When the Detroit uses the word “misunderstanding” in the lede graph of a story about The United Auto Workers (UAW), you just know there is some serious negotiation, posturing, ass-covering and ass-kicking going on behind the scenes. In this case, it seems that the union’s members are not happy about a no-strike clause in their proposed contract with Ford. “The Detroit News has learned that the [no-strike] language, which was included in recent contract changes the UAW negotiated with General Motors Co. and Chrysler Group LLC, was mandated by the Obama administration as a condition of its bailout of the two companies. It was designed to ensure the competitive gains that were forced through by the White House could not be reversed in 2011 contract negotiations between GM and Chrysler and the UAW, according to people familiar with the situation.” What’s this got to do with Ford? Can you say “pattern bargaining?” It seems that the UAW, who practically invented the term, can’t quite bring themselves to use it now. Or keep their members in the loop.
Dissident leader Gary Walkowicz, a bargaining committee member at UAW Local 600 who represents workers at Dearborn Truck, said union leaders already abandoned pattern bargaining by granting additional concessions to GM and Chrysler.
“If they want a pattern agreement, they should bring GM and Chrysler back up to where we’re at,” he said, adding that he opposes any limits on the union’s right to stop working.
“It strikes at the very heart of what a union is. Without it, they’ll have no reason to protect our pay and benefits.”
Walkowicz accused union leaders of purposely delaying the vote at his factory until next Friday so that a “no” vote there would not encourage other plants to oppose ratification. At the same time, some workers at factories that have approved the agreement are accusing union leaders of vote fraud. As a result, Walkowicz is calling on national UAW leaders to open vote counting to rank-and-file members.
The UAW would not comment, but local leaders, including UAW Local 600 President Jerry Sullivan, accuse dissidents of spreading “misinformation” about the no-strike language to prevent ratification.
Ain’t politics grand? Meanwhile, I wonder how oversight over the UAW’s VEBA gazillions is going right about now. Anyone looking into that?
Business as usual at Local 600.
UAW-accept Ford’s offer and move on. Be glad you still have an American job.
Bottom line: a UAW strike at Ford is about as likely as yours truly becoming the next Pope.
A strike is unlikely in this environment, but that’s not really the problem. The union is hesitant to have their most valuable tool removed from their toolbox, and rightly so. Once removed, it is almost certainly gone for good, kind of like a “temporary” tax becoming permanent. The UAW knows that a concession like that will render the union a “paper tiger”. They would be a fool to allow this to happen. Of course, a battle like this will be spun by Fox News into a story about how greedy auto workers are trying to take advantage when the economy is weak. No doubt they’re not going to see any problem with financial industry execs getting fat bonuses though.
Consider the “new” Ford under CEO Alan Mulally is pro cooperation with the UAW and taking care of workers, supplier/partners and customers. The UAW would be FU#%*NG STUPID to vote no on this contract and put Ford at a disadvantage to Gov’t Motors and Crisisler. Without it, the UAW should be at risk of losing their jobs, exactly the reason automakers are moving more production out of the USA… its all the UAW fault.
golden2husky: The UAW knows that a concession like that will render the union a “paper tiger”. They would be a fool to allow this to happen.
In many respects it already is, courtesy of the non-union transplant factories. The union just doesn’t realize it yet.
What are the legal implications of the UAW calling a strike at a plant that makes Ford F-150s, for example, when their pension has a large ownership stake in major competitors GM and Chrysler? Looks like a potential conflict of interest. I think the Ford contract should require the UAW to not strike at Ford as long as the UAW pension fund holds greater than some percentage stock at their major competitors.
I understand that this business of a “No Strike” was for this contract only? and yes there is always a better way to deal with Companies than having the Strike as the last resort, especially in these days of depression and most companies moving jobs to low paying Countries, ie the Companies are greedy and in the end we will all pay up for this by having less work here in North America and probably not the best vehicles available.
Of course, a battle like this will be spun by Fox News into a story about how greedy auto workers are trying to take advantage when the economy is weak.
You mean like how the Democrats are specifically exempting government workers from any proposed tax on “Cadillac” health plans? You know, those same government workers that make on average 30% than private sector workers? You know, those same government workers that have been insulated from the current recession as the government job rolls increase.
I’m no big fan of organized labor but I like to believe I’m sympathetic to the average working stiff. We’ve seen plenty of comment about the UAW “job bank” where surplus autoworkers were paid not to work. We’ve seen far fewer comments about how every day there are thousands of postal workers who are paid to do nothing because they can’t be transferred to other tasks. We’ve also seen few mentions of the NYC public schools’ “rubber rooms” where inept teachers are paid to do nothing because it’s less expensive to pay them than to fire them, thanks to the power of public employee unions.
