I.L.W.U. Local #6 on strike since 12pm Monday
House of 91 Union brothers and sisters.
We run shipping, warehousing, raw sugar dock and palletizing at C&H Sugar in Crockett, California.
C&H is attempting to take away retirement medical from current and future retirees.
They …are attempting to bypass California law and deny overtime pay after 8 hour shifts.
They want to take away house seniority and have the power to lay off who they want, when they want.
They are taking away sick time.
The only “gains” are 3–4 % raises per year.
Any support and solidarity are appreciated.
:fist:
Link to Strike Fund
https://square.link/u/ifFpgkRO
Working Class Party Congressional Candidate In Chicago Ed Hershey Speaks Out
https://youtu.be/9bGF5DZULaw
Ed Hershey is a member of the Chicago Teachers Union CTU and Working Class Party and is running for Congress in Chicago in the 4th Congressional District. He spoke about why he is …running and the issues that working people face
Additional Info:.
Working Class Party
www.workingclassparty.org
Production Of Labor Video Project
www.labormedia.net
Ed Hershey is a member of the Chicago Teachers Union CTU and Work…
youtu.beWorking Class Party Candidate In Chicago Ed Hershey Speaks Out
WOMEN ARE GOING ON HUNGER & LABOR STRIKE AT DELANEY HALL.
THESE ARE THEIR DEMANDS
https://www.lahuelga.com/delaneystrikedemands
LETTERS FROM DELANEY-CALL FOR ACTION
FREEDOM
Release all the women, with priority given to women under the age of 21, women with medical …conditions, and mothers.
Expand access to legal representation and support. Many women detained at Delaney Hall face complex immigration proceedings without attorneys or adequate legal assistance. Continued pro bono legal representation is needed to ensure individuals have meaningful access to due process.
DIGNITY
GEO must immediately replace its current food supplier to meet basic nutritional and health standards. This includes providing healthy high quality meals that accommodate medical, religious, and dietary needs.
GEO must repair the plumbing, in particular the second bathroom in the women's unit and all bathrooms of the facility.
GEO must contract cleaning services, so that people are not threatened to do labor for the benefit of a multibillion dollar corporation.
GEO must provide safe drinking water. If safe drinking water cannot be guaranteed through faucets and water fountains, then bottled water should be brought into the units and made available through the commissary.
GEO must immediately hire new qualified medical staff including nurses and doctors available 24/7 to respond to emergencies. Nurses mistreat people and give people incorrect medications, medical attention is routinely denied.
GEO must install functioning AC and heat, and proper ventilation. It is dangerous for people to be confined in extreme heat or extreme cold.
RESPECT
Initiate and carry to completion independent investigations of all allegations of abuse. Women report that they have made multiple complaints of sexual abuse against a female officer.
GEO is responsible for providing staff training, accountability systems and oversight, and security personnel changes to ensure dignified treatment of detained people.
Immediately restore all visitation privileges so that mothers, daughters, and family members can maintain meaningful contact with their loved ones.
CALLS TO ACTION
1. Call the Newark Field office at (862) 445-9200 and GEO group at (561) 893-0101 and demand that Delaney Hall:
a.
Fire the guard sexually assaulting women
b.
Hire a cleaning service
c.
Provide safe drinking water
d.
Fix the air conditioning
e.
Repair the bathrooms
f.
Replace all security personnel with new trained staff
g.
Replace the current GEO medical staff with trained and qualified nurses, as well as hire doctors to be available 24/7 to handle emergencies
h.
Replace the current food supplier with one that provides high-quality meals and adequate nutrition for sick people
2. Call the Governor's office at (609) 777-2230 and:
a.
Demand that GEO/Delaney Hall restore visitation hours for ALL units, ALL week.
3. Email ICE deportation officer at Delaney Hall Maurice Williams at Maurice.E.Williams@ice.dhs.gov:
a.
Demand the immediate release of all women, starting with: those under the age of 21, those who have medical conditions, and mothers.
LETTERS FROM DELANEY HALL
Juneteenth & The Fight Today Against Resegregation & A Fascist Government-Time For Mass Action
https://youtu.be/3fTLkPEEu34
The commemoration of Juneteenth in 2026 comes at a time when there is an open attack on Black representation and for resegregation and the elimination of any …equal rights on the job and in communities.
ILWU Local 10 former Secretary Treasurer ClarenceThomas talks about the issues facing Blacks and the entire working class and also the need for a mass action of the working class to defend against the attacks. He also talks about the death of IBT 808 Secretary Treasurer Chris Silvera early this month.
This interview was done on 6/19/26.
Additional Media:
On Juneteenth, ILWU Local 10 VP Trent Willis Talks About History & Struggle For General Strike Today
https://youtu.be/-dqrEQHYzqI
Kill Tariffs Not Workers! Teamsters & ILWU Members Protest Tariffs & Trade War At The Port Of Oakland
https://youtu.be/DdIzrM2B-9w
ILWU 10 Solidarity Meeting On Palestine: An Injury To One Is An Injury To All
https://youtu.be/XiPs6lccJM0
Dock Workers: Block Military Cargo to Israel Against the Genocidal War on Palestinians in Gaza!
https://www.counterpunch.org/2024/02/21/dock-workers-block-military-cargo-to-israel-against-the-genocidal-war-on-palestinians-in-gaza/?fbclid=IwAR2SwceZcD0CWLVaJjY_I5m6-SOXf-CgAu46IlFgTv5ULdwja6B-fXu3z4A
ILWU Bay Area Members Speak Out On Israeli ZIM Ship Volans, Palestinians, Israel & Picket In Oakland
https://youtu.be/bjVpd-E0SCo
Israeli ZIM Volans Blocked In Oakland As ILWU 10 Members Refuse To Cross Picket Line Of Hundreds
https://youtu.be/Aht5wKqCVA0
May 25th NCDC-ILWU Statement On Palestine
https://blocktheboat.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/ILWU-Northern-California-Palestine.pdf?fbclid=IwAR0dB0rVYQaY-2mIFAFcfAE10GO3N0SLhZt35M65Wlf6R_sWRWVXLA4ENfA
International Dockworkers Council strongly condemns the massacre of civilians and children in Palestine.
http://www.idcdockworkers.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/The-IDC-strongly-condemns-the-massacre-of-civilians-and-children-in-Palestine.-Unconditional-support-to-the-Palestinian-General-Strike.-.pdf
srael
Zim Line Hit With Pickets-ILWU 10 & 34 Workers Stand Against Israeli Apartheid
https://youtu.be/2Gp503j9WSk
Israeli Zim Ship Shanghai At Standstill In Oakland By ILWU Action & Picket LIne
https://youtu.be/Wy5JuSB-0O8
ILWU Rank and File Back Picket Of Zim ship Piraeus At Port Of Oakland
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SZK1hoSkR_c&feature=youtu.be
Mass March & Picket At Oakland Port To Stop Israel's Zim Line Ship Piraeus To Protest Crimes In Gaza
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PcJHlnq4YIo
Danny Glover Joins ILWU 10 In Supporting Freedom For Mumia on February 16, 2023
https://youtu.be/j0qJX4zDf9s
ILUW 1984 San Francisco Local 10 & 34 Anti-Apartheid Action Against Racist South African Government
https://youtu.be/bv0sM07_Yw8
The Israeli Histadrut, The AFL-CIO, Zionism & Labor Imperialism With Carol Lang
https://youtu.be/aH2JslHpeZk
ILWU Struggles 1984-2010, The Struggle Continues
https://youtu.be/ABosvjawnj4
Bay Area Unions & Thousands Of Workers Rally & March For Palestine In Oakland
https://youtu.be/L9k79honqIA
Production of Labor Video Project
www.labormedia.net
The commemoration of Juneteenth comes at a time when there is an op…
youtu.beMore Hunters Point toxic clean-up mess: ‘surprise’ radiological material discovered in a cabinet
https://48hills.org/2026/06/more-hunters-point-toxic-clean-up-mess-surprise-radiological-material-discovered-in-a-cabinet/
Officials grilled at latest meeting on disaster, and a Lick …Wilmerding High School senior takes up fight for justice.
Tom Molanphy
By TOM MOLANPHY
JUNE 21, 2026
Nearly 40 community members gathered at 451 Galvez Street on Monday evening, hoping the Hunters Point Shipyard Community Advisory Committee (CAC) could clarify the latest mishap at the billion dollar-plus clean-up of the Hunter Point Naval Shipyard (HPNS). The main topic of a loaded agenda concerned an April 7 Navy report that radiological and chemical material was discovered in a cabinet in a secure building at the HPNS.
Any of the other topics on the agenda would have been front page news in any other San Francisco neighborhood: a reported exceedance of plutonium in the air; potential laboratory quality concerns that could affect data on contaminated soil; treating mercury in water and soil; and moving and monitoring contaminated debris in trucks that will pass through residential areas.
That only the Bayview faces problems like these was not lost on many in attendance, as tensions at the meeting grew.
Most of the meeting consisted of the back-and-forth between the CAC chair, Dr. Veronica Honeycutt, and HPS Environmental Coordinator, Michael Pound. (Presentation slides and video of the entire meeting can be found here.) After Pound summarized the ongoing issues of the clean-up, Honeycutt asked multiple questions, many sent to her by stakeholders in the community, to try to understand the strange circumstances of the radiological and chemical materials stored for years in Building A by the former owner of EnviroChem, a subcontractor hired for the clean-up.
Objects included approximately 200 radiological items, including uranium and thorium samples, as well as approximately 70 glass vials of chemicals that still needed determination.
Location of Building 400A, where the radiological and chemical materials were stored without the Navy’s knowledge for years
Questions from Honeycutt included: What is the point of origin for these materials? How did EnviroChem acquire, package and transport these hazardous materials to the shipyard? How did the Navy determine that the illegal transportation and storage and materials by EnviroChem occurred specifically between 2019 and 2022?
Pound reiterated the Navy’s position that the material found in 400A posed no threat to public safety and that a full investigation by the Naval Criminal Investigative Service and the Environmental Protection Agency’s Criminal Investigation Division was underway.
Pound ultimately called Jeff Bale, the VP of RSI, the company that had bought out EnviroChem in March of 2023, to the podium for help. Bale said he received a call in his office in Oak Ridge, TN on April 7 about the radiological and chemical material, flew out two days later, and has “been here for the last 10 weeks working diligently to get this situation taken care of.”
Bale said what he found was a “total surprise” and not nearly as clean as the picture shared in the slideshow. Bale and Pound both highlighted that many “check sources,” sealed radionuclide samples used to calibrate radiological instruments in the field, were found in the cabinet. Dr. Kathryn Higley, Community Technical Liaison for Radiological Health and Safety for the United States Navy, added that these “could be purchased by a high school teacher on Amazon.”
Condition of Building 400A on June 10
Dr. Honeycutt responded with a charge repeated by many officials over the years, from Nancy Pelosi to the EPA: the Navy is not doing a great job with this clean-up, and trust has been lost. “As far as many of our stakeholders are concerned, the Navy has advocated its responsibilities by letting RSI to conduct the inventory. From our perspective, this is unacceptable.”
Malik Seneferu, a local artist and member of CAC, pressed Pound further. He wondered how the owner of the company was able to bring the objects into the shipyard for so many years and not get caught. “I know no one can really get past this gate without getting checked by the guard,” Senefaru said, motioning to the guarded gate outside the window. “My concern is, how did he get through with all this equipment?”
