Tim Scott on UAW Work Stoppage: ‘You Strike, You’re Fired’
Tim Scott on UAW Work Stoppage: ‘You Strike, You’re Fired’
The South Carolina senator and 2024 GOP hopeful says he would channel Ronald Reagan to end the current picketing
Zachary Leeman
Sen. Tim Scott, R-S.C., would channel Ronald Reagan if he were president during the current United Auto Workers (UAW) strike, meaning possibly firing thousands.
During a Monday campaign stop in Iowa, Scott was asked about the ongoing UAW, which has seen thousands of auto workers picketing and demanding increased benefits and decreased work.
Scott said Reagan gave us a "great example" of how to handle a massive strike disrupting an industry.
He said 'You strike, you're fired!' Simple concept to me," the senator said. "To the extent that we can use that once again, absolutely."
Reagan famously fired more than 11,000 members of the Professional Air Traffic Controllers Association in 1981 as they were carrying out a strike. They were in violation of an order to return to work.
The difference now is that the air traffic controllers worked for the government. The UAW does not.
At a South Carolina event this month, Scott said there's a "disconnect" in what striking auto workers are asking for.
"We're watching today, on every screen around the country, we're seeing the UAW fight for more benefits and less hours working," he said . "More pay and fewer days on the job. It's a disconnect from work."
Link to original article: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/tim-scott-on-uaw-work-stoppage-you-strike-you-re-fired/ar-AA1gXvQ0?ocid=hpmsn&cvid=09d1a2858e1e4e8eb31222186d2aee0e&ei=33
Trolling, taunting, spamming, and off topic comments may be removed at the discretion of group mods. NT members that vote up their own comments, repeat comments, or continue to disrupt the conversation risk having all of their comments deleted. Please remember to quote the person(s) to whom you are replying to preserve continuity of this seed. Any use of the phrase "Trump Derangement Syndrome" or the TDS acronym in a comment will be deleted.
Article is LOCKED by author/seeder
Tags
Who is online
418 visitors
You had better do some research on that Tim before putting both feet in your mouth.
Two totally different set of circumstances between ATC and UAW.
He's banking on his GOP audience not knowing the difference.
I couldn't believe that he would say something that stupid/incorrect it shows he has no idea what he is talking about.
No surprise.
He is expressing a viewpoint that though private sector, corporations should engage in union-busting actions through mass layoffs, attritions, and terminations. It's a conservative version of throwing something into the spirit of the air in order to see what response it gets. That is, Scott is expressing solidarity with the "boss-class."
He is so full of it. It is sad that once democrats declare themselves as taking a stance on an issue, that MAGA has to take the opposite position by default! Pathetic. Why? Because these same FOLKS in the next debate will be using words like standing with the people-evidently, that means corporation-people.
It could be that CB but I believe that he has no idea what the hell he is talking about.
Hmmm. I hear you.
Exactly, the compensation packages received by these CEOs are indeed enormous. But how does that scale up in Union demands? What does 40% increase in workers pay cost versus GM's CEO pay package?
The UAW also wants a 32-hour workweek, compensated at 40-hour pay. Does that assume the workers will deliver 40 hours of out put for only 32 hours of work?
Does the UAW requested guarantee that workers will continue to be paid even if the plant employing them permanently closes part of what contributed to the industry’s near-collapse 15 years ago?
Well, that is some or what they are negotiating and . . . I am not an auto executive or UAW member. . . and, this article is about Tim Scott's untimely remarks-not solving (ending) the auto strike so. . . that's not my role here.
What is your role here?
It would need to be tested, but other output tests in other areas of work in the US and Europe suggests that efficiency goes up. So it's very likely that output would remain the same for less hours worked. When workers are healthy and happy production increases.
I think that assembly line work with it's repetitive activities is very different from office work. I'm not sure that you could speed an assembly line speed to get the same output with 8 hours less on the line. If you can accelerate the line, that might prove to be stressful for the worker. I think the Union is assuming the line speed remains the same.
Classic union management thinking.
They know they won’t get more production but once they get the 32 hour work week, the 40 hour work week is gone for good. That’s the goal. So, if output goes down. And it will. It means more workers required to meet the same output goals because the big three will be getting less with the same FTE’s.
