By: Nelson Lichtenstein

This article was originally published in New Labor Forum. These positions are the authors’ own and do not represent the official position of Working Mass.

Original Editor’s Note: This article appears as the United Auto Workers (UAW) union prepares for its 39th UAW Constitutional Convention, scheduled for June 15-18, 2026.

The strength of a union and its leadership can be gauged most accurately when the headwinds are strongest: when political opponents command the White House and Congress, when the economy sours, employers play hardball, layoffs proliferate, and new organizing drives stall out. Many American unions confront that situation today, but members and leaders of the United Auto Workers (UAW), who assemble this June for their first constitutional convention since reformer Shawn Fain was elected union president more than three years ago, might be feeling it more acutely than anyone else in the labor movement.

At the convention, almost a thousand delegates will debate a wide variety of topics, from the level of strike pay and union dues to a ban on hiring most non-UAW members onto the union staff. There will be speeches on how to stop layoffs in UAW organized factories and how to get the organizing drive in the South going again. And once the convention is over, we’ll also know who is running for top office in the union. Fain and his team of 13 executive board candidates, dubbed the “Stand Up Slate” after the 2023 “Stand Up Strike” against the Big Three automakers, will face opposition.  Still, his team is likely to retain control of the union after October 2026, when a government-appointed monitor counts the mail-in ballots sent to upwards of a million UAW members and retirees in the weeks before. After conversations with scores of unionists in recent weeks, Fain says he feels “confident” about the outcome.^[1]

But just holding office is hardly the point. Fain and most of those who backed him have sought to make the UAW once again synonymous with working-class power and militancy and transform the union into the “vanguard in America,” a phrase coined by Walter Reuther, the UAW’s legendary president, right after his caucus won full power in the union in 1947. That ambition has set a salutary standard for all labor partisans, but it has been thwarted by obstacles arising from within the union and without, circumstances and problems that in one degree or another bedevil all progressive insurgents who find themselves in high union office.

Fain’s presidency has attempted to reverse decades of union defeat, decline, and demoralization. Beginning in the early 1980s, when all industrial unions faced competition from abroad and union busting at home, the UAW has bled members, power, and political influence. In the late 1970s, UAW had a million and a half members, with nearly 100 percent of all automobile production in the U.S. union made. Today, the union has a working membership of 400,000 (half the number of the union’s retirees), and of that number only about 150,000 work in the core auto industry. In the U.S., half of all production is non-union, with Toyota, Nissan, Mercedes, and other foreign companies intensely hostile to the UAW.

But even more debilitating was the sense of passivity and resignation of so many in the union leadership. As UAW president Owen Bieber, who in the 1980s and 1990s presided over some of the union’s most consequential setbacks and concessions, told historian John Barnard, “Things that we had to do. We did.”^[2] That defeatism was exacerbated by two things: the Soviet-style rule of an increasingly insular one-party “Administration Caucus,” and the growth of a collaborative industrial relations ideology that attempted to cast labor and capital as partners in a common endeavor. Not unexpectedly, a wide variety of corruptions spread through the union staff and hierarchy, ranging all the way from various forms of nepotism and favor trading that enabled loyalist rank-and-filers to win cushy staff jobs at Detroit’s Solidarity House or in one of the regional offices; to the California golf junkets and outright theft of union dues that led to the criminal conviction and jailing of a dozen union leaders, including two former presidents.

This was the context, in 2020, where genuine reform finally became possible in the UAW. When a Michigan district court appointed a federal monitor to supervise the transformation of the union, a rank-and-file group, Unite All Workers for Democracy (UAWD) put the free and fair election of a new cohort of union leaders at the top of their agenda. In a government-supervised referendum, the membership voted to junk the system whereby convention delegates, all too often beholden to the existing leadership, chose union officers and instead instituted a one-person, one-vote union-wide ballot.

When the votes were counted in 2022 and 2023 (there was a runoff among the two presidential contenders), a haphazardly cobbled reform slate swept every office it contested. Shawn Fain, once an electrician from Kokomo, Indiana, became president, while Margaret Mock, an African American woman who had worked most recently at the Stellantis Warren Michigan Truck plant (Local 140), became Secretary-Treasurer, responsible for a wide variety of duties including purchasing, auditing, and strike assistance.

Fain did not know Mock very well, but since he was running against Ray Curry, who was just the second Black UAW president, her presence on the ticket was important. But a clever electoral strategy was hardly a hallmark of the slate headed by Shawn Fain. Normally, no two candidates would come from the same local. But in 2022 Rich Boyer, whom Mock had known since the beginning of her career, was also from Local 140, though not a top leader there. He was elected a UAW Vice President in charge of Stellantis.

Once in office, Fain had less than six months to prepare for negotiations, and a possible strike, with Detroit’s Big Three: Ford, General Motors (GM), and Stellantis, which had taken over most of the old Chrysler production facilities. Since Fain defeated Curry by just a few hundred votes, he hardly had a united rank and file behind him. Perhaps even more important, most of the existing staffers and local union officers were skeptical of his leadership. That made Fain particularly dependent on the crew of thirty-something East Coast activists he recruited to his staff. These included Jonah Furman, who as communications director put a brilliant series of union advocacy messages online; lawyer Benjamin Dictor, heavily involved in the UAW’s decision to break with past practice and conduct simultaneous negotiations with all three Detroit based automakers; and Chris Brooks, a key strategist and Fain’s chief of staff. ^[3]

Brooks, who hailed from Chattanooga, Tennessee, the site of a big Volkswagen (VW) factory, had been a reporter for Labor Notes, a newsletter-cum-organizing center long critical of the old UAW, and then an organizing director at the NewsGuild. Energetic and determined, Brooks played a key role in shaping the innovative strike strategy in the fall of 2023 that generated what even the most anti-union commentators considered a pathbreaking union victory. But Brooks has also been described, even by admirers, as “arrogant” and a “know-it-all.”^[4]

In a memo Brooks wrote at the outset of his tenure, he outlined the big, disruptive changes he wanted the new Fain team to put forward: “Everything we do, at every stage, must be reinforcing the message: there is a new sheriff in town, something different is happening. This starts with who is appointed to what, who does and does not get fired, and by demonstrating the willingness of the new leadership to embrace new ideas and new practices.” As for the union’s old guard, Brooks expected resistance and resentment. “The mantra of the counter-revolution is going to be ‘we’ve never done it this way,’” he wrote. “People will be upset because their jobs are going to change and because new things are being expected of them.”^[5] As Brooks would later put it, “newly elected leaders can’t be saddled with the top lieutenants of the incumbents they have just defeated.”^[6]

Not unexpectedly, disdain for the “white boys from Brooklyn” spread through some offices at Solidarity House, the UAW headquarters. But Fain stuck by his new staffers, telling the Wall Street Journal — which would soon publish a twenty-first century version of an old red-baiting meme by highlighting the “new hires who never worked in an auto factory” — that “I thought it was important to bring in people that weren’t ingrained in the system.”^[7] That fall, when the resentment of some veteran UAW staffers became manifest, Fain doubled down at a large staff meeting. He had his crew of thirty-somethings stand up on the stage, then told the audience that he would “slit the fucking throats” of anyone who “messed” with his new hires.^[8]

This tension between outside activists, often from middle-class backgrounds, and those veteran unionists who have worked their way out of the shop and into the ranks of the union apparatus, has been endemic in the labor movement, especially evident when reformers assume power in a union. During the UAW faction fight of the mid-1940s, Reuther won support by denouncing Communist-oriented staffers—not just because of their politics, but because they had come from outside union ranks. Just a few years later, some of the more conservative officers on the UAW executive board saw the brain trust around Reuther, many from New York, as an “alien faction.” In the summer of 1949, this resentment exploded when southern-born Vice President John Livingston denounced Brendan Sexton, editor of the UAW’s Ammunition, as one of the “obnoxious long-hairs” who peddled socialist ideas on union time.^[9]

This same insider-outsider tension reemerged when the United Mine Workers’ Arnold Miller won a surprise victory against a profoundly corrupt regime early in the 1970s and then imported a cohort of New Left activists to help him reform the union. But the old-fashioned red-baiting became so intense that Miller soon purged headquarters of a group whose skills were admittedly useful, but who were also seen as occupying posts that should have gone to deserving and loyal mineworkers.^[10] Just a few years later, when Ed Sadlowski campaigned for president of the Steelworkers, just four international representatives out of 600 supported his insurgency.^[11] Even unions like the Communications Workers of America (CWA), urban and occupationally diverse, have encountered this tension, reports Bob Master of the New York/New Jersey CWA region.^[12] It’s almost an “existential” issue, observed one union reform advocate, who told me that in conversations with many UAW members that “99 out of a 100” thought the union should not hire from the outside. But that must be weighed against the larger purpose of the union. “Is the UAW a jobs program for 500 people or is it a movement to change the lives of 500,000 workers and their families?”