Malik Seneferu, seated and pointing, tries to clarify information presented by Michael Pound, standing at the podium, during the CAC meeting on Monday, June 15.
When the audience had their own two-minutes at the mike, the incredulity did not stop. “I want to remind everyone about the similarities in the situation we’re seeing today, and the situation that led to the federal injunction that shut down AAA machine shop, Astoria metals in dry dock four in the year 2000, and the Tetra Tech soil scandal,” Dr. Ahimsa Porter Sumchai said.
Demetrius Williams, the president of the International Longshore and Warehouse Union Local 10, reminded everyone that the problems in the Bayview can be a double-whammy – not only do the residents suffer health consequences, but community members rarely land the consequential employment opportunities that come with the clean-up.
“You know, it’s okay when we play in it as kids, but when you get ready to start building houses and developing, it’s now considered contaminated,” Williams said. “It’s alarming to understand what is transitioning here.”
Demetrius Williams makes his point at the podium during the CAC meeting on Monday, June 15.
Pound answered what he could, emphasizing that the material posed no public health threat and that more details from the ongoing investigation would be forthcoming; Honeycutt repeatedly pressed the Navy rep to produce a full report as soon as possible.
One question always remains after these meetings: How many times can the Bayview community hear about surprises in the clean-up before losing all faith in the clean-up process itself?
***
With a trove of local, state, national, and even international reporting on the shipyard, more than a few San Franciscans outside the Bayview have started asking questions too. Including Lick Wilmerding High School senior Talia Bryant, who contacted 48 Hills to request publicity for her petition for a “100% cleanup of ALL radioactive waste at the Hunters Point Shipyard with complete re-testing and community oversight.”
“This was going on way before I was even born,” Bryant said by phone. “I was reading more about the groundwater and became concerned.”
Image from Talia Bryant’s petition. You can see it here.
“We take an environmental justice class, and I got to talk to my peers about it. It’s not a coincidence that it’s people of color who live in the Bayview who are being affected.”
The meeting adjourned with members of the CAC asking as many members of the public as possible to attend the next meeting on July 27 to ask questions. Greenaction for Health and Environmental Justice and the Marie Harrison Foundation have organized a rally on the steps of City Hall on Wednesday, June 24, at noon, to demand that “public health, environmental justice, and human dignity come before development interests and political convenience.”
Tom Molanphy is a freelance journalist. His book on Marie Harrison, Marie’s Tree: Implosions and Injustice in San Francisco, will be published by Green Writers Press in the fall.
Officials grilled at latest meeting on disaster, and a Lick Wilmerding High School senior takes up fight for justice.
48hills.orgThe Argentina FATE SUTNA Occupation & The Lessons
Rhode Island
https://www.wpri.com/news/politics/mckee-signs-charter-school-moratorium-into-law/?fbclid=IwY2xjawSj_zRleHRuA2FlbQIxMQBzcnRjBmFwcF9pZBAyMjIwMzkxNzg4MjAwODkyAAEeuhytXChRoDId3_HVqMOWm7JJrJh2rZCKq8QiPKetMM_vScevKKKjZ0J8BV0_aem_uO56V-6flod_TcQq9uN80w
The governor signed the measure despite his longstanding and outspoken support for charters.
www.wpri.comFighting the UP NF Railroad Merger & Defending Contaminated Communities
https://youtu.be/npvOuSg315s
At a national conference of Railroad Workers United in Chicago ahead of the Labor Notes conference
a panel was held on the issue of the merger of UP and NFS, the effect on workers,… shoppers and the
communities. They also had speakers Jamie Wallace and Nicole Fabricant talking about the conditions
of contaminated communities including East Palestine.
Additional Media:
Robber Barrons The Union Pacifica & Norfolk Southern Rail Merger Unions & Communities & Public
https://youtu.be/ESrnClu5A8w
At Piketon-Portsmouth, Ohio Meeting: Unite To Defend Residents & Workers & Link Up With E. Palestine & The US
https://youtu.be/cSwCzhIa_NQ
The Piketon Nightmare Continues: Residents & Workers Speak Out About Cancer Epidemic & NUKE Cover-up
https://youtu.be/s338K-GLjw0
On 2nd Anniversary Of East Palestine NFS Derailment, The Fight For Residents & Workers & The Lessons
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2bSlkzkcBsM
Additional Info:
Railroad Workers United
rairoadworkersunited.org
Production Of Labor Video Project
www.labrmedia.net
Fighting the UP NF Railroad Merger & Defending Contaminated Communities
https://youtu.be/npvOuSg315s
At a national conference of Railroad Workers United in Chicago ahead of the Labor Notes conference
a panel was held on the issue of the merger of UP and NFS, the effect on workers,… shoppers and the
communities. They also had speakers Jamie Wallace and Nicole Fabricant talking about the conditions
of contaminated communities including East Palestine.
Additional Media:
Robber Barrons The Union Pacifica & Norfolk Southern Rail Merger Unions & Communities & Public
https://youtu.be/ESrnClu5A8w
At Piketon-Portsmouth, Ohio Meeting: Unite To Defend Residents & Workers & Link Up With E. Palestine & The US
https://youtu.be/cSwCzhIa_NQ
The Piketon Nightmare Continues: Residents & Workers Speak Out About Cancer Epidemic & NUKE Cover-up
https://youtu.be/s338K-GLjw0
On 2nd Anniversary Of East Palestine NFS Derailment, The Fight For Residents & Workers & The Lessons
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2bSlkzkcBsM
Additional Info:
Railroad Workers United
rairoadworkersunited.org
Production Of Labor Video Project
www.labrmedia.net
The Faster Labor Contracts Act is A Dangerous Attack on the Power of Labor
https://teamstersmobilize.com/blog/the-faster-labor-contracts-act-is-a-dangerous-attack-on-the-power-of-labor
Jun 20
By: Adam Chavez, Steward in Teamsters Local 1932, & Gabe Fields, Teamsters …Mobilize Supporter
On Tuesday June 9, the Faster Labor Contracts Act (FLCA) was passed in the House of Representatives. Teamsters General President Sean O'Brien is calling the FLCA "one of the most consequential Labor bills to come before Congress in generations", and saying it "has the potential to hold Corporate America accountable for… denying workers the first union contracts they deserve." The AFL-CIO and its affiliated unions have also been vocal in advocating for the law’s passage. In reality, the bill is a Trojan horse hiding major new attacks on the union movement. It would crush the union rank-and-file's ability to mobilize over the terms of their contracts and deal an existential blow to the important weapon of the first-contract strike. This law represents a major setback to the many advances made by labor in the last century, at a moment when union activity is just starting to recover from historic lows.
The FLCA shackles bargaining to federal government arbitration boards which would decide on the terms of the contract and can force workers to swallow poverty wages without the right to vote down these contracts. On top of that, it calls into question whether strikes over first contracts will even be viable or legal in the future. It's not a coincidence that this bill undermining the power of unions is being pushed now, as the US's global power is crumbling and we teeter on the verge of a once-in-a-century economic crisis. Even right-wing pundits like Tucker Carlson are correctly warning about the popular unrest of the working class with the threat of mass unemployment and famine. We can be sure that the lawmakers' intention here is to quash militancy and make workers forget that the unions are our organizations, which depend on our activity to survive. So we call on militants around the country to join us in fighting tooth and nail against this bill, and to advocate for the unshackling of of union power instead of more chains; by ending no-strike clauses and repealing the Taft-Hartley Act.
Militiamen surrounding and threatening striking workers at the Lawrence MA textile mills in 1912. Since then, government union-busting has become more sophisticated.
On the surface, the FLCA is an attempt to force employers to negotiate in good faith for a Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA): that is, to speed up the time between the recognition of a union and the signing of a contract. The issue it's claiming to address is a very real one: bosses regularly stonewall in bargaining and work to obstruct newly recognized unions from gaining contracts for years, hoping to prevent any CBA from being reached and that, with time, the union will eventually fall apart or be de-certified. We cannot deny the seriousness of this problem: after decades of erosion of the limited rights of the U.S. working class enjoy, and a steady decline of labor union membership, we workers are already in a very weak position in our leverage against the employers. What's more, the popular consciousness about the importance of union struggle among the working class has been on a gradual decline for decades. There is an entire industry composed of anti-labor organizations, law firms, and business interests that utilize every means accessible to hamper the development of a mobilized working class capable of waging sharp struggle against their worsening conditions. But the supposed solution in the FLCA is little more than a poison pill wrapped in American cheese.
Under the law, after three months without successfully reaching a contract agreement, either the union or the company can trigger federal mediation by a government board. The arbitration board has three members: one appointed by the company, one by the union, and a third that is mutually agreed on. If the mediation does not succeed within thirty days, this board would decide the terms of the contract themselves and force it on the union without a vote from membership! The forced contract would be binding for 2 years and the federal arbitrators can include no-strike clauses. Forced arbitration would deprive young unions of their greatest weapon: the strike. Rather than use their ability to stop work as leverage against the company for stronger contract demands, the workers are being told they should trust the government, which is tied to the hip of the capitalists, to reach an agreement on their behalf.
A vague notion put forward in the act is that compensation, benefits, and working conditions that will be imposed by the federal board will be formed on the basis of "industry norms". Who is it exactly that will decide on these "industry norms"? It will certainly not be the workers who decide. Those deliberations on what is the "standard" will be between the corporations that exploit us and the government which has shown time and time again it will side with, and carry out the rule of, the exploiters. Besides, are unions not meant to be the organ workers use to secure benefits that are above the industry standard? So, in the FLCA, the stated solution to getting unions recognized by the company and reaching a CBA is to stack the deck against the workers and permit the company and government to decide the terms for the workers, who, again, cannot even vote on said terms, much less call a strike against them.
Senators Cory Booker (left) and Josh Hawley (right) pretend to stand for the working class, but have consistently worked for the capitalists.
The FLCA was proposed by Corey Booker (D) and Josh Hawley (R), who were both invited to speak at this year’s IBT convention. Booker was just revealed to be a member of fascist billionaire Peter Thiel’s secret society “Dialog”, and he is notorious even in Washington D.C. for having received more money from Wall Street in 2013 than any other member of Congress. Hawley touts himself as a fighter for the people against Wall Street, real estate, and the establishment, but has received mountains of funding from those exact sectors. Besides direct donations to his campaigns, super-PACs like the Senate Leadership fund (Mitch-McConnell aligned) and Americans for Prosperity (a Koch brothers network) have collectively spent about $25 million supporting Hawley's election.
It's notable that today we find O’Brien "preaching the good word” about the benefits of the FLCA, yet he has the opposite opinion of the PRO Act, a failed bill which he criticized recently on his podcast for being “not bipartisan” and “politically divisive.” This says a lot about what O'Brien and the Teamsters leadership are trying to do here. As a reminder, the FLCA was a section taken from the PRO Act itself, and it was one of the worst sections! Other parts of the bill were significantly better, such as limiting right-to-work laws, enabling the return of solidarity strikes, prohibiting captive audience meetings, etc. Instead of all these, the part that the backwards Teamsters bureaucracy has chosen to fight for is the section controlling strike action and forcing workers to accept government-forced contracts they haven't approved.
IBT President Sean O’Brien lobbying Congress for the FLCA.
