Connect with us

Business

5 things to know about a possible UAW strike on August 15, 2023 at 5:29 pm Business News | The Hill

Published

on

With one month before their contract expires on Sept. 14, President Joe Biden is asking the United Auto Workers union and the Big Three automakers to work together and forge a fair agreement. 

Negotiations between UAW and the Big Three — Ford, General Motors and Stellantis — began in early July over pay increases, pensions and career security. Autoworkers are particuarly concerned about how the shift to electric vehicles could threaten their jobs and compensation.

5 big questions about the ‘summer of strikes’

“The need to transition to a clean energy economy should provide a win‑win opportunity for auto companies and unionized workers,” Biden said in a statement released Monday.

Advertisement

“Companies should use this process to make sure they enlist their workers in the next chapter of the industry by offering them good paying jobs and a say in the future of their workplace.”

A fair contract, Biden added, would mean that Big Three auto workers could support their families, sustain their right to organize, and have priority to fill the jobs that the transition to clean energy will create.

Biden meets with UAW president while group withholds 2024 endorsement 

“The UAW helped create the American middle class and as we move forward in this transition to new technologies, the UAW deserves a contract that sustains the middle class,” Biden concluded.

Advertisement

Here’s what you need to know about the ongoing negotiations and impending strike:

What are the UAW’s demands?

In this image from video, Shawn Fain, then a candidate for president of the United Auto Workers, is interviewed in Detroit, on Friday, Jan. 13, 2023. (AP Photo/Mike Householder, File)

UAW President Shawn Fain said last week the Big Three are facing “the most audacious and ambitious list of proposals they’ve seen in decades.”

The union is calling to eliminate tiers on wages and benefits, something that was included in the tentative agreement between UPS and the Teamsters. They are also calling for double-digit pay increases, more paid time off and higher retiree pay.

Advertisement

In addition, the union is demanding the reinstatement of some previous policies, including cost of living adjustments (COLA), defined benefit pensions and medical benefits for retirees.

The union is looking to secure their right to strike over plant closures. If a plant does close or the companies leave their towns, UAW is demanding that the companies pay the workers who are left behind to do community service work. 

What is the context behind these demands?

People arrive at the Flint Assembly Plant for a free tour and open house, Aug. 11, 2015, in Flint, Mich. (Jake May/The Flint Journal via AP)

Following the release of the Big Three’s quarterly earnings reports in late July, Fain said that the automakers have made a combined $21 billion in profits in the first six months of 2023. 

Advertisement

He argued that the companies are subsequently funneling billions into stock buyback schemes to “artificially inflate” the companies shares rather than support their workers or devote that money to the electric vehicle transition. 

“Our message going into bargaining is clear,” Fain said. “Record profits mean record contracts.”

He also provided a chart to compare the union’s 2007 contracts to the present, which he used to demonstrate that starting wages have decreased and the number of years it takes to earn the top rate has increased. 

He also pointed out that COLA was suspended during the Great Recession in 2009 and though the companies have bounced back, COLA has not been reinstated to adjust paychecks to inflation.

Advertisement

Prior to 2007, Fain added, every member of the Big Three received a pension and retiree healthcare. However, with the two-tiered system, many workers receive either no pension and health care plan or a pension that hasn’t increased since 2003.

“(This) paints a damning picture of what’s happening, not just in our industry, but across the economy,” Fain said. “The rich are getting richer while the rest of us are getting left behind.

“When I was elected, I said, “The UAW is back in the fight,’ and that’s what the Big Three are going to see when we head into bargaining,” Fain added.

How have the Big Three responded?

The Ford logo is seen on signage at a Ford dealership, Tuesday, July 27, 2021. (AP Photo/Gerry Broome, File)

Advertisement

General Motors (GM) went public right out of the gate with a website dedicated to providing negotiation updates.

They boasted the total compensation and benefits package they provide to their team members in a July 18 release by GM Chair and CEO Mary Barra, including a healthcare plan, a profit-sharing program and career development and training opportunities

“We have a long history of negotiating fair contracts with the UAW that reward our employees and support the long-term success of our business,” Barra said. “Our goal this time will be no different.”

Mike Perez, vice president of GM Labor Relations, also said they have opportunities for every worker in the transition to all-electric.