A Tumultuous Reform Process

All this set the stage for what would turn out to be a highly consequential meeting of the UAW executive board in February 2024. By this time, the UAW had turned its sights on organizing the non-union auto factories in the South, first VW in Chattanooga but also Mercedes in Vance, Alabama and Toyota in Georgetown, Kentucky. Immediately after the conclusion of the 2023 Stand Up Strike, all the non-union companies raised wages to meet the new UAW standard. Fain called that the “UAW bump.” Upwards of ten thousand Southern auto workers signed union authorization cards, many with little or no encouragement from a UAW organizer.

“The workers are ready,” Fain told his executive board. “This is our time…We haven’t seen a moment like this in our lives and we may not see one again…it is not a time for half measures and being conservative. It’s time to swing for the fences.” A “generational leap” could rebuild the UAW, said Fain, not unlike that of the founding generation in the 1930s and 1940s.^[13]

Fain was here outlining a theory of momentum organizing, an approach to unionization pushed forward by Chris Brooks and many of the new staff hires, that eschewed the careful planning and step-by-step organizing of the sort most unions practiced when confronted by management hostility and worker hesitation. That approach, one refined and advertised by the late Jane McAlevey, was essential in normal times, but now Fain and his team wagered that the UAW’s exceptionally high-profile strike had created a “movement moment,” a “brief period in time that workers are ready to join by the thousands.” ^[14]

Of course, that did not mean that the union could neglect the recruitment and training of union advocates in the factory and community. But even here, the UAW was trying something new. It had been trying to organize the big VW complex in Chattanooga for more than a decade, and a handful of veteran staffers were on the scene. But Fain wanted to inject more energy and elan into the effort. He therefore recruited nearly a dozen West Coast unionists, who had won their spurs in university organizing.

Their leader, Carla Villanueva, who held a Ph.D. in Latin American history, would later argue, in a New Labor Forum article co-authored with Michael Belt, that at both VW in higher education momentum was hardly enough. The UAW’s big National Labor Relations Board election victory at VW (73 percent voting for the UAW in April 2024) was the product of an intense cadre building effort in every department and on every shift, so that nearly all the 4,300 workers understood the stakes.^[15]

Regardless of the organizing methodology, Fain and his team wanted to strike while the iron was hot, while union enthusiasm in the South was high, and before the Tennessee business and political elite could mobilize. The UAW had appropriated $40 million for the organizing campaign, so Furman sought to hire a couple of D.C.-based media and consulting firms, both of which had close connections to the Biden administration or the Democratic Party. They would spread the UAW message on billboards and on television and social media throughout East Tennessee. The contracts would be worth upwards of half a million dollars each and both would be “no-bid,” an exception to the “three-bid” procedure mandated by the outside monitor and the UAW constitution. Fain and Furman argued that delay would sap the momentum, and, equally important, the three-bid contract procedure would alert anti-union forces in Tennessee to the renewed UAW effort.^[16] In years past, billboards the UAW sought to rent had instead been secured by the National Right to Work Committee and other business groups, who emblazoned them with messages like “The UAW Wants Your Guns” and pictures of derelict factories with the tag line, “Detroit: Brought to You by the UAW.” ^[17]

But Secretary-Treasurer Margaret Mock was unwilling to cut corners. In December 2024, she had angered Furman and the rest of the Fain team when she refused to sign off on one of the D.C. contracts. Her office had spent the Christmas holidays vetting Conexion, the media company Furman wanted, but the delay angered Brooks, Fain, and other newcomers—just one more instance, they thought, of Mock not grasping the need for organizing speed and message. Thus, for example, when the 2023 strike began, Mock wanted to save money by using up the many thousands of generic picket signs stored at various UAW local offices, much to the annoyance of Furman and Brooks who had crafted strike-specific messages. And then there were the petty holdups and reimbursement denials when organizers found their UAW credit card unworkable. In one instance, Mock rejected a $151 pizza bill, paid by Brooks with his personal card, when Shawn Fain visited Chattanooga to meet with key UAW organizers.

Complained Fain, “every time we make a request, we’re being investigated like we’re doing something corrupt…we get blocked and it turns into a damn fight just to get done what we need to get done.” To which Mock replied that because of the corruption scandal of just a few years back, she was indeed “strict” when enforcing UAW expenditures guidelines. “I was sent here with a mandate,” she argued, “The membership said, go in there and you protect our money at all costs. Am I counting dollars and pennies and nickels and dimes? Absolutely. That’s my job.”^[18]

But Mock’s outlook embodied more than just green-eyeshade rigidity. Early in her tenure, according to union staffers, she had unsuccessfully tried to get her son on the UAW staff focused on Stellantis.^[19] Later, her hostility to Brooks and other new staffers—and her defense of the old system whereby union jobs were a reward for years of service—became clear when she told the executive board, “I am totally against hiring anybody from outside. We have hundreds of thousands of members…So I take offense that our people aren’t qualified.” That’s a sentiment she will put forward in a resolution, prohibiting “nonmembers from exercising policy making, strategic direction or supervisory control” at the UAW’s constitutional convention in June 2026. ^[20]

While that’s a popular sentiment in the ranks, Mock was almost entirely isolated at that February 2024 executive board meeting. Significantly, she had no support from Chuck Browning, a veteran UAW officer, then Vice President in charge of Ford, who had been a Curry partisan in the election just a year before. Browning, however, was now an enthusiastic supporter of Fain’s “kick ass” organizing strategy, and he thought the new UAW president entirely within his rights to reassign some of Mock’s responsibilities so as to eliminate what he also considered her obstructionism.^[21]  Thus the union’s executive board stripped Mock of some 11 departments under her supervision, prompted by a report from the UAW’s compliance officer asserting that she had used her authority “to delay, obstruct, or even block the work of other departments.” For “weeks and even months” she used the Purchasing Department to drag out approval of vital union tasks. It was a “dereliction of duty,” concluded the report.^[22]

Enter the Monitor

Margaret Mock may have lost the battle on the UAW executive board, but she had a powerful ally waiting in the wings. In May 2021, the Michigan federal court that oversaw the union’s corruption case appointed Neil Barofsky UAW monitor, a post that gave him a wide-ranging mandate to investigate virtually any aspect of the union’s activities to “remove fraud, corruption, illegal behavior, dishonesty, and unethical practices from the UAW.” Barofsky, a former prosecutor and a Democrat, was the Treasury Department’s Special Inspector General in 2009 and 2010 overseeing the $700 billion Troubled Assets Relief Program, after which he wrote a book, Bailout, asserting that because of Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner’s regulatory favoritism to the banks, the American people “should be enraged by the broken promises to Main Street and the unending protection of Wall Street.” Thereafter, Barofsky joined the law firm Jenner & Block, where he co-chaired its New York-based monitorship practice.^[23]

It’s a lucrative business, in the U.S. and abroad, where courts and government agencies use monitorships as part of various investigations, legal settlements, and regulatory actions. Big companies like Credit Suisse, Citigroup, Glencore, GM, Uber as well as the New York City Housing Authority have been Jenner & Block clients. With at least three partners working with Barofsky on the UAW monitorship, Jenner & Block billed the union more than $25 million in the four years that ended in 2025.^[24]

