By last Friday, it was clear that the United Auto Workers rank and file found their new, no-strike contract rank, and filed their objections during voting. In other words, the union’s members rejected the deal. Which left Ford CEO Alan Mulally’s rep seriously dinged. After all, Big Al’s been talking-up Ford’s return to profitability ever since he banked that first $25 million paycheck. The union vote against the strike was a vote for Big Al’s plan. If he’d kept his mouth shut or, better yet, constantly warned against looming collapse, the UAW might have made the ultimate concession. But then investors wouldn’t have dumped more money into Ford and the Ford family members signing Mulally’s big ass paychecks would have been seriously spooked. Big Al can’t win from losing, as the Brits would say.

Read More >

Well, the “what makes an American car American” debate just got a little more interesting (and a lot more interesting than the “who ‘won’ the CTS-V Challenge” rigmarole). Automotive News [sub] reports that Ford’s Oakville, Ontario plant and GM’s Delta Township plant have ceased production of Flex, Edge, MKX, MKT, Acadia, Traverse and Enclave as supplier Rico Automotive is unable to supply key transmission components. The reason for the parts stoppage: labor violence… in India. Turmoil at Rico’s plant in Gurgaron (30 miles from New Delhi) came to a head on the 18th, when clashes between temporary workers and factory staff left an employee dead. Now GM stands to lose 7,200 units of production, while Ford admits “several thousand” units won’t be built over the next week. This striking illustration of how globalized the auto industry is, is causing some analysts to question the wisdom of using Indian suppliers. They argue that labor unrest like this is common in the subcontinent, compounding already-challenging logistical and shipping-cost issues. But GM and Ford aren’t exactly about to stop investing in Indian firms and production capacity either, since that market shows more growth potential than the US. One thing is for sure: there’s no such thing as an “American car,” let alone an “American car company” anymore. Government ownership notwithstanding.

It sure looks that way. The Detroit Free Press reports—without any commentary whatsoever—that six out of eight locals who’ve voted have rejected the deal. This despite the usual specter of United Auto Workers’ voter fraud/intimidation issue (contract votes are not subject to independent monitoring). To wit: “Details of tally not available” and “Number of represented workers not available” and “51% of workers who voted were for the deal” and “according to that unit’s Web site.” Not to mention this nugget from the main news story: “Not all UAW locals that have completed voting have divulged precise tallies, and UAW officials in Detroit have declined to provide details.” Anyway, it looks like the proposed contract with Ford is failing fast. So . . . now what? As we’ve said before, the usual M.O. is for the UAW to go back to the bargaining table, get the required headline change (no no strike clause) and return with the same basic deal as before. In these post-GM C11 days, a strike at Ford seems completely beyond the realm of possibility. But if push comes to shove, expect Ford—lauded as the non-bailout queen—to send more production outside the country. Which they have done and will do, anyway.

It gives me great pride to give UAW Local 435 workers the opportunity to partner with Fisker Automotive to create a greener America by building a plug-in hybrid car that will compete globally

So goes the line from Gary Casteel, the new Union boss for Fisker’s new Wilmington, Delaware plant at Automotive News [sub]. Why would the luxury EV startup hitch its wagon to the union that helped bring down Detroit? Was it a condition of GM’s sale of the plant where Pontiac Solstice/Saturn Sky were once built? Or does Fisker think that running a union shop might help bring in federal dross? Or are projected profit margins so strong that Fisker just doesn’t care? One thing’s for certain: though the UAW has agreed to a number of concessions over the past year, there’s a reason that most new US auto plants avoid union representation like the plague. From VW and Kia to Hybrid Kinetic Motors and Tesla, new US factories are being located in Southern states and California largely to escape the profit and productivity-sapping union. Either Fisker knows something that they don’t, or inviting the union into the new shop was a potential error of enormous magnitude.

And it wasn’t even close. Though the proposed concessions didn’t even move Ford to parity with its UAW-VEBA-owned cross-town rivals, 92 percent of the KC plant’s workers rejected the deal. According to The Detroit News, a UAW national Vice President tried to convince workers to accept the deal prior to the vote, but was apparently shouted down by angry employees. “(He) spoke and was booed,” said one worker who the DetN did not identify. “There were a lot of ‘No’s!’ It was a very loud meeting.” And apparently, it was the no-strike clause that got workers so steamed. Which makes a certain amount of sense… after all, what good is a union that can’t strike? The problem is that the no-strike clause was a crucial factor in convincing Fiat to take charge of Chrysler, an automaker the UAW ended up with a 60 percent stake in. And now, the worker’s rejection of a Ford agreement strikes an equally rippling blow to the UAW’s pattern-bargaining strategy. Can the UAW have it both ways? It sure looks like it’s going to try. Though KC was the first local rejection of the deal (five other plants narrowly approved it, two have rejected), a vote is approaching (on Friday) at the Dearborn Truck plant that has been a hotbed of UAW dissent. So much so, that it appears that UAW leadership may have delayed the Dearborn vote until after all the other locals’ votes. Still, if the Dearborn vote fails, which it well could, we could see major turmoil within the ranks of the UAW.

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.