And the mentality that people need to work less to make more is complete nonsense. That might work in an office environment where people are slacking off already, playing Solitaire and watching porn half the day but it doesn’t in blue collar production jobs where you can put your hands on what is produced.
Gawd, am I glad I’m retired and don’t have to deal with obtuse thinking like this anymore.
Agree and would add playing on NT to your example.
Lol … yes. We actually have concrete examples here of folks getting fired for that reason.
People will still try to screw off at 32 hours a week. Working 8 less hours a week isn’t going to magically change folks who have that mentality. Break early, come back late from breaks, show up late, work slower to stick it to the man, etc, etc.
All that will still happen. Bank on it ….
He's a professional politician.
I'm not sure how this can possibly surprise you.
There is a basic floor for stupid/ignorant comments by politicans and Scott broke the barrier. LOL
He was supposed to be one of the smart ones.
at least give the GOP their due props... 7 years ago there were only 2 tokens with absolutely no chance of being elected in the POTUS race. /s
Is there? MGT, AOC, Hank Johnson, Boebert, Tlaib and several others seem to indicate otherwise.
I think you're just far more optimistic about that than I am.
oh look, another "confirmed bachelor" politician from south carolina...
I'd love to know what dirt the former 'president' has on Ms. Lindsey
he's probably the only person trump knows that doesn't laugh after the knee pads get strapped on.
And it was hilarious.
What republican does?
And karmic
Does any Republican know what they jabber, gesticulate and rattle on about knowing what they are saying.
I never met one that did.
"You strike, you're fired" "Simple concept to me." Simple minded is more like it.
he's delusional. no minority or woman will ever be at the top of a GOP/POTUS ticket in my lifetime.
How is it that we have so many people in elected office without a basic knowledge of how shit actually works?
It is stunning that he would say something that stupid.
Their work has little to do with how others have to accomplish things other than getting elected.
It’s not about how others accomplish things. It’s about the law. Their job is literally to create new law, but they have no idea what the law currently is, or what limits the creation of any new law (i.e. The Constitution).
Here, this guy - who has spent years in Congress - suggests firing people for striking. The right to strike has been protected under federal law for almost a century. He should know that.
And we’re not talking about an obscure law, either. I don’t even know how you get through high school without being exposed to decades of laborers striking and gradually earning the legal protections for that practice. According to this Labor Action Tracker , managed by Cornell University, there have been nearly 300 strikes in the US, this year alone. That doesn’t happen if you can just fire people for striking.
Yep. There has to be a process for we-the-people to redress corporate and political malfeasance.
They are Republicans elected by morons, imbeciles, and idiots.
They're already canning workers because of the strike...
Ford is temporarily laying off workers which is a far cry from firing them.
And GM?
GM is the same as Ford, it's a lay off.
The point here is that Tim Scott said if he were president he would fire the UAW workers for striking. He does not understand the difference between what Regan did to government worker with a no strike clause and private industry without such a clause.
I wonder if they reassured everyone that it was a temporary layoff?... The automakers don't really have a good history of being forthcoming.
Or maybe he’s trying to appear Reaganesque...
He looks like a fool more than anything since the right for American workers to strike is part of our labor law.
You're not defending these corporations putting blue collar workers out of work while criticizing a potential Republican nominee for expressing an opinion, are you?
Where do you see me defending the Auto makers? I didn't and I criticized Republican Senator Tim Scott for running off his mouth when he doesn't have a damn idea what he is talking about.
If it was permanent GM would have to give 60 days' notice before they could do it and they haven't and will not.
Well said, Kavika! I vaguely remember there was a difficulty in the Reagan/ATC strike that ended in a debacle. You remind me and clarified for my memory that it was the ATCs were federal and not actually allowed to strike which they did anyway.
Why?
Ok, lets call it minimizing then...
Why what?
I would say you are way off base, since my comments are facts not minimizing or maximizing anything.
Why do they have to give a 60 day notice and why do you feel they won't?
The WARN Act requires 60 written notice for mass layoffs or plant closings. The exception is striking workers but there are a multitude of other issues that come into play when that card is played.
What I was referring to was a permanent layoff or permanent plant closing neither of which, IMO would be done at the present time by GM.
