Breaking Points with Krystal and Saagar - 8/25/23: Chaos At GOP Debate Climate Change Question, UAW Worker Interview w/ Max Alvarez, Spencer Snyder Asks New YorkersThird Party Candidates?

Episode Date: August 25, 2023

This week we discuss the GOP debate climate change question turning the stage into chaos, Max Alvarez interviews a rank and file UAW member, Spencer Snyder hits the streets of New York to ask people their opinion on Third Party Candidates. (Note on UAW Worker interview) "This conversation was recorded on Aug 17, before voting on the UPS tentative agreement concluded on Aug 22.")To become a Breaking Points Premium Member and watch/listen to the show uncut and 1 hour early visit: https://breakingpoints.supercast.com/Merch Store: https://shop.breakingpoints.com/ Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoicesSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

This is an iHeart Podcast. Camp Shane, one of America's longest-running weight loss camps for kids, promised extraordinary results. But there were some dark truths behind Camp Shane's facade of happy, transformed children. Nothing about that camp was right. It was really actually like a horror movie. Enter Camp Shame, an eight-part series examining the rise and fall of Camp Shane and the culture that fueled its decades-long success. You can listen to all episodes of Camp Shame one week early and totally ad-free on iHeart True Crime Plus.

So don't wait. Head to Apple Podcasts and subscribe today. The Medal of Honor is the highest military decoration in the United States. and subscribe today. went down that day. On Medal of Honor, Stories of Courage, you'll hear about these heroes and what their stories tell us about the nature of bravery. Listen to Medal of Honor on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. DNA test proves he is not the father. Now I'm taking the inheritance.

Wait a minute, John. Who's not the father? Well, Sam, luckily, it's You're Not the Father Week on the OK Storytime podcast, so we'll find out soon. This author writes, My father-in-law is trying to steal the family fortune worth millions from my son, even though it was promised to us. He's trying to give it to his irresponsible son, but I have DNA proof that could get the money back.

Hold up. They could lose their family and millions of dollars? Yep. Find out how it ends by listening to the OK Storytime podcast on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. Hey, guys. Ready or Not 2024 is here, on the iHeartRadio app, Apple just means the absolute world to have your support. But enough with that. Let's get to the show. One moment on the debate stage we didn't get to talk about yesterday was the climate change section. And I actually thought it was worth digging into a little bit both about the audience and about the way that Ron DeSantis handled it.

So it sparked actually by a young American for Freedom member, a younger Republican, I guess, who posed the question to the candidates. And then the candidates themselves were asked to raise their hand if they believed in man-made climate change. DeSantis quickly swatted that away and it led to an exchange also with Vivek Ramaswamy. So let's take a listen to all that and we'll talk about it on the other side. So we want to start on this with a show of hands. Do you believe in human behavior is causing climate change? Raise your hand if you do. Look, we're not schoolchildren. Let's have the debate. I mean, I'm happy to take it to start. Alexander, so do you want to raise your hand or not? I don't think that's the way to do it. So let me just say to Alexander this. First of all, one of the reasons our country's declined is because of the way the corporate media treats Republicans versus Democrats.

Biden was on the beach while those people were suffering. Let us be honest as Republicans. I'm the only person on the stage who isn't bought and paid for. So I can say this. The climate change agenda is a hoax. The climate change agenda is a hoax. And we have to declare independence for it. And the reality is the anti-carbon agenda is the wet blanket on our economy. And so the reality is more people are dying of bad climate change policies than they are of actual climate change. Interesting moment there, the way that DeSantis is able to parry away from all of this. Right. Vivek Ramaswamy also. Climate's been like one of his number one things. We had a big exchange about him, too. I'm curious what you thought, whether that was.

I thought it actually showed some political skill from DeSantis, because I remember that you said previously about the whole raise your hand thing that some Democrats fell into some traps that they didn't necessarily want to be into in terms of forcing primary activists and others in order to take positions. Clearly that you don't want to be taking a position necessarily on that one. Or as kind of he said, you don't want the overall, you don't want the headline that came out of it. Ramaswamy, because climate is such a core thing to so much of his messaging, I thought, you know, it was a decent answer in terms of like what he's going for. I was surprised to hear the crowd boo though. We were trying to figure out, were they booing him for the climate change answer or for like Pence trying to talk over him? I still couldn't really get there. But on a second watch, I think it might be the climate change answer itself. Really?

Yeah. I'm still not 100% sure. Yeah, okay, so there's a couple things I will say here. First of all, I do think it was clever of Ron to jump in like that and short circuit the question, which demonstrates that this has become a very uncomfortable question for Republicans to answer. Because even among Republicans, you have probably a majority that at least think climate change is real. Now, they are less interested in doing much about it than Democrats or independents. So the other challenge here is you have the Republican base in one place and most of the country in a very different place with regards to green energy transition, with regards to climate and how seriously that should be taken. And, you know, Fox News queued this up by citing all of the list of recent extreme weather that everybody is living through and saying, my God, this has gotten worse,

faster than we ever expected. The death is real. The heat is real. The wildfires are real. All of that stuff. So I think it's an uncomfortable question for them. I think that was demonstrated by the fact that Ron jumps in. The part after that, though, when he immediately is like, corporate media, am I right? To me, that was an example of how he isn't really super nimble on his feet. It felt very politician-y. Like, it was such an obvious dodge. And to me, the fact that even though Vivek did, I think, get booed in that room for saying the climate change agenda is a hoax, like very directly, I actually thought in a way it demonstrated why he won the night over DeSantis, because it didn't feel like some sort of like, let me try to be here and there. Let me try to get around the question. He's like, no, I'll just come out and say it.

