Cross-border mergers and acquisitions (M&A) play a crucial role in helping companies expand their global presence and enter new markets. These deals involve merging or acquiring companies from different countries, providing businesses with strategic advantages and opportunities for growth. One of the main benefits of cross-border M&A is the potential for international expansion.

By merging or acquiring companies in foreign markets, businesses can gain access to a larger customer base, distribution networks, and established infrastructure. This expansion can lead to increased market share and revenue streams, helping companies achieve their growth objectives. However, it is important to recognize that cross-border M&A presents key challenges that need to be carefully considered.

 

 Legal and Regulatory Considerations

When participating in cross-border transactions, it is essential to comprehend the legal considerations involved. Each country has its own set of laws and regulations governing mergers and acquisitions, making it necessary to navigate the legal landscape in order to minimize risks and ensure compliance.

Failure to adhere to local laws and regulations can have significant consequences for the parties involved. To effectively navigate the legal aspects of cross-border transactions, it is recommended to seek the assistance of local legal experts who specialize in such deals. These experts possess a deep understanding of the local legal framework and can offer valuable guidance throughout the process of making the deal. Their expertise extends to interpreting local laws and regulations, enabling companies to identify potential legal pitfalls and find practical solutions.

Our firm can introduce your company to expert attorneys and accountants in China, Mexico, Canada the UK and Australia as well as other countries to expedite the process of understanding the intricacies of potential stand-alone acquisitions or possible mergers.

 Cultural Barriers in Mergers and Acquisitions

Overcoming cultural and language barriers is vital in global business mergers and acquisitions. The differences in communication styles, business practices, and work cultures between companies from different countries can create challenges and misunderstandings.

To navigate these barriers successfully, companies need to prioritize open and transparent communication, cultural sensitivity, and bridging the gap between different business norms. It is crucial to foster understanding and collaboration among employees from diverse cultural backgrounds. Additionally, investing in cross-cultural training programs can enhance employees’ cultural awareness and equip them with the necessary skills to work effectively in a multicultural environment. These programs can cover topics such as cultural etiquette, intercultural communication, and negotiation styles, ultimately creating a more inclusive and collaborative work environment.

 Tax Implications

The tax implications of a cross-border M&A deal can be intricate. U.S. businesses must carefully assess both U.S. and foreign tax laws to understand the financial impact of the transaction. This involves considering the most favorable deal structures and mitigating potential tax liabilities to optimize the financial outcomes. Our structured accounting advice will aid in the decisions.

Technology and IT Systems

The compatibility of technology and IT systems is a practical consideration often overlooked. IT systems and processes can differ significantly between companies, even within the same industry. This can make it challenging to integrate systems and processes smoothly, leading to inefficiencies and potential system failures. Additionally, differences in technology standards and protocols between countries can create compatibility issues that need to be addressed.

Talent Retention

The success of a cross-border M&A is closely tied to talent retention. Businesses must develop strategies to retain key personnel in both the acquiring and target companies. Clear communication about job security, career pathways, and organizational culture can foster a positive environment conducive to retaining critical talent.

Often the employees of the target company are fearful of the new owner and a public relations campaign is needed to keep employees in place, without getting recruited by competitors seeking to take advantage of “acquisition fear”.

Embarking on a cross-border M&A journey demands a strategic, comprehensive, and culturally sensitive approach. Businesses should collaborate with M&A Advisors such as  Sterling Cooper Inc. to navigate the complexities associated with international transactions successfully. By carefully considering these key factors, businesses can position themselves for a successful cross-border M&A experience, unlocking new avenues for growth and global competitiveness.

Sterling Cooper, Inc is a business acquisition advisory company in the USA having decades of experience. From emerging startups to established enterprises, Sterling Cooper’s tailored approach fosters innovation, efficiency, and market leadership. Our seasoned team leverages a meticulous selection process, financial acumen, and industry expertise to seamlessly integrate acquired entities into a cohesive and dynamic portfolio. For business inquiry fill our short feedback form or call us at our Toll-Free Number 1-866-285-6572.

 

I have visited hundreds of abandoned places in my life—factories to asylums, schools to churches—but suburban malls might be the most surreal and striking. They captivate the imagination in a way few other types of environments can: with an almost imperceptible layer of fog that forms between the first and second floors of an atrium, endless reflections of vacant storefronts, or a chance encounter with a groundhog in the remains of a food court.

