Last July car parts as heavy as a small horse fell on Renee Berry. Three surgeries later she has metal rods, bolts and screws up her arms and cannot lift her two-year-old grandchild. In her 14 years working on the assembly line at the Volkswagen plant in Chattanooga, Tennessee, she found the factory floor to be disorganised and unsafe. Eventually she joined a union drive to persuade her colleagues to take action. When workers voted in late April to make Volkswagen the first foreign carmaker in the South to unionise, Ms Berry fell to the floor in joy, raised her hands and called out: “Thank you, Lord, you heard our cry.”
The United Auto Workers (UAW) union hopes that the Volkswagen victory will set off a domino effect across the sunbelt, a region that has long been hostile to labour organisers. But was the win a fluke or a bellwether? That question will soon be tested: next week 6,100 workers at the Mercedes-Benz plant in Vance, Alabama, are due to vote on whether to unionise. There, things look less favourable for the UAW.
In the 1980s carmakers began moving from the Midwest to the South, where regulation was sparse and states offered vast subsidies to newcomers. With the rise of globalisation southern politicians made the region competitive by keeping unions out and holding wages down. Right-to-work laws, which let workers opt out of paying union dues, bolstered the strategy. As carmakers from overseas set up factories in towns with more churches than traffic lights, assembly lines at Detroit’s “Big Three”—General Motors, Ford and what was once Chrysler—slimmed down. Today 30% of America’s automotive jobs are south of the Mason-Dixon line.
Down South foreign firms honed what Stephen Silvia, author of “The UAW’s Southern Gamble”, calls America’s “union-avoidance playbook”. They put factories in places where workers lived far from each other, used questionnaires to screen out prospective hires sympathetic to organising—asking if they played school sports or served in the army to gauge their obedience to authority, for example—showed anti-union clips on break-room televisions and cosied up to pastors and mayors by donating to town fundraisers. For years that worked. The UAW’s Bible Belt efforts failed repeatedly at Nissan, Toyota, Mercedes and Volkswagen.
Three things set the stage for this year’s pivot. The first was a revamp of the UAW. After years of falling membership, the union’s organising muscles had atrophied by the time Shawn Fain was elected president in March 2023. But once in office he sprang into action. By November strikes at the Big Three had led to record pay rises for hundreds of thousands of workers. Those left out of the deals looked on with new appreciation for what the union could do, and the union set its sights on tougher targets.
The second factor was Joe Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act, his administration’s flagship climate bill, which so far has spurred $123bn of investments in green manufacturing. Nowhere is benefiting more than the south-east, where over 100 projects have been announced. Mercedes is building a battery plant near Vance and Volkswagen has made Chattanooga its new electric-vehicle hub. More money and more jobs make it harder for the companies to leave, says Michael Gilliland, who worked on the Volkswagen union campaign. The flow of federal funds also makes firms less beholden to conservative state politicians.
Attention from Europe was the third catalyst for change. The president of Volkswagen’s German works council, an employee group that works closely with management, urged workers in Chattanooga to unionise and reassured them that this would not put their jobs at risk. A new German law that punishes union-busting with fines of up to 2% of revenue could make corporate bosses in the South think twice about waging their usual war on organisers. In April the UAW filed a complaint to Germany’s export-control agency alleging that Mercedes’s actions in Vance had violated it. Though organisers at European firms may benefit from allies abroad, those at Asian ones like Hyundai, Kia, Nissan and Toyota may not.
Will the UAW’s success in Chattanooga prove contagious? Opponents of unionisation are determined to prevent that. On April 16th six southern governors published a letter warning of the “ugly reality” that unions put “jobs in jeopardy” and that the UAW cares more about “helping President Biden get re-elected” than about workers. One week later Georgia passed a bill barring union-friendly firms from state tax relief. And Kay Ivey, Alabama’s governor, instructed Mercedes in no uncertain terms to “fix” the problems that sparked the organising. (The company quickly replaced its American boss.)
The best or nothing
Before voting begins, supervisors in Vance are inundating workers with messages about the risks of unionising and pulling those they deem persuadable aside for one-on-one chats. Whereas Volkswagen mostly stayed mum, organisers say Mercedes is “100% in anti-union mode”. Its pushback resembles a campaign Nissan ran in 2017, which fended off a years-long UAW effort in Canton, Mississippi.
Still, Jeremy Kimbrell, who has worked at Mercedes since 2000, is bullish. He reckons his colleagues at the luxury carmaker’s highly profitable plant are finally fed up with what he calls “the Alabama discount”. “Why do we get paid less?” Mr Kimbrell asks. “Because we’re those dumb hicks down in Alabama,” he answers. “They came down here because we do the same work for less and won’t put up no fight.” No longer. Regardless of who wins next week, southern organisers will fight on.■
Stay on top of American politics with The US in brief, our daily newsletter with fast analysis of the most important electoral stories, and Checks and Balance, a weekly note from our Lexington columnist that examines the state of American democracy and the issues that matter to voters.
On July 20, Andy Burnham has been chosen to be the next Prime Minister in UK. The appointment of a new Prime Minister in the United Kingdom often raises questions from people outside the country, especially when no nationwide election has taken place. Many wonder how a new national leader can assume office without voters casting ballots. The answer lies in the UK’s parliamentary system, where the Prime Minister is not directly elected by the public but is instead chosen based on who commands the confidence of the House of Commons.
How the UK Selects Its Prime Minister
Unlike presidential systems where citizens vote directly for the head of government, the United Kingdom elects Members of Parliament (MPs) during a general election. The political party that secures a majority of seats in the House of Commons usually forms the government, and that party selects its own leader to serve as Prime Minister.
If the leader resigns, becomes unable to continue, or is replaced by their party, the governing party can choose a new leader without triggering a general election. As long as the new leader is able to maintain the confidence of Parliament, they can immediately become Prime Minister after being formally appointed by the monarch.
Why No Election Was Required
A general election is not automatically required every time the office of Prime Minister changes hands. The governing party retains its parliamentary majority because voters elected MPs rather than an individual Prime Minister. If the ruling party chooses a new leader through its internal leadership process, the government continues to operate without interruption.
This constitutional arrangement provides stability and allows the government to continue functioning during periods of political transition. It also avoids the expense and disruption of holding a nationwide election every time party leadership changes.
The King’s Constitutional Role
After a governing party elects a new leader, the monarch invites that individual to form a government. This constitutional step is largely ceremonial and follows long-established conventions. The King appoints the person most likely to command a majority in the House of Commons, ensuring continuity of government.
Although the monarch formally appoints the Prime Minister, political power rests with Parliament and the elected representatives of the British people.
Could an Election Still Happen?
Yes. A newly appointed Prime Minister has the authority to request a general election if they believe it is politically advantageous or if they seek a stronger public mandate. Parliament can also reach a point where a government loses the confidence of the House of Commons, potentially leading to an election or the formation of a new government.
In many cases, however, a new Prime Minister continues governing until the next scheduled general election.
What This Means for the UK
The UK’s parliamentary democracy is designed to ensure government continuity while respecting the results of the most recent general election. Leadership changes within the governing party do not automatically alter the composition of Parliament, which is why a new Prime Minister can take office without another nationwide vote.
Understanding this process helps explain why political transitions in the United Kingdom can appear different from those in countries with presidential systems. While the Prime Minister may change, the democratic mandate of Parliament remains in place until voters elect a new House of Commons at the next general election.
On July 21, 2026, global economic analysis shifts focus toward a defining structural macroeconomic trend: the massive expansion of public and private capital deployment into high-capacity electrical grid infrastructure. As industrial electrification, automated data center hubs, and renewable energy integration accelerate worldwide, sovereign governments and institutional investors are facing a monumental economic challenge. Updating legacy power grids to meet skyrocketing demand has emerged as a primary driver of long-term capital expenditures and industrial productivity across both developed and emerging market economies.
According to international economic policy updates released this week, grid infrastructure investments are projected to exceed multi-trillion-dollar thresholds over the coming decade. Economic planners caution that without modernized, high-voltage transmission networks, regional manufacturing sectors face severe energy bottlenecks, localized power price volatility, and operational constraints. Consequently, infrastructure spending is rapidly transitioning from passive utility maintenance into a vital component of national economic competitiveness and industrial policy.
The macroeconomic ripple effects of this capital deployment are being felt across global commodity markets and labor networks. High demand for structural industrial inputs—such as copper, aluminum, specialized electrical steel, and high-capacity transformers—has created sustained pricing support for critical material producers. Simultaneously, the specialized technical labor required to manufacture and deploy modern grid hardware is driving wage growth in industrial sectors, adding a complex new layer to central bank disinflation trajectories.
For global policymakers and strategic investors, the economics of energy grid modernization represent a double-edged sword. While massive infrastructure investment boosts short-term gross domestic product (GDP) and strengthens domestic industrial foundations, it requires disciplined fiscal allocation to prevent inflationary crowding-out of private capital. Countries that efficiently streamline grid infrastructure permitting and mobilize private investment will secure lower long-term energy costs, attracting high-tech manufacturing and reinforcing sustainable economic growth.
The international trade architecture entering the second half of 2026 is undergoing a profound structural pivot. As major sovereign economic blocs adjust to the long-term impact of unilateral tariffs and escalating regional subsidies, traditional globalized supply chains are being rapidly replaced by bilateral trade corridors and regional alliance networks. Data released in late July 2026 highlights a significant divergence: while cross-continental freight volumes between non-aligned partners have cooled, intra-regional trade throughout North America, Southeast Asia, and Eastern Europe has surged to record levels. This shift reflects a broader macroeconomic strategy wherein multinational corporations prioritize geopolitical resilience over pure cost minimization.
The primary economic catalyst behind this regionalization is the proliferation of sector-specific tariffs targeting critical industries, notably battery components, clean energy technology, and advanced semiconductor hardware. In response, global manufacturers have adopted multi-tier sourcing models that distribute production across intermediate partner nations before final assembly. While this strategy successfully bypasses primary import duties, it adds structural layers of logistical complexity and administrative oversight. Economists note that while total output remains robust, aggregate production costs have drifted upward, contributing to persistent baseline inflation across major consumer markets.
Simultaneously, currency settlement patterns within these regional blocs are experiencing a notable transformation. Sovereign central banks and commercial institutions are increasingly utilizing localized currency swap lines and digital clearing mechanisms to settle cross-border trade transactions. This transition reduces direct exposure to foreign exchange volatility and mitigates third-party liquidity constraints, further solidifying regional economic cohesion. However, for developing economies situated outside these primary trading alliances, the tightening of international trade networks presents severe challenges, restricting access to key export markets and foreign direct investment.
For corporate strategists and policy analysts navigating late 2026, success requires a thorough understanding of these emerging trade corridors. Organizations must conduct regular risk assessments of their multi-tier supplier networks, model tariff sensitivities under shifting geopolitical scenarios, and invest in real-time supply chain telemetry. As regional economic blocs strengthen their regulatory borders, supply chain agility and compliance fortitude will distinguish market leaders from vulnerable enterprises in the evolving global economy.
Economics4 days ago
Economics5 days ago
Economics4 days ago
Finance6 days ago
Leaders6 days ago
Finance4 days ago
Economics6 days ago
Accounting4 days ago