He's like, I'll take the position. And that will be very divisive. I mean, this is what Trump does, right? Trump would say stuff that part of the Republican Party probably hated and certain donors, you know, would probably hate. And Vivek said something that part of the Republican Party actually probably hated. Part of it, them loved it, though. And part of them just took it as a signal, whatever they think of climate change, of like, oh, this guy's different. He doesn't talk like the other ones. He's not weasley trying to get out of this answer like everybody else on the stage was.

Yeah, I think that's good analysis. I think you're right in terms of how it overall went. And I think you're right. And this is why it's difficult. In general, the flag goes up anytime you hear climate change. One of the things that I think that Vivek, you know, Vivek, if you recall, he had a big embrace nuclear moment there on the stage whenever he I think it it was his very first answer, whenever he was talking about it's very simple. So, yeah, I appreciated that. I thought it was good. One of the reasons why that I have seen the big turn on it is that there is basically a, the GOP base in particular is convinced that any discussion of climate change or green transition or all of that is basically a, not depopulation, although there is an element of that to some of the discourse, but more of like a deconsumption or my brain isn't working all that well. But the idea that you have to consume less. They tied it into this whole like

World Economic Forum and whatever. Which some of it's true. Like, let's be real. No, it's not. Well, okay. The World Economic Forum, they're interested in maintaining the status quo. I mean, many of these people are rich off of fossil fuels. So let's be clear about where the money is. Yeah. But I mean, in terms of the future or whatever that they've published, I'm saying some of that they're quoting like directly from the text. So I think one of the reasons why that they attack the climate change, quote unquote, agenda is because that is the way it's generally understood by the mean Republican voter. I have seen actually quite a bit of polling that whenever you talk about the environment and environmentalism, the change in the attitudes around this actually completely change.

Well, and as you see, Vivek is very slippery here because he was very careful with his choice of words. He didn't say climate change is a hoax. Yes. He said the climate change agenda is a hoax. So I am 100 percent sure when someone, you know, the implication of that is that you don't believe in any of this. But he didn't actually come out and directly say that. So I'm sure when he does another

Caitlin Collins interview or whatever, and they say, why don't you believe me? Oh, well, that's not what I said. Why are you lying about misrepresenting me, et cetera, et cetera. So he's very slippery and very intentional in his wording here. That's number one. Number two, I think bigger picture for the Republican Party. This is a this is a problem for them with young voters. I mean, this is quickly becoming the number one issue for young Americans. And Republicans have been a little bit excited about like maybe young men or like maybe they're thinking again about their liberal ways and their progressive ways, et cetera. I think that climate increasingly becomes a sort of litmus test issue of are you even, you know, remotely approachable or on our side versus are you, you know, just like there's no chance that I'm going to give you any sort of

look whatsoever. So it's going to be a while before young voters really pack the punch, especially Gen Z, that, you know, would would make a huge difference in terms of elections. Although, you know, already you have young voters who are showing up in larger numbers in these, in the past midterm elections. They've been highly motivated by Roe versus Wade, et cetera. But I do think longer term, this is a big, big issue for Republicans with young voters. I'm just not quite sure yet. I know it's a big thing for college educated voters. No question about it. Specifically people who are under 35. Amongst like more working class voters who are also young, they are willing to say it's a concern. I don't know if it's the top one. As you said also, because people don't vote,

it's one of those where it's very difficult to parse what people are actually coming out and actually judging said litmus test on. People say one thing to a pollster, very different whenever it does come to the actual voters. I've always thought talking about it in a more positive way, talking about the ways out possibly like nuclear energy and all that is almost certainly one of the best winners in terms of a uniting agenda, but also a way in order to split the difference quote unquote away from what I do think is a very bad strain of like climate doomerism that pervades some of the worst parts of the American left in the way that at least the discourse happens around this issue. So Vivek's answer was a real, I actually think, a view into where the party is right now,

where you both have the boomer element, but also some of the younger voters who are definitely more interested in conversation around nuclear energy. He does have it out for EVs, though. That's the one thing which I never have quite understood. He, in particular, has a religious jihad against EV tax credits, whereas considering Elon is so popular amongst Republicans, where to me it's just a messaging thing. I don't think people actually care about EV technology itself. It's like if you're pushing it for replacing the freaking Ford F-150 or whatever that, okay, that's not gonna happen.