Your last sentence sounds like what Greg is doing.
Thank you for the information. I'm not sure that the companies don't think their actions would require notice because of the WARN act.
But hey, wouldn't be the first or last time I was wrong.
If he is, he should get his teeth fixed!
Some people are so delusional they think Republicans are for the working class.
If the Democrats are for the working class, they sure haven't been showing it much since Biden got elected
Well before that...
Don't you have another not funny 'satire' 'article' to post?
Don't you have more nonsensical comments to post?
Biden supports unions, (obviously), which is supporting the working class. Tell me Greg, did trump ever do ANYTHING to support ANY union? No. All he did was lower taxes for the rich....which fucked over the working class....again.
They are for WORKING
SLAVES!
Perhaps you were thinking of the CCP.
And child labor, of course. Don't forget child labor. They are definitely for that.
You confuse the Repubs with the CCP:
https://www.dol.gov/agencies/ilab/reports/child-labor/list-of-goods-print?items_per_page=10&combine=china#:~:text=There%20are%20reports%20that%20children,to%20work%20in%20brick%20kilns.
No doubt, I'm sure that was discussed at Helsinki as well.....
yeah, put them to work before they get smart enough to start a union... /s
It sounds like you're unaware.
Forced Labor in China’s Xinjiang Region
Try Arkansas, Georgia, Iowa, Missouri, Nebraska, Ohio, Wisconsin, et al.
Unlike you, no one is denying.
What do you mistakenly think that I’ve denied?
[removed]
[removed]
No mistake. Read your comment.
I have and still don’t understand.
Wake up, Tim the ability of American workers to strike is part of labor law.
Section 7 of the states in part, “Employees shall have the right. . . to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection.” Strikes are included among the concerted activities protected for employees by this section.
Well Sen. Scott, you implied that if you strike you're fired. ? ? Really? Well I suggest you and the bulk of the GOP congress and senate pack your bags and apply at Papa John's. You guys have done nothing except obstruct, throw around accusations, impeded military promotions, wasted taxpayer dollars and thwarted our efforts in Ukraine and elsewhere. Hell, you dudes even criticized the US for getting hostages back. In my opinion, you dudes have been on STRIKE for about five years. What do you think you are Tim, a Steven?
Biden paid a ransom that Iran will simply use to fund more terrorism.
And the UAW and its well compensated members don't seem to give a shit about the people that will be let go or laid off at vendors that supply parts and assemblies for the factories.
It was their money in the first place, it wasn't a ransom payment, stop lying.
they either can't help themselves or they're too fucking stupid to know the difference...
There are 'safeguards' placed on the usage of those billions returned to Iran and it will be monitored.
If nothing else is gained, at least Iran is on notice that it will be watched to see if it can be trusted to act with integrity (keep its word) or renege on it.
I wish... Trump ripped up the contract we had with Iran, now they are free to do as they please.
True dat. Trump 'ripped up' the nuclear agreement contract. But, this is a different transaction, friend M'Frost. This is an agreement on frozen assets and its agreement for release back to original owner/s. Iran is not supposed to use any of this money for terrorist actions or nuclear weapons aspirations. To which end, there are 'moderators' watching over expenditures (to see if this kind of 'return' of capital to Iran should ever be allowed again to happen).
I'd say they've been on strike and haven't done dick since Newt.
Some people are so delusional that they think Democrats are for the working class... reactionaries no doubt. In their own special way
Projection and denial and delusion, is that all you have Greg?
It appears so!
It is the TRUMP TOXIC
KOOLAIDE, mixed with
SHAT sandwiches.
Why would anyone eat or drink that?
Yeah because we all know we live to work not work to live.
I don't see any maga trash volunteering to give up their 40 hour work weeks, overtime, holiday pay, paid sick days, paid vacations, maternity leave, health care plans, pensions, or any other benefits fought for by unions and adopted by non-union companies to remain competitive.
Of course you don't. And when the union fights for and gets that 32 hour work week with 40 hr pay do you think they will be working that additional 8 hours?
contract negotiation of prices, terms, and conditions was a big part of my last corporate job. you always ask for a lot more than what you'll settle for.
the auto union workers agreed to accept major cuts and concessions when the big 3 automakers were on the ropes not so long ago and were assured that when things got better would be compensated for their sacrifices. with corporate executives on the receiving end of up to 40% increases in pay, I'd say things are better, and the new labor contracts are ready to be negotiated.
