SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
labor
UAW President Denounces Trump-GOP Budget Law as 'Total Betrayal' of American Working Class
"This bill isn't governance," said United Auto Workers president Shawn Fain. "This is a class war waged from Capitol Hill."
Jul 09, 2025
After Republicans pushed their unpopular reconciliation package through Congress last week, U.S. House Speaker Mike Johnson hailed the legislation as a step toward "a future where working Americans can feel relief."
But Shawn Fain, the president of the United Auto Workers (UAW), argued in an op-ed Tuesday for The Detroit News that such "hollow promises" are an attempt to obscure "a brutal agenda: stripping working-class people of security, dignity, and power while lining the pockets of billionaires" with trillions of dollars in tax breaks.
"The budget reconciliation bill that the Republicans just passed isn't just bad policy—it's a full-blown attack on America's working class," wrote Fain. "For the UAW and the millions of workers we represent, four core issues define what it means to live and work with dignity: a livable wage, affordable healthcare, retirement security, and time to enjoy life beyond the job. On every one of those fronts, this bill delivers nothing but setbacks."
Fain pointed specifically to the GOP law's more than $1 trillion in cuts to Medicaid. Those cuts, combined with Republicans' refusal to extend Affordable Care Act subsidies that are set to lapse at the end of the year, are expected to strip health coverage from around 17 million Americans over the next decade, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.
The UAW president also points to the Republican law's lesser-known attack on Medicare recipients. The legislation, which President Donald Trump signed into law late last week, would restrict enrollment in Medicare Savings Programs—potentially causing more than a million low-income seniors to lose access—and force more than $500 billion in automatic cuts to Medicare.
"These aren't numbers on a spreadsheet," Fain wrote. "These are real people losing access to lifesaving care."
"By passing this legislation, the government is telling working-class families they're on their own while billionaires get even more tax breaks."
While the Trump White House and congressional Republicans have tried to cast the budget law's tax provisions as worker-friendly—in some cases by outright lying about what's in the legislation—Fain noted that the law's limited deductions for tips and overtime will only benefit a small sliver of Americans, and only until 2028.
"On the other hand, many of the tax benefits in this bill for the wealthy are indefinite and have no expiration date," Fain wrote. "This is the same bait-and-switch the Trump administration used to sell its 2017 billionaire tax giveaway to the American people: small, temporary tax breaks for working people, with massive, long-term benefits for the wealthy and corporate America."
"This bill isn't governance. This is a class war waged from Capitol Hill," Fain continued. "It shifts the balance of power even further toward the billionaire class and hollows out the rights and dignity of labor. By passing this legislation, the government is telling working-class families they're on their own while billionaires get even more tax breaks."
"It's a total betrayal," he added.
Fain is among many prominent labor leaders who spoke out forcefully against the Republican budget measure and warned about its potentially catastrophic impact on millions of workers.
National Nurses United, the nation's largest nurses union, called the day of the bill's final passage one of "the darkest days in the history of U.S. healthcare."
"People will suffer and die because of the cuts in this legislation to fund tax cuts for billionaires—certainly in the short term and potentially for decades to come if nothing is done," the union said. "Lawmakers have effectively signed the death warrants for millions."
Liz Shuler, president of the AFL-CIO, said that "every member of Congress who voted for this devastating bill picked the pockets of working people to hand billionaires a $5 trillion gift."
"But if the politicians who rammed through this shameful bill think they can sneak away without anyone knowing the damage they've done and the chaos they've created," said Shuler, "they don't know anything about the labor movement."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Holding The Line': Municipal Workers' Strike Enters Second Week as Philly Refuses to Pay Living Wage
"We got people that work and repair the water mains and can't afford their water bill," said union leader Greg Boulware last week. "I don't want to be rich. We just want comfort inside the city that we serve daily."
Jul 07, 2025
Philadelphia's largest municipal workers' strike in over 40 years is entering its second week after negotiations with the city broke down this weekend.
Over 9,000 sanitation workers, 911 dispatchers, water services workers, crossing guards, and other city employees walked off the job last week, demanding that the city increase their salary enough to meet the rising cost of living.
But even with trash piling up on the streets and other city services understaffed, Mayor Cherelle Parker (D) would not agree to the demands made by AFSCME District Council 33, Philadelphia's largest blue-collar union.
