According to a Wall Street Journal article, in Kentucky the chant on the shop floor is "beat Kansas City," referring to the 92% rejection of the contract at KCAP.
http://www.freep.com/article/20091027/BUSINESS01/91027022/1322/More-Ford-workers-show-opposition-to-changes
Posted: 10:07 a.m. Oct. 27, 2009 Updated: 3:30 p.m. today
More Ford workers show opposition to changes
By BRENT SNAVELY
FREE PRESS BUSINESS WRITER
A majority of voters at three additional UAW units have voted to reject proposed cost-saving contract changes at Ford Motor Co., the Free Press learned today, providing additional evidence that opposition to the agreement is widespread.
The UAW represents 41,000 workers at Ford, and UAW locals representing more than 12,000, or 29% of autoworkers, have now concluded their vote.
Final ratification is based on a simple majority of the total votes cast by two separate classes: production workers and skilled-trades workers. Not all UAW locals that have completed voting have divulged precise tallies, and UAW officials in Detroit have declined to provide details.
So far, a majority of workers at just two UAW local units — UAW Local 900 in Wayne and workers represented by UAW Local 1250 in Brook Park, Ohio — have voted in favor of the deal.
Meanwhile, a majority of workers at six UAW locals for Ford facilities have now voted against the deal. Voting is to continue through Monday.
On Monday, 80% of workers at UAW Local 228, which represents more than 2,000 workers at Ford’s Sterling Heights axle plant, voted to reject the proposal, according to Brian Pannebecker, a worker at the plant, who favored the agreement.
“Now we are going to be putting ourselves at a labor cost disadvantage with Chrysler and GM, just like we were with Toyota and Honda five years ago, not to mention possibly losing work that could have stayed here,” Pannebecker said in an e-mail to the Free Press.
But many other workers at UAW Local 228 and other UAW units across the country oppose the contract.
Members of UAW Local 898, who work at Ford’s Rawsonville Plant in Ypsilanti, voted to reject the contract, with 52% voting no, according to that unit’s Web site. A total of 476 votes were cast by members of that unit with 248 voting against the proposal.
Meanwhile, 73% of Ford UAW workers at Ford’s Mustang plant in Flat Rock voted no on Monday, said Gary Walkowicz, a bargaining committeeman at UAW Local 600 and leader of a group that is opposed to the proposed changes.
“What I was hearing from people before the vote is what I’m seeing in these results,” Walkowicz said.
Officials at UAW Local 3000, which represents about 2,400 workers hourly at the plant, could not be reached for comment this afternoon.
The tentative agreement, which was recommended by the UAW’s leadership earlier this month, calls for a wage freeze for entry-level workers, a commitment to binding arbitration in 2011 for disagreements over pay and benefit increases and a consolidation of skilled-trades classifications.
In return, Ford has agreed to provide additional work to a number of plants.
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
Monday, October 26, 2009
Twin Cities "Vote No" leaflet
Here is the leaflet being distributed at Twin Cities Assembly against the new UAW-Ford contract. I'll add text, links and more material later.
Sunday, May 17, 2009
Text of second Brett for VP election leaflet
Why I Won't Accept More Than the Average TCAP Wage-
A number of people have asked me why I’ve made a pledge to not accept more than the average wage of a TCAP worker. I see it as a way of proving my commitment to our membership. I think that in order to genuinely represent someone, no leader should be making more than the average wage.
I’m running for Vice President because we’ve seen an explosion of inequality in society. Workers have been under attack while the bankers and CEOs responsible for this crisis get millions in bonuses. Unfortunately, our unions have proven unable to organize a fight against this, partly because 6-figure salaries of some officials put them out of touch with their rank and file members.
I believe it’s important to lead by example, to show a willingness to make personal sacrifice for our membership. If someone isn’t living and working in the same conditions, how can they defend you? Is it any wonder that Ron Gettelfinger, who made over $160,000 last year, thinks it’s okay to pay a worker $14/hour?
We now have three different wage tiers in our factory. This as an attempt by the company to divide us, which makes it easier to further attack all of our wages, benefits and jobs. This is why I organized opposition to the introduction of two-tier wages in 2007.
If elected, I will fight to raise everybody’s wages. But if the company hires more TCAP workers at entry-level wages and the average goes down, I will voluntarily cut my pay. I will donate the rest to a suitable labor or community organization.
A number of people have asked me why I’ve made a pledge to not accept more than the average wage of a TCAP worker. I see it as a way of proving my commitment to our membership. I think that in order to genuinely represent someone, no leader should be making more than the average wage.
I’m running for Vice President because we’ve seen an explosion of inequality in society. Workers have been under attack while the bankers and CEOs responsible for this crisis get millions in bonuses. Unfortunately, our unions have proven unable to organize a fight against this, partly because 6-figure salaries of some officials put them out of touch with their rank and file members.