As bad as the UAW and other organized labor is, they are saints compared to the public employees who belong to SEIU and AFSCME.
If you don’t recognize the famous picture that accompanies this article, be sure to read the caption that appears when the cursor moves over the image. The assault by Harry Bennett’s goons on UAW leaders was a defining moment for the union. It serves the same purpose as GOP’s “waving the bloody shirt” for decades after the Civil War.
The question is, can UAW members fully grasp that Bennett is no longer in charge of FoMoCo’s labor relations? That their wages and benefits are really quite good? And that Ford is broke and hanging on to the edge of the cliff by its fingernails? A blowup in the Mideast could quickly put Ford in bankruptcy court. Maybe UAW members are convinced they are so mistreated they ought to strike annually anyway.
Thankfully, if I tune in CBS news or read the NY Times I’ll be reassured that the real problem is evil management, whose sole objective is cheating workers out of their pitiful wages.
Would the UAW strike a struggling Ford?
Well, they struck GM as recently as 2007, didn’t they?
I saw some talk this week that Ford may somehow record a profit for 3Q 2009.
The dilemma in Dearborn – show profit to please the bankers and shareholders, or show loss so we can get a better deal from the UAW. I’m sure either way there’s some creative accounting and explaining taking place these days.
You know, those same government workers that make on average 30% than private sector workers?…
Could you back that up with a non-biased source(s)? I will agree with you that government workers are better insulated from the recession but the price for that is typically a lower wage. When I was looking to change jobs 11 years ago, I had the opportunity to interview for a “City” job. The position was for an electrical engineer. I found that the jobs offered by the City were paying 15 to 20% less than I could get in the private sector. Of course the benefit package erased much of the disadvantage but in no way did it fully erase the pay differential, let alone surpass it. Funny that during the flush times the government jobs are looked down on (I chose to stay in the private sector) yet when times get tight, government employment starts looking pretty good.
The UAW would be FU#%*NG STUPID to vote no on this contract and put Ford at a disadvantage to Gov’t Motors and Crisisler.
Why? The UAW now owns big chunks of Chrysler and GM, so the UAW has a strong reason to favor Chrysler and GM over Ford in contract negotiations. Plus, if Ford is pushed into chapter 11, it will probably get the same treatment as Chrysler and GM — meaning Obama will hand a big chunk of ‘New Ford’ to the UAW. So you could argue that it is in the UAW’s interest to drive Ford into C11.
You gotta be kidding me if you think public sector employees make more money than private sector workers.
They make less money and get raises less often. The trade off is better benefits and better job security. It is good to be a government worker in a recession but it sucks during the boom times when everyone is making more money than you and getting big raises. So pick your poison.
Yeah, I work for the city. Glibertarian asswipes spewing platitudes about how public employees do nothing should shadow us for a few days.
re: BDB:
You’re working for the wrong government if you aren’t being paid more:
http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/Careers/10/11/cb.government/index.html
Working for the government should pay less but be more secure, but now it pays more and is more secure. That’s not good for the future of the country. And I’m a liberal.
no_slusbox–
I’m a city planner. There’s really no private sector equivalent so I can’t compare (well, maybe my arch-nemesis–the developer. Well, sort of, and I guarantee you they make more)
That link you sent me pretty much makes it look like a wash overall. In some professions the private sector pays more, in some professions the public sector does. But do those salary numbers include benefits along with paychecks?
All I know is that my friends in the private sector were doing much better than me financially until the recession. Now they’re envious. I’m sure the worm will turn the other way, again, in two years though. I picked security over earning potential, and for now I’m glad I did.
And I also agree with you that the public sector SHOULD pay less. One should enter government to serve the public, not to become wealthy.
BDB: There’s really no private sector equivalent so I can’t compare (well, maybe my arch-nemesis–the developer. Well, sort of, and I guarantee you they make more)
Developers are typically the CEO of their respective companies, so the comparable position to a developer would be the mayor (or county executive).
The developer probably makes more money than the mayor, but his/her salary is probably also much riskier and more cyclical in nature.
BDB: All I know is that my friends in the private sector were doing much better than me financially until the recession.
It depends…I know that, before the recession, my friends in the private sector had higher SALARIES, but also had no pensions – if they wanted a retirement account, they had to put money in their 401(k). If they were lucky, their employer made a matching contribution. They also had to pay more for their health benefits.
At the end of the day, they didn’t necessarily have more money to spend than I did – at least, if they were thinking of the future by contributing to their 401(k)s.