As the working class, we can and must fight for reforms within the capitalist state, but we also have to be very careful of being fooled by politicians into supporting reforms that actually harm us. Both Democrat and Republican politicians act like snake oil salesmen, marketing all sorts of “cures” to the people that, when you read the fine print, turn out to be poison. In addition to "reforms" that directly hurt unions, we also have to pay attention to efforts by the ruling class to allow certain levels of growth of unions that actually strengthen their grip over the working class. American labor history is full of examples of the ruling class using the controlled development of "safe" unions in order to crush worker activity.
All employers directly benefit to a degree from the U.S. labor law system, largely defined by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) and other related legislation. The NLRB is often credited with acting as an unbiased mediator between workers and bosses, but this could not be further from the truth. The NLRB is a political institution that is at the direction of the executive, and even "pro-labor democrats”, such as Joe Biden, still operate in the interests of capital. It was Biden who led the charge to prevent the railroad unions from going on strike in 2022 by executive order. He did this in a way that closely resembles the provisions laid out by the FLCA, by setting up a federal arbitration board that forced a contract on the unions without giving them an opportunity to oppose it. Where was the NLRB, the supposed protector of the workers?
Picketers in Boston protesting Biden’s crushing of the 2022 railroad strike.
The Faster Labor Contracts Act is likely part of a longer-term plan by the capitalists to decrease the level of struggle of the workers even if it means forcing certain employers to accept contracts they'd rather flat out deny. We can see this in the statements made by Secretary of War Hegseth when he criticized management of Bath Iron Works in the lead up to the recent strike, saying to the workers "To your leadership, like I say to all leadership, invest in your plants and invest in your people.” Of course, Hegseth is not actually standing up for the workers, but what he is saying is that if the military industrial complex is going to have consistent and predictable production, their companies will need to make some "compromises" with the workers. He and others in the ruling class understand that a major recession, if not a depression, is coming, and that a workforce under tighter control means more domestic stability, and more easily manageable competition with China.
The idea that the government will ever be a neutral mediator establishing "peace" between the conflicting classes in society is a fiction promoted by the capitalists. In reality, the government acts consistently in the interest of the bosses, and there is a revolving door between the government and the C-suite. The whole government system was set up by the capitalists as a tool to help them rule over the people. And the fight over a contract is not a simple mediation to find "compromise", it's a bitter struggle between the robbers and the robbed, requiring every bit of leverage possible on the part of the union to try and decrease the degree that the workers are exploited. When Sean O'Brien united with UPS CEO Carol Tome and Joe Biden over the sell-out UPS contract of 2023 to promote the idea that the contract was a “win-win-win” for labor, the company, and the government, he was promoting these same poisonous ideas.
Secretary of War Pete Hegseth speaks to workers at Bath Iron Works in Maine in February 2026.
Instead of tighter federal control, genuine unionists should be fighting for the opposite. We need more freedom to strike, not less, and we should be working to build inspiring examples of trade union struggle that can help awaken the sleeping giant of the American working class. We have to repeal the Taft-Hartley Act, which made wildcat strikes, solidarity strikes, and political strikes illegal. We should fight to get rid of all the federal and state laws that restrict the level of activity of government, port, and rail unions, which has stifled the working class's leverage. And we should promote the abolition of “no-strike clauses”, which have become standard in labor contracts. If we allow the leadership of unions like the Teamsters to take us down the blind alley that starts with the FLCA, we will more and more lose our legal rights completely to organize as workers.
Adam Chavez is a steward and member of Teamsters Local 1932. The views expressed in this article are the opinion of himself and Gabe Fields, and do not represent the official position of Teamsters Local 1932, its officers, or the International Brotherhood of Teamsters.
By: Adam Chavez, Steward in Teamsters Local 1932, & Gabe Fields, Teamsters Mobilize Supporter
teamstersmobilize.comThe Faster Labor Contracts Act is A Dangerous Attack on the Power of Labor
https://teamstersmobilize.com/blog/the-faster-labor-contracts-act-is-a-dangerous-attack-on-the-power-of-labor
Jun 20
By: Adam Chavez, Steward in Teamsters Local 1932, & Gabe Fields, Teamsters …Mobilize Supporter
On Tuesday June 9, the Faster Labor Contracts Act (FLCA) was passed in the House of Representatives. Teamsters General President Sean O'Brien is calling the FLCA "one of the most consequential Labor bills to come before Congress in generations", and saying it "has the potential to hold Corporate America accountable for… denying workers the first union contracts they deserve." The AFL-CIO and its affiliated unions have also been vocal in advocating for the law’s passage. In reality, the bill is a Trojan horse hiding major new attacks on the union movement. It would crush the union rank-and-file's ability to mobilize over the terms of their contracts and deal an existential blow to the important weapon of the first-contract strike. This law represents a major setback to the many advances made by labor in the last century, at a moment when union activity is just starting to recover from historic lows.
The FLCA shackles bargaining to federal government arbitration boards which would decide on the terms of the contract and can force workers to swallow poverty wages without the right to vote down these contracts. On top of that, it calls into question whether strikes over first contracts will even be viable or legal in the future. It's not a coincidence that this bill undermining the power of unions is being pushed now, as the US's global power is crumbling and we teeter on the verge of a once-in-a-century economic crisis. Even right-wing pundits like Tucker Carlson are correctly warning about the popular unrest of the working class with the threat of mass unemployment and famine. We can be sure that the lawmakers' intention here is to quash militancy and make workers forget that the unions are our organizations, which depend on our activity to survive. So we call on militants around the country to join us in fighting tooth and nail against this bill, and to advocate for the unshackling of of union power instead of more chains; by ending no-strike clauses and repealing the Taft-Hartley Act.
Militiamen surrounding and threatening striking workers at the Lawrence MA textile mills in 1912. Since then, government union-busting has become more sophisticated.
On the surface, the FLCA is an attempt to force employers to negotiate in good faith for a Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA): that is, to speed up the time between the recognition of a union and the signing of a contract. The issue it's claiming to address is a very real one: bosses regularly stonewall in bargaining and work to obstruct newly recognized unions from gaining contracts for years, hoping to prevent any CBA from being reached and that, with time, the union will eventually fall apart or be de-certified. We cannot deny the seriousness of this problem: after decades of erosion of the limited rights of the U.S. working class enjoy, and a steady decline of labor union membership, we workers are already in a very weak position in our leverage against the employers. What's more, the popular consciousness about the importance of union struggle among the working class has been on a gradual decline for decades. There is an entire industry composed of anti-labor organizations, law firms, and business interests that utilize every means accessible to hamper the development of a mobilized working class capable of waging sharp struggle against their worsening conditions. But the supposed solution in the FLCA is little more than a poison pill wrapped in American cheese.
Under the law, after three months without successfully reaching a contract agreement, either the union or the company can trigger federal mediation by a government board. The arbitration board has three members: one appointed by the company, one by the union, and a third that is mutually agreed on. If the mediation does not succeed within thirty days, this board would decide the terms of the contract themselves and force it on the union without a vote from membership! The forced contract would be binding for 2 years and the federal arbitrators can include no-strike clauses. Forced arbitration would deprive young unions of their greatest weapon: the strike. Rather than use their ability to stop work as leverage against the company for stronger contract demands, the workers are being told they should trust the government, which is tied to the hip of the capitalists, to reach an agreement on their behalf.
A vague notion put forward in the act is that compensation, benefits, and working conditions that will be imposed by the federal board will be formed on the basis of "industry norms". Who is it exactly that will decide on these "industry norms"? It will certainly not be the workers who decide. Those deliberations on what is the "standard" will be between the corporations that exploit us and the government which has shown time and time again it will side with, and carry out the rule of, the exploiters. Besides, are unions not meant to be the organ workers use to secure benefits that are above the industry standard? So, in the FLCA, the stated solution to getting unions recognized by the company and reaching a CBA is to stack the deck against the workers and permit the company and government to decide the terms for the workers, who, again, cannot even vote on said terms, much less call a strike against them.
Senators Cory Booker (left) and Josh Hawley (right) pretend to stand for the working class, but have consistently worked for the capitalists.
The FLCA was proposed by Corey Booker (D) and Josh Hawley (R), who were both invited to speak at this year’s IBT convention. Booker was just revealed to be a member of fascist billionaire Peter Thiel’s secret society “Dialog”, and he is notorious even in Washington D.C. for having received more money from Wall Street in 2013 than any other member of Congress. Hawley touts himself as a fighter for the people against Wall Street, real estate, and the establishment, but has received mountains of funding from those exact sectors. Besides direct donations to his campaigns, super-PACs like the Senate Leadership fund (Mitch-McConnell aligned) and Americans for Prosperity (a Koch brothers network) have collectively spent about $25 million supporting Hawley's election.
It's notable that today we find O’Brien "preaching the good word” about the benefits of the FLCA, yet he has the opposite opinion of the PRO Act, a failed bill which he criticized recently on his podcast for being “not bipartisan” and “politically divisive.” This says a lot about what O'Brien and the Teamsters leadership are trying to do here. As a reminder, the FLCA was a section taken from the PRO Act itself, and it was one of the worst sections! Other parts of the bill were significantly better, such as limiting right-to-work laws, enabling the return of solidarity strikes, prohibiting captive audience meetings, etc. Instead of all these, the part that the backwards Teamsters bureaucracy has chosen to fight for is the section controlling strike action and forcing workers to accept government-forced contracts they haven't approved.
IBT President Sean O’Brien lobbying Congress for the FLCA.
As the working class, we can and must fight for reforms within the capitalist state, but we also have to be very careful of being fooled by politicians into supporting reforms that actually harm us. Both Democrat and Republican politicians act like snake oil salesmen, marketing all sorts of “cures” to the people that, when you read the fine print, turn out to be poison. In addition to "reforms" that directly hurt unions, we also have to pay attention to efforts by the ruling class to allow certain levels of growth of unions that actually strengthen their grip over the working class. American labor history is full of examples of the ruling class using the controlled development of "safe" unions in order to crush worker activity.
All employers directly benefit to a degree from the U.S. labor law system, largely defined by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) and other related legislation. The NLRB is often credited with acting as an unbiased mediator between workers and bosses, but this could not be further from the truth. The NLRB is a political institution that is at the direction of the executive, and even "pro-labor democrats”, such as Joe Biden, still operate in the interests of capital. It was Biden who led the charge to prevent the railroad unions from going on strike in 2022 by executive order. He did this in a way that closely resembles the provisions laid out by the FLCA, by setting up a federal arbitration board that forced a contract on the unions without giving them an opportunity to oppose it. Where was the NLRB, the supposed protector of the workers?
Picketers in Boston protesting Biden’s crushing of the 2022 railroad strike.
The Faster Labor Contracts Act is likely part of a longer-term plan by the capitalists to decrease the level of struggle of the workers even if it means forcing certain employers to accept contracts they'd rather flat out deny. We can see this in the statements made by Secretary of War Hegseth when he criticized management of Bath Iron Works in the lead up to the recent strike, saying to the workers "To your leadership, like I say to all leadership, invest in your plants and invest in your people.” Of course, Hegseth is not actually standing up for the workers, but what he is saying is that if the military industrial complex is going to have consistent and predictable production, their companies will need to make some "compromises" with the workers. He and others in the ruling class understand that a major recession, if not a depression, is coming, and that a workforce under tighter control means more domestic stability, and more easily manageable competition with China.
The idea that the government will ever be a neutral mediator establishing "peace" between the conflicting classes in society is a fiction promoted by the capitalists. In reality, the government acts consistently in the interest of the bosses, and there is a revolving door between the government and the C-suite. The whole government system was set up by the capitalists as a tool to help them rule over the people. And the fight over a contract is not a simple mediation to find "compromise", it's a bitter struggle between the robbers and the robbed, requiring every bit of leverage possible on the part of the union to try and decrease the degree that the workers are exploited. When Sean O'Brien united with UPS CEO Carol Tome and Joe Biden over the sell-out UPS contract of 2023 to promote the idea that the contract was a “win-win-win” for labor, the company, and the government, he was promoting these same poisonous ideas.
Secretary of War Pete Hegseth speaks to workers at Bath Iron Works in Maine in February 2026.
Instead of tighter federal control, genuine unionists should be fighting for the opposite. We need more freedom to strike, not less, and we should be working to build inspiring examples of trade union struggle that can help awaken the sleeping giant of the American working class. We have to repeal the Taft-Hartley Act, which made wildcat strikes, solidarity strikes, and political strikes illegal. We should fight to get rid of all the federal and state laws that restrict the level of activity of government, port, and rail unions, which has stifled the working class's leverage. And we should promote the abolition of “no-strike clauses”, which have become standard in labor contracts. If we allow the leadership of unions like the Teamsters to take us down the blind alley that starts with the FLCA, we will more and more lose our legal rights completely to organize as workers.
Adam Chavez is a steward and member of Teamsters Local 1932. The views expressed in this article are the opinion of himself and Gabe Fields, and do not represent the official position of Teamsters Local 1932, its officers, or the International Brotherhood of Teamsters.
By: Adam Chavez, Steward in Teamsters Local 1932, & Gabe Fields, Teamsters Mobilize Supporter
teamstersmobilize.comA beloved S.F. Mission landmark sold again. Tenants fear another missed chance
https://www.sfchronicle.com/realestate/article/redstone-labor-temple-sold-22308466.php
By Laura Waxmann,
Staff Writer
June 18, 2026
Gary Gregerson, a tenant of the Redstone Labor Temple on 16th …Street in San Francisco, passes a mural by Susan Greene on the walls inside the building in 2023. The temple has been sold for the second time this decade.
Gary Gregerson, a tenant of the Redstone Labor Temple on 16th Street in San Francisco, passes a mural by Susan Greene on the walls inside the building in 2023. The temple has been sold for the second time this decade.
Carlos Avila Gonzalez/S.F. Chronicle
For the second time this decade, San Francisco’s Redstone Labor Temple has been sold.
The Mission District landmark at 2940 16th St. that was built more than a century ago for labor unions and is now filled with nonprofits and arts organizations quietly sold last week to a group of investors with ties to San Francisco-based Graymark Capital for $7.1 million.
The property’s seller, Lakeside Investment Co., paid $7.6 million for the Redstone in 2021 and proceeded to renovate portions of the 55,000-square-foot historic building and adjacent lot in the heart of the Mission District.
After investing in renovating parts of the Redstone, Lakeside tried to market space in the building to office users, but that effort fell short of expectations, according to its nonprofit tenants. Lakeside did not respond to the Chronicle’s request for comment on the building’s sale.
The building was ultimately purchased by a list of entities linked to Graymark’s principals, including CEO and Founder Brian Hecktman, who purchased a 45.12% stake in the property.
“This historic building provides a professional presence, for many non-profit and for profit companies, in a vibrant neighborhood near transit,” Hecktman said in an email to the Chronicle, and confirmed that the building’s ownership is shared among his partners. The transaction represents the second Graymark-affiliated acquisition in San Francisco. The commercial real estate investment firm also owns 735 Montgomery St., a 35,000-square-foot office and retail building in the historic Jackson Square neighborhood.
The Redstone Labor Temple, which is filled with nonprofits and arts organizations, has quietly sold to a group of investors.
The Redstone Labor Temple, which is filled with nonprofits and arts organizations, has quietly sold to a group of investors.
Carlos Avila Gonzalez/S.F. Chronicle
The deal comes after a previous community-led effort to buy the building collapsed in 2021 and, more recently, after one of Redstone’s nonprofit tenants made several unsuccessful bids to acquire the property before the sale closed last week.
The repeated near-misses have renewed concerns about the future of the Redstone, long viewed by tenants and preservation advocates as one of the city’s last remaining hubs for grassroots organizing and nonprofit activity.
When the building was first listed for sale in 2018, nonprofit developer Mission Economic Development Agency tried to meet the $22 million asking price but fell short. Tenants mounted a fundraising campaign to bridge the gap, and in 2019 then–Supervisor Hillary Ronen introduced a resolution supporting MEDA’s bid. Despite these efforts, the sale ultimately did not go through. The Redstone sold to Lakeside at a price that is roughly 35% of that valuation.
“Weighed down by San Francisco labor history and Mission District politics, the recent sale of the Redstone is a rare example of a seller losing money on a building and an adjacent land parcel purchased just four years earlier,” said San Francisco commercial real estate veteran Charles McCabe.
The sharp decline in the Redstone’s valuation in recent years was viewed by tenants as a potential opportunity to renew efforts for nonprofit ownership.
Andrew Smith, CEO of the Lab, a nonprofit artist-centered space that occupies about 7,000 square feet in the Redstone, said his organization partnered with the Community Arts Stabilization Trust, a prominent Bay Area nonprofit that creates and manages affordable real estate and workspaces for artists, to make an offer on the building when it was first listed for sale in October.
“We put in a total of three letters of intent for the building, and none were accepted,” Smith said, adding that the groups offered a price they believed was “fair market value.”
“They wanted to close faster, and they didn’t believe that we could close,” Smith said. The plan was to keep existing tenants in place — especially community-serving organizations — while reserving significant space for artists and other local groups. The effort had already secured about $750,000 in foundation funding, with additional philanthropic interest lined up, intended to support that vision,” he said.
“In our opinion, the Redstone is not a good investment property for a company that’s looking to turn it into market-rate office space — it’s actually pretty abysmal for that,” he said, citing maintenance issues, a large theater at the building’s center and otherwise small offices that he said are better suited to support nonprofit organizations and individual tenants.
The deal comes after a previous community-led effort to buy the building collapsed in 2021 and, more recently, after one of Redstone’s nonprofit…
www.sfchronicle.comStanding Down: Reflections on Shawn Fain’s Presidency
https://dailystruggle.org/standing-down-reflections-on-shawn-fains-presidency/
Andrew Bergman, Jeremy Bunyaner, Nolan Tabb, Judy Wraight
June 14, 2026
UAWD Steering Committee members present a deep dive into Shawn Fain’s …presidency, through the lens of the pressures to deliver on the Stand Up Strike and the co-optive trap of bureaucracy. Fain has turned away from class struggle unionism, failing to follow through on his refreshing shift toward militant rhetoric and his influential push to reinvigorate the idea of a mass general strike. UAW members should understand Fain as the more progressive face of the old-guard Administration Caucus. Though he was elected to put an end to their stranglehold, Fain has instead re-entrenched his former antagonists and been realigned as their new leader.
The following editorial, assessing the approach taken by President Shawn Fain’s administration in the three years since he was elected, is based on a formal member-approved positionadopted by the UAWD membership in May 2026.
In 2022, after leading the campaign for direct elections of the UAW’s top officers, which we won in an unprecedented referendum, Unite All Workers for Democracy (UAWD) assembled and led a slate for the UAW International Executive Board (IEB), sweeping all seven positions we contested and bringing President Shawn Fain into office.
Each of the authors, all current members of the UAWD Steering Committee, helped lead arms of the campaign to elect Fain in different parts of the country within four of the UAW’s primary industries: auto manufacturing, agricultural implements manufacturing, higher education, and legal services. We worked with Fain and his team after the election, and we watched as he pulled away from UAWD and into alignment with the UAW’s old-guard Administration Caucus, which has practiced a repressive, concessionary form of unionism for decades.
Our assessment is that Fain has charted what we would call a progressive bureaucratic approach, described in the sections below, rather than advancing a program of class struggle unionism that sees organizing workers, across plants and sectors, as an independent classwhose interests are fundamentally opposed to those of the capitalist class that live off of the exploitation of our labor. This approach would ultimately aim to take collective control of the production process itself, so that we would democratically exercise full decision-making powers over our work and lives. Instead of taking the kinds of risks that would advance a class struggle vision and empower rank-and-file members to work outside of the UAW’s typical staff-led organizing and bargaining model, which as we assess below would have endangered his position in Solidarity House, Fain has in effect become the new leader of the Administration Caucus, culminating in his running for re-election on an IEB slate dominated by his former antagonists in the old guard.
Fain’s embrace of militant and class-conscious rhetoric has nevertheless been a dramatic and refreshing shift away from the pro-business language used by UAW leaders for decades. The Fain administration also deserves credit for reinvigorating the idea of a contract campaign and of a mass general strike, something that hasn’t happened in this country for almost a century. This language and his early, if limited, rhetorical support for the Palestinian people have meaningfully helped advance the need for class struggle ideas to grow within the broader labor movement.
However, the Fain administration has failed to act in a way consistent with his verbal commitments, settling for some significant improvements to key UAW contracts but, otherwise, taking limited actions that have largely fallen short of Fain’s words. So far, for example, there is no evidence of union leadership undertaking any of the concrete preparations necessary to carry out a general strike or supporting UAW members to lead their own campaigns to organize Southern auto plants and to strike over mandatory overtime and layoffs. These shortfalls are examples of the overall pattern that we identify in the UAW under Fain’s leadership: a welcome shift toward renewed labor militancy and international working-class solidarity, but one that has so far remained largely verbal, while the UAW’s actions have failed to match, and in some cases have undermined, Fain’s stated commitments.
Below we make our case in four parts: First, we describe the opportunity Fain had to use the Stand Up Strike to engage the UAW rank and file directly and the way the Administration Caucus blocked him and forced him to choose between battling the staff or capitulating; Second, we review the historical role of the Administration Caucus, governing the UAW top-down, even when it sometimes had a progressive face, and how it used its control over the bureaucracy to co-opt Fain and ultimately realign him as its new leader; Third, we lay out how examples of how Fain’s move back into the bureaucracy has blunted his militant rhetoric, ranging from the general strike, to organizing in the South, and to Palestine, and meant he has not taken action to back up his words; and Fourth, we explain the broader significance of Fain’s move away from a class struggle approach and its key outcome in the broader political arena: a continuation of the UAW’s decades of aligning with the Democrats and catering to the ruling class.
Finally, we conclude with our assessment: our coworkers aren’t apathetic, they’re ready to fight, but they need the tools and the confidence to organize with their coworkers. The role of class struggle unionists is not to focus on reforming the bureaucracy, it’s to invest in the rank and file and entrust the UAW membership to take charge of their own struggle.
The Stand Up Strike, and the missed opportunity to transform the UAW
The 2023 Stand Up Strike may have seemed like it was just the beginning of Fain’s experiment in building a militant UAW, but it’s now clear that it was a missed opportunity to engage the rank and file directly. Heading into the strike, while the membership was preparing to fight, Fain had a unique chance to loudly proclaim the need to overcome the constraints on rank-and-file initiative imposed by the UAW bureaucracy.
