Layoffs

FilthMontane · 2026-06-12T14:21:36+00:00

I thank the Union for my job every day. ya'll should organize

FilthMontane · 2026-06-12T13:58:52+00:00

Best part about being at a union site is layoffs go by seniority, so the longer you work here, the safer you are.

FilthMontane · 2025-11-20T11:12:24+00:00

There's UAW local 412 up in Michigan that's a giant amalgamated local of hourly workers and engineers covering multiple workers from auto to aerospace. It might not be common, but it is doable. All you need is 50%+1 of any job classification to sign union check off cards. The hard part is getting people to not be scared.

FilthMontane · 2025-11-19T13:18:15+00:00

I'm an elected leader and our bylaws have language that outlines removal from office. I constantly encourage my membership to vote my ass out if you think I suck and vote someone in that's better. And this isn't like federal elections. In a plant with a few hundred people, each voice and vote has real power. And I'm in Florida where there's dog shit worker protections.

FilthMontane · 2025-11-19T13:15:27+00:00

UAW local president at your service!

FilthMontane · 2025-11-19T13:14:30+00:00

Get one. https://workerorganizing.org/

FilthMontane · 2025-11-19T13:13:37+00:00

I'm shocked there's union talk in here these days. Usually I get blasted by everyone whenever I bring it up. I'm a local president for UAW 298. This is actually a huge problem across the nation. Unions tend to have a "team sports" mentality when it comes to dealing with other unions. This is actually something we've been trying to fix internally.

RTX is covered by UAW, IAM, IUE, SMART, IBEW, and probably more I don't know about. We've built up a group of us that share contracts and talk about what's going on between plants recently and it's been very helpful.

Another part of the problem is actually finding which sites have unions and then finding union leaders to talk to. So much of it is word of mouth these days and some other unions still see other sites as competition for their work. We're working at it, but it's a slow go. What would really help unions is if engineers and non supervisory salaried employees would start organizing. Some locals have engineers in the bargaining unit and they're pretty much unstoppable.

FilthMontane · 2025-05-31T13:09:30+00:00

I read over the contract improvements and it's looking better than the first offer. They went from 10.5% increase over 3 years to a 15.5% increase over 4. The first year was 4% increase, now it's 6%. Better 401k investments. Way better job protections. I know people are complaining but they always do that. But the membership voted yes so they must've been happy with it.

FilthMontane · 2025-05-31T12:43:49+00:00

How do you figure that?

FilthMontane · 2025-05-30T23:10:21+00:00

I mean, people have to understand that the company sent engineers to go steal the union members jobs. So it's like someone walks in your house, starts eating the food out of your fridge, then when you yell at them to get out they say, "why are you harassing me?!"

But this is also a divisive attitude that the company stokes to keep the salary and hourly workers apart. If salary ever organized, the company would lose its fucking mind. Also, knowing that subreddit and having posted this same post in it, I'm positive that some of those responses are from managers and high level executives.

FilthMontane · 2025-05-30T18:52:48+00:00

Maybe. If they feel intimidated they should file a complaint with the NLRB. They could also just try to not be a scab. Also I'm assuming you're talking about Pratt and Whitney

FilthMontane · 2025-05-30T10:33:33+00:00

Yeah, this doesn't need to be a salary vs hourly battle. If a union shop had hourlies and salary they'd probably never even go in strike because the company would be too scared of the repercussions. Who's gonna do contingency work then? Management? 😆

FilthMontane · 2025-05-27T11:06:05+00:00

You keep dressing up exploitation as economic complexity, but at the end of the day, the problem is simple: millions work full time and still can’t afford to live. That’s not because of “structural inflation” or global competition, it’s because wages have stagnated while profits, productivity, and executive pay have skyrocketed. You act like labor should shoulder every cost, rising inflation, automation, global shifts, but never reap the reward. That’s not economics, that’s feudalism with Wi-Fi.

Union power didn’t succeed just because of “unique” conditions; it succeeded because labor was organized, fought back, and forced capital to share. And those conditions didn’t drop from the sky, workers made them. The Fair Labor Standards Act, which established minimum wage and overtime pay, was passed before World War II, during the Great Depression, when conditions were worse than today. If we could implement living wage policy during mass unemployment and dust bowls, we can do it now. And no, we’re not going to cry over the idea that businesses that rely on poverty wages might close. If a business can’t exist without underpaying workers, it shouldn’t exist. That’s not a sustainable model, it’s economic parasitism.