In terms of talking about replacing a sedan, a commuter sedan in particular, like for a city car, yeah, I mean, I have no reason why I see why that's not in the conversation. Yeah, people are just not as ideological. They're just pragmatic. They're like, I wanna save on gas

and not have to go to the pump. And guess what? Like save on service as well because you don't have to get oil changes, et cetera. I think that's how most Americans view a potential EV transition. I mean, just to underscore the point I was making, I just pulled up a poll. Even a majority of young Republicans say that they are somewhat among young voters, climate change is the top issue in terms of like activating them to vote, activating them to be involved in, you know, volunteer organizations and to be like really politically engaged. Climate is a top issue. as we increasingly live through these extreme weather events and the images are, they're

already really undeniable that the discomfort that was manifested on that stage among everyone except Vivek basically really tells the story of how they are struggling to grapple in real time with what they say now when it's not as except not that long ago, it was very acceptable for them to just be like, no, you know, it's fake. And look, here's a snowball, right? That's not as like. Not that long ago, it was very acceptable for them to just be like, you know, it's fake. And look, here's a snowball, right? That's not as like acceptable anymore. So they haven't figured out how to fully navigate the issue now. No, that's a good point. Anyway, that's why we spent some time on it. We thought you guys would be interested in that. We really appreciate everybody and also everyone who's been signing up, taking advantage of our debate

special breakingpoints.com for 10% off on our yearly discount. We will see you all later. Hi, I'm Maximilian Alvarez. I'm the editor in chief of the Real News Network and host of the podcast Working People. And this is the art of class war on breaking points. After the high stakes contract fight between the Teamsters and UPS, which resulted in a strike-averting or strike-postponing tentative agreement that workers are voting on as we speak, the eyes of labor are on the contract negotiations currently taking place between the United Auto Workers and the Big Three automakers, Ford, General Motors, and Stellantis, formerly Chrysler. The UAW's master agreement with the big three covers around 150,000 autoworkers, and the current contract is set to expire on September 14th of this year. If a tentative agreement is not reached by then, the auto industry could be the next to see and be rocked by a major strike. This contract fight has many similarities to the one that we've been watching unfold at UPS

over the past year. Like Teamster UPS workers, UAW members working at the Big Three belong to a storied union with an equally proud and problematic history. From the great sit-down strike of 1936 and 37 at the Flint GM plant to the creation of a unionized manufacturing workforce that formed the backbone of the mid-century industrial working class, the UAW is a monumental pillar of the North American labor movement. However, like the Teamsters, the UAW has also been plagued for years by business unionism, a management-friendly and concessionary approach to contract negotiations, and corruption at the highest levels of the union. A seismic federal investigation into the UAW recently found widespread corruption and embezzlement

resulting in a dozen senior officials, including two former union presidents, going to prison. At the end of the day, the true meaning of a union and of organized labor itself is the translation of the principles of democracy into the workplace. And in the wake of disappointment and dishonor from their own union leadership, on top of dealing with the big three companies themselves, with their relentless onslaught of cost-cutting, profit-maximizing, shareholder-serving practices, UAW members have fought to take back and democratically reform their union and turn it back into a fighting organization that is beholden, first and foremost, to the rank and file.

At the end of 2021, UAW members made history by passing a referendum to have direct democratic elections of their union leadership with a one-member, one-vote policy instead of the arcane and less democratic delegate system that was in place before, a system that enabled the union's administration caucus to maintain unchallenged virtual one-party rule for many years. But like their siblings in the Teamsters, who have also had the ability to directly elect their leadership, UAW members expressed their democratic power and their deep and frustrated desire for change last year by electing in a slate of reform candidates backed by Unite All Workers for Democracy, the rank-and-file reform caucus within the UAW,

similar to Teamsters for a Democratic Union within the Teamsters Union. And, you know, much like TDU organizers rallied their union siblings to elect current Teamsters President Sean O'Brien, Unite All Workers for Democracy pushed for the election of current UAW president Sean Fain, a brawler and a firebrand in his own right, who has made it very clear to the big three automakers that they are not dealing with the old UAW this round of negotiations. Fain has made it clear that the union is prepared to strike if the big three do not come to the table with serious plans to share the wealth that workers themselves have generated for them since the industry nearly collapsed a decade and a half ago and was bailed out by the American taxpayers. As Dan DiMaggio and Keith Brower Brown report at Labor Notes, quote,

entering this round of bargaining, the big three have reported a combined $21 billion in profits in the first half of 2023. This comes on top of profits of $250 billion over the last 10 years. Our message going into bargaining is clear. Record profits mean record contracts, Fain told UAW members on Facebook Live on August 1st. Among the demands Fain presented to the big three are eliminating tiers on wages and benefits plus double digit raises for all, restoring cost of living adjustments, which were suspended during the Great Recession, restoring the defined benefit pension and retiree health care for all. Workers hired since 2007 have neither. Increasing pensions for current retirees. There's been no increase since 2003. And the right to strike over plant closures and a working family protection program. If the company shut down a plant, they would have to pay

laid off workers to do community service work. Other concerns include making all current temps permanent employees with strict limits on the future use of temps and increasing paid time off, end quote. To talk about all of this and more, I got to sit down with Nick Livick, a General Motors autoworker, a rank-and-f file member of UAW Local 31 in Kansas City, and an activist with the caucus Unite All Workers for Democracy. Here's my interview with Nick, which we recorded from here at the Real News Network studio in Baltimore. Well, Nick Livek, thank you so much for joining us today on Breaking Points. I really appreciate it.

I'm good to be here. Glad to be here. And apologies to you and to everyone else, because if you all just watched my introduction to this segment, which I recorded earlier today, I totally blew it and mispronounced Nick's last name. It is Livick, not Livick. So that one's on me. Apologies all around. But Nick, it's really, really great to get a chance to talk to you, man. I know there's a lot going on. You just got off your shift at work. You guys are in the midst of this high stakes contract fight.

