dangblingus ,

If they gave the union all of those concessions, it means that THEY STILL PROFIT DESPITE GIVING SOME PEOPLE 160% RAISES AND 10% 401K MATCHING.

Phegan ,

Game developers should unionize. Too many layoffs and too much churn and burn. They need a union more than anyone else

Winter8593 ,

We could all use a good union. But agreed on game devs.

SasquatchBanana ,

And the VFX industry.

fne8w2ah ,

Hail the good work that unions do for the common folk!

Diplomjodler ,

But they couldn’t buy an XBox! Checkmate leftists!

FlyingSquid ,
@FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar

Have they moved on from the ping-pong table?

BatrickPateman ,

[Thread, post or comment was deleted by the author]

  • Loading...
  • Sheeple ,
    @Sheeple@lemmy.world avatar

    Oh trust me the media is already hard on the anti union propaganda machine

    skyspydude1 ,

    It’s amazing what you can do when a single plant strike costs in the neighborhood of $50 million/day. I’m a salaried worker at one of the Big 3, and even though we’re not union, we got some very nice bonuses out of this too. The 401k match, improved health insurance benefits, and raises all around.

    I’ll be the first to complain about some of the more negative aspects of the UAW, but like anything else there are going to be people who abuse it, but it’s worth it for the huge benefits to everyone else in the industry.

    ThePantser ,
    @ThePantser@lemmy.world avatar

    Which will be passed onto the consumer in the form of more expensive vehicles. UAW should have included a stipulation that prices of cars should not suffer and the funds should come from the executives.

    Jimmycrackcrack ,

    That doesn’t sound like a good idea at all. The union is there to represent it’s workers not set prices. If the company finds itself entirely unable to pay the increased wages and benefits without raising prices then those prices were artificially low by taking what the actual cost should have been and subtracting how much they were screwing out of their employees.

    If there is money available to pay for the increased cost of their workforce in the form of reduced executive benefits or pay, then they should either do that, or not, but suffer a market penalty for having more expensive cars than their competitors. If it starts really hurting their bottom line then they’ll have to make some actual tough decisions about compensation at the top like the “tough decisions” they pretend to have to make when they announce wage cuts and lay offs.

    While unions are great, they are and should be entities for a specific purpose and it doesn’t make sense for them to be expanding beyond that. They’re not charities or NGOs representing just general social good, they’re specifically about pay and conditions for the workers they represent which hopefully will translate to a lot of social good in general. If for example there are many strong unions across all sectors with most workers as part of one then consumers would have some actual money to buy a car at a fair price that reflects the costs of labour. Where this happens, big companies don’t pack up and leave despite constantly wailing that they will, because there’s obviously still money to be made but the environment is such that their options for profligacy are greatly constrained and they have to operate with some sanity.

    princessnorah ,
    @princessnorah@lemmy.blahaj.zone avatar

    Same energy as complaining about getting rid of the tipped wage because dining out ‘would become more expensive’. If it does, it’s not on the workers, it’s on the manufacturer. Maybe be a bit less of a scab and focus the blame where it belongs?

    ABoxOfNeurons ,

    This is based on a misunderstanding of how prices are set. The price is set based on what the market can bear. Costs pretty much only determine if the thing is worth making, given that.

    It’s the same reason rent doesn’t go down when property taxes do. I mention this not to tear you down, but because it’s a common argument for bad policy.

    prole ,
    @prole@sh.itjust.works avatar

    See this everyone? Take note: This is how they pit workers against one another. This is how they undermine the solidarity that allows unions to even begin leveling the negotiations playing field.

    Don’t fall for it.

    GuyDudeman ,
    @GuyDudeman@lemmy.world avatar

    Why is there a “Top Pay Rate” for workers and no “Top Pay Rate” for management/executives?

    alienanimals ,

    Because the executives created the rules to benefit themselves.

    Waluigis_Talking_Buttplug , (edited )

    Now look at who makes the rules for the country

    FinalRemix ,

    … those same executives…?

    jaybone ,

    Yes. But by proxy through legalized bribes, so it’s totally okay.

    FlyingSquid ,
    @FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar

    Not always by proxy. Quite often they get elected. And, if not elected, appointed to powerful government jobs in the executive branch.

    madcaesar ,

    That’s a really good fucking point I never thought about… That’s some serious bullshit.

    grte ,

    The image doesn’t mention ending tiers which is the most important gain they made.

    mmababes ,

    [Thread, post or comment was deleted by the author]

  • Loading...
  • SinningStromgald ,

    How much they match contributions to 401k’s I think. So it looks like they match up to 10% now.

    quicksand ,

    Man, that’s really good

    Waluigis_Talking_Buttplug ,

    I’d assume it means not all workers get the boosted 401k benefits, probably due to vesting timeline or position

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • random
  • [email protected]
  • All magazines