Read More >

The tentative deal between Ford and UAW leadership has predictably run into trouble as it moves towards a vote by local leadership. Even though the deal would still fall short of the agreement reached with GM and Chrysler and Ford has sweetened the deal with $1,000 bonuses and 2,000 extra jobs, the union’s workers are spinning the deal into a union-breaking giveaway. “We just won’t have a union anymore if we do this,” a Dearborn Truck plant bargaining committee member tells the Freep. But the rank-and-file resistance is creating divisions between Ford, union leadership and workers. Even UAW President Ron Gettelfinger admits that “isn’t a concessionary agreement,” putting workers at odds with everyone else involved in negotiations. And their motivations for turning down the deal have to be bigger than mere frustration over $500m in labor savings already granted to Ford.

Read More >

Bloomberg is reporting that a deal between Ford and the UAW has been reached.  The deal is said to include a ban on most strikes, and wage freezes for new employees. In short, most of what it offered the automakers it holds equity stakes in. Of course, the deal still has to be approved by plant-level UAW leadership which tends to have a harder time understanding that not giving Ford these concessions makes the UAW look like its strangling a competitor to the OEMs it owns. “There’s a lot of sentiment against concessions inside the plant,” explains one Dearborn-based union. This despite the fact that Ford still won’t achieve parity with GM and Chrysler.

Read More >

The Wall Street Journal reports GM could conclude its Opel division sale by as early as Thursday, after Fritz Henderson and German officials both signaled that talks were nearing an end. Magna and its backer Sberbank will put down €500m ($740m) for 55 percent of Opel, while Opel’s labor unions have agreed to €265m worth of cost savings. The German government aid package said to total €4.5b through 2015 has yet to be finalized, but this apparently will not affect the deal. The major issue still under negotiation is the potential job loss across Europe, as the EU has already warned Germany that it my not “buy” jobs with its aid package at the expense of other EU nations. Which means Spain, Belgium, Britain and Poland still have to play “shuffle the jobs.” Magna has said that Opel could shed as many as 10,500 jobs, including 4,000 in Germany. On the upside Opel’s unions are getting ten percent of New Opel, although their decision making power is another of the issues still being negotiated. GM fought long and hard to prevent the sale of Opel to Magna/Sberbank, but with the major obstacles to the deal overcome there’s little left to do but grin and sign the papers. And then sit back and watch as Opel’s technology is leveraged to create a modern (and heavily subsidized) Russian auto industry which will challenge Chevy’s position in the Eastern European markets.

By all means, keep Sterling Heights Assembly Plant open . . . just use it to build something other than Sebrings. [via The Freep]

The Los Angeles Times reports Toyota has requested $2m in state training funds for workers at its NUMMI plant. The only problem? Toyota has already announced plans to close the Fremont, California, factory. The State of California’s Employment Training Panel had previously agreed to pay back the $2m Toyota spent for training at NUMMI, but since then Toyota and GM made the decision to end their joint venture at NUMMI and end production there. Toyota’s argument was summarized in a statement by NUMMI saying, “These skills have made our team members greater contributors to NUMMI and will make them more attractive to prospective employers when they conclude their employment here in April 2010.” But don’t count on that argument gaining much traction.

Read More >

The UAW’s Voluntary Employee Beneficiary Association funds were originally negotiated with each of the Detroit automakers, creating three separate funds to handle obligations for each of the OEM’s unionized workforces. But the turmoil of the bailout has left the VEBA funds gasping for cash. With the manufacturers unable to meet their VEBA obligations in cash, the union was forced to take significant stakes in GM and Chrysler instead. Now, the WSJ reports that the three VEBA funds will be unified into a single administrative body. Each automaker will have a separate account within the overall VEBA structure, but the unification should help keep down administrative costs. Still, the fact that significant amounts of Chrysler and GM equity will be held by the same body raises some important concerns.

Read More >

The Freep reports that Ford officials are meeting with the United Auto Workers Union today, to renegotiate elements of their labor contract. Reducing pay for entry-level workers and reducing skilled-trades job classifications are said to be at the top of Ford’s to-do list. And why not? GM got the UAW to agree to streamlined skilled-trade positions, an entry-level wage freeze, a performance bonus freeze and a no-strike agreement. Why wouldn’t the UAW do the same for Ford, just because the Blue Oval didn’t give up major ownership stakes to the union and its allies in government?

Read More >

The Detroit Free Press reports there’s “a $10-billion provision tucked deep inside thousands of pages of health care overhaul bills that could help the UAW’s retiree health-care plan and other union-backed plans. It would see the government — at least temporarily — pay 80 cents on the dollar to corporate and union insurance plans for claims between $15,000 and $90,000 for retirees age 55 to 64.” So the union giveth: accepting stock in GM and Chrysler in place of future, theoretical contributions to their health care VEBA (in addition to $3 billion cash payments). And the union taketh: scarfing $10 billion in federal health care payments. Did the UAW know this was coming down the pike? As the hunter in Jurassic Park said just before the raptors tore him to pieces, “clever girl.” The autoblogosphere is alight with accusations of “union payoff.” And for good reason . . .

Read More >

The Detroit News reports that New GM’s latest buyout offer to its [old] employees has been, as the Brits say, a bit of a damp squib. In fact, New GM wants to cut 21,000 hourly jobs (code: union) this year. So far, just 13,000 have headed for the door. Once again, still, the DetN puts a brave face on the bad news. “The total, announced Monday morning, helps GM cut hourly costs, close the gap in pay with foreign automakers that build vehicles domestically and could clear the way for GM to eventually hire lower-paid workers. Since 2006, about 66,000 U.S. hourly workers have accepted buyouts and early retirements.” Yes, well . . .

Read More >