I remember that. The big 3 got government bail outs, the union took cuts, and the fucking CEOS sailed out with golden parachutes. Do you know if the union was ever compensated for their sacrifices?
Ya know....this is kinda the same shit that was going on when the French and the Russians rebelled against their monarchs
since recorded history began, nothing ever changes until the very rich start turning up dead...
$185,000 for part-time work, plus healthcare, lifetime pension, office expense, employee compensation, and all the FREE TOILET PAPER to wipe their SHAT-filled flappers.
But, that is OK!
Hey, Tim Scott, you need to join the rest us in the 21st century. In the age of Instacart, Door Dash, Uber, and labor fees on bar tabs people are beginning to see that workers screw consumers the same way CEOs screw consumers. A fat cat union screws consumers just as much as does a corporate board of directors. And consumers are expected to pay more for even shittier products.
The UAW strike won't lower the price for vehicles. And the UAW strike certainly won't improve the quality of vehicles. But, hey, that union auto assembler gets a bigger hourly wage and benefits to stand around, scratch their ass, and complain about how they're being screwed. Consumers won't get one damned thing from a union contract other than bigger loan payments. Consumers have to sell their souls to lenders just for the privilege of driving a piece of shit disposable truck.
If the auto companies are having record profits, whose pockets should those record profits being going in to?
The auto companies are very supporting of significant pay raises over time, much less so for 32 hour work week, defined pension plan, and the right to future strikes against plant closings.
They could take us back to where the auto companies were in 2008.
Consumers make those record profits possible. So, giving those record profits to union workers won't lessen the burden on consumers. Consumers are going to be paying more for less no matter who gets those record profits. Fat cat unions are not consumer friendly, either.
The UAW is screwing over consumers the exact same way corporate management is screwing over consumers. It makes no difference to consumers who gets those exorbitant profits. Consumers still have to pay inflated prices without getting more value for the money. Those union workers getting higher wages and benefits won't lower the price of vehicles and won't improve the quality of vehicles. Consumers are still stuck with the same crap coming off the assembly line.
By raising prices so high, consumers will be looking to imports to find lower price alternatives. We've already seen how this works.
The taxpayers who bailed them out and made it possible for them to still be in business and keep all those jobs.
Nice you failed to mention that the auto industry paid back the loans with interest. Well done.
Didn’t need to.
That wasn’t the point that you not so cleverly ignored. Had they not been bailed out by the taxpayers, they wouldn’t still be around to make large profits and keep all those jobs.
Taxpayers deserve a cut just as much as anyone. More even.
Have you ever had to actually work for a living Nerm?
does talking gullible people out of some money for 3 hours on sunday count?
So, consumers don't matter? The money for those record profits and record wages has to come from somewhere.
You or any other person do not have to purchase a car from any of those three companies. You have a wealth of other car companies to choose from. If their models are overpriced they will lose customers, it's that simple.
That argument only proves that no one is trying to protect consumers. We're supposed to believe that when consumers stop buying the vehicles the unions will demand pay cuts to keep the jobs? Not a chance of that happening.
You know, all these labor arguments originated when the United States was an exporting country. That's not how the economy works any longer. The United States is a consumer economy that depends on imports and not a producer economy. It is impossible for US automakers to build vehicles without imported manufactured components.
The unions want to Make America Great Again without fixing any of the problems that killed the great American economy. The unions are now practicing supply-side economics. The UAW is more Reagan than Reagan.
There is a Consumer Protection Agency and the US is based on capitalism, you're not forced to buy a car the make and model are your choice. The unions who are also consumers are not in the business of looking out for you but for their members.
Then why are profits at record levels?
Of course no one is forced to buy a vehicle. People are only forced to buy things like insurance, 401k investments, and union memberships. But it's also true that no one is forced to work at an auto plant, too. God help them if they try to work when the union calls a strike though. The union does force people to not work.
Except capitalism is dead. Murdered by Supply Side Economics.