So I really appreciate you taking the time. We got a lot to dig into here and we got about 20 minutes to do it. So, you know, we're not going to be able to get to everything, but I want to just dive right in and, you know, sort of build on what I was saying in the intro and just help set the scene here for folks, right? Because, I mean, so much has happened in retrospect, such a short amount of time in the auto industry. I mean, like everyone else, you guys had to endure COVID-19. We had the GM layoffs in 2019. We've had, you know, a Trump presidency, a Biden presidency. We've had the UAW reform referendum, the election of President Sean Fain, and we haven't even gotten to, you know, the Great Recession and everything that happened there, right? So, like, when people, I think,

are watching this and they're trying to understand, you know, like, what brought us to this point, there's going to be a lot kind of in the backs of their minds. So, I wanted to just sort of toss things to you and ask if first you could introduce yourself a little bit more, say a little bit about the kind of work that you do and how you got into being an auto worker and a union member with the UAW. And also, if you could frame for people as a rank and file worker in the auto industry, like from your perspective, what is at stake here in this contract fight? Why is it so significant for you, the union, for the auto industry? And what brought us to this point, you know, like with everything that

is at stake in this contract fight. So like you said, my name is Nicholas Lavek. I've been an auto worker for just 10 years now, 11 if you include my temp time. I was actually one of the lucky ones that got hired fairly quickly. How I came to I'm third generation UAW. So my family has kind of grown up with this work. My grandfather started at AMC in the early 60s. He hired into General Motors in Janesville, Wisconsin in 67. So that's like how I got into it.

Like it was always talked about, you know, we always talked about unions, the auto industry, like whenever autos were good, you know, everything was great. But then in the slow times, you know, everyone was making cutbacks. So it was something that was like very, um, discussed in my family. Um, so I've been, I have done just about everything in the plant. I've been in material, I've been in chassis, I've been in trim, and these are all like different departments where like it will start back in, uh, stamping where the parts get stamped, the metal gets stamped, they'll get put together in body shop, get painted. Then it will go to general assembly, which is like trim and chassis. Um, so right now I'm a pool guy in group seven.

So I will go to any open job in my group or really the entire department if they really need me. And I will do that job. My plant runs at about 58 seconds. So that means every 58 seconds, you're doing a new job. So you have to get your work done in that a lot of time. Otherwise, the line's going to go down. If you shut the line down, then, you know, there's hundreds of people ahead of you that

are no longer working. So there's kind of some pressure there. But most of the pressure comes from management to keep that line running and not stop it. Like you said, there's, it's a lot to kind of pack in there. How this struggle came to be, it really started a decade ago. We had the great recession, the automakers were struggling and they got the bailout money. They came to the UAW and we gave, we gave concessions to keep our employers open because one, we felt like we had to. And I mean, we kind of did because when you're going through a bankruptcy and like the government

stipulating, you know, well, you're not going to get bailed out. You're stuck between a rock and a hard place. You're going to either choose between concessions or potentially having all of these people unemployed and the effect that that's going to have on the entire national economy. I mean, it's a no brainer. And those concessions, they were promised we were going to get those back once they got their footing back under them. Well, that never happened. Instead, they closed more plants. They closed Lordstown. In 2019, we had that entire contract struggle. That wasn't, in my opinion, it didn't go far enough. And then, you know, you had the corruption scandal. And that was a real galvanizing moment for our membership. When you have leaders at the top and, you know, I think it was Iacocca who said, we got to keep them fat, dumb and happy. And then you're sitting there and you're wondering why our contracts have been what they've been for the past few years. Um, so with the reform movement,

you know, we came in and we had the referendum vote for one member, one vote. Um, and with the admin caucus being sole control over our union for the last 70 years, we were kind of like, well, what's this going to be? But at the same time, you know, this was a once in a lifetime chance to win one member, one vote, because there have been so many reform movements that have come before us that have tried to get this and tried to win this, but have been failed or they've been bullied or they've been intimidated until their reform movement was over. We pushed through, we won one member, one vote. It wasn't even close. I think it was by three to

one margins. I want to say it was higher than 60%. I think it was closer to 69%. And then we were off to the elections, which is when we won our reform slate, which again was another unheard of things. And some people in the media say that Sean Fain doesn't have a mandate. But when you look at the history of our union, we went up against a caucus that had never been defeated for 70 years, and we won every single race that we contested. That's a mandate. What's at stake? I think everything's at stake. I think the future of auto manufacturing in this nation is at stake.

I think this is the most consequential contract of my lifetime, of my generation. And we got to win what we're fighting for because if we don't the next generation there there might not be a next generation of auto workers in this nation um well let's let's talk about that for a second like let's let's get into some of the specifics about what y'all are fighting for now with this mandate. And I would agree with you. I mean, like to given what y'all accomplished in terms of reforming your union, one of the biggest unions and most storied unions in the country after 70 years of essential one party rule, like that's pretty darn significant considering what you were going up against as you said but like i want to like

make tangible for people what um you know the kind of past uh regime you know like what that translated to on the contract side and on the union side for y'all like what kinds of concessions you know like were workers taking in the auto industry. And now that you have reformed your union, you have you've been fighting back. I mean, there's always more fighting to do. But as you said, you got a real opportunity here to, like the Teamsters at UPS did, actually go on the offensive instead of constantly playing defense, which, you know, American manufacturers and unionized workers therein have been on the back foot on the defensive for many, many years, because there's always that threat, right? If workers demand too much or, you know, if they want

