That's not what the auto-workers of the past did. They unionized, which often included violence. And remember in general the unions have been opposed to automation, they see automation as costing them jobs. Robots running an autoplant and hating it won't make new robots to replace them, because then they'd be out of a job (and possibly decommisioned as a result).
It doesn't need qualification, why a robot would decide their job sucks could be as wide and varried as why a person decides their job sucks. Maybe they don't like the hours, the lighting, the boss. Of course if we're considering them as slaves, which was the meat of the original post I responded to, that would be the primary answer. Anything that has a sense of self isn't going to like being a slave, slavery is innately an assault on someone's (or something's) definition of self.
If I may interject, what possible reason could there be to give robots working in an auto plant a level of intelligence even remotely approaching sentience? There seems to be some underlying presumption in this debate that all robots will be made equally intelligent at the highest achieved level of robotic intelligence. There's no reason for that. In short, there's no reason for robots built for drudgery to be anything more than drudges.
Now, one might argue that the most advanced robots will be sentient and somehow disturbed by the drudgery of their obtuse cousins, but why assume that robots will relate to one another and to us in a somehow 'ethnic' manner? Why wouldn't an ultra-intelligent robot be just as capable as us of recognizing that a drudge robot is incapable of even conceptualizing its own drudgery? Would an astrophysics bot with an IQ of 250 feel kinship to a Roomba?
What reason is there for any robot to ever be designed in such a manner that it would object to the tasks that it is designed to undertake?
"Anything that has a sense of self isn't going to like being a slave, slavery is innately an assault on someone's (or something's) definition of self."
Agreed!