Stripped of signage and wares, they are nearly perfectly liminal spaces. Malls have become a part of the modern collective unconscious, through both the haze of half-buried memories of any American over the age of 20 and their ubiquity in popular media. They reflect the American consumer’s identity, and to see a suburban mall in ruins warps nostalgia into something nightmarish and forlorn in a way that abandoned factories, hospitals, or even churches don’t quite do.

We are all, to some extent, intimately familiar with the mall experience. Many of us in America had an indoor shopping center that was “our mall” at some point in our lives. Those memories are shared, because even though we weren’t all going to the same mall, we were: franchise stores—Auntie Anne’s, Sbarro, The Gap—share the same layout and inoffensive color palette and logo lettering across the country. To know one of these malls is to know them all. It’s a powerful magic I’m not sure I can fully explain, even after wandering the deserted storefronts of many vacant shopping hubs.

Much has been written on the phenomenon of the collapse of the American mall and the reasons for it. The most obvious—the rise of online retail—is undeniably a significant factor, but it also masks a rot that had been spreading before Amazon gutted brick-and-mortar. It’s hard to think of any comparable social institution that cost so much and covered so much physical space and then imploded so quickly. As always, the story is far more complex than any tidy summary can encompass.

The first contemporary, enclosed suburban shopping mall in America*—Southdale Shopping Center in Edina, Minnesota—was built in 1956, and the idea was incredibly successful. The exodus from urban centers to suburbs created an enormous opportunity to fill a vacuum for goods and services in smaller communities. A mall patron could get their hair styled, buy groceries, visit the bank, and enjoy an art installation all in one building.

As the concept gained steam, the mall seemed a well of endless novelty—a preeminent showcase of modern architecture and innovative products. For the archetypal suburban housewife, otherwise isolated, it was a place for socialization and escape. As malls flourished, in many communities they decimated urban shopping districts, which by then had come to be viewed by some as outdated and unsafe.

By their heyday in the late 1970s and 1980s, malls had established themselves as dominant retail hubs, and for developers, they seemed like a never-ending source of income. In communities that already had “their” malls, new ones were built to compete with them: bigger, more upscale, or just different. Even though the popularity of malls would continue well through the 1990s, this competition was the first factor that led to the cascade of closures that followed. There were too many, cannibalizing each other’s customers. Novelty meant that when one mall became dated or, sometimes, viewed as dangerous—often through white shoppers’ perception of nonwhite shoppers and the stores that served them—there was another one to go to instead. A single police incident could turn away scores of patrons for years.

The overabundance of suburban malls heralded a subtle but important perceptual shift—by the 2000s, dated and poorly maintained malls were commonplace, and the view of them as sparkling palaces of wonder and delight was fading. It had become trendy to hate them. Department stores were losing the battle for cost-conscious consumers to big box retailers like Walmart, which spread like wildfire through the 1990s.

Poor management, obsolete marketing strategies, and unsustainable expansion left retailers like JCPenney and Macy’s at a tremendous strategic disadvantage against bargain stores like TJ Maxx and fashionable (and often freestanding) chains like Target. Leveraged buyouts, a vampiric process where outside investors purchase controlling shares in companies, saddle them with unmanageable debt, and then liquidate them, wiped out mall staples: Sears, Payless ShoeSource, and Toys “R” Us (though all of those recognizable brands have lingered in some diminished fashion).

The failure of larger anchor stores presented another catastrophic problem. The very size of malls became a liability: dead ends, darkened storefronts, and vacant corridors created eerie, lifeless pockets—and a death spiral. Fewer tenants, fewer shoppers, decreased income, more unkempt areas. Where an outdoor strip mall could simply tear down an underperforming section and build something else, malls were static islands surrounded by seas of asphalt. When online shopping grew, it stabbed a victim that was already bleeding out. The pandemic and inflation didn’t improve the situation, either. In the 1980s, there were roughly 2,500 malls in the United States. Today, there are approximately 700—a number most analysts expect to continue to decline.

Nevertheless, some malls are weathering the storm, at least for the moment: the American Dream Mall in Rutherford, New Jersey, which opened at the beginning of the pandemic, pairs entertainment—indoor water parks, ski slopes, and roller coasters—with unique stores and restaurants, and the Mall of America in Bloomington, Minnesota, narrowly dodged foreclosure through a forbearance agreement.