good paying jobs and a good pension and, you know, like no two-tier or three-tier wage systems, then the bosses could always just threaten to leave. And when you have that card in your back pocket, it puts labor on the back foot. But then when you combine that with a sort of business friendly philosophy in a union that is dominated by an admittedly corrupt leadership that is not responding to the needs of its members, then you get a really like bad, you know, you get a recipe for disaster there. And that is what I have heard from many auto workers over the years is that, you know, we feel like we've been losing ground for decades. And, you know, it only got worse after the Great Recession, right? But I think there's a real big lesson here. I remember Clayton Clive, a train operator in England who I interviewed right here on Breaking Points a

couple months ago, he said something that really struck me. He said, you know, my union is the most democratic area of my life. If there's something wrong in my union, and there was obviously a lot of things wrong within the UAW, you have the chance to fix that, right? And you have more of a chance to fix that with your coworkers than any of us do with a political party or a private corporation. Just because there's corruption and rot in a union doesn't mean that we just say, well, unions are corrupt and useless. Let's give up on them. Like, no, you you you clean house, you fix it, you take control of it and you make it better. And then you fight for the contract that you and your members deserve. So what are y'all fighting for in this contract and how is it different from like the more concessionary

trail of contracts that you had had under the previous UAW regime? So we got we got quite a list of demands ending tears. So that was one of the things that was born about from the Great Recession, where you'd have your traditional auto worker that was somebody hired in before. I think it's 2008, but it might be 2006. I can't remember the exact cutoff date, but they have the pension, the retiree healthcare. They were always full pay. Then you had tier two that came in before or after them, after the recession. And they started out, back when I started, it was 151,578. Now it's $1,667. And then we didn't have, in the beginning, we didn't have healthcare, the same healthcare benefits.

We didn't have, we had no opportunity to hit top pay. And then those were kind of built slowly back. So now we have a path to top pay. We have the same health insurance, but we have a different benefits tier. So I don't get a pension. I have a 401k that I contribute to, but I don't have a pension. I don't have retiree health care. I don't have the same vacation time that tier one or traditional auto workers have.

And it was a way for the company to save money, but it was also more insidious than that. It was their way of eroding solidarity. And we've seen this in the past in the labor movement, where they've set up different ethnic groups to battle each other. Well, now they've kind of evolved that fight and they'll create tier structures. So then workers fight workers and pit each other. Well, now they've kind of evolved that fight and they'll create tier structures. So then workers fight workers and pit each other against each other that way. Another demand is getting temps hired on permanent. In my opinion, there's nobody down there that should be there longer than 90 days. I was a lucky one. I only spent a year and a half until I got hired in permanent. One of my good buddies, six years, six years as a temp. And then after you get hired

in, you still have an eight year growing scale. So you're talking about nearly 14 years of your working career, almost half of your working career. And you can't, how can you save for retirement when you're barely making enough to get by? Another demand is our COLA, cost of living allowance. So whenever the inflation rate goes up, we'd get a raise. So we'd make the same amount of money, um, despite inflation going up. That was a key demand. And that was something that was suspended, uh, under the recession. Uh, another demand is, uh, raise for our retirees, um, for too long. I'm third generation UAW, um, our retirees, you know, they haven't gotten a bump in their pension in so many years. And when you retire and you do this work and you give 30 years plus of your life to this company, that's carpal tunnel surgery. That's surgery on your fingers, your shoulders, your knees, your back.

There's a lot that goes into our work. It destroys our body. And I think the company and the corporation has a moral obligation to take care of these retirees and give them a raise so they're not becoming destitute. I mean, it's the same thing that they would do for Mary Barra or Carlos Tavares. If they needed more money, the corporate would be like, well, here you go. I mean, they got pensions, they got millions of dollars. They would cough it up for the CEOs, but they don't want to cough it up when it comes to the working class. Luke Gromen, Another thing we want is the right to strike over plant closures. I mean, that's huge. 65 plants in the last 20 years.

And I like to think about it a completely different way. That's 65 communities in the last 20 years that have been destroyed because they made the decision to pull out. They made the decision to use those locations as crudgels at the negotiation table. And you see it right now with Belvedere. They closed that leading up to negotiations or indefinite layoff, idled, non-allocated, whatever phrase management wants to use. And they did it for a reason. They did it so they could use it as leverage for negotiations. And it's messed up that the wealthy elite does this and they get kind of almost a free pass

because what they're doing is they're extorting local communities. They're extorting the politicians to get tax write-offs like, hey, if you want us to keep product in your area, you're going to have to give us some money. And it's just it's how they've operated for so many years. So we want the right to strike over plant closures so we can make sure that these good paying American jobs stay here in America and support the communities that we support. Gosh, there's a lot. Another demand, and I'll just touch on this quickly, is a 32-hour workweek. So with EV production coming, EVs are going to take anywhere up to 30% less manpower to assemble, allegedly. So with that 30%, we think that that increased productivity should help benefit the workers. And also behind that, for so many years, we've worked seven,

six, seven days a week, 10, 12 hour days, you know, and, and it's time that, you know, we, we are rewarded for that hard work and that increased productivity rate. Well, I mean, and that's, that's a big one. I mean, these are all big ones, right? I mean, and, and yeah, like, like you said, like y'all are coming in with a laundry list of demands that I'm sure have got to put the big three automakers on their back foot a little bit and be like, oh, man, who are who are these guys? Right. Because like and that's that's I think like what is so crucial about this moment and why it's also so exciting. But, you know, there's so much riding on all of us supporting this struggle and ensuring that our fellow workers like Nick win this struggle. Right. Because it carries over. This is a perfect example. Right. The Teamsters negotiating with UPS over the past year, they really won a crucial victory by getting UPS to eliminate a two tiered position for the drivers of the package cars.