Courts have imposed monitorships on unions far less frequently than on companies and other government entities. Beginning with the Teamsters in 1989, monitorships at the Laborers and Carpenters have supervised fair elections and excluded officials guilty of outright corruption from union affairs. But Barofsky saw his mandate at the UAW as far more intrusive, a perspective derived from his work with corporations and government agencies where he saw “a flawed or dysfunctional corporate culture” as the object of reform and rehabilitation. But “fixing a broken culture is no easy task,” wrote Barofsky in a monitorship handbook written by Jenner & Block attorneys. To do so required “the successful monitor to develop a deep understanding of the company’s business and financial objectives.” In other words, Barofsky was going to be a nanny correcting and cajoling a set of potentially wayward wards.^[25]

Such a perspective may or may not have worked when it came to the hierarchically structured capitalist enterprise, but trade unions are something else again. If the monitor does in fact create conditions under which a free and fair election can be held, democracy itself holds the solution to the most important problems that emerge within the union. That is the rough-and-tumble democratic union “culture” that represents real reform. It is unlikely that Barofsky had much of a feel for that dynamic. His firm had contracted out the sometimes-complex work involved in holding both the UAW referendum on a one-member, one-vote basis and the subsequent election of all the top officers. And in all his many reports on the transgressions he saw in UAW governance, there was nary a word of understanding that the whole point of the union was the mobilization of a working class for effective combat with enterprises of enormous wealth and power. ^[26]

Barofsky exacerbated these difficulties when on December 13, 2023, he made a phone call, “strictly on a personal level,” to President Fain, then in Pennsylvania for a Mack Truck negotiation, urging him to rethink the UAW president’s talk at a Capitol Hill rally the next day where several unions would call for a Gaza ceasefire. Fain’s appearance was in line with a recently adopted UAW executive board resolution on the Israeli incursion, a position that reflected the growing strength and radicalism of that portion of the union, largely in the Northeast and on the West Coast, composed of grad students, contingent faculty, public defenders. ^[27]

When Barofsky made the phone call, he was actually in Switzerland, where he was investigating the extent to which Credit Suisse had failed to divulge previously unreported relationships between the bank and the Nazis. Barofsky was clearly among those equating opposition to the Gaza war with a species of anti-Semitism, a sentiment that he punctuated by describing how his children had been “harassed” when passing a UAW protest where members were holding signs and “chanting hateful comments.”

Not unexpectedly, Fain took offense, not only because it was impossible for the monitor to make a “personal” phone call, given the legal and supervisory authority at his command, but also because of the veiled charge that either Fain or others in the UAW were anti-Semitic.  Said Fain at a later executive board meeting: “For anybody to ever fucking say I’m anti-Semitic, brother, I’ll fight your ass in front of this building in a heartbeat.”^[28]

Fain was willing to let it all pass after the call. But then in mid-February, Barofsky e-mailed the entire executive board, this time prompted by a message he had received from the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), which noted that UAW Local 7902, composed of NYU and New School lecturers and teaching assistants, issued a pro-Palestine resolution and come out in favor of BDS (Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions) against Israel, which might put that union in violation of a New York State anti-BDS law. This prompted another round of recriminations. At an executive board meeting Barofsky attended remotely from New York, Ben Dictor, who made a point of mentioning that he became bar mitzvah at the Wailing Wall in Jerusalem, took the lead in pummeling the monitor. He called the ADL, who Barofsky cited in questioning the UAW’s Gaza stance, an outside “interest group” and wanted to know if the UAW was being billed for “unsolicited political advice” based on concerns raised by an outside third party. ^[29]

Barofsky was humiliated; “lesson learned,” he later admitted.[30] But as Ken Paff, a founder and leader of Teamsters for a Democratic Union, put it, “Monitors are powerful. If you go to war with them, you’re going to lose.”^[31]

Until that conflict, Fain had maintained “a pretty collaborative working relationship with the monitor,” said one UAW official.^[32] However, within days of the February 2024 executive board meeting where she was stripped of her posts, Margaret Mock complained to Barofsky of what she saw as a set of illicit and retaliatory persecutions. Almost immediately, he sent the union a request for all its internal communications bearing on that potential transgression. This inaugurated more than a year of investigations and interviews in which Barofsky probed and judged the degree to which Fain and his close assistants had unjustly harmed Mock and also Rich Boyer, the Stellantis vice president who was also stripped of some of his responsibilities in May 2024, after it became clear that during the 2023 negotiations he had permitted his corporate adversaries to actually strengthen an attendance policy that had long been an irritant for thousands of factory workers.

Barofsky’s Javert-like investigation turned up a good deal of damaging information on Fain, Brooks, and other unionists in their corner. None of it was criminal or corrupt, but it did violate what the monitor thought to be good governance and ethical practice. Fain had made the determination to sideline Mock late in 2023, so Brooks and Furman colluded with the union’s ostensibly independent compliance officer to edit and revise portions of the report that indicted Mock for her delays and other transgressions. Barofsky also thought it untoward that Fain, seeking to deflect any charge of racism, had Laura Dickerson and LaShawn English, both African American women on the union’s executive board, formally introduce the compliance report for discussion. When Barofsky sought thousands of internal UAW documents, e-mails, and other messages related to these issues, Fain and his team either delayed their release or attempted to delete some of them from their computers and iPhones. From Barofsky’s perspective, all this was emblematic of a “union culture that remained mired in fear and distrust,” with staffers “scared to death, scared to lose jobs if they don’t march to [the President’s] tune,” because his approach is “you’re either with me or against me.”^[33]

Such divisiveness was real, but Barofsky’s solicitude for frightened staffers reflected a set of corporate values that saw culture rather than politics as the site of reform and renewal in a 400,000-member union whose new leadership was seeking, however imperfectly, to create a more effective combat organization. Thus Labor Notes’ Jane Slaughter, who has been a keen observer of UAW affairs for decades, offered a rather different and more persuasive interpretation of the union’s internal tensions: “Old guard UAW staffers at the international and in the regions, often using their staff union, have dug in their heels against the new expectations, filing dozens of grievances—and griping about new staff who came on with a different attitude. A strict staff contract limits elected leaders’ ability to dismiss holdovers standing in the way.”^[34]

But Barofsky’s will would not be thwarted, at least for a season. Finding that Fain had acted with “illegitimate and retaliatory intent” after both Mock and Boyer had been stripped of their responsibilities, Barofsky threatened to take his charge to the Trump Justice Department unless the UAW caved. And that the union did in late 2025, agreeing to retore to Mock and Boyer all the departments and assignments lost the previous year, while demoting Jonah Furman and forcing Chris Brooks to resign under pressure. ^[35]

Towards the Next Internal Election

Neither Mock nor Boyer are members of the slate Shawn Fain has assembled for the general membership election that begins when ballots are mailed out this August. Mock is running for Secretary-Treasurer, but at this writing, it does not look as if she will anchor an opposition slate. As one veteran unionist on Mock’s side during the UAW’s internal conflicts told me, there’s “no political basis for the formation” of such an opposition.^[36] While Mock has come to represent the outlook of the old Administration Caucus, which former president Ray Curry has even sought to revive, her perspective has little in common with other Fain opponents, largely sectarian radicals and self-starters who never signed on to his agenda in the first place. ^[37]

Because Fain’s new electoral team, the “Stand Up Slate,” is composed of several figures who were members or backers of the old Administration Caucus, some observers have described it as either a “more progressive version” of that caucus, or perhaps even the UAW’s “Thermidor.” Only three people who were part of the original UAWD-backed slate in 2022 are still on the Fain ballot lineup, and the UAW president has chosen as his new chief of staff, Brandon Keatts, who worked for many years under Chuck Browning. Fain told me he was “disgusted” with the three years of executive board infighting and wants to groom a new generation of union militants, but in the meantime, “I need people who know how the union works.” So, there are some “holdovers” from the old regime.^[38]

Fain is right to combine forces, because if the union is successfully moving forward, then many of the old divisions transcend themselves. Brooks has cited an old organizer maxim: “we win people over, we don’t write them off.”^[39] Thus, Mike Miller, the West Coast director, wanted more money and support for his organizational work in higher education, so in 2022 he backed Ray Curry, a calculated bet that the old regime would hold on to power and purse. But once Fain was in, Miller quickly became a team player, forming a productive alliance with the younger and more radical Brandon Mancilla, director of the New York/New England region, where colleges and universities were also a big organizing target. That kind of programmatic integration may well be more difficult in the Midwest auto centers, where many local unions are still controlled by a set of “get along, go along” leaders unwilling to mobilize their membership for shop-floor fights with management. They may well expect officials like Laura Dickerson, another Browning protégé now running for vice president and Brandon Campbell, a Chrysler/Stellantis veteran staffer, candidate for Secretary-Treasurer, to protect their interests.