Some malls are turning into mixed-use developments, hotels, and community centers to survive, while others are thriving by catering to certain populations, such as the Asian Garden Mall in Westminster, California. A study by Coresight Research reports that, as of 2022, sales and foot traffic in malls has increased 10 to 12 percent, and malls such as the Select Citywalk in New Dehli, India, are flourishing, as countries with high population density and low online market penetration seek new retail experiences. Downtown shopping districts are also making a comeback in cities such as Alexandria, Virginia, and Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. If anything is certain in the quickly changing retail environment, it’s that nothing is: There are no sure bets, and the champions of today’s marketplace may be buried in dust and shadows tomorrow.

As an explorer of abandoned places, though, I go to dead malls, with their problematic history of devastating downtown districts, in an attempt to reconcile their spotty legacy with the fond memories I have of them: reading comics in Waldenbooks, gazing longingly at K·B Toys, playing Street Fighter 2 in the arcade in the basement, and petting puppies and kittens in the pet store. My mother worked at a John Wannamaker store with a giant eagle statue perched by the railing in front of the second-floor entrance, gazing down at the shoppers below. I vaguely recall winning a Halloween costume contest at our mall when I was six or so—I was a pirate, by the way.

These empty malls I see, by virtue of their similarity, are my mall, too, and they are stuffed with the same kinds of memories: ear piercings at a cart, first jobs at the Orange Julius, love connections at the Sam Goody’s. Compared to a thriving galleria at its zenith, big box stores and online retailers seem shabby and isolating. There’s nowhere to sit, no fountains or planters, no people-watching. Perhaps as a culture, we have outgrown the mall, but it is an emotional loss. We may not have always wanted to go them, but we miss them when they’re gone.

I don’t believe that ghosts haunt us, but memories most certainly do. A dead mall is filled with echoes and the sting of lost youth. Even if we find nothing to mourn there, the Age of Malls as we once knew it is over and will most likely never be repeated. My hope is that the photos I take of them in their final days are both a shared reminiscence and a final goodbye.

Selling a business is a complex and strategic process that requires careful planning and execution. In this intricate process, avoiding common pitfalls is imperative. Lack of preparation, over or under valuation of a firm are few common mistakes, sellers must be aware of. Here are five critical common mistakes to avoid when selling a business.

 

 

Trying to do Everything Yourself

Trying to run the process alone is one of the biggest blunders to avoid when selling a business. For a few reasons, a business broker is more qualified to sell your firm. We work with brokers as your consultant to establish a value. It is best NOT to state an asking price when selling a business, but it is good for you to know what values may be reasonable when you start receiving offers. They are experts who are aware of every aspect of the procedure, from the big picture to the smallest details.

In order to get your company to the closing table, business brokers have the time and access to buyers and professionals. They can put together a presentation because they are skilled negotiators and financial specialists and,  they have experience with business valuation and know how to create a competitive price with our assistance for your review.

Setting An Unrealistic Price for The Business

It is difficult to separate your emotional investment from the company. Starting a business from the beginning requires a significant financial, mental, and emotional commitment. As a result, you run the risk of pricing it excessively or expecting unrealistic pricing offers while trying to sell it because of your strong feelings. If priced too high, you will not be able to sell your business since all the buyers will be turned off. On the other hand, you might consider lowering the price to receive the desired flow of eligible buyers. Under-valuing the business may create a fast sale but short changing you on the real value. The state of the economy and comparing pricing for comparable companies (if available) on the market should also be considered. Occasionally, an unexpected tragedy or health concern may force you to quickly sell your business. All of these factors should always be considered when determining your price expectations.

Ignoring Due Diligence

Neglecting thorough due diligence on potential buyers and not conducting self-due diligence is another key mistake that have major impact on selling a business. Inadequate due diligence can result in unfavorable deal terms, undisclosed liabilities, or a mismatch in expectations. Business consulting firms such as Sterling Cooper, Inc., can conduct comprehensive due diligence for potential buyers, and equally, perform sellers’ due diligence to identify and address any issues that may arise during the sales process.

