the few things I missed from my previous (much less generous) company.
Do they SHOW you their data or are you expected to take their word? Because after the laughter died down my CEO told me my pay was above average but I saw absolutely no data to back that up.
Never negotiated where you attempted to sell your wildest requests and then reel ed it in from there?
If news reports I have read are accurate, the retirement piece is the sticking point. They have been offered more money and changes to the tier system.
Also, people forget that the companies hold back knowing that they are going to have to negotiate with unions too. Due to supply and demand, companies all over the country raised wages. The automakers did not. I don’t think that was a coincidence.
Well yes, but I would negotiate and counter offer. I wouldn’t just say no and walk away. That’s the part that’s annoying to me on all this.
I mean, technically, you can! That is how a lot of lawyers seem to do negotiations.
Thanks to having a shared office with my wife, I get to hear lawsuit settlement conferences all the time. At first, I was surprised when basically every initial offer (from either side) was crazy huge. Then I watched the process work out and it seems the strat for many is to ask for sometimes unrealistic things, then end up landing somewhere in the middle.
Something Sheryl tells me is that you don’t want to negotiate with yourself. Start with what you really want then work down from there.
Haha fair. I don’t think it would go my way though with set salaries and all in my organization.
The big thing you mentioned that seems missing here is the negotiation piece. Yes, both sides start somewhere ridiculous, intending to meet in the middle. Unless I have missed it, Fain and his buddies aren’t counter offering. They are saying no, then walking out of meetings they demanded after 5 minutes. That’s not negotiating, that’s being petty and refusing to even try.
Sorry but wrong. They were facing bankruptcy for poor management, poor products, poor sales, and a totally fucked economy in 07-08. The union had nothing at all to do with that shit storm. And the UAW rolled over in 08 to save jobs, then got nothing in return.
Not to nitpick here, but these points can all be easily verified.
Greed is never good.
Your honest contention is that pensions, retiree healthcare, and the highest wages in the industry had “nothing at all” to do with the bankruptcy???
$1,000 in added costs per car is a huge part of what made their products uncompetitive.
https://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/19/business/19uaw.html
Of course the management wasn’t blameless either. But the 2007 status quo was not a fair fight.
All of the big 3 were diversified enough before the crisis to have seen it coming.
While not a union supporter, I find even less reason to lean towards the manufacturers side here.
Thanks for the NYT piece for reference. Remember reading it then.
And yes I contend honestly that UAW costs were a stable cost of doing business, and easily determined vs the cost of commodities used to manufacture.
There are many things that can lead to a financial failure or crisis.
I lost close to 500K in that time frame, and remember well that the balance sheets of most Fortune 500 firms were the textbook example of financial fraud.
Ironically many of the things that made being a UAW worker appealing have disappeared over the past few decades. As has the size and political clout of the union.
But I do appreciate the debate, and do not absolve the UAW of their tatics, then or now.
The economy sucked, and you are correct, the union had nothing to do with that, but the economy will suck again in the future. Are you saying they have good management and products now, compared to 2008? That seems a bit of a stretch to me. The union made concessions that saved the companies, and they got to keep their jobs in return. You are correct, Greed is never good and the unions are being greedy now. The benefits they are demanding now far exceed any other industry. A 4 day work week and a pension??? Give me a break.
Agreed. No, we are bound to repeat our mistakes.
Remember that when negotiating, the rule is demand too much, and be willing to accept somewhat less.
Throwing unacceptable demands on the table is strictly part of the process.
At this point the UAW and Big 3 are like a divorced couple trying to squeeze blood from each other.
If the news articles I have read are correct, they have been offered more money, and changes to the tier system and have turned it down. The only things left are the unreasonable demands.
Or the pain of lost profits for the Big 3.
Just because someone “offers” more money does not mean that their offer is reasonable, or fair.
I would be interested in learning more about how much of warranty costs, and recalls are a result of line workers vs design though.
They hit bankruptcy from lousy management, mediocre cars, and despicable dealerships. Government bailouts and sacrifices by workers led to gigabuck executive salaries and little else.
They still have lousy management, mediocre cars, and despicable dealerships. The bailouts have ended, and the executives are still making huge salaries, and the companies are turning massive profits, so I have to disagree.
Yes. I’m seeing a lot of forgetfulness in terms of the history of Big 3 management here. They had it all and blew it in the ’70s and ’80s with deeply inferior products, allowing Japanese and European manufacturers to break consumers of their innate desire to buy American. Oh, but emissions and the gas crisis… Everybody had to play by the same rules and they blew it. W Edwards Deming told them how to build in quality and they ignored him. Since then, instead of learning the lesson and offering competitive products, they have concentrated on taking even more cost out by using offshore suppliers, offshoring entire factories, playing financial tricks, etc. Management has been rewarded for this at every turn even in the face of bankruptcies and bailouts.