But the fate of UAW’s revitalization will also be shaped by conditions over which union leaders have little control, and here the near-term prospects are hardly bright. The Trump Administration’s about face on the electric vehicles (EV) transition has made the UAW’s organizing effort much more difficult, North and South. There have been layoffs at GM’s Factory ZERO, near Hamtramck, which built electric trucks and SUVs, and at the Ultium Cells battery plants in Lordstown, Ohio and Spring Hill, Tennessee. Near Memphis, Ford’s BlueOval SK joint venture with a Korean battery maker has dissolved, putting in jeopardy a narrow UAW election victory at this large buckle of the mid-South “battery belt.” Workers getting the shaft at such new production facilities are as likely to blame Fain’s UAW for not protecting their jobs as they are to pin responsibility on GM, Ford, or Trump. That’s one reason for the demise of the UAW’s once hopeful Southern organizing drive.

Meanwhile, Stellantis workers are furious that for the first time in over a decade, they will take home no profit-sharing checks in 2026 while checks of upwards of $10,000 are in the pipeline at GM and Ford. Stellantis reported a $26 billion loss in 2025, largely attributed to the cost of the on-again, off-again EV transition. Layoffs have mounted since the UAW’s 2023 strike, with blame for the failure of the company to reopen its Belvidere Assembly Plant, then considered a signal victory for the UAW after the union convinced the company to reopen the plant through the strike, landing on Fain’s shoulders. Not unexpectedly, support for the Stand Up Slate may well prove weak among the nearly 40,000 UAW members at Stellantis. And since Mock has roots among these workers, their disaffection may constitute her one chance of retaining power and office in the union. ^[40]

Such discontent exists throughout UAW ranks, not unlike the economic and social disquiet now spreading in so many working-class neighborhoods. So, the forthcoming UAW election, free, fair, and un-gerrymandered, will constitute more than a referendum on the Fain leadership. It will be a token of the larger hopes and frustrations confronting tens of millions of American workers.

Nelson Lichtenstein is the author of Why Labor Unions Matter, forthcoming in October 2026.

The post Shawn Fain’s UAW Is Facing Strong Headwinds appeared first on Working Mass.

Arielle Clynes was an integral volunteer in the early years of EWOC, building our crucial structures and setting us on a path to success.

The post Remembering Arielle Clynes appeared first on EWOC.

By Dan M.

On May 5, a 3–3 vote in Clawson’s city council to continue the city’s Automatic License Plate Reader (ALPR) contract with Flock Safety resulted in the cancellation of that contract. Clawson is the third city in Oakland County to cancel its contract with Flock after my hometown, Rochester, and current home, Ferndale. Folks around the country are pushing for their cities to cancel contracts with ALPR companies.

What is Flock? What are ALPRs? What can you do about them? How many puns on Flock and the f-bomb can I make in under 1500 words? Let’s see.

What the Flock are ALPRS?

Automatic License Plate Readers (ALPRs) are computer-controlled cameras that read license plates and send that data — including the image, time, and location — to a storage system for use by the police. These cameras may be mounted to poles, police vehicles, or even handheld devices. The ALPR software analyzes information like license plate number and make/model and compares it to a “hot list” of vehicles associated with certain offenses, allowing officers to more quickly track down targets.

ALPRs have been used for far more than just official police work, however. Officers and others with camera access have used Flock ALPRs to stalk their romantic interests. The Institute for Justice has documented 14 cases that occurred since 2024. In May 2025, authorities in Texas used ALPRs across multiple states to track a woman seeking reproductive healthcare where it is legal. Flock sales employees even used their cameras to surveil a children’s gymnastics room, a playground, a school, a Jewish community center, and a pool as part of a sales pitch.

ALPRs enable authorities to watch people who, even by the logic of the law, don’t need to be watched. It pains me to reference Orwell here, but truly, ALPRs are bringing Big Brother to life. Additionally, data collected by ALPRs is often retained by the companies indefinitely and used to train AI.

Flock is using ALPRs, as well as drones and other technology, to create a mass surveillance network all over the country. Flock makes attractive offers to police departments to install cameras for low or even no cost and has done trials with Border Patrol. Drivers often help to pay for the technology through fees on top of the tickets they pay. Flock also offers “free trial” periods for its technology, as it recently did to Oakland County with drones. Flock is happy to accept as compensation whatever data it can get. Flock is not the only purveyor of ALPRs, either. Axon Enterprise, Inc., the company formerly known as TASER International and as the inventor of its former namesake, is also an ALPR vendor.

Go Flock Yourself, Ferndale

Ferndale city council approved a contract with Flock in March 2023, after it was proposed the previous December. The Ferndale Inclusion Network (FIN), a local activist group that MD-DSA’s Ferndale Area Organizing Committee (FAOC) organizes alongside, has been advocating against ALPRs since the introduction of the initial contract. Members of FIN and FAOC, as well as other citizens of Ferndale and neighboring cities, went to city council meetings for years to speak against Flock. Our work got attention from more and more citizens, who joined in our organizing work. A few of them even joined DSA.

Also during this time, the city held multiple “community engagement” sessions that mostly consisted of Flock representatives and/or police officers giving a presentation in favor of ALPRs, followed by public comment. Despite frequent requests and even promises from the city, these meetings never included a presenter against ALPRs, such as a representative from the ACLU.

At later sessions, these presentations used the March 2025 murder of a DoorDash driver as a case study in favor of ALPRs, saying that Flock cameras were essential for tracking down the suspect. However, their case study mostly used footage from private CCTV cameras, not Flock cameras. Additionally, city officials supporting Flock frequently assured us that data from our ALPRs would never be shared with ICE, other federal agencies, or other police departments, as this would violate our policy with Flock.

During a city council meeting on September 29, 2025, an audit of Ferndale’s Flock data by councilperson Laura Mikulski, who had consistently voted against ALPRs, revealed that federal agencies and police departments from around the country had been allowed to access the city’s data using a National Lookup Search option. Who could possibly have seen this coming? Ferndale then cancelled the contract with Flock. City officials such as the mayor and police chief framed the issue as specific to Flock, saying that Flock was “a bad actor,” but wanted another ALPR vendor.

The city then announced it was seeking a new ALPR contract with Axon. After the community continued to put pressure on city council not to sign, council eventually decided to compromise by making the contract contingent on passing a surveillance ordinance. This ordinance was based on the Detroit Citizen Input Over Government Surveillance (CIOGS) model and was to be voted on by city council. Members of FOAC and FIN and other citizens raised concerns about the proposed 30-day retention period, as well as repeated use of “exigent circumstances” as a justification for the suspension of rules without a clear definition of when these circumstances would apply.

By the time the ordinance came to a vote in February 2026, DSA member Eddie Sabatini had been inaugurated to the city council, meaning a majority now opposed ALPRs. The ordinance failed in a 3–2 vote, resulting in no contract with Axon and making Ferndale an ALPR-free city!

In April 2026, Laura Mikulski posted data from the September 2025 audit on her Facebook page. This audit included who performed these searches, search terms, how many times a search time was used, and more. Less than 1% of searches of Ferndale’s Flock data were made by Ferndale police officers. There were hundreds of searches using terms related to immigration, graffiti, anti-Trump protests, and littering. There was also one search using the term “Hamburger [sic].” This audit is a fantastic case study in how individual city ALPR systems are part of a larger mass surveillance network.

We’re Tired of These Motherflockin’ Cameras in Our Motherflockin’ Cities

What can you do about ALPRs in your city? The FAOC’s anti-ALPR working group is developing a toolkit for organizers. The main reason Flock has so easily been able to slip into cities around the country is that people simply aren’t paying attention. Votes for these contracts are usually public, but if the public isn’t paying attention, they are signed unnoticed.

Attend city council meetings to see if contracts with Flock, Axon, or similar companies are being considered. Speak at these meetings during public comment sections. Bring neighbors and even friends from neighboring cities, as ALPRs affect everyone who ever finds themselves within a particular city’s borders, not just the residents. Here are some arguments against ALPRs and counterarguments against support:

• There exist no formal studies showing that ALPRs are effective at preventing crime. Nada. None. Zip. Zilch. Zero! Any evidence for the effectiveness of ALPRs is anecdotal or from data provided by the companies themselves. Of course companies are going to say their product is effective — that’s their job. It’s our job to point out that their “evidence” is simply marketing.
• If your city council presents a case study in favor of ALPRs, as Ferndale did, pay close attention to the data they use. How much data they present actually comes from ALPRs? As stated earlier, the Ferndale case study mostly used footage from private security cameras, not Flock cameras. Clawson’s case study included the same. Poke holes in their case.
• Companies like Flock and Axon have a long history of shady behavior. For example, Evanston, Illinois, cancelled its contract with Flock after officials found out Flock had violated state law. The story didn’t end there, though. After the cameras were removed, Flock reinstalled the cameras without the city’s permission. Flock doesn’t even play by the rules to which they’ve agreed. In June 2022, nine of 12 members of Axon’s ethics advisory board resigned in response to the company’s plan to develop Taser-equipped drones, stating that they had “lost faith in Axon’s ability to be a responsible partner.” Share examples of these companies’ malfeasance with your city council.

I used to believe the type of pressure we were using on our community leaders didn’t mean much. Having seen the power of it firsthand, I can no longer deny it. The only way we can damage the mass surveillance network being built in our country is to organize a mass of people to oppose it. Find your community and start fighting!

Clusterflock: Automatic License Plate Readers, Mass Surveillance, and What You Can Do was originally published in The Detroit Socialist on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.

Hey hey, comrade! It’s another edition of the Pinellas DSA Chapter Notes!

We scored some very exciting victories this month (more on those in a minute). And, the socialist movement in Florida continues to grow at a rapid pace. But, as Antonio Gramsci said writing from a jail cell in 1930s Europe, “The old world is dying, and the new world struggles to be born: now is the time of monsters.”

The fascists sitting in Washington — and in Tallahassee — are feeling their grip on power slip. They’re desperate to hold on, and they’re more than willing to do what liberals, until very recently, assumed simply couldn’t happen here. The only way we can beat them and build a world in which all of humanity can thrive together is with mass, working class organization!

Every move we make is made with the aim of getting us closer to that goal, so read on and see what we’ve accomplished so far…and what comes next!

May Highlights

We started the month by joining in with other local progressive groups and labor unions to rally in downtown St. Pete in recognition of International Workers’ Day on May 1st.

We also hosted a fundraiser for Oliver Larkin, a member of Broward DSA who is running to represent Florida’s 25th Congressional District in Washington. Oliver’s opponent is a devoted zionist and self-described “DeSantis Democrat,” so we were happy to lend Oliver our support and endorse his campaign!

We rallied in front of the Florida Second District Court of Appeal building in downtown St. Pete in response to DeSantis’ illegal attempt to gerrymander the state and further suppress the voices of working Floridians. Members of our International Solidarity Working Group hosted a screening of The Voice of Hind Rajab, a powerful new film centered on the murder of five-year old Hind Rajab, as well as her family and the medics that attempted to rescue her, at the hands of the IDF in 2024. And, our Ecosocialist Working Group hosted a community town hall as part of our chapter’s ongoing Dump Duke campaign.

Anything we’re missing? Oh right…can’t forget the biggest news of the month! Pinellas DSA member Richie Floyd has been re-elected to St. Pete City Council! Months of knocking doors and collecting petition signatures by our campaign cadre paid off, ensuring that the socialist movement will continue to have a voice in local government for the next four years.

CAMPAIGN UPDATE: Re-Elect Richie Floyd

The campaign to re-elect PDSA comrade Richie Floyd to the District 8 seat of St. Pete City Council is complete!

As we did for Richie’s first election back in 2021, Pinellas DSA members pounded the pavement, collecting the 500 signed petitions needed for Richie to qualify for a place on the ballot. Noon on May 29th marked the deadline to register as a candidate for the August election, and with Richie as the only registered candidate, he is now officially running unopposed!

Everyone who was with us on election night in 2021 will remember what a nailbiter that evening was. But, this is the power of sustained grassroots organizing in action. When the capitalist class knows that the working class is engaged, activated, and ready to go to bat for the politicians that represent their interests…the capitalist class doesn’t even bother to show up.

HUGE congrats to Richie, the campaign team, and everyone in our chapter who knocked doors, sent texts, and raised funds to help make our victory happen!

CAMPAIGN UPDATE: Dump Duke

Our Dump Duke campaign is continuing to gain traction. In May, we hosted a town hall with St. Pete City Councilmember Richie Floyd titled Electric Bills 101. The aim of this presentation was to help St. Pete residents get informed, understand their bill, and learn how local decisions could impact costs in the future.

We also achieved a major milestone: getting St. Pete City Council to set a date and time for a vote on whether to commission a feasibility study for a public power utility. This study would be the first major step toward our ultimate goal of dumping Duke Energy and returning St. Pete’s power grid back to the democratic control of the people!

UPDATE: WE WON!!

We called for “all hands on deck” at City Hall on Thursday, June 4, and the people answered! Thanks to overwhelming pressure from the public, who took time out of their day to show up to tell their councilmember: Commission the study! Give us the facts on public power! the city council voted to commission the study, bringing us one step closers to our goal of Dumping Duke Energy!

To see what’s next for the campaign, go to dumpdukefl.com.

Upcoming Events

We have more than a dozen political events, working group meetings, and social outings scheduled in May. You can always view our full calendar of upcoming events, along with the most up-to-date times and locations, on our website: https://www.pinellasdsa.org/home.

Queer Movie Night with Queer Expression

Saturday, June 6 from 1:00–3:30pm at The Nest (544 1st Ave N. in St. Pete.). The Pinellas DSA Health Justice Working Group and Queer Expression are hosting Queer Movie Night where we will be screening Patient No More (2019). Pizza and refreshments will be provided!

“War on Cuba” Screening & Fundraiser

Sunday, June 7 from 6:00–8:30pm at Bar Chica (1180 Central Ave in St. Pete). $10 suggested donation to help buy medical supplies for the Cuban people.

Ecosocialist Working Group Meeting

Monday, June 8 from 6:30–8:00pm. Zoom only.

City Council Mobilization: Make The Morgan City-Owned Public Housing

Tuesday, June 9 from 5:00–6:00pm at St. Pete City Hall (175 5th St N. in St. Pete). Speak at St. Pete City Council during Open Forum to urge the city to buy The Morgan Apartments and make it into a model for city-owned public housing.

Portland Canvass

Tuesday, June 9 from 6:00–7:00pm at The Portland Apartments (300 8th St N. in St. Pete). Canvass to inform and encourage tenants to attend a tenants meeting, where they can tackle the issues facing their property together!

International Solidarity Working Group Meeting

Wednesday, June 10 from 6:30–7:30pm. Zoom only meeting; link will be available in Discord.

People’s Pride Coalition Teach-In

Thursday, June 11 from 7:00–8:30pm at The Nest (544 1st Ave N. in St. Pete.).

Morgan Canvass

Saturday, June 13 from 1:00–2:30pm. Meet at Family Pak and Ship (2822 54th Ave S. in St. Pete) to canvass The Morgan Apartments to encourage tenants to collectively withhold rent until slum-like conditions improve!

General Meeting & Socialist Social Hour

Sunday, June 14 from 2:00–4:00pm at Allendale United Methodist Church (3803 Haines Rd N. in St. Pete).

Steering Committee Meeting

Sunday, June 14 from 7:00–8:30pm. Zoom link.

Electoral Committee Meeting

Monday, June 15 from 6:30–7:30pm at Allendale United Methodist Church (3803 Haines Rd N. in St. Pete). Meeting in the Hybrid Room.

Housing Working Group Meeting

Thursday, June 18 from 7:00–8:30pm at Allendale United Methodist Church (3803 Haines Rd N. in St. Pete). Meeting of the Pinellas DSA Housing Working Group and St. Pete Tenants Union to decide action on tackling the exploitative capitalist housing system.