Parker has offered a pay increase of 8.75% over the next three years, which she described as historic.
But DC 33 president Greg Boulware said that's far too little for municipal workers, many of whom are among the city's "working poor," to survive.
"It's not like as if our members are making $80,000, $90,000 a year," Boulware said. "A 2% increase on those would be significantly higher than it would be on somebody making $40,000-$45,000 a year. So, her math truly is not mathing, and you're clearly not paying attention to the working people that are going on in this city."
The average municipal worker in Philadelphia makes around $46,000, which is $15,000 less than the median income in the city and less than half of what a single adult needs to live comfortably, according to a study by SmartAsset.
"We got people that work and repair the water mains and can't afford their water bill," Boulware said at a rally last week. "We got people that repair the runways at the airport and can't afford a plane ticket. I don't want to be rich. We just want a comfort inside the city that we serve daily."
The union initially asked for an 8% raise for the next four years, which the city dismissed. This weekend, they pared their proposal down to 5%, but the city still did not budge.
Parker has insisted that her smaller proposed increases are merely what is "fiscally responsible," and that the city cannot afford to offer more.
The union has disputed this, pointing out that Parker herself is budgeted to receive a 9% increase to her salary of more than $240,000. That increase alone is nearly half the current salary that the average DC 33 member makes in a year.
As of Monday, negotiations have stalled, with no clear end in sight. With a throng of picketers behind him, Boulware told NBC 10, a local affiliate, that the union was working on a third proposal, and that negotiations may resume Tuesday. But he seemed to expect more obstinacy from the city.
"We've been there to be able to sit and meet and negotiate," he said. "It doesn't seem like the city quite honestly wants to entertain any of the questions that we have about things and actually have a true dialogue... That's how you negotiate and that's not truly what's been going on."
Despite the city's refusal to budge, momentum around the strike has continued to grow. On Friday, rapper LL Cool J dropped out of a 4th of July festival in the city, saying, "There is absolutely no way I can perform across a picket line."
Other AFSCME councils around Pennsylvania have joined pickets in solidarity. This includes Philadelphia's Council 47, which represents thousands of "white collar" city workers.
With mounds of trash accumulating on streets, sometimes becoming as "tall as people," the environmental activists with the Sunrise Movement have also joined in the effort to pressure the city. On Monday, activists hauled bags of trash into the lobby of City Hall, labeled with the words "Meet DC 33 Demands" written in yellow tape.
AFSCME, meanwhile, has stated its resolve to fight on as the strike has gained national attention.
"City workers are holding the line until they get a FAIR contract with the wages and benefits they deserve," the national union's account wrote on X Monday. "One day longer, one day stronger, no matter what it takes."
Keep ReadingShow Less
The Anti-Labor Undercurrent of 'Abundance'
The accusation from the neoliberal crowd with their new rebrand project is clear: unions are behind policies that result in scarcity.
Jul 07, 2025
The post-Reconstruction United States has never seen durable progressive change without the labor movement’s involvement. The postwar economy’s rapid, widely distributed gains in material conditions for everyday Americans may be the banner accomplishment, but the movement’s contributions to progress go far further. Working women organized through the labor movement became significant drivers of the suffrage movement. Unions played an essential role in the Civil Rights movement, including the steelworkers and UAW providing crucial support for the March on Washington. Some of the earliest workplace discrimination protections for same-sex couples were won by the United Mine Workers of America.
Since industrialization, the labor movement has been the greatest engine not just of advancing worker interests, but of achieving social progress more generally.
This is not to say that the labor movement is the perfect embodiment of hippie harmony. It has and continues to struggle with issues of sexism, racism, nativism, and other sundry prejudices. But what sets the labor movement apart is the principle of solidarity that has enabled it to build broad-based coalitions in the face of those disagreements.
As Richard Trumka, the late president of the AFL-CIO, wrote, “Progress, steadily gained, is fueled by the power of a mobilized community. Every victory in the fight against oppression has ultimately been achieved by that spirit of solidarity.”
It’s the principle of leaving no one behind that unites the labor movement, both internally and with other causes. Union organizers, members, and leadership are consistently on the front lines of fighting for broadly shared prosperity.
