This is a fun one. The UAW has made no-strike guarantees to Chrysler and GM as part of their restructuring deals. This makes a certain amount of sense, considering that the UAW’s VEBA trust holds significant portions of GM and Chrysler’s new equity. After all, it’s hard to both represent labor and look after your equity position at the same time. Ford, however, has not been generous enough to let the UAW have a chunk of its stock, and yet it feels as though it might be fair if the UAW were to make similar no-strike guarantees.
A no-strike clause is “one piece of the conversation we’re having with them,” Alan Mulally tells the Freep. “We continue to talk with them on improving our competitiveness.” This is not the first time Ford has publicly noted the competitive advantages “earned” by its bailout-receiving cross town rivals. Still, according to Bill Ford, nobody at Ford wants to join the American Leyland experience. “We don’t know what the implications are going to be,” he tells Reuters, “but one thing is for sure, I like our position. We can make quick decisions, we can make the long-term decisions and we can continue to work the plan we have in place with no distraction. The ability to do that with minimal distraction and to operate nimbly and efficiently and really focus on the customer . . . does give us an advantage.”
Ha! Good luck with that! Afetr all this mess and turmoil, most UAW workers I know STILL have that “it ain’t my job” mentality. Meaning, they only focus on job duties and descriptions and if a broom falls next to you, you don’t pick it up no matter what.
If the UAW owns competitors to Ford and the majority of their members work for those competitors, woudn’t they be best off sabotaging Ford? Worst case, Ford is forced to declare CH11 and is taken over by the Government and a large chunk is handed over to the UAW.
Even if it could obtain such a guarantee, how would it enforce it?
“We’re on strike!”
“But you promised not to!”
“We’re on strike!”
guyincognito The UAW is composed of smaller independent local UAW unions Their local officials are elected by the workers of those locals. So I hardly think the Ford union officials elected by ford workers would sabotage Ford to benefit GM.
Vash under the 1935 National Labor Relations Act wildcat strikes are illegal and those strikers can legally be fired.
They can only strike when a contract has expired and they go on strike after a vote of the membership is called by the union leadership. Otherwise its a wildcat strike.
Vash :
Even if it could obtain such a guarantee, how would it enforce it?
“We’re on strike!”
“But you promised not to!”
“We’re on strike!”
Yeah, my thoughts exactly.
Sherman Lin:
Vash under the 1935 National Labor Relations Act wildcat strikes are illegal and those strikers can legally be fired.
They can only strike when a contract has expired and they go on strike after a vote of the membership is called by the union leadership. Otherwise its a wildcat strike.
I hear you, but our courts have already chosen to ignore the rule of law on several occasions. What’s to prevent the unions from doing what Vash says and what’s to prevent some court from siding with the union anyhow?
I bet the union is going to ask for binding arbitration before a neutral third party arbitrator if they give up the right to strike. Whether they get that or not is debatable.
What’s to prevent the unions from doing what Vash says and what’s to prevent some court from siding with the union anyhow?
It’s hard to believe how much resistance in the US there is to labor having a say in the running of a company. The way you make people accountable to the fortunes of the organization is to give them a say in how it’s run, it’s not a difficult concept and is actually critical to building an efficient corporation.
Unions will form and eventually evolve into the UAW as described in all the bad old stories when an ‘us against them’ attitude is ingrained in the corporate structure.
Zoomzoom Unions get a bad rap for a lot of things many of them are deserved, But this is basic labor law. first the NLRB makes a ruling if there is something like this going on. Yes the democrats are in power but this has been going on since 1935 and we have had a lot of Democrats in office since 1935 and we have had a lot of Democratic congresses since 1935 but that hasn’t changed these rulings. Union officials know this. No union official is going to authorize an unauthorized strike on the assumption that a friendly court is going to rule in favor of them after they have been fired.
Hi, Sherman.
My reference was not about Democrats in office, nor about Democrat-controlled congresses or even about the party of the occupant of the Oval Office.
My reference was purely about the courts, which are ostensibly not (supposed to be) partisan at all. The source of my concern is that it is the courts who have shown a willingness to ignore the rule of law, or to willfully ignore or not enforce the rule of law when one or the other political party or a non-governmental entity such as a business steps awry of the law.
I am worried that inconsistent application of the law is having the effect of reducing the strength of the law in people’s minds. Human nature being what it is, adaptation will soon follow. A wildcat strike might soon be considered akin to spitting on the street; no big deal.
So we are going to have Ford on one side of the table and the UAW+US gob’ment on the other.
We call this dealing from a position of weakness.
Ford is going to give this a good shot, but the competitive advantage coupled with new friends in Washington have a vested interest in Ford not succeeding quite as well as the other 2 is problematic.
I think if you are going to buy American go Ford while you still can. Deny the other 2 the revenue and add money to the Ford war chest. For the UAW isn’t just going to want salary and benefits, they are going to go right in there and ask for 1/3rd to 1/2 the company as owners. If they walked away with big chunks of the other two, they are going to feel entitled to Ford as well. Ford will either fork over a large chunk of the company currently owned by the Ford family to the UAW, or face a crippling strike. Unlike previous negotiations, they can’t wait to see what the other 2 agree to and go along with it.
There is that big word entitled. It will be prominent on the tombstone of this country.
“If the UAW owns competitors to Ford and the majority of their members work for those competitors, woudn’t they be best off sabotaging Ford?”
You need to read up on the history of United airline. The unions had with a controlling interest in UAL, but they still violated their contract by conducting slow downs and wildcats. They were quite content to run UAL into C11 where they lost their ownership interest.
This has been my concern from the beginning of this ordeal. The UAW owns major shares of Ford’s two competitors. Forget the wildcat strike issue. The big concern is when the contract term is up. Will there be no-stike clauses at GM and Chrysler at that time? Then who is going to be the target for the new contract? My guess is Ford.
This has always struck me as a major conflict, where a majority of the membership of the UAW (that is, non-Ford members) would benefit from Ford losing market share to GM and Chrysler if that would boost the stock price. So long as Ford is wounded but still in business, they still have to pay into the VEBA. The VEBA then benefits from the increased value of GM and Chrysler. HMMMMMM.
I have some labor background, and I have to say that any faith in the power of a “No Strike” clause is naieve.
There’s a loophole as big as a house in the “Wildcat strikes equal right to fire strikers” laws. Nobody EVER has a wildcat strike over pay or benefits or working conditions.
Nope. That’s because the NLRB has ruled that
“Employees who strike over safety conditions or unfair labor practices have the right to be rehired when the strike is over except for those who are convicted of crimes including tresspassing during the strike”.
You can look it up. Need I say more?
http://books.google.com/books?id=HdMZTS0WjeoC&pg=PA200&lpg=PA200&dq=strike+over+safety+issues+nlrb&source=bl&ots=5k1M2D_49z&sig=1TOpjMmoCLbd9cukbsAhN0t53Lc&hl=en&ei=YdU6SrDwF6DcMKeb7a4F&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1
I just hope Ford can ride it out. If they can they’ll be the only domestic in a few years. I just hope the bailout backlash continues.
Currently they do not have a “no strike clause” and strikes are illegal except when the contract has expired and yes strikes can be called over a safety issue. They are asking for an additional no strike clause. So how many wildcat strikes has Ford been a victim of?