Advertisement

GM said in a video that since the signing of its 2011 contract with UAW, they have provided $1,000 in profit sharing for every $1 billion GM earns in the North American market. Following the 2022 fiscal year, GM said hourly union-represented employees received up to a $12,750 profit-sharing check.

The rest of the cash flow, they said, goes to upgrading facilities, retooling plants, engineering vehicles, developing technology and building up supply chains, with a small percentage going to shareholders.

In an Aug. 3 response to Fain, GM said they expect to increase wages but don’t agree with all of the demands. 

“The breadth and scope of the Presidential Demands, at face value, would threaten our ability to do what’s right for the long-term benefit of the team,” the statement read. “A fair agreement rewards our employees and also enables GM to maintain our momentum now and into the future.”

Advertisement

Ford has also come out with its own response in the form of an op-ed, written by CEO Jim Farley and published in the Detroit Free Press.

Contrary to Fain’s claims, Farley said that UAW-Ford employees have received wage increases and annual inflation bonuses, which have exceeded what they would have been paid with COLA in place. 

He added that 80 percent of those employers make the top wage rate of $32 per hour, in response to the proposal to end the tier system and the claim that it takes 8 years to reach the top wage rate. 

In a response to the op-ed, vice president of the UAW’s National Ford Department Chuck Browning commended Ford for their handing out profit sharing checks, expanding health care benefits, and giving many part-time workers full-time status. However, he pushed back on wages, saying that workers were still not compensated enough to attain a decent standard of living, job security or retirement “with dignity.” 

Advertisement

Stellantis’ senior manager Jodi Tinson said in a statement that the company and UAW have a long history of working together. She added that Stellantis is focused on ensuring its future competitiveness as well as preserving good wages and benefits that recognize workers’ contributions. 

In a letter sent to employees and obtained by Reuters, Stellantis North America COO Mark Stewart said he is committed to reaching an agreement based on “economic realism.” Agreeing to UAW’s current demands, he said, could endanger the company’s ability to make decisions surrounding job security in the future. 

“This is a losing proposition for all of us,” he wrote.

Stellantis has made proposals to reduce the fixed cost structure of the business in response to government electric vehicle rules, according to Reuters. Fain said this included cuts to healthcare coverage and fewer vacation days for new hires, among other proposals.

Advertisement

Fain criticized Stellanis’ “concessions” in the Facebook Live, throwing them in the trash and calling them a “slap in the face.”

Stewart said that Fain did not fairly represent the negotiations and that “theatrics and personal insults” will not move the two sides any closer to an agreement.

Who will be affected by a strike?

From the start of negotiations, Fain has said that members should be prepared to strike. In the livestream, he reaffirmed that conviction, reminding viewers that the strike fund is healthy and that UAW leadership has a plan for work stoppage.

“Come Sept. 14, if these companies don’t deliver, they’re going to see this plan unfold,” Fain said.

Advertisement

Traditionally, UAW has singled out one automaker to target but a spokesperson told the AP that the union could choose all three. 

Evercore ISI analyst Chris McNally told Axios that the chances of a UAW strike are at least 50 percent, so if all 150,000 UAW workers were to strike with a fund of $825 million dedicated to paying workers $500 per week, the union could strike for about 12 weeks.

The 40-day UAW strike in 2019 cost GM $3.6 billion. However, Stewart said in his letter that it’s too soon to determine whether there will be a strike.

“At this very early stage, no one should jump to any conclusions about the outcome of the process,” he said.

Advertisement

What are the political risks for Biden?

While Biden has pledged to be a staunch ally of unions, he is yet to secure UAW’s endorsement for his reelection campaign. The union backed Biden against then-President Trump in 2020, but announced in May it would withhold its endorsement.

Fain insisted the union must see a “just transtion” to EVs as the Biden administration pushes to shift automaking to a greener future.

​Business, Economy, inflation, President Joe Biden, unions, United Auto Workers With one month before their contract expires on Sept. 14, President Joe Biden is asking the United Auto Workers union and the Big Three automakers to work together and forge a fair agreement. Negotiations between UAW and the Big Three — Ford, General Motors and Stellantis — began in early July over pay increases, pensions…  

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Business

How Trump’s Tariffs Could Hit American Wallets

Published

on

As the debate over tariffs heats up ahead of the 2024 election, new analysis reveals that American consumers could face significant financial consequences if former President Donald Trump’s proposed tariffs are enacted and maintained. According to a recent report highlighted by Forbes, the impact could be felt across households, businesses, and the broader U.S. economy.