All of this is why the scorn shown by elements of the “abundance” movement—the latest neoliberal rebrand—ought to be deeply concerning for those of us in the labor movement as well as for everyone who believes in building an economy that delivers for working Americans and their families.
The abundance movement is a cross-partisan initiative bankrolled by money from the crypto, oil, and tech industries. What do these well-monied interests want? They seek to create newly ascendant factions within both major parties that focus on “government efficiency,” streamlining building, and eliminating chokepoints where policy implementation gets stuck. As outlined in the book Abundance, by Ezra Klein and Derek Thompson, an abundance approach invites its adherents to become “bottleneck detectives” in order to identify where governance gets stuck and who is blocking its way.
As with any broad coalition, there is not uniformity on what exactly this sort of paradigm looks like in practice. But a significant portion of the abundance movement views labor as a barrier that needs to be overcome in the name of efficiency.
There certainly are elements of the abundance movement that are not anti-union. Klein and Thompson, for their part, are at least nominally pro-labor. The opening pages of their book, which sketches out the type of utopia they want to achieve, makes mention of greater worker rights. In a recent column for The New York Times, Klein endorsed making it easier to unionize.
The Breakthrough Institute, a vocal and early proponent of the abundance approach, has explored how industrial unions could help achieve their ‘ecomodernist’ vision.
Others, though, insist that unions stand in the way of achieving abundance, and view Klein and Thompson’s agnosticism towards labor as either misguided or a fig leaf to make their book palatable to elected Democrats. To these abundists, downright hostility toward organized labor is often a necessary precondition for abundance.
This anti-union hostility was clear at WelcomeFest—alternatively dubbed “abundance coachella” or “modchella,” after being announced via festival themed promotional poster emblazoned with the slogan “responsibillity [sic] to win”— the self-proclaimed largest gathering of centrist Democrats. There, prominent writer Josh Barro declared that "when I look at policies in New York that stand in the way of Abundance, very often if you look under the hood, you eventually find a labor union at the end that's the driver."
The accusation is clear: unions are behind policies that result in scarcity. Representative Ritchie Torres (D-N.Y.), a vocal abundance supporter and speaker on the panel Barro was moderating, mostly demurred, but later posted a video defending unions (Torres is rumored to be a New York gubernatorial aspirant, so asking him to denounce unions was unlikely to pan out). The following day, Barro released an article on his Substack further developing an abundance-flavored broadside against unions. Barro specifically chastised his fellow abundists for shying away from fighting organized labor:
Sometimes the conflict between abundance and the labor movement gets downplayed. If you look up “unions” in the index to Ezra Klein and Derek Thompson’s Abundance, it takes you to their discussion on pages 126-7 of how the use of union labor did not prevent Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro from using regulatory relief to speed the reconstruction of a destroyed interstate underpass. It does not take you to their discussion on page 104 of how local construction trade unions in San Francisco have sought to block the use of cost-saving modular construction in affordable housing projects.
Barro’s point is only unique in its forthrightness, not in its sentiment. In particular, public sector unions—which constitute most of the organized workforce in the United States—are a common target amongst abundance thinkers. The faction’s main organizing group, Inclusive Abundance (whose CEO was also a featured speaker at WelcomeFest, where he dreamed of “college abundist” clubs to rival college Democrats and Republicans), has identified public sector unions as a barrier to their goal of government efficiency, saying, “Public sector unions are resistant to reforms that make performance-based employment decisions easier.”
Jonathan Chait, in The Atlantic, wrote that “progressives are not wrong to see the abundance agenda as a broader attack on their movement. Their theory of American politics depends on empowering the very groups the abundance agenda identifies as the architects of failure and barriers to progress.” Those groups are, namely, environmentalists (broadly the strand of progressives most maligned by abundists), labor, and activist/issue advocacy groups (importantly only the ones to the abundance movement’s left; when it comes to the myriad abundance-focused groups that have sprung up since 2020, it’s a veritable welcomefest).
This led Todd Tucker of the Roosevelt Institute to criticize the abundance agenda’s “survivor island” mindset, where “first unions and Dems team up to vote enviros off the island, and then Dems turn on labor.” Tucker’s point was demonstrated pretty clearly when Matt Yglesias, opining on Barro’s abundance critique of unions, offered his perspective: “[unions] are useful allies against the greater evil of environmentalist organizations.”