Nah, we don’t have true capitalism. We (the taxpayers) were forced to bail out the auto industry and by extension the UAW.
A distinctly un-capitalistic action.
What then is our economic system?
Not sure what you hope to accomplish but of course it’s based on capitalism.
Again, did the auto industry bailout follow capitalistic principles?
Hopefully your expectation isn’t a perfect economic system since one doesn’t exist. Anywhere really.
My point was clearly stated in my original post 9.2.8.
What I would like to accomplish is to understand what economic system you think the USA is employing.
Our economic system is capitalism. It is a specific form of capitalism unique to the USA but it is absolutely capitalism.
I think it is reasonable to deem ours as 'impure' capitalism because our system has features (good and bad) that make it unique for us.
But you have not defined what 'pure' capitalism would be so I do not know what you are thinking.
It would be accurate to call our socio-economic/political system (as a whole) a weak form of social democracy. Weak compared to Europe, but we do have the defining factors such as a regulated capitalist economy funding, in part, government programs.
You do not 'take' questions? Not allowed to ask you to be more specific?
What would 'pure' capitalism look like? What are its defining characteristics?
Lol …. I don’t take questions? I answered your question. That you didn’t like my answer is not my issue. You on the other hand have once again, managed to not answer my question.
SOSDD considering
What would 'pure' capitalism look like? What are its defining characteristics?
What are the capitalist principles you speak of? Be clear so we can understand your point.
Answer my question, which has now been asked twice, or this conversation is done.
You refuse to answer my question but I must answer yours? First, I presume?
Okay, Sparty, I need more information from you to answer your question:
What are the capitalist principles you speak of? Be clear so we can understand your point.
Bullshit, I answered your question, 9.2.9. My answer and then my question was in 9.2.10. A question that remains unanswered. Now you expect more answers to questions posed after that?
Pathetic debate tactics tig, very pathetic.
You demand I answer your question before you answer mine. So, out of curiosity, I agree to comply but I need you to be more specific in order to answer your question.
Instead of being more specific you produce the above crap.
Since you obviously do not have a thoughtful response, I will supply an answer for you.
Arguably one of the principles of a 'pure' or idealized capitalism might be an entirely laissez-faire market. Not everyone agrees, but lets go with this as a guess since you refuse to be clear.
Bailing out an auto manufacturer is not pure laissez-faire. Under a pure laissez-fair market, GM would die and replacements would emerge to fill the void.
One can envision all sorts of 'pure' capitalism models and there are many varied 'principles of capitalism'. There is no single 'pure' capitalism or definitive set of capitalist principles other than the defining characteristic: private ownership of the means of production and distribution. (This is typically assumed to operate via a market for commodities and services, but is not a universally accepted defining characteristic.)
The government intervening to keep GM afloat does not violate a market-based economy. It does not violate the private ownership of the means of production and distribution. The US government did not expropriate GM to be a state run auto manufacturer (and even then, that would arguably be state capitalism).
I demanded nothing. I simply asked you for the courtesy of an answer to my question after I answered yours. A very common courtesy in most circles by the way.
I’m not the one producing crap here.
Took you awhile but you finally got your snark in.
That’s a long winded answer to a much shorter question.
In a true capitalistic model, a free market model by design, a government doesn’t pick winners and losers by bailing out whoever they deem appropriate. Doing so favors those who get bailed out and potentially hamstrings competitors not being bailed out. Which is about as far from free market as one can get.
Ford was a good example of this. They didn’t need to take the bailout because they followed sound business principles and secured enough financing to not require bailing out. Instead of getting rewarded for being fiscally sound they get punished when government bailed out their less fiscally sound competitors.
My original comment was simple and spot on. The auto bailouts were not capitalistic in nature. Because that one instance is true, doesn’t mean our system isn’t based on capitalism.
Why did you run around in circles instead of just answering my question? I was asking you to be clear about what you mean by a "true" capitalistic model.
What you mean, then, is what I hypothesized @9.2.17 ... you consider a laissez-faire market to be a defining criteria (an essential component) of "true" Capitalism. Okay, that is your definition.
There is no definitive meaning for "true' Capitalism other than that provided by most every dictionary for the word 'Capitalism' (in the abstract) which states that the defining characteristic of Capitalism (an abstract concept with many varied specializations) is: "private ownership of the means of production and distribution".