While even he may not have realized it, to unbridle the union Fain would have had to go to war with the Administration Caucus, who made clear that they would never allow top leadership to directly organize member action, much less enable rank-and-file members to coordinate their own activity and collectively build confidence and militancy. Doing so would have required taking risks like touring the country, allocating funds directly to rank-and-file members locally to develop practice pickets when Local leaders refused, and speaking with members at large assemblies to encourage deliberation on, and even developing referenda for, strike priorities and strategy. But in the face of a fight with the old guard, Fain picked appeasement instead of conflict, allying with the bureaucracy instead of opening up rank-and-file participation, and that decision has defined the rest of his presidency.
Fain deserves credit for using the Stand Up Strike to introduce the idea of a contract campaign to many members for the first time. He started with a novel approach: bargaining simultaneously with all of the Big Three automakers, striking individual plants at each company each week if there wasn’t movement from management at the table, and transparently communicating with members by way of regular livestream bargaining updates. But there were signs early on that the campaign would function much like they had for decades and take a turn away from this more militant direction.
A piece of paper lies on a clipboard with a pen. The paper says ‘UNITED FOR A STRONG CONTRACT. Form, GM and Stellantis made $250 billion in North American profits over the last ten years, but we haven’t gotten our fair share. Our union contract expires on Sept. 14. It’s time to show the companies we’re UNITED for a STRONG contract.’ It has fields to be filled out, including NAME, EMAIL, CELL PHONE, and PLANT. It has the UAW wheel logo on it..jpeg
The “contract campaign card” circulated by Solidarity House leading up to the Stand Up Strike’s onset.
Months before the strike began, the Fain administration created a “contract campaign card,” which was circulated by Solidarity House to regional offices across the country to educate members about the possibilities of big wins during bargaining and collect the contact information of members interested in organizing for escalation. While these cards lacked specifics and fell short of meaningfully engaging the rank and file in a deliberation about what demands to prioritize and what kind of strike strategy they would support, they represented a substantial step beyond the absence of organization and the information blackout that had been characteristic of Administration Caucus bargaining.
Leaders of the Administration Caucus promptly refused to distribute the contract campaign cards at their shops, consistent with their long history of undermining UAW militancy. The effort to block the cards was led by two Regional Directors, Laura Dickerson and Brandon Campbell, who now sit with Fain atop his re-election slate. Multiple rank-and-file members have described seeing boxes of the cards sitting in their regional offices, as Dickerson and Campbell openly declared that they wouldn’t give them to local leaders or rank-and-file members, refusing to break with the decades-old UAW norm of not letting Solidarity House engage members directly. If Fain challenged them at all, it was never done publicly. He never went on Facebook Live to call on members to flood their offices to demand their contract campaign cards, and he never shared a version of the card that members themselves could print, distribute, collect, and hand back in to Solidarity House—both ideas suggested by UAWD leaders. This was the first public challenge from the Administration Caucus that Fain failed to meet.
Fain also deserves credit for popularizing important bargaining demands, especially relating to work-life balance and reversing the major concessions that the UAW made in 2008, in order to end tiers and restore pensions and healthcare for retirees. The demand for a 32-hour work week, however, was dropped without explanation before the strike even began, replaced with a weaker call for “more paid time off to be with families.” A 32-hour work week had been seen by many as a reach but had also rallied a new level of engagement from rank-and-file members who had been forced into long stretches of mandatory overtime. But building power and the rank-and-file capacity to organize and take risks to win these big demands was never going to happen with the bureaucracy actively sowing doubt and lowering expectations. If Fain wanted to avoid picking a major fight with the old guard, then he had to drop demands that they deemed “unreasonable.”
While the strategy of only striking certain new plants each week if companies failed to move at the table was hailed early on, a growing layer of rank-and-file members soured on the approach, as striking members felt that they were on their own and working members felt like they weren’t supporting the cause. Members at plants that had been struck in the earliest weeks lamented feeling like the weight of the strike was on their shoulders.
The photo catches the backs of a crowd outside facing a stage with speakers. The middle speaker is a man speaking into the microphone, with a shirt that says ‘END TIERS.’ The left and right speakers are women looking off to the side. Behind them is a large sign that says ‘STAND UP AGAINST CORPORATE GREED,’ with two of the Unite All Workers for America wheel logo. There are some clouds in the sky..jpeg
Shawn Fain speaks on stage with Regional Directors LaShawn English and Laura Dickerson at a rally in Detroit kicking off the first day of the 2023 Stand Up Strike.
As bargaining got down to brass tacks, leadership decided to give up the key demands of restoring pensions and retirement healthcare. These were demands that everyone knew were unreachable without a long strike that inflicted serious pain on the Big Three, but for a broad layer of younger second-tier workers they were central to the whole purpose of the strike. Instead of unilaterally ending the escalation, Fain had a chance to let members deliberate and make the case for the importance of these demands. He could even have called for a mass referendum on whether to escalate to an all-out strike for pensions, encouraging members to engage each other about what it would mean, and in the process built trust with their coworkers—another missed opportunity.
The transparent communication that Fain had been hailed for in the run-up to and at the beginning of the strike became vaguer and less reliable in the final weeks. Ultimately, the Fain administration chose to put forward a set of tentative agreements in much the same way that the Administration Caucus has done for decades: suddenly and without communicating a clear understanding of what had shifted to justify the settlement. The mixed results of the ratification votes that followed reflected the ambivalence among members about whether they had used their strike power to the fullest—at both Ford and Stellantis, 69 percent of members voted in favor, while at GM only 55 percent of members voted to ratify their TAs. And in the years since the ratifications, rank-and-file sentiment has grown even less supportive, reflecting the reality that, on the shop floor, the working conditions haven’t gotten better.
The Stand Up Strike was a moment when Fain could have made a lasting break with the Administration Caucus rather than move closer to it.
The rush to push out agreements for a vote meant that significant concessions were papered over. In the final hours before presenting the Stellantis agreement to the membership, Fain learned that the attendance policy provision had been weakened, merging ladders for absences and tardies, making it much easier to fire workers. Instead of telling members, Fain chose to move forward without mentioning it and recommended a Yes vote anyway—his last missed opportunity to demonstrate the behavior of top bargainers and build trust with the rank and file. Most Stellantis members only found out that their contract was weaker than the GM and Ford agreements in the months that followed ratification, as many faced termination for the first time in years.
The Stand Up Strike was a moment when Fain could have made a lasting break with the Administration Caucus rather than move closer to it. No matter the reasons why that break did not happen, the longer this alliance persists, the harder it will be to break out of it.
Allying with the Administration Caucus instead of empowering rank-and-file members
Our analysis of the Stand Up Strike is substantiated by Chris Brooks, Fain’s chief strategist in 2023. In detailing the approach the Fain administration took in advance of the strike, he describes the need to revamp departments in Solidarity House. Brooks’ only references to the membership are when he speaks of using the “organizing department to mobilize members” and “ensuring top staff and department heads could articulate Fain’s vision for a fighting, member-driven UAW.” He describes a retreat with senior staff and elected officials, recalling that “bargaining teams from around the country were brought to Detroit to roll out the ‘Members’ Demands,’” a document created by Fain and his senior advisors. These bargaining teams, elected months before Fain, were drawn entirely from the ranks of the Administration Caucus that he had just defeated—they were an extension of the top staff whose aim was to make things hard for Fain, not a gateway to the rank and file.
Brooks explains the immense challenge of trying to make dramatic changes quickly with hostile personnel, especially with only several months between Fain’s election and the contract expirations. This difficulty, and the feeling that only a positive outcome could give Fain the capital to move forward, is what gave top staff leverage to co-opt Fain’s new team: if they block you, you’re screwed. So we shouldn’t be surprised that, when they did block him, Fain decided not to try to bypass the bureaucracy, engage the rank and file directly, and have a chance to win big—risking that the bureaucracy might quash the strike and that the resulting contracts might be compromised. Instead, Fain pivoted to making the top Administration Caucus leaders his closest allies.
Brooks’ retrospective tells the story of Fain’s return to the bureaucracy very well: there was only limited strategy for engaging the membership, much less for empowering the rank and file to determine the path of escalation and lead it in their Locals. Instead of building member support to take risks, Fain mitigated the pressures imposed by the bureaucracy by allying with the Administration Caucus, ultimately becoming its new leader. Whether intended or not, the story Brooks tells is that Fain’s focus from day one was on reforming the bureaucracy, not transforming the UAW into a class struggle union that can one day be led by the rank and file.
For many unionists, the Administration Caucus has been the quintessential example of business unionism. For decades it had a developed political life and written internal rules, but, even as its formality waned in recent years, it continued to hold official “Administration Caucus meetings” at Constitutional Conventions and at key Regional meetings. Membership or allegiance was necessary to get pulled off the shop floor and appointed to a staff position or to move up the ranks. Fain considered himself a member of the Administration Caucus for years, like all UAW staff, prior to and during his appointment to the Stellantis Department (previously the Chrysler Department). His break with caucus leadership during the peak of the post-2008 concessionary contracts, denouncing the givebacks and saying, “two-tier wages have no place in this union,” put him on the outs with top UAW officials, but even then there was no alternative to being a “caucus member.”
Four men in suits pose for a photo, smiling, with their hands embraced as a team. There is a small crowd of people in the background cheering them on. There is a large UAW wheel on a wall behind the men..jpeg
UAW Vice President Bob King and UAW President Ron Gettelfinger (on the left), leaders of the Administration Caucus, display a touching friendship with their bosses Bill Ford, Executive Chairman of the Ford, and Alan Mulally, President and CEO of Ford (on the right), as the UAW makes the biggest concessions in its history, including establishing the two-tier system. Photo Credit: Ford Motor Company.
Historically, the Administration Caucus has not always been a conservative force, but it has always been willing to quash shop floor militancy and cede worker control to the bosses in return for stable contracts and preserving jobs. During the early years of Walter Reuther’s Administration Caucus, the UAW’s 1950 Treaty of Detroit began a bureaucratic period accepting corporate-labor peace and calling for improved corporate profitability in exchange for substantial, though ultimately diminishing, economic gains and dropping the fight for a shorter work week. Indeed by the 1960s, the caucus was well known for trying to keep the lid on wildcat strikes and other forms of worker militancy. As economic conditions grew tougher for manufacturing workers starting in the 1970s and 1980s, UAW leadership turned to concessions, abandoning the struggle on the shop floor and working with the company instead of fighting it. They also established the joint programs partnerships with the Big 3 automakers that undermined union independence and became the site of a massive corruption scandal decades later. By the time of the aftermath of the 2008 recession, the long-engrained concessionary mindset of the Administration Caucus meant that UAW leadership pushed for an end to pensions and the deeply damaging establishment of the two-tier system, all in the name of “living to fight another day” at all costs.
The reality of the Administration Caucus’s long reign over the UAW, and the union’s survival as a leading North American union, can be viewed as a “competent” business unionism that held a real appeal to Fain, a new president trying to direct power in the union. While this kind of labor politics has ultimately diminished the power and independence of the working class over the decades, it has also been wielded in periods as a progressive force in broader society. Walter Reuther used his business unionist relationship with management and the top-down structural relationship with membership to both extract economic concessions from the bosses as well as oppose segregation and ultimately the Vietnam war. Bob King’s presidency in the early 2010s was notably progressive in its internationalist rhetoric, a marked difference from the years prior, a continuation of his activism in opposition to U.S. intervention in Latin America and in support for migrants at the Southern border. But nothing changed in regard to the UAW bureaucracy’s engagement with the bosses or its approach to membership. In this light, Fain’s presidency can be seen as a more militant extension of King’s presidency, the progressive face of the Administration Caucus in the present political moment.