Many of the major groups and funders across the abundance landscape have longstanding antipathy towards unions. The most obvious examples are the elements of abundance that are part of the Koch network. Charles Koch (and his late brother David), well known for their hostility to labor and bankrolling champions of euphemistic “right to work” policies like former Wisconsin governor Scott Walker, have seeded or funded multiple groups within the abundance movement with track records of hostility towards unions.
- The Foundation for American Innovation (formerly The Lincoln Network) developed a tool that was deployed to entice public sector union members to opt-out by offering incentives like discounts at major retailers.
- The libertarian Reason Institute, partially funded by the Koch-backed Stand Together, frequently publishes pieces citing unions as major obstacles to progress, particularly teachers’ unions.
- The Cato Institute is the preeminent libertarian think tank and, as such, has published many, many pieces arguing against labor unions’ influence. One 2010 publication declared that “collective bargaining is a misguided labor policy because it violates civil liberties and gives unions excessive power to block needed reforms.”
- George Mason University’s Mercatus Center is a bastion of free-market idealism that was established by major donations from the Koch brothers. It has frequently produced scholarship skeptical of unions and their power.
- The Manhattan Institute—also a beneficiary of Koch funding—has a long history of publishing work opposing unions and organized labor.
- Americans for Prosperity, which has been described as the Koch’s “primary political arm,” has been involved in numerous anti-union campaigns and advocacy efforts, including celebrating “right to work” policies. (It has also been hard at work running a $100 million campaign in support of extending the Trump tax cuts this year).
- (A bit of an outlier, The Aspen Institute, which also has been funded by the Kochs and featured David as a board member, has actually worked to ameliorate executives’ hostility to unions.)
Niskanen, which was formed as a splinter group by the more moderate elements of Cato, also frequently criticizes labor.
This is not to say, however, that skepticism of labor is confined to the abundance movement’s libertarian wing. There are multiple examples of center and even center-left elements of the movement centering critiques of labor. Matt Yglesias, who has been described (by Derek Thompson, no less) as “the OG grandfather of abundance,” has been vocally critical of unions on numerous occasions, including criticizing rail unions for pushing for a two-person crew on freight trains.
Democratic Colorado governor Jared Polis, perhaps the most abundance-pilled politician out there, is now infamous for vetoing legislation (unanimously supported by the state’s Democratic legislators) that would have made it easier for workers to unionize.
This tendency was also strikingly apparent when abundance liberals vociferously accused unions of being rentiers when the UAW spoke in support of strategic tariffs.
In fact, some abundists have been pointing to labor as an enemy in their quest for factional power since before Klein and Thompson’s book kickstarted a flurry of discourse. Niskanen, which, as Chait put it, is “the closest thing to an institutional home for the abundance agenda,” published a manifesto in early autumn 2024 that framed public sector unions as an instance of progressives standing in the way of progress, stating:
On the left, conflicts exist [with abundance] wherever progressives pursue their goals through NIMBY-like mechanisms, such as with historic preservation, public employee unions, and organized interests claiming the mantle of environmental justice.
Niskanen’s call for an “abundance faction” goes on to encourage showcasing a “a willingness to pick fights with public sector producer interests like unions” as a plank of their political pitch. Similarly, Ezra Klein’s column “What America Needs is a Liberalism that Builds,” a seminal work in the formation of the abundance perspective, prompted a clash with The American Prospect's David Dayen that focused in large part on requirements that projects use union labor.
That is not to say that abundance and the labor movement can never be allies. Both, for instance, have champions who advocate for bringing parts of project consulting (largely privatized in recent decades) back in-house to government agencies, which could improve cost-efficiency (more building, more abundance!) and create good, stable unionized public servant jobs (more people in the labor movement!).
However, while an alliance makes sense in specific cases, that does not assuage the general friction between the two movements. In fact, one of the earliest critiques of abundance liberalism came from the Manhattan Institute’s Reihan Salam, who doubted that abundance could find traction on the left because it fundamentally challenges the principle of solidarity that has historically undergirded the progressive movement. That insight is key to understanding why, even among abundance proponents who are not opposed to labor, there’s limited interest in building significant camaraderie with the labor movement. Even when labor and abundance are not directly in tension, their organizing principles are.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular