> There is no reality where line workers screwing in the same 3 door bolts all day long are getting what amounts to an effective ~70% pay increase in one year.

Please align your own comments. They are looking for a 40% hourly pay increase over 4 years, and a reduction to a 32 hour work week. These combined work out to an increase of 12% in annual pay, over four years. No UAW hired since 2007 makes more than $17/hour.

If you're looking for more details of what the UAW wants, they are in this article: https://www.cnbc.com/2023/09/13/where-uaw-negotations-stand-...

In four year's time, will their pay be 70% higher than it is today if all demands are met?

Yes.

Are you hopeful about a 70% pay increase in four years? I sure am not...

No? If a given employee is making $17/hr, and working the union agreed 40 hours a week, they are making $35360. If they get a 40% raise over four years, they will be making $23.80/hr, and working 32 hours a week, giving an annual wage of $39,603.20. This is an increase in annual wage of 12% over four years. The hourly wage is an increase of 40% over four years. No one is getting close to 70%.

> Are you hopeful about a 70% pay increase in four years?

Honestly yes, I think that is in the realm of possibility, as I'm currently pretty underwaged for my industry and experience level. Currently interviewing for a job at a 45% increase. Regardless, as I demonstrated above, your 70% number is, as you put it, propagandha. I certainly feel that the post-2007 UAW hires aren't being compensated adequately for any industry, and the 40% hourly increase they're seeking is quite reasonable.

This is getting into weasel word territory; you completely ignored the GP observing the contradictions within your own rhetoric, and responded with more rhetoric and a fallacious premise. Being rude isn't helping your unpopular argument to gain more traction.

You led out your initial comment warning about propaganda—it might be worth considering if you fell for propaganda on the other side.