The election of Shawn Fain and the Members United Slate was hailed at the time as the end of seventy years of Administration Caucus rule in the UAW, but Fain and his small core of trusted staff appointees stepped into Solidarity House with the vast majority of the people there shaped by a caucus hostile to the ideas he promoted and the opening that his election represented. Brooks describes, however, that “after seeing how divided the union was at the Special Bargaining Convention and how short our runway was to Big Three bargaining, Fain decided against cleaning house.” Whether that decision was made out of fear of not being able to advance their program or a genuine belief that Fain and his team could make inroads, leaving most top Administration Caucus staff in place left a major foothold they could continue to exploit through another decades-old quality of the Administration Caucus that remained alive and well: their repressive behavior used to enforce top-down decision-making.
In this light, Fain’s presidency can be seen as a more militant extension of King’s presidency, the progressive face of the Administration Caucus in the present political moment.
The authors have multiple accounts from staff from 2023 of top staff and Administration Caucus electeds embroiling Fain’s new appointees in minor scandals that undermined work and sowed division within Fain’s new team. For example, during a Communications Department trip to a shop in bargaining, a new Fain appointee who had been a member of UAWD was accused by Region 4 Director Brandon Campbell of violating staff guidelines by advertising UAWD to rank-and-file members present as they gave their introduction—but the appointee hadn’t even mentioned UAWD, and Campbell provided no evidence that they had. Instead of dismissing the meritless claim, Fain’s new Communications Director, Jonah Furman, told the appointee it was their responsibility to rebut the claim and pressured the appointee to produce a lengthy write-up of their activities from the trip. This kind of conflict was repeated to embroil new appointees and Regional Directors aligned with Fain in tense, chaotic work dramas, creating a cycle that further pressured Fain and his team to capitulate and ally with the bureaucracy. The outcome, as mentioned above, is that Campbell, once the chief repressor of Fain’s new team, is now Fain’s top running mate for re-election.
Whether he had these attitudes before his presidency or not, Fain’s alliance with the secretive Administration Caucus has aligned with his tendency not to share information regarding internal political disputes. A variety of conflicts with other top UAW leaders, over austerity and mismanagement, have been kept siloed within the bureaucracy instead of being brought publicly to the rank-and-file. The major crisis of Fain’s presidency is an ongoing dispute with Secretary Treasurer Margaret Mock and Vice President Rich Boyer, both running mates of Fain’s on the Members United slate. In pushing for the removal of Mock’s discretionary offices, Fain had a clear political justification, including Mocks’ undermining efforts leading up to the Stand Up Strike and other examples of misconduct, and he had a clear procedural basis to do so through an IEB vote under the UAW Constitution. The case for Boyer’s removal as head of the Stellantis Department was similarly clear, both politically and procedurally, with Boyer’s concessionary dealmaking resulting in a harmful inferior attendance policy and failures to secure product commitments.
For both of these conflicts, Fain had the receipts, with a lengthy IEB debate citing the facts about Mock and an extensive internal memo citing the facts about Boyer, but he refused to speak publicly—and even pressured UAWD not to share the information we had. Fain’s secrecy not only gave Mock and Boyer the sole megaphone, as they shared their full narrative with the press and on social media, it also emboldened court-appointed Monitor, Neil Barofsky. Barofsky launched an investigation of Fain in his search for a way to attack Fain after the UAW took a position in support of a ceasefire in Gaza that offended Barofsky. Instead, Fain could’ve himself gone public, in one of his well-watched Facebook Live appearances, and made the case to the rank and file, explaining that his actions weren’t self-serving but were to reinvigorate UAW militancy.
But Fain again took a risk-averse approach, believing that having a good argument and not “airing dirty laundry” from within the bureaucracy would insulate him. The result is that the UAW membership, rightfully, feels uninformed about a complex set of accusations and that Fain’s public silence has driven many to take the side of Mock, Boyer, and the Monitor, who support an apolitical, austere vision of unionism.
Instead of engaging the rank and file, Fain has pushed his agenda and his administration’s piecemeal militancy from the top down. Fain became ensnared by the Administration Caucus as he fought battles both inside and outside the UAW, and so chose to work with and enable a small staff core to maintain a stranglehold on how decisions are made and resources are allocated. Whether it’s genuine political opposition to developing a class struggle approach, fear that he’ll lose control of the UAW, or lack of vision, Fain responded to the pressures on him by allying with the UAW’s business-unionist old guard, putting forward militant rhetoric instead of leading and empowering members to take militant action.
Militant rhetoric, failure to back it up with action
Fain’s rhetoric—featuring militant slogans like “Eat The Rich”—has been more reflective of a class struggle approach than that of any UAW president in decades. Fain regularly talks about the need to fight, asserts that “working-class people deserve dignity,” and denounces the “billionaire class” for exploiting workers and undermining democracy. He eloquently calls for working-class solidarity that transcends race and nationality—for example, when he has compared his grandparents, who migrated north to find manufacturing jobs in the Midwest, to undocumented workers from south of the border seeking to earn a living for themselves and their families in the U.S.
But Fain and his administration haven’t backed up these words with actions that could have moved forward key campaigns and transformed our union by empowering rank-and-file members to take the fight into our own hands. The failure to take action that matches his militant language shouldn’t be a surprise—allocating funds for big strikes and undermining long-time UAW staff to send resources to train up rank-and-file organizers would anger his Administration Caucus allies, who benefit from the status quo.
The older white man is Shawn Fain, he’s wearing glasses and stands in a white t-shirt printed with big bold text that says ‘EAT THE RICH.’ The t-shirt also has a United Auto Workers wheel logo near the left shoulder. Fain is smiling as he poses for the photo and holds up a power fist. There are decorations in the background for an outdoor festival..jpeg
Shawn Fain wears his iconic ‘EAT THE RICH’ UAW shirt at ManiFiesta, 2024. Photo Credit: DimiTalen
What was once declared as Fain’s plan for a “general strike” on May Day 2028 is the prime example of a commitment for a campaign that has not only gone unrealized, but has even been rhetorically rolled back. In 2024, Fain said “There’s been talk about a “general strike” for as long as I’ve been alive. But that’s all it has been: talk.” Instead, if the labor movement was serious, “we need to spend the next four years getting prepared.” Fain’s call initially sent a wave of energy across the progressive wing of the labor movement, changing the conversation about what was possible for many militants. The American Federation of Teachers, led by the Chicago Teachers Union, heeded the call to align contract expirations for May 1, 2028.
Fain understands the reality that no union leader or bureaucracy can will a general strike into existence. He has explained that, “a general strike isn’t going to happen on a whim. It’s not going to happen over social media. A successful general strike is going to take time, mass coordination, and a whole lot of work by the labor movement.” But if Fain was ever serious about the goal of a 2028 general strike, he didn’t pursue it. Why? It would’ve been too big a risk to challenge the bureaucracy by deploying the resources required for pursuing his vision and empowering rank-and-file leaders needed to mount a bottom-up effort capable of realizing a general strike.
In practice, the Fain administration has never materialized the hard work of meaningfully organizing within the working class to build the capacity for a general strike, organizationally and politically. It never even took the early steps of political education within the UAW rank and file. Fain never toured major manufacturing plants to describe the plan to members and never called for Local leaders or rank-and-file members to lead practice pickets on May Day in 2025 or 2026, meaning that even in the few cases the UAW participated in May Day rallies this year, very few members were even aware. The Fain administration never created resources for interested members to disseminate about May Day at their shops. The administration certainly never enabled membership deliberation and votes about what fights could or should spark general strike, like responding to violent attacks by ICE on the working class in their community. And now even the idea of the UAW organizing for a general strike is no longer mentioned by the Fain administration. In recent prominent settings, like the UAW’s Michigan Governor’s Forum, Fain refers to a “big fight coming on May Day 2028” and continues to passively say “we’ve invited unions around the country to align contracts with us,” but avoids mention of a “general strike.” Fain’s re-election literature doesn’t even describe a plan for a strike at all, simply saying that “in 2028, we are headed back to the table to finish the job.”
The other major campaign that the Fain administration has withdrawn from is the drive to organize Southern auto plants, which Fain deserves credit for initially reinvigorating and spurring on. This resurgence of organizing emerged from the enthusiasm of the Stand Up Strike and culminated in what looked to be a pathbreaking victory by Volkswagen workers in Chattanooga, but which now appears to have been largely abandoned after the narrow loss by Mercedes organizers in Alabama. Fain and his team claimed, and may have genuinely believed, that the only way to organize the South was moving quickly, using “momentum-based organizing,” an approach that “scales up quickly by prioritizing mass sign-ups, rapid mobilization, and decentralized leadership.” The stated strategy, in which “the primary responsibility for building the organizing committee and the campaign needed to win is placed on workers themselves rather than professional organizing staff,” is a refreshing shift from the top-down organizing model used by the UAW for decades.
Shawn Fain poses with leaders and members of the Mercedes plant in Alabama before their unionization vote failed in May 2024. Photo Credit: Prachatai.
But the need to work fast also conveniently meant that the Fain administration needed to look to established staffers to anchor the campaign and couldn’t take the time to build up a new rank-and-file layer of Southern leaders. The result was an organizing approach that didn’t look very different from the past, with the Organizing Department quickly recruiting a small group of staff, consisting largely of West Coast organizers from the higher education sector, to deploy to the South. Instead, the millions of dollars spent on well-salaried staff could have been invested in a long-term rank-and-file training program, giving Southern organizers who are committed to working in their plants for years to come the opportunity to attend multi-month organizing schools. This would’ve been a years-long effort at minimum, no doubt, but would’ve made worker-leaders the gateway to empowering their coworkers.
Now even the staff sent to the South are being withdrawn. Echoing anecdotes shared by organizers across the South, a UAWD member leading an organizing drive at a plant in Alabama recently commented, “I feel there was a ton of enthusiasm from International at the start, but when things got hard, like they inevitably do in new campaigns, they kind of folded to the adversity. We don’t dislike our staff, they’ve just been hard to reach for months, they’re managing multiple campaigns across the South and they’re not down here that much. They sometimes have advice for us when we get them on the phone, but, beyond that, there aren’t organizing resources flowing to us as workers.” The single loss at Mercedes didn’t change the terrain for new organizing in the South, which was already incredibly challenging, but the perception of a shift in momentum changed Fain’s calculation about what he could invest in it without risking his new alliance and role as leader of the Administration Caucus. By withdrawing organizing staff, the result is that there isn’t even capacity for a sustained top-down campaign. More importantly, there isn’t a new layer of local leaders who are being trained up in preparation for a long-haul bottom-up initiative.
There are other rhetorical commitments Fain has made that have not resulted in action. The UAW under Fain has also publicly shown support for the Palestinian people but has balked at translating verbal commitments into any kind of consequential action—for example, failing to divest UAW members’ dues from Israel Bonds and to heed the call of the Palestinian General Federation of Trade Unions for unions everywhere to “use all possible means to halt the ongoing holocaust to which our Palestinian people are subjected daily, and to prevent the US administration from supplying this occupation with weapons.” Meanwhile, the Divestment and Just Transition Working Group that the IEB voted to form two-and-a-half years ago has shown no sign of materializing.
