this post was submitted on 20 Oct 2025
814 points (99.3% liked)

politics

31112 readers
2669 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles. Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to US politics and contain quality and original content. Social Media adjacent hosts like Substack are allowed, but ONLY if they tie back to a company/subsidiary. No personal or friend group blogs and no self-promotion. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and re-hosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing other users of being bots or paid actors.
  3. No memes, trolling, misinformation, or low-effort posts/comments (including reposts). If you see posts like this that anger you, do not engage. Report, block, and live a happier life than they do. Any slap-fight is subject to comment removals. Fights full of rule violations will result in temporary bans to cool off.
  4. No manipulating votes via bots or alt accounts; this will result in permanent bans. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in an account ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be permanently banned.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules and use critical thinking when reading, posting, and commenting. Users that repeatedly have comments or posts removed, weaponize reports, or violate the code of conduct, will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users. The reason(s) behind moderator action(s) are publicly available through the Modlog.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] ProdigalFrog@slrpnk.net 25 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (2 children)

The UAW was planning a general strike for May 1st 2028. I don't know how willing they'd be to start a wildcat general strike, but they may join one.

https://may1.uaw.org/

[–] markovs_gun@lemmy.world 13 points 11 months ago (3 children)

What is the point if scheduling a strike so far in advance? Also, aren't UAW leadership aligned with Trump?

[–] Lasherz12@lemmy.world 28 points 11 months ago (1 children)

The point as I understand it is that they're allowing other unions to set their contract expiration to the same date, which increases the potential for pain during their next negotiations and makes for a quasi general strike across all unions who participated. It's a pretty good idea all in all.

Also, it's complicated who Sean Fain aligns with. He's pro-tariff and praised Trump for incentivizing cars to be made in the US, although it seems like that's the extent of it, and I wonder how he feels about it now that it's been fully unmasked to just be market manipulation by Trump's circle of billionaires. Sean's speech still hit most of the socialist talking points of pro labor even though it was to a bunch of Republican donors, leading to the funniest and most revealing awkward silences after sections about how the working class is who provides all of the value in an economy.

[–] Cethin@lemmy.zip 10 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Pro-tariff makes sense purely from a "protecting American labor" point of view. The ideal of them is to encourage internal markets to favor domestic production. However, that first requires domestic production to exist, and it also needs to be done in a way that doesn't harm domestic production. The Trump tariffs aren't this, obviously.

[–] frezik@lemmy.blahaj.zone 5 points 11 months ago

Historically, what the UAW wants isn't necessarily good for the rest of us. The "chicken tax" that pushes larger and larger trucks in the US was done as part of LBJ negotiating with the UAW. The result was that foreign small trucks couldn't possibly be profitable, and thus had no competition for domestic manufacturing to make the largest trucks possible and nothing else.

[–] Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 14 points 11 months ago

What they are doing is asking all unions to set May 1st 2028 as the expiration date for their next labor contract. They aren't actually scheduling a strike, just laying the groundwork.

[–] ProdigalFrog@slrpnk.net 6 points 11 months ago

It was planned before the election, and they likely didn't anticipate Trump would win again.

From what I've seen the UAW leader is fairly left leaning.

[–] SupraMario@lemmy.world 4 points 11 months ago

Basically letting the turnip destroy the country for nearly 4 years...