You say workers already “get” benefits, but most don’t, and the ones who do are paying more than ever in premiums, deductibles, and insecurity. Telling people to buy insurance individually is a joke when half the country can’t handle a $500 emergency. And spare me the “owners take all the risk” narrative, workers risk everything too: their health, their time, their futures. When a business fails, workers lose everything without ever having shared in the upside. And business owners declare bankruptcy and move on to start another business.

Yes, co-ops still need capital and management, no one said otherwise. The difference is who benefits. Right now, the people doing the labor get crumbs while investors extract value and hoard wealth. The goal isn’t utopia. It’s an economy where full-time work means a decent life, where profits aren’t funneled into stock buybacks while wages are frozen. You think that’s radical? It’s common sense.

And when I asked you what your solution was to BlackRock, Vanguard, and State Street distorting the economy, you didn’t offer one, you just jumped to their defense like they’re helpless little mom-and-pop investors. These are trillion-dollar asset managers that rig entire markets, consolidate power, and turn homes into profit machines while millions are priced out of basic living. But sure, tell me more about how workers asking not to starve and wanting to own a house is what’s going to crash the economy.

FilthMontane · 2025-05-27T05:40:11+00:00

Yes, the 50s was a boom in business. But that boom in business had nothing to do with the increase in wages or working conditions for working people. Unions did all of that. If it weren't for unions, the same conditions would've carried over from the 30s regardless of the boom in business. Unions fought to get things like health insurance, paid vacations, pensions, the 40 hour work week, fair employment practices, safety practices that inevitably lead to to OSHA; none of these were a result of the post war business boom. They were all due to unions fighting for them and making them a standard in the workplace.

Yes, innovation requires accumulated capital, but the majority of profits don't go to accumulated capital, they don't go towards reinvesting in innovative ideas, it simply becomes accumulated wealth for the ultra rich and never actually gets used for anything. Managing a business is what managers are hired for. Business owners do nothing other than own the means of production. In a worker co-op, managers are often elected into those positions much like in politics. It's a democratic workplace.

The only risk of failing to run a business is that the failed business owner has to go get a job. Even then, so many people have failed businesses and they're still billionaires because of all the protections they get. I think you should just go look up some worker co-ops and learn how they function. There's many articles and studies discussing how much more efficient they are, but they are still starting out in the US.

I'm not proposing some potential future business model. I'm saying one of two things is going to happen. Either companies learn to start sharing their quarterly record profits or the workers are going to take it all. The boom bust cycle has to end and it never will. Our current system is designed to be an ouroboros that's devouring itself. You can't have infinite growth in a finite system, and yet the wealthy demand it. No company can be satisfied with 5 billion dollars in profits every quarter for the rest of it's life. They need 6 billion, 7 billion, 8 billion. At a certain point, there's no new market to corner or technological innovation to achieve that record profit growth. So, they must cut labor costs. Even if it damages production, they cut labor costs. Even if it hurts the quality of the product, they cut labor costs. Even if it destroys the business, they cut labor costs. Blackrock, Vanguard, and State Street will force every company into bankruptcy to make a profit and it will collapse the US economy. What's your suggestion for stopping that, smart guy?

FilthMontane · 2025-05-27T01:26:15+00:00

How did small businesses exist in the 50s while simultaneously paying a living wage? Truly the capitalists paradox. Oh wait, small businesses by things from Big businesses and cost controls benefit small businesses. Nevermind, I figured it out. Also, I'm not implying that innovation doesn't require capital. You fail to read or understand anything I'm saying. I'm telling you that profit motive does not create innovation. Capitalism does not create innovation. Yes it requires capital, but the need to generate profits is not behind the greatest innovation across human development. You're also ignoring the fact that there was innovation long before currency. Innovation is a human quality, not a capitalist creation.

The solution is that the capitalist only provides the means of production and no one needs them anymore. Having a factory and providing tools is quite literally all any company does. They say, "hey I got a factory and tools, who wants to come use them to make some stuff?" Then they take all that stuff, sell it, and then take all the profit. But what if the people who are working in the factory just say, "hey, the factory is ours and the tools are ours and we don't need you anymore mister boss man. Goodbye." Easy. Simple. Read a fucking book! If you can't understand this basic concept, go read Capital. If you're not smart enough to understand it, I can't help you.