This abstract concept, when reified, will gain various characteristics and features. In result, we see genuine Capitalism in many nations but each with its own twist.
The Capitalism of the socio-economic/political system known as Social Democracy is, by definition, highly regulated and the government does intervene, at least in principle, to ensure fairness and consistent/smooth operation. The USA has been a weak (by European standards) Social Democracy since FDR.
Our system is not "true" Capitalism as you choose to define the term, but it (and others) are legitimate instances of Capitalism. So when the US government stepped in to bail out GM rather than let it die, that did not change our variant of Capitalism and since no nation (the USA or any other) has a "true" instance of Capitalism, the fact that this did not meet your criteria for "true" Capitalism is largely irrelevant.
maybe his capitalism is rigged too...
Lol, first of all I wasn’t the one “running around in circles.” I was crystal clear that you were evading my previously asked question. You persisted “ran around in circles” trying to evade answering it. You still haven’t answered it directly.
Last chance. It’s a simple yes or no answer.
Do bailouts like this auto industry bailout follow capitalistic principles?
Yes or no.
Of course the answer is no. No matter how hard you try to spin it. As noted, true free market systems don’t pick winners and losers and allow the cards to fall were they may.
Back to my original comment that you took umbrage with. Bailouts like this are uncapitalistic. No doubt about it.
None.
Not sure what you hope to accomplish here other than spin.
You finally answered my question (after I gave you the answer as my guess on what you meant). Your position is that the USA does not have 'true' Capitalism because government has intervened (as with GM). You consider 'true' Capitalism to be based on an idealized laissez-faire market economy where businesses live and die by market forces alone. No intervention to save companies and (logically) no anti-trust, regulation, etc.
Well that is not how our system has ever worked so we have never had (and assuredly never will have) your concept of 'true' Capitalism.
As I noted, our system is a weak Social Democracy. This is a socio-economic/political system based on a regulated Capitalist engine that is is used, in part, to drive government programs. This has been our model since FDR. It is weak compared to how it is realized in Europe, et.al., but it is our system nonetheless. So you should not find it odd when you see government intervention. And no change to our paradigm has occurred when the government intervenes or creates new social programs.
Yes. As I have explained to you, there is no definitive list of necessary principles for capitalism other than private ownership of the means of production and distribution. There are many forms of Capitalism and none of the actual realizations of same are 'true' Capitalism as you define it. We live in the real world, not some idealized fantasy. Bailouts do not follow what you define as 'true' Capitalism (an ideal that does not exist in practice), but they do not violate the principles of a Social Democracy (our system). Government intervention in the economic system is the norm for Capitalism, not the exception.
An arguable violation of our Social Democracy would be for the US government to expropriate private businesses and turn them into government entities. If GM were a government entity today (a business owned and operated by the government) then you would be on solid grounds to claim that this has changed our system. Although it would still be a legitimate variant of Capitalism (in particular, we would have incorporated State Capitalism).
Yawn …. spin accusations with spin …. once again and per usual. I stand by all of my posts here. Completely.
Enjoy your day
Good to see Scott is a friend of the American worker. You make any demands for a bigger share of the pie or better working conditions and you get fired. Yeah Tim Scott! Let’s take it all the way back to 1900!
somehow I just don't see the klan or thumper segments of the GOP supporting him on election day ...
Interestingly, some of the Klan can some support Scott if/when the reasoning is right. That is, he already seems to toe the conservative line. . . which means he knows his place in the hierarchy of conservative consciousness. Stay within the margins set for him and he can go far!
so he should stay on the porch, but still use the back door? /s
Something similar, but not so grandiose. It means more that Senator Scott will do well as a conservative and rise accordingly as long as he acts in accordance with the conservative hierarchical system and by-laws. Step out of line and POW!
Please list the by-laws.
And exactly what is this system you have imagined?
Indeed, they were federal employees and Reagan was their 'CEO'. Tim better have his positions fact-checked and logic-checked before he states them.
It does not really matter for the nomination race since he will be one of the early dropouts. But as a senator he should be better informed.
Everyone has got pretty far afield so it's time to close the article down.