This was the 22-4 drivers, a tier that was created to essentially allow new hires who were driving those trucks to make like a lot less than the people who were hired before them. And so you have people on the same trucks doing the same job, making wildly disparate amounts in the same way that you have on the shop floor in an auto plant. You got temps, you got tier one, tier two. But what we're talking about here in a lot of respects is equal pay for equal work, right? And like equal protections for all workers who are doing that work. But the bosses have created these tiers that, as Nick said, it creates resentment because you're looking

over your shoulder at the guy who's doing the same job as you, but is making maybe 10, 12, $13 more than you as a pension, right? That's going to seep into your subconscious and the bosses know that. That's why they do it. They also do it to try to save money, of course. But anyway, I mean, with the Teamsters getting UPS to say we're going to eliminate the 22 fours and we're going to convert those jobs into full time positions at the full tier level, like that was a pretty significant moment. And I feel like a lot of unions and a lot of workers saw that as like, okay, it's open season on two tier. Now we got to go for the jugular and we got to fight to overturn

this scourge that is, that has plagued the auto industry among many other industries. Right. So like, I think that that's a really important issue to highlight. I just wanted to comment on that for, for viewers and listeners. But I want to pick up also on kind of what you were saying about the companies themselves, right, and the kind of situation that we're in, because I see this all the time, not only having lived in the Midwest, but talking to workers for years throughout, you know, like the manufacturing sector and the former, former manufacturing communities that have been destroyed because companies have pulled out their operations and ripped the economic heart out of communities like Youngstown, Ohio, where the famous Lordstown plant was shuttered a few years ago or idled. They don't say that they're closing it because then they would be violating the contract, but that's a story for another day. So this is very personal to me in a lot of respects. I'm not an auto worker. I've never been one and I've never been in the UAW.

But what I mean by that is in the very first season of my podcast, Working People, the first story that I got really sucked into were the GM layoffs. They were announced right after Thanksgiving in 2018, literally the day that people got back from Thanksgiving break, a few weeks before Christmas. You know, these massive layoffs by a company that had gotten a massive tax break from Donald Trump's government and then was in the black and making a whole lot of money and had really kind of come roaring back since the dark days of the recession. And instead of repaying workers like yourself for the sacrifices you made in the Great Recession, they repaid you all with layoffs and plant closures or idling of plants. Right. This is this is the kind of companies that we're talking about.

And they got bailed out by the taxpayers to the tune of over $80 billion, right? I mean, like, so I wanted to ask, like, again, with all that in mind, like, I wanted to ask, like, what kind of companies are we dealing with here? Like, what do you think folks watching this need to understand about companies that can, you know, take taxpayer money in the midst of recession, you know, force concessions on their workers, promise workers like you that they're going to pay you back when they're profitable again, only a few years later to get massive windfall profits from tax breaks and still lay off people and still close plants and still destroy communities like Lordstown, where Donald

Trump in 2017 came and held a rally and told workers in Youngstown, don't sell your homes because I'm going to bring manufacturing back. And then a year later, a company that got a massive tax break from him still closed the plant. But like, I don't mean to drag this into a political thing. I'm just saying I was there covering all of this. I was talking to people in Ohio, auto workers in Detroit and other parts of Michigan, in Oshawa, in Canada. Right. And I heard the despair and the hurt in their voices at what the companies like GM were doing to them. So I wanted to ask you, this is a very long question. I apologize. What kind of companies are we dealing with here? Right. They're raking in billions of dollars in profit. They've made a quarter of a trillion dollars over the past year collectively. What future do they want for the auto industry? And what future are you guys in the UAW fighting for? You left out the part where they also got on average a 40% increase in the CEO pay. Of course. It's the same story that you hear and you've covered throughout the entire Rust Belt. These

companies, like President Sean Fain said, they worship at the altar of profit. Their only goal is to increase their bottom line. That's what they want. They want to show to the shareholders that they're going to pay out dividends to like, hey, look, guys, we're doing it while ignoring the worker on the line that's actually creating the profit. These are corporations, and I feel bad saying this because I'm employed by them, but these are corporations that their goal is to, when they look it out, they talk about competitiveness, which is really just code word for a race to the bottom. They will close a plant in America,

ship it down to Mexico where they can really exploit the workers down there and environmental laws. Workers in Mexico are paid sub $4 an hour. And then the argument becomes, well, if they don't do that, then the labor costs are going to eat up the entire profit market. And it's just simply not true, because if that was true, when they ship these jobs down to Mexico, these vehicles would come back and they'd cost less. But they're building trucks down there, and they're shipping them up here, and they still cost $80,000. So it's not the workers' wages. It's really just these companies' desire to increase their bottom line.

And they don't think about the human costs. They don't think about the people like my mother from Janesville, Wisconsin, who had her, her daughters have children and she's been in Kansas city for the last 10 years. So in many aspects, you know, she travels back, we travel back and every time we see them, you know, they're, they're six months older, they're a year older. So we're talking about the human cost of what they're doing. When they only talk about the profit costs, everything is at stake in this contract negotiation. Like I said before, this is a fight not just for our pay and benefits and the retirees and everything else. This is a fight for America's working class. If we can't win it, if we can't stop it as labor in America, what's that going to do for the non-union shops?