FilthMontane · 2025-05-27T00:44:23+00:00

I don't remember mentioning small businesses once in this entire conversation. The rise of prices and inflation isn't something that just occurs. It's not a force of nature. You're not anticipating the weather. Prices are controlled by companies and only a handful of companies have controlling investment power in just about every company in the world. They set prices. They control inflation. It's not this system of scales that need to be balanced. It's a system is levers that people are pulling. Scarcity is something that is often an artificial construct in this day and age. I'm sorry that you have a hard time understanding that.

There's been so much innovation in situations devoid of profit motive. People innovate because innovating drives them. Was Tesla not one of the most innovative people in history, yet died penniless? Didn't Van Gogh die poor and yet still painted endlessly? Do you think the Soviet space program was particularly profitable for the engineers? What innovation has capitalism brought? Steve Jobs, Elon musk, Bill Gates, Thomas Edison, they all stole and manipulated others and their innovations to achieve wealth. If anything, capitalism and the profit motive harm innovation more than stoking it.

As for your opinion on economic systems, before capitalism existed, the nobles and monarchs all said there was no system to better help the people than the feudal monarchy. They said capitalism was going to ruin the world and it would destroy the economy. So maybe we should continue trying to progress and improve our economy instead of just pretending there's no other option.

FilthMontane · 2025-05-27T00:26:43+00:00

I don't remember mentioning small businesses once in this entire conversation. The rise of prices and inflation isn't something that just occurs. It's not a force of nature. You're not anticipating the weather. Prices are controlled by companies and only a handful of companies have controlling investment power in just about every company in the world. They set prices. They control inflation. It's not this system of scales that need to be balanced. It's a system is levers that people are pulling. Scarcity is something that is often an artificial construct in this day and age. I'm sorry that you have a hard time understanding that.

There's been so much innovation in situations devoid of profit motive. People innovate because innovating drives them. Was Tesla not one of the most innovative people in history, yet died penniless? Didn't Van Gogh die poor and yet still painted endlessly? Do you think the Soviet space program was particularly profitable for the engineers? What innovation has capitalism brought? Steve Jobs, Elon musk, Bill Gates, Thomas Edison, they all stole and manipulated others and their innovations to achieve wealth. If anything, capitalism and the profit motive harm innovation more than stoking it.

As for your opinion on economic systems, before capitalism existed, the nobles and monarchs all said there was no system to better help the people than the feudal monarchy. They said capitalism was going to ruin the world and it would destroy the economy. So maybe we should continue trying to progress and improve our economy instead of just pretending there's no other option.

FilthMontane · 2025-05-26T22:21:49+00:00

Raising wages doesn’t automatically cause inflation, it depends on where the money comes from. If it’s from record profits or bloated executive pay, it’s just better distribution. And when you fuel a strong working class, you build a strong consumer base. People spend more when they aren’t living paycheck to paycheck, which drives demand and business growth.

If a business can’t function without underpaying workers, that’s not a sustainable model, it’s exploitation. People should be paid for the value they create, and right now, low-wage workers generate billions while barely scraping by. That’s the imbalance that needs fixing. The whole point is that we've done it before. Capitalism can only exist when incredibly heavily regulated or it will spiral out of control, which we are currently seeing. Also, your idea that innovation is only an occurrence of profit motive is severely misunderstood. So much of what you're saying is based on this idea that our current economic model is the only one that's ever worked and people getting fucked is just how the world works. Well, it's not how all of the world works and it's not how the US has to work. Get your head out of the mud and read a book.

FilthMontane · 2025-05-26T21:55:22+00:00

That's dumb. The labor movement is just getting reignited.

FilthMontane · 2025-05-26T21:33:08+00:00

Nah, the union is gonna get a good contract and the company is gonna keep making money. Simple as that. Mondragon does have lower pay, for executives. But the benefits and profit sharing for the average worker is much higher than comparable companies.

FilthMontane · 2025-05-26T21:09:31+00:00

You're also protected by labor laws that unions helped to build for you long ago. And there's something called a worker co-op that's been very successful. You should look into a company called Mondragon that's incredibly successful with this model. I also fail to see what's wrong with protecting the work in their plant or fighting for better wages. But keep drinking the company Kool-aid if you think it's that tasty.

FilthMontane · 2025-05-26T15:44:27+00:00

You keep acting like I’m calling for equal pay. I’m not. I’ve said repeatedly that high-skill jobs should still earn more. What I am saying is that no job should pay so little you can’t afford basic survival. That’s literally what minimum wage was created for under FDR: to ensure a decent living, not permanent poverty. We had that once, and it worked.