Failure to Provide Prospective Buyers with Accurate Information

Prior to purchasing a firm, buyers may like to know crucial details such as the company’s projected sales, the risks associated with the purchase, and the timeframe for receiving a return on investment. Ideally, you want to offer as much of this information as possible to a prospective buyer. It can be beneficial to be open about the company’s income and the true compensation received by the seller including salary and all benefits, commonly referred to as ADJUSTED EBITDA.

Avoiding these common mistakes is crucial to successfully selling a business. By accurate business valuation, maintaining confidentiality, staying informed about market trends, and diversifying potential buyers, sellers can maximize the enterprise value of a firm and navigate the sale process with confidence. A well-executed sale requires careful planning, attention to detail, and strategic decision-making to achieve the desired outcome and ensure a smooth transition for both the business and its new owner. It is better to engage business consulting firm such as Sterling Cooper. Inc. (www.sterlingcooper.info) to avoid these mistakes. Their insights will optimize the sale strategy, ensuring the business is accurately priced, confidentially marketed, and attracts qualified buyers. Their guidance streamlines the complex process, addresses potential pitfalls, and enhances the likelihood of a successful and profitable sale.

Sterling Cooper, Inc is a business consulting firm in USA having over 100 years of experience. For business inquiry fill our short feedback form or call us at our Toll-Free Number 1-866-285-6572.

MAYBE THIS WILL FINALLY PUT AN END OF THE INSANITY OF GLOBAL WARMING PUSHED BY GRETA AND AL GORE?

A new government-funded study out of Britain, conducted by scientists at the U.K. Center for Ecology and Hydrology, purports to show that “human breathing is contributing to greenhouse gas emissions.”

Therefore, the study authors are urging “caution in the assumption that emissions from humans are negligible.”

The peer-reviewed study published in the Public Library of Science’s journal PLOS One investigated greenhouse gas emissions of methane and nitrous oxide in human breath, which allegedly “contribute to global warming.”

Well, there it is! I knew it was coming! Are you serious about stopping global warming? Well, then, just stop breathing!

What a boon to depopulationists! Turns out “we are not the ones we have been waiting for”; we are the problem!

Of course, some of us suck up more air — and are bigger blowhards — than others. You know who you are. Al, Greta, John Kerry, the Donald…?

Gee, I wish we had a smarter God, one who didn’t design humans (and most animals) to respirate! And then have the nerve to say, “Be fruitful and multiply!”

The implementation of “statist interventions” and “unreliable energy alternatives” isn’t enough.

So if you truly care about the planet, please go ahead and make the ultimate sacrifice.STOP BREATHING!

Do it for the scientists who conducted the study. Do it for Al, Greta, and John. Do it for Klaus Schwab and the World Economic Forum (WEF). I’m sure they will thank you for it.

They might even breathe a sigh of relief.in PLOS ONE, titled “Measurements of methane and nitrous oxide in human breath and the development of UK scale emissions,” researchers have embarked on a quest that epitomizes the absurdity of current climate change discourse. This study, focusing on the emissions of methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O) from human breath, is not only a glaring example of scientific overreach but also a worrying indicator of the lengths to which climate alarmism is willing to go.

 

 

United Auto Workers president  and MARXIST, Shawn Fain wore a T-shirt reading “Eat the Rich” and a deadly serious stare when he announced a major development in the union’s monthlong strike: General Motors agreed to include its electric vehicle and battery factories in the forthcoming labor contract. That deal will cover 6,000 employees at four coming GM battery plants.

“We have been told for months this is impossible,” Fain said during the October 6 livestream. “We have been told the EV future must be a race to the bottom. We called their bluff.”

If Fain has made anything clear, it is that he, and the 383,000 people he leads, are not bluffing. In the two weeks since GM’s concession, the union has redoubled its efforts to win similar agreements from Ford and Stellantis. Last week, every one of the 8,700 workers at Ford’s massive Kentucky Truck Plant in Louisville joined the picket line, halting production of the company’s line of Super Duty pickup trucks.

GM’s promise to unionize its EV and battery operations comes after automakers sold 300,000 EVs in the previous quarter, and everyone involved in the labor dispute feels the electric transition is all but inevitable. The strike has increased pressure on the Big Three to include their electrification ventures in the master contracts they hold with United Auto Workers, or UAW. It also could press other automakers to increase pay or agree to unionize if they hope to compete for workers.

