Strikes, and the tension between management and labor that lead to them, go back more than 3,000 years. In ancient Egypt , in the first known strike, artisans working on the burial chambers of Pharaoh Ramesses III walked off the job complaining about insufficient rations.

Workers striking for more pay or better working conditions, then, is nothing new. Given that long history, most people probably believed that’s what the recent strike against GM, Ford, and Stellantis by the United Auto Workers union was all about. That would include, by the way, the autoworkers themselves.

But now, with the UAW reaching tentative agreements with Ford, Stellantis, and, most recently, GM, it is becoming clear that the strike was about something else.

The "Big Three" previously offered more than a 20% increase in base wages, as well as inflation protection for those higher wages, more time off, and thousands of dollars more annually to each worker’s retirement plan. But that wasn’t enough for UAW.

And that’s because this strike wasn’t about better pay, retirement benefits, and working conditions. Rather, it was part of the Left’s political battle to promote Marxism and its political initiatives — and not in the same general way that the labor union movement and leftist ideologies have been doing since either one of them began. The connection is specific: This strike was about “social justice.”

Take it from the UAW. “The UAW is back in the fight, and we are ready to stand united to win economic and social justice.” That was UAW President Shawn Fain just over a month ago.

Make no mistake: Fain is as much an American politician as Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) or Ted Cruz (R-TX).

One has to wonder how many of the men and women walking the picket line for $100 a day knew that one of their leaders is a former operative for Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT). Or that some of Fain’s top deputies have been members of the Democratic Socialists of America, the folks whom even Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) recently condemned as being “abhorrent and morally repugnant” for their reaction to the terrorist attacks against Israel on Oct. 7. Or that the Detroit Socialist newspaper recently acclaimed Fain’s takeover of the UAW as an “example of model DSA work.”

Or do the autoworkers know that the person bankrolling much of the UAW’s advocacy today is a billionaire whose other investments include the Intercept, a far-left media outlet that is so insurgent that the U.S. military banned its members from reading it?

The socialist chokehold on the leadership of the UAW is so pervasive that the New Hampshire Journal even ran a piece recently titled, “UAW Chief Fain’s Connections to Socialist Extremists Raise Concerns.”

Again, those who bothered to listen to UAW’s leadership could see clearly that this was a strike designed to advance socialist ideals. Fain’s backers even admitted that the purpose behind the strike wasn’t better pay or benefits. As socialist journalist Jane Slaughter noted on Fain’s rise: “[Did the DSA work to get him elected] because [we] think Fain will go in there … and get us COLA back and get us pensions back? No … [that] is doing good in the world, but it isn’t building power, and it isn’t socialist.”

Detroit’s automakers sought to strike a deal to address the legitimate interests of workers to increase wages, benefits, and promote job security. But they were rebuffed for weeks by crony union leaders who wanted to play politics at the expense of their members’ livelihoods and economic well-being. And with leaders like Fain, that’s what it always will be about — not about what’s best for autoworkers.

The grown-ups of the UAW, the men and women who work at Ford, GM, and Stellantis and not the cabal of 30-something wannabe socialist politicians who make up the union leadership team, need to stand up and take back control of their union. The lives of families, an industry, the state of Michigan, and even the nation depend on it.

Mick Mulvaney is a former member of Congress, budget director, and White House chief of staff.