The Household Cost: Up to $2,400 More Per Year

Research from Yale University’s Budget Lab, cited by Forbes, estimates that the average U.S. household could pay an additional $2,400 in 2025 if the new tariffs take effect and persist. This projection reflects the cumulative impact of all tariffs announced in Trump’s plan.

Price Hikes Across Everyday Goods

The tariffs are expected to drive up consumer prices by 1.8% in the near term. Some of the hardest-hit categories include:

  • Apparel: Prices could jump 37% in the short term (and 18% long-term).
  • Footwear: Up 39% short-term (18% long-term).
  • Metals: Up 43%.
  • Leather products: Up 39%.
  • Electrical equipment: Up 26%.
  • Motor vehicles, electronics, rubber, and plastic products: Up 11–18%.
  • Groceries: Items like vegetables, fruits, and nuts could rise up to 6%, with additional increases for coffee and orange juice due to specific tariffs on Brazilian imports.

A Historic Tariff Rate and Economic Impact

If fully implemented, the effective tariff rate on U.S. consumers could reach 18%, the highest level since 1934. The broader economic consequences are also notable:

  • GDP Reduction: The tariffs could reduce U.S. GDP by 0.4% annually, equating to about $110 billion per year.
  • Revenue vs. Losses: While tariffs are projected to generate $2.2 trillion in revenue over the next decade, this would be offset by $418 billion in negative economic impacts.

How Businesses Are Responding

A KPMG survey cited in the report found that 83% of business leaders expect to raise prices within six months of tariff implementation. More than half say their profit margins are already under pressure, suggesting that consumers will likely bear the brunt of these increased costs.

What This Means for Americans

The findings underscore the potential for substantial financial strain on American families and businesses if Trump’s proposed tariffs are enacted. With consumer prices set to rise and economic growth projected to slow, the debate over tariffs is likely to remain front and center in the months ahead.

For more in-depth economic analysis and updates, stay tuned to Bolanlemedia.com.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Business

U.S. Limits Nigerian Non-Immigrant Visas to Three-Month Validity

Published

on

In July 2025, the United States implemented significant changes to its visa policy for Nigerian citizens, restricting most non-immigrant and non-diplomatic visas to a single entry and a maximum validity of three months. This marks a departure from previous policies that allowed for multiple entries and longer stays, and has important implications for travel, business, and diplomatic relations between the two countries.

Key Changes in U.S. Visa Policy for Nigerians

  • Single-Entry, Three-Month Limit: As of July 8, 2025, most non-immigrant visas issued to Nigerians are now valid for only one entry and up to three months.
  • No Retroactive Impact: Visas issued prior to this date remain valid under their original terms.
  • Reciprocity Principle: The U.S. cited alignment with Nigeria’s own visa policies for U.S. citizens as the basis for these changes.
  • Enhanced Security Screening: Applicants are required to make their social media accounts public for vetting, and are subject to increased scrutiny for any signs of hostility toward U.S. institutions.

Rationale Behind the Policy Shift

  • Security and Immigration Integrity: The U.S. government stated the changes are intended to safeguard the immigration system and meet global security standards.
  • Diplomatic Reciprocity: These restrictions mirror the limitations Nigeria imposes on U.S. travelers, emphasizing the principle of fairness in international visa agreements.
  • Potential for Further Action: The U.S. has indicated that additional travel restrictions could be introduced if Nigeria does not address certain diplomatic and security concerns.

Nigeria’s Updated Visa Policy

  • Nigeria Visa Policy 2025 (NVP 2025): Introduced in May 2025, this policy features a new e-Visa system for short visits and reorganizes visa categories:
    • Short Visit Visas (e-Visa): For business or tourism, valid up to three months, non-renewable, processed digitally within 48 hours.
    • Temporary Residence Visas: For employment or study, valid up to two years.
    • Permanent Residence Visas: For investors, retirees, and highly skilled individuals.
  • Visa Exemptions: ECOWAS citizens and certain diplomatic passport holders remain exempt.
  • Reciprocal Restrictions: Most short-stay and business visas for U.S. citizens are single-entry and short-term, reflecting reciprocal treatment.