International Solidarity Working Group Meeting

Monday, June 22 from 6:30–7:30pm. Zoom only meeting; link will be available in Discord.

Educational-Social Working Group Meeting

Tuesday, June 23 from 6:30–7:30pm at Allendale United Methodist Church (3803 Haines Rd N. in St. Pete). Meeting in the Hybrid Room.

Socialist in Office Working Group Meeting

Wednesday, June 24 from 6:30–8:00pm. Zoom only meeting; link will be available in Discord.

Labor Committee Meeting

Thursday, June 25 from 6:30–7:30pm at Allendale United Methodist Church (3803 Haines Rd N. in St. Pete). Meeting in the Wesley Room.

Peoples Pride Coalition

Friday, June 26 from 5:00–11:00pm at Allendale United Methodist Church (3803 Haines Rd N. in St. Pete).

Pride Tabling

Sunday, June 28 from 7:30am — 5:00pm. We’ll be tabling on Central — check the Discord to get the cross streets!

Steering Committee Meeting

Sunday, June 28 from 7:00–8:30pm. Zoom link.

–

NOTE: All dates and times are subject to change, so check the website regularly for updates!

Purpose

As a volunteer, democratically run, socialist organization we are dedicated to building a majority movement that will make democratic socialism a reality in America for the working class. We are committed to creating a safe, respectful and inclusive space for our members and comrades in both our online and in person interactions. We expect everyone who joins our chat server to abide by the following community standards.  

“Better things are in store for us. The world ever moves onward. Get into the fray. Do your part, and you will soon see the results of your efforts. Don’t expect all Socialists to be either perfect human beings or to think exactly as you do. Learn to overlook the shortcomings of your comrades. Remember we are fighting for a better system, not to make all men uniform or perfect. Filled with a conviction of right, resolved with a determination to win, nothing can stop the onward march of this movement for a higher civilization until final victory is achieved.”

Daniel Hoan, “The Failure Of Regulation”

1. Community Agreement

By joining our chat server, you agree to follow these community standards and to respect the decisions of the moderators, Harassment and Grievance Officers (HGOs), and admins. Anyone who violates these standards may be warned, muted, kicked or banned from the chat server at the discretion of the moderators, HGOs, and admins. The moderators, HGOs, and admins reserve the right to update or modify these standards at any time with prior notice.

Thank you for being part of our community and for making it a better place for everyone.

2. Community Guidelines

The following guidelines are strongly recommended best practices for community discussion. Many of these guidelines are modified from DSA Guidelines for Respectful Discussion. Repeated failure to abide by the guidelines may result in moderation actions. (see Policy: Internal Communication and Moderation section IV.)  

1. Assume good faith in your fellow comrades

Assume good faith in each other. Please try to speak from experience, speak for yourself, and actively listen to each other. When someone makes a point, repeat what you heard, summarize, and ask clarifying questions like “did you mean X” or “what makes you say that” to get more information. Encourage yourself and others to maintain a positive attitude, honor the work of others, avoid defensiveness, be open to legitimate critique and challenge oppressive behaviors in ways that help people grow. We want to “call each other in” rather than calling each other out — in other words, if you are challenging someone’s ideas or behavior, do it respectfully, and if you are being challenged, receive it respectfully. Remember, mistakes will be made, nobody is perfect.

2. Please ask yourself “Why am I talking?”

While the internet is infinite, we all have limited capacity/time for discussion and engagement. When in discussion, please ask yourself “What am I adding to the conversation?” Consider whether or not what you want to say has already been said, whether what you want to say is on topic or if there’s a better time and place to say it, and other methods for showing how you feel about the conversation (eg. ‘liking’ or reacting to other’s posts)

3. Please recognize and respect others feelings, background, and cultural differences

Many people have different levels of experience, knowledge, and feelings in social justice and radical activism and all participants should respect and embrace this diversity. Many people from different backgrounds have different definitions of what it means to be an “activist” or “radical.” While we all don’t have to agree on everything, we should respect our diversity of opinions. Recognize that everyone has a piece of the truth, everybody can learn, and everybody has the ability to teach and share something. Please, refrain from using acronyms or complicated language that could exclude others, and be ready to explain your meaning in good faith if your comrades are confused.

4. Be respectful of diversity and difference. 

Celebrate the diversity of our members and comrades and the richness of their cultures, backgrounds and experiences. Do not make any assumptions or judgments based on stereotypes or prejudices.

5. Be constructive and supportive. 

Share your ideas, feedback and resources in a positive and helpful manner. Respect the purpose and goals of each channel and topic.

6. Be responsible and accountable. 

For sensitive discussions, please take them offline or to an encrypted platform

7. Be mindful of how you present yourself online. 

It is important to organize to communicate online with members and beyond, know that it is different to interacting through voice or person to person, and some nuances may get lost in the digital space.

8. Be open and willing to learn. 

Recognize that we are all here to build a better world for everyone. Do not assume that you know everything or that you are always right. Listen to different perspectives and experiences and be open to feedback and criticism.

9. Please be mindful of what time you are sending messages into the chat server. Depending on urgency, try not to send messages to members between the hours of 10pm-6am
10. Please keep your screen name consistent with the name you introduce yourself with in meetings. It does not have to be your legal name, it can be a nickname.
11. Have a sense of humor

Who said movement building can’t be fun?  This is a great opportunity for people to get to know one another, building lasting friendships and relationships, to laugh, love, and build a movement.

12. Report any violations or concerns to the moderators, HGOs, or admins.
13. Community Standards

The following standards are required for anyone participating in online discussion in Milwaukee DSA forums. Any failure to abide by these standards will result in moderation actions (see Policy: Internal Communication and Moderation section IV.)  

1. Do not insult, harass, bully, threaten or discriminate against anyone based on their identity, beliefs, class, opinions or experiences.
2. Do not spam, troll, derail or disrupt the conversations. 
3. Do not share any confidential, personal or sensitive information without permission, (including names and contact information) 
4. Do not make posts showing nudity, or other “not safe for work” content. 
5. Do not engage in any other  illegal, unethical, or harmful activities on the chapter server. 
6. Do not make any comments/posts which could reasonably be interpreted as encouraging or threatening violence
7. Report any violations or concerns to the moderators, HGOs, or admins.
8. Do not argue about moderation decisions outside of direct messages. Moderation actions can be appealed to the HGOs. See Procedure: Moderation Appeal. 

By TZ

Citizens are outraged at Congress for wielding its power in the abusive manner we have witnessed for decades. The Patriot Act routinely violates the First, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments and leads us to the breaking point we are subjected to today. Frustrations increased exponentially with ICE invading communities, and citizens distrust the government more than ever.

It is important to remember that your federal representative does not hold all levers of power. Activists are protesting and arguing with city officials around the country, attempting to block ICE from infiltrating their communities. During these battles, it is often forgotten that traditional government positions (such as state and federal representatives, senators, mayors) are not the only officials with power to fight ICE. Positions such as superintendents, park directors, library boards can all exercise some level of their power against ICE. An institution that has taken a step in the right direction is Royal Oak School District. On January 29, the District announced new safety protocols that create a much sterner, strict approach for ICE and Border Patrol (CBP).

Key points within these new safety protocols will protect staff, students, and families in the community. First, any ICE and CBP agent that appears at a school building will be properly identified and redirected to the Board Office, and met by the superintendent, legal counsel, and local law enforcement.

Second, if the agents refuse this and attempt to enter the school anyway, the building will enter lockdown mode, which is the safety protocol enacted when an active threat has entered the building or is on school grounds.

Lastly, if ICE or CBP appear during arrival or departure times, the building will enter lockdown mode and an emergency alert will be sent to all families notifying them of the presence of federal agents. The same team — the superintendent, legal counsel, and local law enforcement — would meet the agents on school grounds.

This protocol was in addition to some guidance in the fall on how to speak with federal agents if needed. This included contacting administrators, protecting identities of all students, and requiring a legal warrant signed by a judge.

This protocol creates reasonable guidelines that should be expected of any school district, but not all districts do so. It is imperative for citizens to ask for their school district’s safety plans for ICE/CBP, and to demand more from the school board and superintendent if they are lacking. Schools are able to provide strict protection of students and have the capabilities to alert families as well.