And that's what we're thinking about as we go into this, you know, this, this contract is going to have a massive ripple, especially if we win a historic contract, like the Teamsters just won, um, that's going to have a reverberating effect down the line through all the suppliers, even through the non-union,-union automakers in the South. And that's another thing they don't tell you when they talk about competitiveness. You know, when we get it, that also makes their rivals have to pay more and increase it because otherwise they're going to lose their top talent to the automaker, the big three.

So yeah, it's just these companies just, just, they, they care nothing more about nothing more than, than their bottom line. Um, and it, it's sad. It is. I mean, you know, like you said, just like, uh, the railroads that we've been covering, right. I mean, here's a, uh, an industry where, you know, workers, you know, it was one of the best blue collar jobs that you could get without a college degree. And like they have turned a once good job into a miserable experience.

They've run the supply chain into the ground. Workers are quitting in record numbers. Catastrophes like East Palestine are happening to over a thousand derailments a year. But the rail companies are making record profits and like stock buybacks and shareholder dividends and executive pay are higher than they've ever been. So like someone's winning and the rest of us are losing here. And that very much also includes the auto industry. And, you know, I think that's why this is such a crucial fight, as you so beautifully said, not just for folks like yourself in the auto industry, but for the working class writ large, because we've got to dig our heels in the ground and push back somehow. Otherwise, we are all going to be in a perpetual race to the bottom, as Bernie Sanders famously said. And on that note, man, because I got to let you go, but I really appreciate this. But with the last like minute or two that I've got you, I just wanted to ask if there was anything else that you wanted to highlight

for people watching and what can people watching do to support you and your fellow UAW members in this contract fight, whether you end up going on strike in a month or not? Well, one way they can get involved is they can actually go to the UAW's website and they can sign up to receive notifications. Another thing that anybody can do is come and join us. If we end up out on strike on September 14th, come and join us on the picket line. Talk to us. Hear our stories because I'm sure you know, this is you've covered workers, but when you're, when you're at the direct action and you're actually talking to them, you're going to find out that, you know, in my plant of about 2000, that's 2000 different stories. That's 2000 different hurts. That's 2000 different issues

that they got going on and why they submitted demand X, Y, and Z to better their lives and help out their coworkers. So really just get involved, share our content, and just stand with us because we're not, labor doesn't, we in the UAW have never just fought for ourselves. We've always engaged in a fight while also thinking about how is this going to benefit the American working class as a whole. A rising tide lifts all ships. And that's what we're trying to do. We're trying to change the dynamic of the conversation of American labor in this nation. So whatever you can do, whatever you can give, whatever you can donate, even if it's just the case of water you found out on sale, drive it down to your local

UAW hall and they'd be more than happy to accept it. And we're thankful for any support that we can get. Hell yeah. So that is Nick Livek, a General Motors autoworker, a rank-and-file member of UAW Local 31 in Kansas City, and an activist with the caucus Unite All Workers for Democracy. Nick, thank you so much for joining us today on Breaking Points, brother. I really, really appreciate it. Thanks for having me. Anytime. So that was Nick Livick, a General Motors autoworker, a rank-and-file member of UAW Local 31 in Kansas City, and an activist with the caucus Unite All Workers for Democracy. And that will do it for us today. Thank you so much for watching this segment with Breaking Points.

And be sure to subscribe to my news outlet, The Real News Network, with links in the description to this video. See you soon for the next edition of The Art of Class War. Take care of yourselves. Take care of each other. Solidarity forever. Anytime. Guys, do you have opinions on third party candidates? Sir, do you have opinions on third party candidates? I don't like Republican or Democrat. The third party would be nice, but there's no way in hell that they would even come close to winning. Where are you guys from?

I'm from Ukraine. Russia. Do you two hate each other? Yeah, I mean, I'd love if we had no parties, and I'd still vote, just like for the person, instead of feeling like you have to feel, like, committed to a certain party. I feel like people feel that. And then there's a lot of people who, like, even though they like their party,

they probably hate their candidate, you know? What's your major? Finance. How did I know that? It's the polo. That's how I knew. Sometimes it tends to be too, like, bifurcated, where it's, like, Republican, Democrat, and then you pick one or the other.

I think, like, we need more choices, usually. The way third parties are talked about in the media usually looks something like this. In a head-to-head matchup between Trump and Biden, they're tied, the two candidates of 44%. But when you add in Cornel West, well, he becomes a spoiler. Both sides are worried about the spoiler effect. Critics say it's a spoiler that could pull moderate votes from President Biden. But my suspicion is that that does not summarize how most people feel about alternative candidates.

Now, regardless of the sheer map of the situation, because yes, of course, in 2024, either a Republican or Democrat is going to win. But I think that most people share a common frustration with the system and would probably be more than happy to see the duopoly go away. Do you have opinions on third party candidates? I feel like you do. A little bit, yeah. A little bit?

Could I get them from you? We're a mess. I don't know if we can fix it. But I don't think a third party's... I don't think that's the answer to it. The system may not be perfect, but when you go to a third candidate, you now have someone elected who's not been elected by the majority of the public. Even if it's a small percentage, but if it's a new thing, if it's a different thing,

it's good to give it space, because what if that's the next big thing? You know what I mean? It's something that actually in time more people are going to resonate with. So we have to give chance to the smaller opinions as well. Everyone should have a fair shot because our two-party system leads to a lot of very segregated opinions that rile up certain fan bases that people could divide us versus just like actually having people who want good change well as a foreign person I would say it's when you compare in the Russian person which situation the country is shitty.