Fain also hasn’t explained his strategy for his campaign trail call to fight in between contracts for core issues that impact members’ working lives. High on the list has been the claim that the UAW should fight for work-life balance and call for a 32-hour work week. Fain has failed to put forward a vision for how the UAW can take action to fight management’s rights to mandate overtime and lay off workers at will, which are deeply ingrained and largely unquestioned provisions of the UAW’s largest manufacturing contracts. Calling for an expansion of our union’s role to include the fight for control on the shop floor would prompt members to consider alternatives to layoffs like work-sharing provisions, which were once common in U.S. labor contracts.
One way to agitate rank-and-file members to build power at plants where they’re overworked or have had to suffer long layoffs is to wage protected mid-contract strikes, a militant strategy called for in the UAWD’s 2026 IEB Endorsee Program. On the campaign trail in 2022, Fain alluded to using these strategies, but since his election he has not worked to advance these strikes. With the power of the UAW presidency, Fain has had ample opportunity to use staff, legal, and communications resources to educate local leaders and rank-and-file members about using levers like work-to-rule campaigns and strikes over production standards and health and safety grievances. This approach would give members the tools to treat hollowed-out contracts as a floor from which to fight for more, not a ceiling.
The limited view of unions as responsible for maintaining labor peace is no simple thing to overcome, as the UAW bureaucracy’s concessionary approach has given the bosses control over UAW members’ lives for years and created a context in which members, often unhappy about the loss of control over their lives, find it difficult to imagine that the status quo can be fought. The Fain administration couldn’t have changed that in a single term, but it could have built a foundation for the rank and file to change it in the years to come.
No union leader has a magic bullet to build a fighting union or win better conditions for the working class, on or off the job, in the U.S. or around the world. Leaders can’t snap their fingers and pressure rank-and-file members into militancy or force concessions from management. What visionary union leadership can do is invest time and resources in organizing rank-and-file members, train members up with skills and know-how that are typically held only by staff, and vest members with collective decision-making power so that they can choose democratically how to use their resources and wield their power. But this type of long-term commitment that undermines the bureaucracy only comes from identifying class struggle unionism as a core component of advancing the working class, coupled with politically educating rank-and-file members and inviting members in to develop class struggle strategy in their shops and communities.
Catering to the ruling class, instead of building working class independence
A class struggle unionist outside the UAW might think, “Sure, Fain has made some big compromises and re-established the old guard bureaucracy, but isn’t it all worth it if the outcome is an independent UAW that starts fighting again?” Most likely not, because being subsumed back into the UAW bureaucracy is part and parcel of the Fain administration’s cozying up to political elites in the Democratic and Republican parties.
Instead of promoting political independence, engaging UAW members to deliberate over political endorsements, and ultimately being able to withhold electoral support as leverage in negotiations with politicians, Fain has charted the traditional electoral strategy of supporting the Democratic Party. In 2024, the Fain administration chose to endorse the Biden and then Harris campaigns, initially endorsing Biden in January of that year even as he insisted the UAW’s endorsement needed to be earned. When Fain appeared at the Democratic National Convention and said “Kamala Harris is one of us,” implying her support for the working class, he lost the confidence of many UAW members across the political spectrum who knew she represented the ruling political and corporate elite, even if they chose to vote for her as the lesser of two evils. In comparison, a mixed statement like United Electrical’s would have been a significant advancement—UE recommended “that workers strategically vote against Trump by voting for the only viable candidate running against him—which is now Kamala Harris,” but then said clearly, “working people desperately need an independent political organization, based on a political program that can unite us, which can fight for that platform in the electoral arena.” Meanwhile, Fain has been silent on the idea of a future “labor party” or “working class party,” something that many rank and file members resonate with on the shop floor.
Many UAW members might have respected both the UAW leadership and the UAW as a whole if they, as workers, had had the opportunity to debate and engage in collective decision-making about who the UAW would endorse for the US President, even if their perspective ultimately lost out. With over a year to plan after he came into office, Fain could have put together mass town halls to get worker input, and he could have conducted a membership-wide referendum, allowing UAW members to choose between endorsing the Democrat, the Republican, or neither—helping build the basis for collective deliberation and effective political education, necessary to understand that neither of the two major capitalist parties represents the working class.
But in line with Fain’s risk-averse top-down approach, he chose not to adopt a long-sighted view of developing a class struggle union and empower the UAW rank and file to determine our union’s political direction. Instead, Fain stuck with the imperative to bolster the Democrats, a decades-old Administration Caucus norm and the status quo for the U.S. labor movement. Just like UAW top leadership has done for decades, Fain has overseen the disbursement of over $1 million per year to the Democrats, funding which could have gone to new organizing, political education, and other working class priorities.
While the Fain administration went all-in for the Democrats in the 2024 presidential election, and Fain made fiery comments about Trump on the campaign trail, denouncing him as a “scab,”Fain quickly declared he was “ready to work with Trump” immediately after the election and has since tempered his rhetoric with conciliation regarding economic and trade policy. Fain’s support of Trump’s chaotic tariff policy further reveals the misunderstanding that the union’s strength can grow from aligning with the ruling class and whichever party is in power. The UAW’s current position is similar to the position the Administration Caucus long took during the UAW presidencies of Owen Bieber and King, who opposed the North American Free Trade Agreement but could not resist the industry’s restructuring that massively weakened labor power. The Fain administration has called for a cross-border wage floor to combat offshoring while improving lives for auto workers abroad, but it hasn’t taken action to organize rank-and-file members to fight for company-wide wage floors in UAW contracts.
For Fain, aligning with the old guard internally has gone hand-in-hand with the decades-old appeasement of the two ruling parties.
Trump’s tariff policy undermines international solidarity among North American auto workers necessary to rebuild working class power, and the Fain administration’s tariff strategy and emerging concessionary approach to addressing U.S. job cuts is playing right into the major automakers’ whipsawing strategy. Last year when describing the relationship with Trump on tariffs Fain said, “GM, Ford, and Stellantis have excess capacity in their U.S. auto plants” and that “shifting more auto production to the U.S. could add tens of thousands of manufacturing jobs.” Fain recently cheered the move of thousands of Canadian auto jobs to the U.S. as Stellantis closed the Brampton Assembly plant, partly due to tariff pressure. Rather than using the opportunity to organize across borders against plant shutdowns or fighting for work sharing to reduce the harm from layoffs, this zero-sum strategy allows corporations to pit workers against each other, weakening the working class in the long run.
The Fain administration’s fear of clashing with the political elite even emerges in small ways, for example, after a Ford worker and Local 600 member heckled Trump and called him a “pedophile protector” while Trump toured his plant. The member was suspended and had his job threatened by Ford, without management citing any violation of the UAW-Ford contract. While she stated that the suspension was illegitimate, Laura Dickerson, now Vice President over the Ford Department, waffled politically. Dickerson, one of Fain’s antagonists-turned-running-mates, spoke about the issue in the long legacy of Administration Caucus conciliatory business unionism: “As far as manufacturing, we have tariff issues, we’re trying to work with the administration on that—they’re listening to us … We’re doing a lot of work with the Trump administration, so it gets tricky.”
The CBS News Detroit reporter summed up the Fain administration’s approach to catering to the ruling class effectively: “The UAW is walking a fine line. The union is there to represent its workers, but it also wants to see the companies that employ those workers do well financially, all while they have business in front of the Trump administration too.” For Fain, aligning with the old guard internally has gone hand-in-hand with the decades-old appeasement of the two ruling parties.
Class struggle unionism is rank-and-file unionism
UAWD’s leadership of Fain’s election campaign victory in 2023 is the reason that there’s been renewed language of militancy in the UAW. But determining the difference between traditional business unionism and the progressive bureaucratic approach that Fain’s administration has taken is less significant than the question of what a serious commitment to class struggle unionism looks like. Whatever Fain’s political motivations were when he entered office, his decisions since then have actively distanced him from a class struggle orientation.
Ultimately, the Fain administration never had a plan for prompting long-term struggle and building power in the Locals or amongst the rank and file. There was no plan to transform the incentive structure within our union to one where class struggle fighters on the floor can win out over long-time staff and Local bureaucrats. Fain could have committed to a risky direct confrontation with the bureaucracy, appearing in-person at every plant experiencing mandatory overtime and every shop heading into a contract expiration without a clear plan for a strike. He could have engaged directly with the rank and file, knowing it would put him in conflict with entrenched Local leadership, and committed funding and resources if Local memberships voted for militant action.
Fain had two real options: 1) invest in developing a new layer of class struggle Local leaders, and risk losing re-election but in order to create a militant rank-and-file generation in the UAW that could win out by organizing and energizing their coworkers in the years to come; or 2) re-entrench the staff-led Administration Caucus by allying with it and becoming its new head, making the compromises necessary to be able to take some action now and avoid backlash. He picked the latter.
As experienced rank-and-file organizers in the UAW’s four core sectors, we know that our coworkers aren’t apathetic. Across the UAW rank and file, and the working class as a whole, we see a deep frustration with the kind of politics that dominates our two-party system and entrenches our bosses’ control over our lives. Most of our coworkers may not share our full analysis, and, in this moment of still very limited class struggle, even the angriest are sometimes not ready to fight today, knowing that our union won’t have their back and lacking experience leading independent shop-floor struggles.
We also know that rank-and-file members across the country, and across the political spectrum, are ready to be part of a struggle against their bosses and need only the tools and the confidence to organize with their coworkers. A UAW president committed to class struggle wouldn’t look to the bureaucracy, which has thwarted the struggle for decades, but would invest in years of training and political education at the shop-floor level to prepare for the long and difficult fight ahead, entrusting UAW members to take the reins on their own battles.
Andrew Bergman.jpeg
Andrew Bergman
UAW Local 22
Jeremy.jpg
Jeremy Bunyaner
UAW Local 2325
Nolan Tabb.jpeg
Nolan Tabb
UAW Local 281
Judy Wraight.jpeg
Judy Wraight
UAW Local 600, Retired
UAWD Steering Committee members present a deep dive into Shawn Fain’s presidency, through the lens of the pressures to deliver on the Stand Up…
dailystruggle.orgFighting the UP NF Railroad Merger & Defending Contaminated Communities.
https://youtu.be/npvOuSg315s
At a national conference of Railroad Workers United in Chicago ahead of the Labor Notes conference a panel was held on the issue of the merger of UP and NFS, the effect on workers, …shoppers and the communities. They also had speakers Jamie Wallace and Nicole Fabricant talking about the conditions of contaminated communities including East Palestine.
Additional Media:
Robber Barrons The Union Pacifica & Norfolk Southern Rail Merger Unions & Communities & Public
https://youtu.be/ESrnClu5A8w
At Piketon-Portsmouth, Ohio Meeting: Unite To Defend Residents & Workers & Link Up With E. Palestine & The US
https://youtu.be/cSwCzhIa_NQ
The Piketon Nightmare Continues: Residents & Workers Speak Out About Cancer Epidemic & NUKE Cover-up
https://youtu.be/s338K-GLjw0
On 2nd Anniversary Of East Palestine NFS Derailment, The Fight For Residents & Workers & The Lessons
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2bSlkzkcBsM
Additional Info:
Railroad Workers United
rairoadworkersunited.org
Production Of Labor Video Project
www.labrmedia.net
Fighting the UP-NS Railroad Merger & Defending Contaminated Communities Throughout The US
Juneteenth & The Fight Today Against Resegregation & A Fascist Government-Time For Mass Action
https://youtu.be/3fTLkPEEu34
The commemoration of Juneteenth in 2026 comes at a time when there is an open attack on Black representation and for resegregation and the elimination of any …equal rights on the job and in communities.