It is important to note that this policy has not been tested yet — there have not been any federal agents on school grounds in Royal Oak. It is unknown who the Royal Oak police will truly side with if the situation occurs. Police departments across the country have not exactly given citizens reason to trust police to protect them from lawless federal agents.

A superintendent and/or school board using some of their limited power to create safeguards in their community against fascism is a perfect example of power that citizens can direct their attention to. Royal Oak is a community known for leaning liberal — — parents and students were outraged last fall when a Turning Point USA Chapter was created at Royal Oak High School, resulting in student walkouts and protests. Students consistently protesting fascist issues and citizens demanding transparency from the Royal Oak City Commission helps pressure school district officials into creating policies, or shows they will have support for such protections when they create them. Activism is not only about forcing those who are resistant to make positive change, but also about providing support for those who are hesitant to make bold moves.

Local institutions like schools, libraries, and parks can be some very specific zones that citizens can pressure to create protective policies for their community. After all, change often happens from the bottom up. Readers interested in stricter ICE protocol in their local school district should gather a coalition of like-minded parents and citizens to voice their concerns at school board meetings. The same approach can be applied for city commissions, library boards, etc. The more businesses, institutions, and citizens that take stances against ICE, the more likely a city or state is to create a safer protocol.

School Districts Can Oppose ICE was originally published in The Detroit Socialist on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.

by Anna V.

Meat is expensive. It always has been. Prices are higher, sure, but it’s never really been cheap. Many people don’t think of it as the most expensive item but ounce for ounce it is. It’s why when you go to a hotel breakfast buffet the meat will generally be placed at the very end so you fill your plate with the less expensive fruit and bagels and can’t get as much of the pricier sausage and bacon. 

The reason meat costs so much is due to the amount of resources needed to produce it. Before you can slaughter a cow you need to give it feed made from corn and soybeans for one to two years.  Grass fed beef is even more expensive as it takes longer to get a cow up to slaughter weight on grass alone. This is why multiple studies have found that vegetarian diets can be less expensive, because instead of feeding soy beans to a cow for a year or more you can just make them into tofu.

That’s why it is concerning that the new USDA Dietary Guidelines for Americans increase the protein recommendations and are emphasizing eating beef – as well as the similarly expensive dairy – to meet those new recommendations. 

It would be one thing if these changes were backed by science, but most nutrition experts heavily disagree with these guidelines. The Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics released a statement expressing concerns over the new recommendations (source).  Furthermore, the guidelines actually contradict themselves. For example, they keep the recommendation from the previous guidelines to keep saturated fats consumption under 10% of total calorie consumption. However, in the list of recommended cooking fats are “beef tallow, butter, and olive oil,” two of which are saturated fats. Not only would canola and soybean oil be healthier, but they are less expensive, so it seems the new guidelines are going out of their way to make Americans spend more money on worse health.

Now it would be easy to write this off and say, “Well, everyone knows RFK Jr is crazy, no one is going to listen to him.” However these guidelines aren’t just suggestions for the average American. They instruct how federal food programs like WIC and School Lunches are set up. So if the guidelines aren’t making Americans healthier and aren’t reducing costs, who do they benefit? Well luckily they tell us on page 2: “We are realigning our food system to support American farmers, ranchers, and companies who grow and produce real food . . .”

A lot of people think of farmers as working class but don’t let the big trucks and boots fool you. A lot of farms are owned by large companies or families with generational wealth who make their profit exploiting the low paid farm workers who are the ones actually getting their hands dirty. These profits translate into power via groups like the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association and the Global Dairy Platform who go on to influence politics. 

This problem isn’t even unique to the current administration. Probably for as long as you can remember you’ve seen the recommendation that adults need three servings of dairy a day. This has been heavily contested over the years. It’s not that you can’t have a balanced diet with that much dairy in a day, it’s just that it isn’t always necessary. Many people, especially those of non-European backgrounds, get all their nutrients in with little to no dairy. However, it’s in the guidelines and therefore has an effect on government programs. I once spoke to someone who had been on WIC and complained that they gave her way more milk and cheese than she knew what to do with.  

So it seems these new Dietary Guidelines are continuing the theme of taking existing problems in our government and cranking them up to 11. The exact effects on programs like WIC haven’t been seen yet but they’re not likely to help struggling families. However, these guidelines aren’t meant to help them. They are meant to help the wealthy cattle ranchers who will destroy our environment, government, and health if it means increasing their own wealth.

The post My Beef with RFK Jr.: The Problem with the New USDA Dietary Guidelines and Who Really Benefits appeared first on Democratic Socialists of America.

Labor organizer Daniel Gross's new book, Unions of Our Own, helps workers build progressive, militant, and sustainable unions driven by the rank-and-file.

The post Daniel Gross and Unions of Our Own appeared first on EWOC.

I’d wager not. 

In a union campaign, the way to answer a question like this is through a structure test. Before going on strike, organizers know that they’ll need a supermajority of workers to authorize the strike, given that a vicious anti-union drive by the boss will likely reduce their numbers. Some campaigns might have a mobilization where workers do something like wearing pro-union attire in order to gauge support. Ideally, this would be one of several escalatory structure tests meant to evaluate a worker’s risk tolerance as well as how effective the channels of communication are in terms of getting the word out. In other words, a structure test measures the strength of an organization and its ability to mobilize towards a specific goal. 

Chicago DSA (and the DSA in general) is not a union. However, as a prospective mass-membership party that anyone can join, our level of organization is low. We should think and act more like a union fighting a campaign. Amidst conversations of leadership burnout, tremendous uncaptured membership growth, and increasing need for urgency in the political landscape (no source needed), Chicago DSA is at an impasse. What we do next will shape the organization for years to come. While we are poised to become a major player in the labor movement and Chicago politics, failing to build our organizational cohesion risks souring newcomers and leadership to the movement. Instead, it’s time we seize the moment and live up to our vision.

CDSA Vision – What are we organizing towards? 

When discussing strategic choices for the direction DSA will take, it is important to center the conversation around our shared vision. We are working towards democratic socialism, or the demand that “our economy should be run to meet human needs for all, not to make profits for a few” (https://chicagodsa.org/). Different people have different ideas of what this might look like. Many of us will think of universal healthcare, a Green New Deal, or of recent national and local politicians in the limelight, but being a democratic socialist and a member of CDSA is more than a positive feeling towards items on this agenda, as laid out on our chapter’s website:

“Our primary tasks are to organize the working class, make more socialists, and lay the foundation for an independent mass party capable of conquering political power and transforming our society” (https://chicagodsa.org/). 

As socialists, we care about a lot of issues, from protecting our trans and immigrant comrades who have been the latest targets of the Trump administration’s attacks, to issues like environmental justice, prison abolition, overpolicing, and countering American imperialism. We need to be fighting on all of these fronts. However, as emphasized by our tasks above as an organization, we need to continue asking the question: “how are we building power?”. Without the crystallization of short-term mobilizations such as the “No Kings” protests into long-term organizational capacity, we will forever be putting out fires and responding to crises rather than proving that a better world is possible and leading the fight. 

How do we build working-class power?

Working-class power is our ability to force elected officials, the government, and the owning class to meet our demands. This power comes from the fact that we, the working class, work the jobs that make society run. Also, as workers comprise a huge majority of the population, we can vote to elect people to represent our interests in government. However, the nature of these two sources of power is not the same. 

First, let’s start with the weaker of the two: electoral power. Elected officials are–in theory–held accountable to their constituents through their desire for reelection. This power is diluted by the fact that elections are increasingly decided by spending and fundraising. This gives capitalists a decisive advantage in influencing and subverting democratic elections. Given the current lax campaign spending laws and skyrocketing levels of wealth inequality, elections are increasingly determined by the sheer volume of money poured into a given campaign, which is a losing position for the working class. Nevertheless, recent campaigns have found success with a grassroots or “Mass Movement Electoralism” approach. For example, Zohran Mamdani’s 2025 Mayoral campaign managed to mobilize 100,000 volunteers to knock doors thanks in large part to NYC’s DSA chapter as well as its active left ecosystem. The problem is, no matter how a working-class-friendly politician is elected, two things remain true: there are certain things an elected official cannot do (especially with regards to challenging capital’s interests), and there is little recourse for working people to hold them accountable. 