Labor didn’t design, engineer, or squeeze suppliers to supply substandard parts for Pintos, Citations, Chevettes, Gremlins, or any of the other hateful contraptions that couldn’t begin to compete with a Honda Accord. Management did that.
Labor is relatively expensive here because for the time being we’re a first world nation. We cannot survive as a country of 330,000,000 without a sturdy working class. I’m in a business with a strong union of skilled workers and I watch those people buy houses and send their kids to college. Regular Joes and Joannes deserve a reasonable income because they are human beings busting their tails eight hours a day in a factory. Are they supposed to accept that we won’t be doing it that way anymore? That instead, we go down the road of paying them beans and they’ll live “on campus” in bunk rooms and work twelve hours a day like they do in Guangdong? I’m not saying unions can’t be unreasonable, haven’t been unreasonable in the past, and in many cases are as corrupt as the average investment bank, but unions are the only leverage labor has to keep their heads above water.
The Big 3 were facing bankruptcy because of poor product planning and lack of competitive products. But I would agree that UAW demands didn’t help the situation, although didn’t the UAW make concessions during the great recession?
I would beg to differ in that the 2007 Debt Crisis was a hit on everyone, and was a direct result of the predatory financing that was allowed to get people into houses they could ill afford even before the Arm Loan kicked in. Most people were foreclosing their homes due to unavailability of funds. A lot of people were out of work. As a result, the automobile sales in the United States had faced a nosedive. On year on year basis, the sales of General Motors had fallen by 30%. As a result, General Motors found itself out of cash. Dodge was in a similar boat, but Ford was already in a rebuild mode and thus did not need as much assistance to stay afloat.
I think the original plan of more profit sharing makes some sense, that way if the business starts to falter, the pay is reduced in the same manner so to speak. The only real issue there is the workers have little say in the causes of a profit or loss outside of caring about the product they build and making sure they hit Takt Time.
True, but at least they would benefit when business is good like now. It also might help avoid bankrupting the companies when the times are bad again, which is inevitable.
I don’t know about you, but I did not get a 9K check in February from Ford. https://www.freep.com/story/money/cars/ford/2023/02/02/ford-uaw-hourly-workers-2022-profit-sharing/69865970007/
Nor a 12K Check form GM. https://www.freep.com/story/money/cars/general-motors/2023/01/31/gm-uaw-profit-sharing-checks/69853383007/
No, I did not. I did, however, get a free ham for Christmas last year from HR, so that was nice.
ahh yes, a lava lamp
I’d love to see the Slack chat trying to come up with that description, to avoid having to use the obvious one…
Yeah, I wondered about that; maybe photograph it beside something for scale…not that it’s any of my business!
Everyone knows the “secret code” for a butt plug is “lava lamp”.
We had a long debate this morning over whether or not this was a sucker punch. A surprise jab? A rope-a-dope? What does everyone think?
My guess is Fein is doing the used car salesman thing and just before signing on the dotted line asking to change the deal in hopes it will make everyone flinch and agree without due diligence.
used car salesman is a great description for Fain’s behavior these days.
The problem is he will have to put any agreement to a vote with his membership.
How does he make the turn from promising these people the sky and the moon to asking them to accept a compromise contract after all his theatrics and still have the respect of anyone involved?
I think this thing turns ugly and lasts way longer than most are predicting unless that guy starts changing his tune and acting like a grown up.
When I read about it this morning I thought, “Well that’s a flex”. Who knows what goes on behind closed doors, but I can’t imagine the UAW dropped this bomb without a really solid reason. My life is a series of failed negotiations so my opinion isn’t worth much.
To me, sucker punch implies that it was unprovoked (I’m not sure if I’m 100% right on that or not). This case, while an extreme measure, doesn’t fall into that category.
That said, while I’m totally pro union, I am starting to wonder what actually ends this thing.
Then again, any time I start feeling that way I think about how much the executives make at these companies, and all of the profits they’ve been enjoying.
Striking is striking. I don’t think it’s particularly out of the blue for Ford, in fact they likely already had a plan in place if it were to happen. I think the bigger issue they see is that Fain is more interested in making a scene then having constructive dialogue. Striking is no good for anyone. Both parties should be working towards an amicable solution. That does not mean the union giving up on anything. But it does mean not throwing a temper tantrum, those are not productive at all… and the union members (most of them) know that. They just want a good contract and to get back to work.
Rug pull maybe, sucker punch definitely not. If your bank account doesn’t have 3 commas in it, trust me, you are the sucker to anyone who’s bank account does. A sucker punch is better than they deserve.
Sucker punch is better than rope-a-dope. The latter implies he was using something to distract them from the real goal while sucker punch just implies throwing it when they are least expecting it.
I guess you could say the talking points around how they thought Ford was coming to the table to negotiate in good faith was the distraction but that wasn’t really part of this piece of negotiating so I think you have it right with sucker punch.