Fain has made negotiating stronger contracts, including cost-of-living adjustments and four-day workweeks, a priority since his election in March. He also has castigated the Big Three’s battery factories for their low wages. When contract negotiations stalled, UAW members went on strike on September 14. There are now 34,000 autoworkers on strike nationwide, a number that is likely to grow as negotiations drag on.

Dianne Feeley is a retired autoworker who, like other UAW retirees, remains an active and voting union member. She says the rank and file spent 40 years working toward this moment, a fight that started as years of stagnation and corruption kept the UAW from moving forward. That led to a band of members launching United All Workers for Democracy, which expanded members’ rights to participate in bargaining and helped propel Fain to into leadership. It’s also helped conversations about the EV transition and its impact on workers come to the fore.

“This [UAW] administration has said, ‘Yes, let’s do electric vehicles, but there has to be a just transition.’ Whereas the old leadership, they didn’t even want to hear about electric vehicles,” Feeley said.

Beyond ensuring that the workers assembling electric vehicles are paid the same as those assembling conventional cars, the risks inherent in battery production are a major concern to union members. Safety issues at GM’s Ultium Cells battery plant in Lordstown, Ohio, led to the factory’s unionization earlier this year. An explosion and fire there in March prompted an investigation by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. Its inquiry, released last week, found 17 violations, including inadequate respiratory protection equipment, emergency showers, and eye-washing stations. OSHA could levy $270,000 in fines.

We’ve been sounding the alarm for months about Ultium and these high-risk, high-skill EV battery operations,” Fain said in a statement to Grist. “This is dangerous work that deserves to be compensated well.”

Pay at Ultium has risen by $3 to $4 an hour since the union vote in December, even though workers do not yet have a formal contract. The master agreements the UAW holds with General Motors, Ford, and Stellantis await ratification, so none of the union’s recent victories are certain.

“It’s a little too soon to pop the bubbly and have champagne and celebrate, but it’s all good news,” said Arthur Wheaton, director of the Labor Studies department at Cornell University.

The fact GM is ahead of its domestic competitors when it comes to EV battery production played a role in its recent concession, Wheaton said. GM had already planned to phase out gas-powered vehicles by 2035. The UAW’s success at the Ultium plant, and more broadly within GM, could have an impact even beyond union shops, given the ongoing labor shortage and a need to stay competitive when attracting workers, especially when there is some evidence that EV plants will not, as some believe, require fewer workers. Auto industry analysts say any wage increases resulting from the strike will likely pressure large, stridently anti-union manufacturers like Tesla, which pays significantly less than the Detroit automakers, to raise wages in the hope that it forestalls the risk of unionizing.

“If you get a big pay raise for GM and Ford, then many — not all — of the automakers will raise their wages to make sure they don’t get unionized,” Wheaton said.  “And you’ll see that in the battery sector as well.”

GM’s concession was far from assured. The Big Three co-own their battery plants with foreign companies, like Ultium, which GM co-owns with the Korean company LG Energy Solutions. These joint-venture plants are not automatically covered by existing UAW labor agreements, because they are what’s called a “permissive” part of those contracts that do not require either side to negotiate the terms of their operation.

THEIR SHORT TERM DUMB THINKING WILL PUT THE EV MANUFACTURERS OUT OF BUSINESS SINCE THE PUBLIC WILL NOT BE BUYING VEHICLES THAT COST MORE THAN WHAT HOMES USED TO COST AND HAVE $15,000 COST TO REPLACE THEIR BATTERIES.

The workers can hardly afford new EV’s….so who else is going to buy them

BEING IN  A UNION, ESPECIALLY IN THE UAW, IS A SELF DESTRUCTIVE JOB.

Truck drivers lost jobs when their overburdened trucking companies could no longer compete against non union ones.

These jobs will likewise go into the rabbit hole.

Beyond that, EVs have not had the same focus as other parts of the contract negotiations, despite the central role the cars, and the batteries powering them, will play in the future of both automakers and the men and women they employ. GM, Stellantis, and Ford had consistently claimed that conceding to UAW’s demands would make them less competitive against foreign automakers in the burgeoning EV market.

“That’s why [UAW was] happy to get GM, because they use what they call ‘pattern bargaining,’” Wheaton said, referring to a labor strategy, pioneered in part by autoworkers, that uses prior organizing wins to pressure other employers into take-it-or-leave-it offers. It may also bring the union fight back to an old battleground as EV battery plants open in an expanding “Battery Belt” spanning the right-to-work South, where several foreign automakers, including Nissan, Toyota, and Volkswagen, operate factories.