Luckily, working people have another, more reliable, source of power: the ability to withhold our labor. To build working class power, we need to organize workplaces into fighting unions. This is the crux of the left’s emphasis on organized labor and the recent excitement surrounding the idea of a general strike. It is not just a commitment to fairness and equality in the workplace, but an understanding that working people as a class are the only ones who can transform society. Work stoppages hit the capitalist class where it hurts: their profits. This is what gives the working class its greatest leverage and transformational power. 

Then, to answer our question of what it takes to build working class power, it is clear that we must organize workplaces and unions to be capable of militant strike action, using their political power to aid the working class in electoral politics and thus building power independent of state institutions. 

What is organizing, really? Where does the DSA fit in?

At its core, organizing is bringing people together into a long term structure to “mobilize” for certain tasks and work towards a bigger goal. Almost any organization can build a hierarchical structure to accomplish a goal, but as democratic socialists, we must accomplish our goals while simultaneously modeling and prototyping the kinds of radically democratic structures we are fighting to build and sustain. In line with the Labor Notes tradition of democratic organizing this means relying on a “leadership-dense” model. Carla Villanueva and Michael Belt, organizers with UAW, define a leader of a union drive as someone, a worker: 

“…who is willing to fight for the union, receptive to feedback on how to speak with coworkers, and capable of moving their coworkers into action. Leaders are those who are public and willing to speak to their coworkers when the time is right. Throughout the campaign, leaders are given a steady flow of training and tools to better answer their coworkers’ questions. This approach is grounded in a belief that workers in any industry can understand and make complex strategy decisions and are able to have difficult organizing conversations with their coworkers.”

A leadership-dense model of organizing depends on finding workers willing and able to build a union, and developing them into organizers. The more leader-organizers that can be developed, the better. Furthermore, we need to trust that average workers are capable of organizing themselves when given access to structure, resources, and guidance. This requisite belief in the competency of workers is more than a principle; it’s foundational to our strategy and is essential to winning. Any worker can be a leader. The benefit to this orientation is that worker-organizers are constantly training new organizers, building the project’s capacity. Also, after a certain point, there is no single organizer or identified “leader” who is carrying the bulk of the work on their own; the campaign is self-sustaining and can recover and succeed even if a key organizer needs to take a step back from the work.. 

Another way to think about organizing is as an ideal. Just as there is no way to achieve “democracy”, there is no such thing as a “perfectly organized” workplace, either. There are certainly workplaces and institutions which are more organized or democratic than others, and what sets those apart is the strength and number of connections between people. Put differently, what we are organizing is a network of people, within which each node has a varying number of connections with varying levels of strength. To build the network, existing connections must be strengthened or new connections added. To do this more effectively, individual “nodes” must be trained and developed.

At last, we can see how our definition of “organizing” can be applied outside the workplace and to our work with Chicago DSA. Many of those reading this may be among the most active in the chapter and already fill leadership roles in various committees and working groups. We are the DSA’s version of the worker-organizer, the “member-organizer” or cadre. As member-organizers we may already have this orientation; we view our chapter as a network of relationships and are willing to fight for its vision. But are we using tried-and-true fundamental organizing skills to get there? Are we developing new member-organizers to apply those same skills and build further organizational capacity? Our ability to strengthen and expand this network depends on our utilization of fundamental organizing skills. 

Conclusion

With recent wins nationwide like Zohran Mamdani’s mayoral campaign, the wave of left flank democrats bringing excitement to primary elections, our own local DSA chapter’s worker organizer job fair and successful bid to get Byron Sigcho-Lopez on a ballot, the future of democratic socialist politics is brighter than ever. Despite this, we need to seriously reconsider our organizational structure and strategy if we expect to contend for power and build the foundation for our aspired-to independent mass party.

As mentioned previously, we struggle to retain both leadership and new members, something which costs us institutional knowledge, skills, and growth. In “Middle-Level Organizing: The Key to a Successful CDSA”, Monk lays out this problem in detail as well as its solution: organizing fundamentals. We conduct political education for new members, yet struggle to convey skills like organizing conversations, making asks, and how to run a meeting. These things are just as important as understanding our long-term vision and past. The history of social movements is the history of organizers. 

One of the important lessons Monk reminds us of is to “Clarify Your Goals”. With changing leadership and a flux of new membership, it’s fair to say that we might not all be on the same page. In fact, we can prove it. We should conduct a survey of every member in Chicago DSA. Surveys are used in union drives as structure tests to gauge support. Rather than texting out a form for people to fill out, a proper structure test requires being systematic and having one-on-one conversations with everyone. In these conversations we can gauge members’ understanding of our vision, hear about their theory of change and power, invite them to action in a specific way, and simply get to know them. 

As a collective, we can struggle with the questions of how we actually contend for power. Do we recruit people to organize workplaces and the labor movement where so much of our power resides? Do we run our own candidates or support others who match our vision to communicate our politics to a broad base and win non-reformist reforms? How do we weave the fights that are already happening across the city into something cohesive? Together, we can find out. Together, let’s organize Chicago DSA!

The post If Chicago DSA were a union, could it pull off a successful strike? appeared first on Midwest Socialist.

We stand in full solidarity with the nearly 300 detained immigrant community members who began a hunger and labor strike in protest of profoundly inhumane conditions at Delaney Hall in Newark, New Jersey on Friday, May 22, and echo their demands:

1. An immediate in-person meeting with Governor Mikie Sherrill at Delaney Hall to directly observe conditions and hear testimony from detained individuals.
2. Immediate medical attention for detainees in units 2/2b beaten and attacked by ICE.
3. The immediate release of vulnerable detainees including elderly individuals, pregnant women, young people, and those with serious medical conditions.
4. Meaningful review of immigration cases and habeas filings.
5. An end to what detainees describe as coercive pressure to sign deportation or voluntary departure documents.

Please read about the strikers’ plight and their demands in their own words in their just published letter entitled “We Demand Freedom.”

Delaney Hall is located on a designated superfund site known as “Chemical Corridor.” It opened illegally in 2025 with no public notice, never passed minimal safety inspections and is not even structurally sound; a massive wall collapsed shortly after its opening. Inside, detainees are served inedible food in filthy facilities, and our neighbors are subject to constant verbal and physical abuse by both guards employed by the for-profit prison company GEO Group, as well as ICE agents. Delaney Hall is only the most recent setting within the unspeakably cruel and fascist landscape of ICE detention.

Immigration is driven by the impoverishment of billions in the Global South due to the systematic global theft of US imperialism. Those who live in these nations are forced to migrate to survive, or to seek better prospects for themselves and their loved ones. ICE exists to make migrants’ existence as desperate as possible, creating a maximally exploitable workforce unable or afraid to seek recourse for exploitation by their employers. In turn this serves to disempower the working class as a whole. ICE exists to spread fear, because that fear equals profit.

At Delaney Hall, DSA has worked in partnership with other organizations to simultaneously support families impacted by ICE detention at Delaney Hall, and work to shut it down. Members from throughout New Jersey and neighboring states are on the ground right now working to amplify the voices of the strikers and keep people safe as protests continue. 

Thousands of DSA members in chapters across the US have been active in the fight against ICE. DSA recognizes that ICE serves to divide and repress the working class. In contrast, we stand with the multiracial working class and understand that only together can we defeat capitalism.

Shamefully, Republican and Democratic politicians have supported this fascistic tool of nakedly racist class exploitation. Donald Trump has accelerated funding for ICE while Governor Mikie Sherrill has deployed State Troopers  to crack down on anti-ICE civil disobedience.

We are proud of our nationally endorsed leaders Joel Brooks and Jake Ephros for joining us in solidarity at Delaney Hall. Please take action by sending a letter to Congress and the New Jersey state government. Together, we demand that the Delaney Hall strikers’ demands are met immediately! We demand the immediate shutdown of Delaney Hall, and all immigrant detention centers! We demand the abolition of ICE, and free movement of all people everywhere!

The post Delaney Hall Statement of the DSA Abolish ICE Commission appeared first on Democratic Socialists of America (DSA).