Just a few days ago, the UAW announced a campaign to unionize over a dozen non-union automakers in America. Now it’s reporting rapid progress, citing the example of 30% of workers at Volkswagen’s only U.S. plant having signed up in less than a week.
As fears spread among the companies that the effort to go union may quickly succeed, they have taken steps in response. Honda has set up its own anti-union campaign, distributing propaganda among the workers that encourages rejection of the union.
The unionization campaign was announced just a few days after the UAW’s strike victory against the “Big Three” auto companies amply demonstrated the benefits of unions, with raises expected to range from +33% to over +160% (after including forecasted COLA and CWIs) among other gains.
The UAW has set up websites where employees of every targeted company can easily join the union online. If you’re one, check them out below. And anyone can send them to friends, family and others.
After clicking the link, click the big “Sign your Union Card” button (scroll up if you don’t see it), fill in your details and check your email.
- Toyota: https://uaw.org/join/#toyota
- Honda: https://uaw.org/join/#honda
- Hyundai: https://uaw.org/join/#hyundai
- Tesla: https://uaw.org/join/#tesla
- Nissan: https://uaw.org/join/#nissan
- BMW: https://uaw.org/join/#bmw
- Mercedes: https://uaw.org/join/#mercedes
- Subaru: https://uaw.org/join/#subaru
- VW: https://uaw.org/join/#vw
- Mazda: https://uaw.org/join/#mazda
- Rivian: https://uaw.org/join/#rivian
- Lucid: https://uaw.org/join/#lucid
- Volvo: https://uaw.org/join/#volvo
Provide evidence. I’ve provided mine, which you simply ignored.
The description of the community seems evidence enough to me.
I don’t see evidence of anything. You’ve provided your opinions and asked lots of questions and presented some quotes. You haven’t shown that anything you’ve presented is related to this community. For example, the community description makes no mention of a “movement” and yet you assert that this community is about a social movement.
Not at all. What about it proves this community has nothing to do with work? You’ve proved you can copy and paste, but not that you can read and understand what is written.
Okay, you really have to be trolling, or else you clearly have never been in a debate before. I didn’t “provide opinions”. I interpreted the quote you pasted without engaging with. I highlighted the sections that were relevant and drew out rhetorical questions (have you never heard of them before?) to make you consider what it means.
“Presented some quotes”. Don’t make me laugh. Those quotes aren’t random bullshit. The very first one was an essay you yourself highlighted - at least, you looked at its title. I read through it and found that it directly contradict your assumptions about it. This is called research, and you should get better at it if you want to take part in any debates.
Excuse me? Those quotes come from links directly in the sidebar. Did you only glance at my comment? I see no other reason for you to have missed where I stated what exactly those quotes were, and where they were from. They couldn’t be any more obviously relevant. Again - the first quote comes from an essay you mentioned.
It is literally named “antiwork”. Antiwork is a movement.
I haven’t asserted that this community has nothing to do with work.
Firstly, that article uses a hyphen, “anti-work”, which is not strictly the same as either the name of this community or the word you used in your link to the article.
Secondly, “antiwork” is a generic latin word. Just because this community is named using the same generic latin word as something else, doesn’t imply that the two are directly related.
Lastly, even assuming for the sake of argument a movement called “antiwork”, you still haven’t shown that this community is about that movement. There is no mention of a “movement” in the community description and you have shown no connection. This community is not mentioned in the article you linked to.
Playing this game, are we? I’ve already proven you wrong on this claim, so I won’t waste me time doing it again. Instead I’ll copy and paste what I said last time:
‘You literally said “this is not antiwork” because it’s “about workers”. Stop trying to play games.’
Significant how? Don’t try and use speculation as argument. It won’t work. Without a solid point, I can completely ignore this.
Nope, it’s English. English may be derived from Latin, by calling it Latin is fucking bonkers. Also, nothing generic about it when there’s a movement by that name. I could start a community and call it “communism”, then pretend to be surprised when people connect it to the already existing movement of the same name, saying “but it’s just a movement that values community! Community is a generic Latin word!”
Sophistry, Nothing more.
Explain how it is generic and not specific. Use evidence or reasoning. Don’t just state things and expect the bare, sourceless, baseless statement to stand as an argument alone.
“Even assuming”? You’re now denying that the antiwork movement even exists? I already provided evidence that it does. What the fuck are you even trying?
Is this how you always argue?
It has the same name, the same aims, and uses the same arguments to make its claims. This isn’t rocket science.
The communist community doesn’t, either. Is communism also not a movement, by these standards?
The article was written during the Great Resignation, before this Lemmy community existed. You’re really fucking reaching.
If you want this stupid conversation to end, just give me one good reason why you think this community has nothing to do with the larger antiwork movement. Why is it so important for you for them to be disconnected? Do you have a grudge against this community in particular?
A word being used as a name does not imply that the word is not generic.
“Anti” is a generic latin prefix that designates negation or opposition. So “anti[anything]” just means “[anything] negated or opposed”. The word “work” is a generic word and not a name. Therefore the word “antiwork” is a generic word and not specific. Like “unenlightened”, “maladjusted” or “antirational”.
Again, having the same name is not proof of a direct relationship.
You haven’t shown that this community and the anti-work movement have the same aims or make the same claims. Even if you did, that’s still not proof of a direct relationship.
Antiwork has only one possible meaning - the meaning associated with the movement. You are reaching incredibly far to try and work around that. It is not generic - it is only used for one purpose by one type of people. It is quite specific.
Yes, using the same name, making the same points and working for the same causes means you’re part of the same movement. You cannot argue otherwise and make sense.
Yes, I have shown that they have the same cause. The essays they link demonstrate their ideological source. The arguments inherent there are the ones inherent across all antiwork.
I disagree.
How very compelling. Well, I disagree on what “gravity” means.