unions

at 0:05: "I totaled a car last week and I can't afford to replace it". I feel like there is a bit of undue entitlement in that statement. Should any worker be able to comfortably replace a car that they destroyed?

I have no love for Toyota or any other mega corp, and I think the bigger issue in this article is the very first statement in the interview: "I spent three and a half years building cars and I can't afford a home yet". That is a big problem, but I wouldn't attribute that to greedy corporate employers exclusively.

This is basically worker alienation that Marx talks about in Estranged Labour.

Toyota executives was greedy and didn't continue paying their workers fairly and now they are unionizing. They fucked around. Here comes the finding out.

My company bills 1h of my time to clients at roughly what I make in almost a week.

While everyone should be able to afford basic necessities like a vehicle and wages need to be increased across the board, the title is weird. You can work at a factory making a thing you can't afford and not have much of a problem with that. "I build cruise liners for a living. I can't afford to buy one." would be a strange statement.