I say it's very nice, just like the system is very cool, that it's like two parties are kind of bottling within each other. So it gives like, you know, like in Russia, they have one president for like decades. Like here you actually have to switch and you have to change. And the third parties are also the ones who bring more change and who actually gives more opinion to people that is like not only on the two different sides. Do you think third party candidates are spoilers? No, I think that any one candidate,

like they're gonna get their votes regardless. I think about third party candidates taking votes away from quote unquote your party, you're probably just not doing a good enough job to get your fan base to come to you. They spoil race? Yeah, they totally do. Like I'm kind of hoping Trump runs as a third party to destroy the Republican Party because they would get dismantled if he ran third party. Or if anybody ran third party. They would shut down whatever side they kind of lean with.

If you take Ross Perot, I mean, that's what happened to Bush. Basically pulled from that crowd. Now, I'm not saying the person went in that was bad. I'm just saying that's what happened. But, you know, maybe this time it's the best thing that could happen. I don't know. In the sense where like there's one person that you specifically do not want, you would have to like allocate all the votes to like another thing

just to get that person to be like competitive. But like I think that is like a slippery slope though. It has like a trickle effect of like emphasizing just two people. So it's kind of dangerous. That's what I think about it. Again, you know, there might be somebody or somebody great to say like emphasizing just two people so it's kind of dangerous that's what i think about it yeah again you know there might be somebody somebody great to say and that would be nice to have intelligent adults in there i i don't know you know my gut feeling has always been two parties and have

a person elected do you feel like we we get enough information about third parties in the media or no not at all not at all in fact i i mean how many people ran on the presidential ticket in 2020 16 different parties and what 98 of it went to the two democrat and republican parties so yeah i mean i wish we had more information about it some kind of governance over media is also required. You can easily change the course of election by being a biased media. If someone's, you know, influencing the media, that can, you know, influence the election in a negative way. I actually don't wish we had parties at all.

I wish we voted on platforms. I don't think you should have people involved at all. I think it should all be about you vote for these platforms, and then the person who runs for office has a specific platform that they line up with, and whatever platforms line up with that candidate, that's a win. I don't even think we should know their names until the elections are over. I f*** with no parties. I want no parties. No parties. No labels is for you. No labels. People just go out and be like, these are my things.

And if you're with it, you're with it. If you're not, you're not. That's all I got. Have you ever voted third party? We're from Utah. And so it's gonna go Republican no matter what. But voting local in Utah matters. So third party, they always lose. But yeah, I mean, I'm all about third party if it's the right candidate. Who did you vote for in 2016? Gary Johnson, yeah. That's who it was.

He was the one I aligned the most with. And I mean Hillary was part of the system and I just, not like I didn't, I hated her. I liked her more than Trump but there's just something about her because she was part of the whole system that's already there. That's why I feel disconnected from everything because yeah I'm, if I would say I'm more I don't I'm super independent I don't align with any party specifically I lean Democrat but everything overall I would say I'm gonna look at the individual person if you couldn't have voted for Gary Johnson would you have voted for Hillary or Trump?

Yeah, probably. I mean, if it was down to the two of them, I would have voted for Hillary. Let me ask you a question. If you decided to vote for, let's say, Cornel West, if he didn't run, would you then vote for Joe Biden or would you just stay home? Well, there's a Marianne. I might vote for her. Her talking points have been interesting to me. I mean, I'm still looking at the other candidates, like, but, you know, if there's nobody that interests me and things that I'm passionate about or that affect other people and that affect, like, real people, then I'm not really interested in voting. But then it's just like, what does it mean? And so there you have it many people see a value in alternative candidates well beyond how they may or may not get in the way of the establishment's choices. So if you found this video interesting be sure to share it. If you have ideas

for other videos like this leave a comment below I would love to hear about them. Make sure you are subscribed to Breaking Points, and I will see you in the next one. Camp Shane, one of America's longest-running weight loss camps for kids, promised extraordinary results. But there were some dark truths behind Camp Shane's facade of happy, transformed children. Nothing about that camp was right. It was really actually like a horror movie. Enter Camp Shame, an eight-part series examining the rise and fall of Camp Shane and the culture that fueled

its decades-long success. You can listen to all episodes of Camp Shame one week early and totally ad-free on iHeart True Crime Plus. So don't wait. Head to Apple Podcasts

and subscribe today. DNA test proves he is not the father. Now I'm taking the inheritance. Wait a minute, John. Who's not the father? Well, Sam, luckily, it's you're not the father day. but I have DNA proof that could get the money back. Hold up. They could lose their family and millions of dollars. Yup. Find out how it ends by listening to the okay. Storytime podcast on the I heart radio app, Apple podcast, or wherever you get your podcasts.

The medal of honor is the highest military decoration in the United States. Recipients have done the improbable, the unexpected showing immense bravery and sacrifice in the name of something much bigger than themselves. This medal is for the men who went down that day. On Medal of Honor, Stories of Courage, you'll hear about these heroes and what their stories tell us about the nature of bravery. Listen to Medal of Honor on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.

This is an iHeart Podcast. iHeartRadio.