Impact on Travelers and Bilateral Relations

  • Nigerian Travelers: Face increased administrative requirements, higher costs, and reduced travel flexibility to the U.S.
  • U.S. Travelers to Nigeria: Encounter similar restrictions, with most visas limited to single entry and short duration.
  • Diplomatic Tensions: Nigerian officials have called for reconsideration of the U.S. policy, warning of negative effects on bilateral ties and people-to-people exchanges.

Conclusion

The U.S. decision to limit Nigerian non-immigrant visas to three months highlights the growing complexity and reciprocity in global visa regimes. Both countries are tightening their policies, citing security and fairness, which underscores the need for travelers and businesses to stay informed and adapt to evolving requirements.

Continue Reading

Business

Nicki Minaj Demands $200 Million from Jay-Z in Explosive Twitter Rant

Published

on

Nicki Minaj has once again set social media ablaze, this time targeting Jay-Z with a series of pointed tweets that allege he owes her an eye-popping $200 million. The outburst has reignited debates about artist compensation, industry transparency, and the ongoing power struggles within hip-hop’s elite circles.

Credit: Heute.at

The $200 Million Claim

In a string of tweets, Minaj directly addressed Jay-Z, writing, “Jay-Z, call me to settle the karmic debt. It’s only collecting more interest. You still in my top five though. Let’s get it.” She went further, warning, “Anyone still calling him Hov will answer to God for the blasphemy.” According to Minaj, the alleged debt stems from Jay-Z’s sale of Tidal, the music streaming platform he launched in 2015 with a group of high-profile artists—including Minaj herself, J. Cole, and Rihanna.

When Jay-Z sold Tidal in 2021, Minaj claims she was only offered $1 million, a figure she says falls dramatically short of what she believes she is owed based on her ownership stake and contributions. She has long voiced dissatisfaction with the payout, but this is the most public—and dramatic—demand to date.

Beyond the Money: Broader Grievances

Minaj’s Twitter storm wasn’t limited to financial complaints. She also:

  • Promised to start a college fund for her fans if she receives the money she claims is owed.
  • Accused blogs and online creators of ignoring her side of the story, especially when it involves Jay-Z.
  • Warned content creators about posting “hate or lies,” saying, “They won’t cover your legal fees… I hope it’s worth losing everything including your account.”

She expressed frustration that mainstream blogs and platforms don’t fully cover her statements, especially when they involve Jay-Z, and suggested that much of the coverage she receives is from less reputable sources.

Credit: Heute.at

Satirical Accusations and Industry Critique

Minaj’s tweets took a satirical turn as she jokingly blamed Jay-Z for a laundry list of cultural grievances, including:

  • The state of hip-hop, football, basketball, and touring
  • The decline of Instagram and Twitter
  • Even processed foods and artificial dyes in candy

She repeatedly declared, “The jig is up,” but clarified that her statements were “alleged and for entertainment purposes only.”

Political and Cultural Criticism

Minaj also criticized Jay-Z’s political involvement, questioning why he didn’t campaign more actively for Kamala Harris or respond to President Obama’s comments about Black men. While Jay-Z has a history of supporting Democratic campaigns, Minaj’s critique centered on more recent events and what she perceives as a lack of advocacy for the Black community.

The Super Bowl and Lil Wayne

Adding another layer to her grievances, Minaj voiced disappointment that Lil Wayne was not chosen to perform at the Super Bowl in New Orleans, a decision she attributes to Jay-Z’s influence in the entertainment industry.

Public and Industry Reaction

Despite the seriousness of her financial claim, many observers note that if Minaj truly believed Jay-Z owed her $200 million, legal action—not social media—would likely follow. As of now, there is no public record of a lawsuit or formal complaint.

Advertisement

Some fans and commentators see Minaj’s outburst as part of a larger pattern of airing industry grievances online, while others interpret it as a mix of personal frustration and performance art. Minaj herself emphasized that her tweets were “for entertainment purposes only.”

Credit: Heute.at

Conclusion

Nicki Minaj’s explosive Twitter rant against Jay-Z has once again placed the spotlight on issues of artist compensation and industry dynamics. Whether her claims will lead to further action or remain another dramatic chapter in hip-hop’s ongoing soap opera remains to be seen, but for now, the world is watching—and tweeting.

Continue Reading

Trending