The UAW has struggled to organize Southern factories like the Volkswagen plant in Chattanooga, Tennessee, which builds the electric ID.4. In a staggering loss considered a massive failure for the union’s organization efforts in the South, Volkswagen workers rejected union membership in 2019. Fain told Grist that the union has since the beginning of the strike been fielding calls from non-union autoworkers, “from the West to the Midwest and especially in the South,” indicating organizing priorities beyond the current contract fight.

THE WORKERS IN THE SOUTH ARE MUCH SMARTER THAN THOSE IN MICHIGAN…THEY DO NOT WANT TO SUPPORT BLOATED UNION LEADERS, AND UNION MALARKEY AND POLITICAL DONATIONS ONLY TO DEMOCRATS WHO HAVE CAUSED THE PROBLEM NATIONWIDE.

“We’re looking at organizing half a dozen auto companies in the coming years,” he said. “Pretty soon we won’t just be talking about the Big Three — more like Big Five, Big Seven, Big Ten unionized automakers.”

Yes destroy every one else jobs too!

It’s an opportune time for UAW, since Inflation Reduction Act funds are only just now flowing to EV manufacturing. The money comes with stipulations that have been favorable to the union’s cause, in particular incentives for manufacturing everything from solar panels to EV batteries domestically with union labor. Because the allocations are just beginning to flow, many factories aren’t yet online, so hiring won’t start for a while. That gives unions like the UAW time to organize, with help from environmental groups. The Blue-Green Alliance, for example, has worked to bring labor and climate interests together.

“The Big Three have argued that there has to be a choice between paying autoworkers at family-sustaining union wages and benefits, and making the shift to EV production at a pace and scale that will meet both consumer demand and the climate crisis,” said Jason Walsh, the organization’s executive director. “We think that that’s a false choice. They can do both. And the agreement with GM suggests that they now recognize they have to do both.”

Feeley had similar thoughts when she decided to support the strike. She believes the EV transition must be equitable and just — not just now, but decades from now, because “one generation comes to the plant after another.” When autoworkers demand fair treatment and better pay, they do so not just for themselves, but for the children and grandchildren who will build the cars of the future.

Fain has made negotiating stronger contracts, including cost-of-living adjustments and four-day workweeks, a priority since his election in March. He also has castigated the Big Three’s battery factories for their low wages.

Beyond ensuring that the workers assembling electric vehicles are paid the same as those assembling conventional cars, the risks inherent in battery production are a major concern to union members. Safety issues at GM’s Ultium Cells battery plant in Lordstown, Ohio, led to the factory’s unionization earlier this year. An explosion and fire there in March prompted an investigation by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. Its inquiry, released last week, found 17 violations, including inadequate respiratory protection equipment, emergency showers, and eye-washing stations. OSHA could levy $270,000 in fines.

“We’ve been sounding the alarm for months about Ultium and these high-risk, high-skill EV battery operations,” Fain said in a statement to Grist. “This is dangerous work that deserves to be compensated well.”

Pay at Ultium has risen by $3 to $4 an hour since the union vote in December, even though workers do not yet have a formal contract. The master agreements the UAW holds with General Motors, Ford, and Stellantis await ratification, so none of the union’s recent victories are certain.

“It’s a little too soon to pop the bubbly and have champagne and celebrate, but it’s all good news,” said Arthur Wheaton, director of the Labor Studies department at Cornell University.

The fact GM is ahead of its domestic competitors when it comes to EV battery production played a role in its recent concession, Wheaton said. GM had already planned to phase out gas-powered vehicles by 2035. The UAW’s success at the Ultium plant, and more broadly within GM, could have an impact even beyond union shops, given the ongoing labor shortage and a need to stay competitive when attracting workers, especially when there is some evidence that EV plants will not, as some believe, require fewer workers. Auto industry analysts say any wage increases resulting from the strike will likely pressure large, stridently anti-union manufacturers like Tesla, which pays significantly less than the Detroit automakers, to raise wages in the hope that it forestalls the risk of unionizing.

“If you get a big pay raise for GM and Ford, then many — not all — of the automakers will raise their wages to make sure they don’t get unionized,” Wheaton said.  “And you’ll see that in the battery sector as well.”