ILWU Local 10 former Secretary Treasurer ClarenceThomas talks about the issues facing Blacks and the entire working class and also the need for a mass action of the working class to defend against the attacks. He also talks about the death of IBT 808 Secretary Treasurer Chris Silvera early this month.
This interview was done on 6/19/26.
Production of Labor Video Project
www.labormedia.net
The commemoration of Juneteenth comes at a time when there is an op…
youtu.beThe strange bedfellows lining up against the California billionaire tax
https://sfstandard.com/2026/06/19/california-billionaire-tax-opposition/
The groups opposed to the measure include some of Sacramento’s most influential political players.
A diverse group of people hold signs …advocating for "Billionaire Tax Now," "Food Security is Healthcare," and "Keep Hospitals and ERs Open" during a rally.
Attendees cheer during the speach of US Senator Bernie Sanders, Independent of Vermont, during the campaign kickoff for the California Billionaire Tax Act at The Wiltern in Los Angeles, February 18, 2026. Sanders is seeking the support of California voters for a November's ballot initiative of an emergency tax on billionaires to help the state's healthcare system. | Source: Patrick T. Fallon/AFP/Getty Images
By Hannah Wiley, Joe Fitzgerald Rodriguez, and Emily Shugerman
California unions and billionaires don’t often find themselves on the same side of a political fight.
But a bitter battle over a November billionaire tax has splintered some of the state’s many labor unions to create a broad coalition of strange bedfellows who rarely join hands but are now collaborating to kill it.
A raft of prominent unions, Republicans, business groups, and anti-tax advocates are united in opposing the initiative, as is Gov. Gavin Newsom, whose office has been negotiating with stakeholders to achieve a last-minute deal to pull the measure from the ballot.
The labor groups opposed to the measure include some of Sacramento’s most influential political players, including the California Teachers Association and other organizations representing law enforcement, carpenters, and builders. They’ve joined forces with pro-housing advocates and medical organizations like the California Primary Care Association, California Medical Association, and Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California in their opposition.
The labor opposition is all the more remarkable since the tax measure has been conceived and sponsored by SEIU-United Healthcare Workers West.
Jason Elliott, Newsom’s former deputy chief of staff, is “astounded” at the breadth of groups opposed to it.
“The proponents ought to hope that negotiations are successful because they have given birth to one of the most unpopular measures I’ve seen in years,” Elliott said. “The coalition that has formed to defeat this poorly crafted measure is a coalition that rarely, if ever, comes together in California politics.”
The California Secretary of State’s Office announced Wednesday that the sponsors had collected enough signatures to put the tax before voters in November. If passed, it would impose a one-time 5% tax on billionaires’ net worth to raise an estimated $100 billion to offset health care funding cuts under President Donald Trump’s Big Beautiful Bill.
“We’re one step closer to saving the hospitals and emergency rooms that we all rely on,” Debru Carthan, spokesperson for the Billionaire Tax Now Coalition, said in a Thursday statement. “David won the second round against Goliath, but healthcare workers and our allies won’t quit until we protect patients from the looming California healthcare collapse manufactured by Trump and Congress.”
More about
Billionaires
A diverse group of people hold signs advocating for "Billionaire Tax Now," "Food Security is Healthcare," and "Keep Hospitals and ERs Open" during a rally.
The 5% freakout: Inside tech elites’ madcap war against the California billionaire tax
Two healthcare workers in masks and gloves are engaged in a mobile medical testing or vaccination setup near a vehicle with equipment.
Labor groups split on Billionaire Tax
Those opposed to the measure almost unanimously agree that more funding is needed to save much-needed services. But they are skeptical that the tax is the best way to plug the budget gap. They have criticized it as a Band-Aid solution to a long-term funding crisis, and are anxious that it could drive out some of the state’s wealthiest residents (opens in new tab), whose fortunes the California budget leans heavily on.
The California Teachers Association said in a June 7 statement (opens in new tab) that the tax “will not provide the sustainable and long-lasting funding that our schools and communities deserve.” California YIMBY leaders also called the tax “poorly designed (opens in new tab)” and said it would harm housing production by “discouraging investment in California.”
Some of the state’s most notable billionaires, including Google co-founder Sergey Brin, Ripple’s Chris Larsen, venture capitalist (and chairman of The Standard) Michael Moritz, and Stripe CEO Patrick Collison, have already promised to spend heavily to try to kill the initiative.
Some of the interest groups who are opposed to the tax have also announced plans to form their own well-funded campaign to block its passage (opens in new tab). The committee is sponsored by the California Medical Association and California Primary Care Association, which have each given $100,000 to the committee, and the California School Boards Association.
Have thoughts on this story?
Sacramento-based Democratic consultant Andrew Acosta said the overwhelming opposition demonstrates how “UHW poked multiple bears.”
“Why would they be excited about an initiative that doesn’t really help them at all? It’s a big pot of money, and they all have needs,” he said.
Newsom reportedly (opens in new tab) promised donors he would convince SEIU-UHW President Dave Regan to pull the measure before a June 25 deadline. But several people with knowledge of the negotiations said they are not going well.
Talks between the groups have repeatedly come together, only to fall apart. Barring some “massive pivot” one person said, the measure is likely to stay on the ballot.
The coalition backing the tax sent a letter (opens in new tab) to Newsom Thursday afternoon proposing a “2% version” of the initiative as a compromise, which the group said would help backfill two years’ worth of funding cuts.
“A massive healthcare crisis and collapse is coming for California,” the group wrote in its letter. “The current budget plans being discussed in Sacramento ask working Californians to bear the burden. Taxes on consumers. Cuts to healthcare programs. Increased costs for patients who can least afford them. And yet, as those proposals take shape, one group remains entirely untouched: the wealthiest billionaires on earth, many of whom call California home. That is not a balanced solution. It’s a choice, and we believe it’s the wrong one.”
The revised proposal has so far failed to sway Newsom.
“The Governor has been clear that he is strongly opposed to a California-only wealth tax,” spokesperson Tara Gallegos said in a statement. “The Governor supports making the wealthiest Americans pay their fair share, but this poorly designed state-only measure will defund teachers, schools, clinics, and public safety.”
Public sentiment about the measure appears to be evenly split, though a well funded, union-backed campaign to defeat the tax could change that. A Public Policy Institute poll (opens in new tab) last month found 54% of likely voters supported the initiative, while a June poll sponsored by its opponents found support at 41%.
Regan notoriously uses state ballot measures as leverage to notch wins for his union, and is unlikely to back down without some financial concession from the state. History also shows Regan isn’t afraid of losing: of the dozens of measures he has filed in the last 17 years, only two have won (opens in new tab), according to a Politico analysis.
Regan’s reputation in Sacramento, depending on whom you ask, is either that of a fearless leader willing to take on powerful interests to benefit his members, or someone whose only winning — or failing — strategy is to bully his way into a deal.
“Dave Regan is the great coalition builder. Anything he touches, there is a great coalition opposed to him,” said Brandon Castillo, a strategist whose client list includes healthcare organizations that have fought Regan at the ballot box in years past.
“Obviously this is a flawed measure. And there’s just not a lot of trust in the proponent,” Castillo said. “What does it take to satisfy what he wants? And can they get there?”
It’s a long road to November, and Newsom has outsized leverage in the sheer number of groups opposing the measure.
“It’s sometimes hard to get labor and business to agree that today is Thursday, let alone a consequential statewide ballot measure,” Elliot added. “But that’s precisely what has happened here.”
The groups opposed to the measure include some of Sacramento’s most influential political players.
sfstandard.comJuneteenth & The Fight Today Against Resegregation & A Fascist Government-Time For Mass Action
On Juneteenth, ILWU Local 10 VP Trent Willis Talks About History & Struggle For General Strike Today
https://youtu.be/-dqrEQHYzqI
On the anniversary of Juneteenth ILWU Local 10 and other US west coast ports shutdown and there is a
commemoration at the ILWU Local 10 hall in San …Francisco and In Seattle at ILWU Local 19 & 63.
ILWU Local 10 vice president Trent Willis talked about the history of Juneteenth and the struggle today for
a general strike.
This event took place on 6/19/26
Additional Media:
Kill Tariffs Not Workers! Teamsters & ILWU Members Protest Tariffs & Trade War At The Port Of Oakland
https://youtu.be/DdIzrM2B-9w
ILWU 10 Solidarity Meeting On Palestine: An Injury To One Is An Injury To All
https://youtu.be/XiPs6lccJM0
Dock Workers: Block Military Cargo to Israel Against the Genocidal War on Palestinians in Gaza!
https://www.counterpunch.org/2024/02/21/dock-workers-block-military-cargo-to-israel-against-the-genocidal-war-on-palestinians-in-gaza/?fbclid=IwAR2SwceZcD0CWLVaJjY_I5m6-SOXf-CgAu46IlFgTv5ULdwja6B-fXu3z4A
ILWU Bay Area Members Speak Out On Israeli ZIM Ship Volans, Palestinians, Israel & Picket In Oakland
https://youtu.be/bjVpd-E0SCo
Israeli ZIM Volans Blocked In Oakland As ILWU 10 Members Refuse To Cross Picket Line Of Hundreds
https://youtu.be/Aht5wKqCVA0
May 25th NCDC-ILWU Statement On Palestine
https://blocktheboat.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/ILWU-Northern-California-Palestine.pdf?fbclid=IwAR0dB0rVYQaY-2mIFAFcfAE10GO3N0SLhZt35M65Wlf6R_sWRWVXLA4ENfA
International Dockworkers Council strongly condemns the massacre of civilians and children in Palestine.
http://www.idcdockworkers.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/The-IDC-strongly-condemns-the-massacre-of-civilians-and-children-in-Palestine.-Unconditional-support-to-the-Palestinian-General-Strike.-.pdf
srael
Zim Line Hit With Pickets-ILWU 10 & 34 Workers Stand Against Israeli Apartheid
https://youtu.be/2Gp503j9WSk
Israeli Zim Ship Shanghai At Standstill In Oakland By ILWU Action & Picket LIne
https://youtu.be/Wy5JuSB-0O8
ILWU Rank and File Back Picket Of Zim ship Piraeus At Port Of Oakland
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SZK1hoSkR_c&feature=youtu.be
Mass March & Picket At Oakland Port To Stop Israel's Zim Line Ship Piraeus To Protest Crimes In Gaza
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PcJHlnq4YIo
Danny Glover Joins ILWU 10 In Supporting Freedom For Mumia on February 16, 2023
https://youtu.be/j0qJX4zDf9s
ILUW 1984 San Francisco Local 10 & 34 Anti-Apartheid Action Against Racist South African Government
https://youtu.be/bv0sM07_Yw8
The Israeli Histadrut, The AFL-CIO, Zionism & Labor Imperialism With Carol Lang
https://youtu.be/aH2JslHpeZk
ILWU Struggles 1984-2010, The Struggle Continues
https://youtu.be/ABosvjawnj4
Bay Area Unions & Thousands Of Workers Rally & March For Palestine In Oakland
https://youtu.be/L9k79honqIA
Production of Labor Video Project
www.labormedia.net