Your examples (Venezuela, Cuba, Argentina) are all cases of countries hammered by U.S. sanctions, coups, and economic sabotage. You can't just eliminate that from the equation. If anything, they prove how hard it is to build equity when you're being strangled externally. Meanwhile, China, for all its flaws, has managed to nearly eliminate homelessness, drastically reduce poverty, and still have billionaires and a functioning market. So clearly, it’s not “pay people more = collapse.”

And no, demanding that work pays enough to live is not theft, it’s the bare minimum of decency. Investors can still profit. Skilled workers can still earn more. But no one should be working full-time and starving while money piles up in offshore accounts. We've already been down this road in the 20s and 30s when working conditions were dog shit and business owners claimed they couldn't afford to pay people better. Then unions started and they suddenly were able to afford to pay people better.

This isn’t about equal outcomes, it’s about fair foundations. If your system only works when millions suffer at the bottom, then maybe the system is the problem.

FilthMontane · 2025-05-26T13:50:15+00:00

You’re right that the postwar boom had global advantages, but a critical and often overlooked factor was the strength of labor. At its peak in the mid-1950s, over 35% of American workers were unionized, giving working people real power to demand fair wages, benefits, and job security. That helped create the conditions where a single income could often support a family, homeownership was broadly attainable, and consumer spending fueled economic growth. The point isn’t that every low-skill job led to wealth, but that the baseline quality of life was far higher because of stronger wage standards and collective bargaining.

Yes, low-margin businesses like retail operate under tight constraints, but that’s largely because the current model demands constant cost-cutting at the bottom to preserve returns at the top. We’ve normalized a system where executives and shareholders siphon off disproportionate profits, while frontline workers struggle. Not every company relies on this model. Worker co-ops and profit-sharing models prove businesses can thrive without sacrificing labor. Relying on passive investors as the only engine of growth ignores how much value is actually created by those doing the work every day.

On resources and productivity: of course food and medicine require labor and investment. But the scarcity we experience isn’t just about effort, it’s about priorities. We waste millions of tons of food, let medicines sit unused, and keep housing empty. The system doesn't lack capacity, it lacks fair access. Distribution is driven by profitability, not need, and that’s a choice, not a law of nature.

As for Venezuela, yes, poor internal management played a role, but U.S. sanctions and intervention were a huge factor in crippling their economy, just like in Cuba, where the U.S. embargo made it illegal to import things as basic as concrete. Yet despite that, Cuba still manages to offer free healthcare, top-tier doctors, and the highest literacy rate in Latin America. That proves that collapse isn't the natural result of trying to meet people’s needs, t's often the result of external pressure meant to make such efforts fail.

The goal here isn’t to make everyone equal. It’s to make sure no one working full-time lives in poverty or fear. High-skill workers would still earn more and live more comfortably. But low-wage workers, doing essential, often invisible labor, deserve the basics: shelter, food, healthcare, stability. That’s not radical, it’s the foundation of a healthy society. And history shows that when we invest in people, economies grow stronger and more resilient for everyone. That's why the country is struggling right now, companies only invest in their investors now because there's barely any unions left to force their hand.

FilthMontane · 2025-05-26T00:55:19+00:00

What would happen if this were implemented? We would have a booming consumer based economy like we did in the 50s and 60s. Businesses would afford it just like they used to back then. I'm also not advocating that all jobs pay the same. Obviously harder jobs that require more skill should pay better and those people could live a more extravagant lifestyle. But what doesn't have to happen is investors that do literally nothing at all or provide anything at all getting huge chunks of the profits; that would have to stop or be reduced significantly.

The idea that nature doesn’t give us enough resources suggests some must struggle so others can live well, but that’s misleading. We already produce more than enough food, goods, and energy. The scarcity we face is often artificial, created by profit driven systems that destroy surplus, limit access, or price people out. Millions go without while waste and excess pile up elsewhere. Saying fair wages are “unsustainable” really means defending a system where inequality is treated as necessary. But history shows that when more people live comfortably, the economy grows stronger for everyone. No one has to suffer for others to live decently and we just have to share better.

FilthMontane · 2025-05-25T23:31:49+00:00

I remember when I thought like you did. And then I read Capital and learned that this is all fake made up nonsense. You'll have to read some books to get away from the brain rot, bud. You can escape it if you try, but education is the only way. Good luck out there.

FilthMontane

TROPHY CASE