GM’s concession was far from assured. The Big Three co-own their battery plants with foreign companies, like Ultium, which GM co-owns with the Korean company LG Energy Solutions. These joint-venture plants are not automatically covered by existing UAW labor agreements, because they are what’s called a “permissive” part of those contracts that do not require either side to negotiate the terms of their operation.

Beyond that, EVs have not had the same focus as other parts of the contract negotiations, despite the central role the cars, and the batteries powering them, will play in the future of both automakers and the men and women they employ. GM, Stellantis, and Ford had consistently claimed that conceding to UAW’s demands would make them less competitive against foreign automakers in the burgeoning EV market.

“That’s why [UAW was] happy to get GM, because they use what they call ‘pattern bargaining,’” Wheaton said, referring to a labor strategy, pioneered in part by autoworkers, that uses prior organizing wins to pressure other employers into take-it-or-leave-it offers. It may also bring the union fight back to an old battleground as EV battery plants open in an expanding “Battery Belt” spanning the right-to-work South, where several foreign automakers, including Nissan, Toyota, and Volkswagen, operate factories.

The UAW has struggled to organize Southern factories like the Volkswagen plant in Chattanooga, Tennessee, which builds the electric ID.4. In a staggering loss considered a massive failure for the union’s organization efforts in the South, Volkswagen workers rejected union membership in 2019. Fain told Grist that the union has since the beginning of the strike been fielding calls from non-union autoworkers, “from the West to the Midwest and especially in the South,” indicating organizing priorities beyond the current contract fight.

“We’re looking at organizing half a dozen auto companies in the coming years,” he said. “Pretty soon we won’t just be talking about the Big Three — more like Big Five, Big Seven, Big Ten unionized automakers.”

It’s an opportune time for UAW, since Inflation Reduction Act funds are only just now flowing to EV manufacturing. The money comes with stipulations that have been favorable to the union’s cause, in particular incentives for manufacturing everything from solar panels to EV batteries domestically with union labor. Because the allocations are just beginning to flow, many factories aren’t yet online, so hiring won’t start for a while. That gives unions like the UAW time to organize, with help from environmental groups. The Blue-Green Alliance, for example, has worked to bring labor and climate interests together.

“The Big Three have argued that there has to be a choice between paying autoworkers at family-sustaining union wages and benefits, and making the shift to EV production at a pace and scale that will meet both consumer demand and the climate crisis,” said Jason Walsh, the organization’s executive director. “We think that that’s a false choice. They can do both. And the agreement with GM suggests that they now recognize they have to do both.”

Feeley had similar thoughts when she decided to support the strike. She believes the EV transition must be equitable and just — not just now, but decades from now, because “one generation comes to the plant after another.” When autoworkers demand fair treatment and better pay, they do so not just for themselves, but for the children and grandchildren who will build the cars of the future.

Watch what happens to these jobs that are self destructing!

 

By the year 2025, communist China plans to unleash large number of humanoid robots, meaning robots that look and act like people but are just walking computers and circuitry.

In a race with Elon Musk’s Tesla and other Western companies working on similar technologies, China hopes to start mass producing its version of humanoid robots by 2025.

The United States is more interested in DEI than the real world advances in robotic technology. If our businesses only hire on the basis of equity and inclusion and not merit, we will never see any humanoid robots in the USA.

According to banking giant Goldman Sachs, the market for humanoid robots could reach $150 billion per year in just 15 years. Fully operational humanoid robots are expected to be mass produced and working in factories between 2025 and 2028, and later in other jobs by 2030 through 2035.

Tech for Good author Marga Hoek argues that the technology is a good thing for the world, even though it stands to make human workers obsolete. She believes that up to one in every four jobs will be impacted by robotics and artificial intelligence (AI) technology.

“My biggest worry is that all humankind spends a lot of time on fearing, instead of accepting and anticipating,” Hoek commented, adding that more research still needs to be done to look at which job roles will still “add value” in a world kept spinning by humanoid robots.

“If we don’t train people, if we don’t anticipate, if we don’t radically change around the school programs, for instance, we’ll be too late,” she added.

In Chicago, the worst public education system in the USA, its college programs all offer due to need remedial reading education…are we to think that these students if they ever even graduate,  are going to be at the forefront of a robotic future and lead advances in technology? NO WAY!!!!