I believe it’s important to lead by example, to show a willingness to make personal sacrifice for our membership. If someone isn’t living and working in the same conditions, how can they defend you? Is it any wonder that Ron Gettelfinger, who made over $160,000 last year, thinks it’s okay to pay a worker $14/hour?
We now have three different wage tiers in our factory. This as an attempt by the company to divide us, which makes it easier to further attack all of our wages, benefits and jobs. This is why I organized opposition to the introduction of two-tier wages in 2007.
If elected, I will fight to raise everybody’s wages. But if the company hires more TCAP workers at entry-level wages and the average goes down, I will voluntarily cut my pay. I will donate the rest to a suitable labor or community organization.
Text of Brett for VP election leaflet
This is the text from the leaflet distributed throughout the plant on Thursday, May 7th:
Vote Brett Hoven for Vice President
A new voice for a new era
Who am I?
24 years old
TPT with 2 years seniority
Paint dept zone F
Community activist in labor solidarity, anti-war and lgbt rights movements
My name is Brett and I’m running for Vice President. I opposed the introduction of entry-level wages in the 2007 contract, which is a clear strategy to divide workers and destroy solidarity.
My father has worked in TCAP for over 24 years; my stepmom just retired last year. I was raised on union wages and benefits and I would like to see future generations have the same opportunity.
I’ve met auto activists from around the country and world, from Detroit to Berlin. We’re all facing the same problems. If we are going to stop any more attacks on our wages and living standards, we have to work together to defend all autoworkers. That’s what “solidarity” is all about. We need leaders with a spirit of self-sacrifice for the greater good.
If elected, I will refuse to accept more than the average wage of a TCAP worker. I will voluntarily donate everything above that to a suitable labor or community organization.
How can we save the auto industry?
We’re in the middle of the biggest economic crisis since the 1930s. We’ve seen trillions given to the banks while millions of workers are losing their jobs. Against this background, the auto industry has collapsed.
The Big Three are going through a painful restructuring process. Workers are being made to pay for the mistakes of the CEOs. Chrysler is now going through bankruptcy and GM just announced over 20,000 new job cuts.
In this recession, we can’t afford to lose more jobs or suffer more attacks that further undermine workers’ ability to buy new cars. The strategy of the UAW leadership has been to put up token resistance to cuts, but ultimately to accept that we have to make cuts.
We need a new strategy and a new plan to confront this radically different situation. Things aren’t going to go back to the way they were anytime soon. But we should look at this not only as a time of crisis, but also an opportunity. Billions of dollars are being invested by the government right now to produce green technologies. We should be fighting for this money to be invested in keeping our plant open and saving our jobs.
If I am elected, I will use my skills and experience as a community activist/organizer to do everything possible to build the kind of movement that is capable of doing this. It wouldn’t be easy, but if we mobilize our membership, organize community support and develop a clear plan, it is possible.
These are extraordinary times. We need a vision and a plan to take advantage of the changes taking place in society.
Vote Brett Hoven for Vice President
A new voice for a new era
Who am I?
24 years old
TPT with 2 years seniority
Paint dept zone F
Community activist in labor solidarity, anti-war and lgbt rights movements
My name is Brett and I’m running for Vice President. I opposed the introduction of entry-level wages in the 2007 contract, which is a clear strategy to divide workers and destroy solidarity.
My father has worked in TCAP for over 24 years; my stepmom just retired last year. I was raised on union wages and benefits and I would like to see future generations have the same opportunity.
I’ve met auto activists from around the country and world, from Detroit to Berlin. We’re all facing the same problems. If we are going to stop any more attacks on our wages and living standards, we have to work together to defend all autoworkers. That’s what “solidarity” is all about. We need leaders with a spirit of self-sacrifice for the greater good.
If elected, I will refuse to accept more than the average wage of a TCAP worker. I will voluntarily donate everything above that to a suitable labor or community organization.
How can we save the auto industry?
We’re in the middle of the biggest economic crisis since the 1930s. We’ve seen trillions given to the banks while millions of workers are losing their jobs. Against this background, the auto industry has collapsed.
The Big Three are going through a painful restructuring process. Workers are being made to pay for the mistakes of the CEOs. Chrysler is now going through bankruptcy and GM just announced over 20,000 new job cuts.
In this recession, we can’t afford to lose more jobs or suffer more attacks that further undermine workers’ ability to buy new cars. The strategy of the UAW leadership has been to put up token resistance to cuts, but ultimately to accept that we have to make cuts.
We need a new strategy and a new plan to confront this radically different situation. Things aren’t going to go back to the way they were anytime soon. But we should look at this not only as a time of crisis, but also an opportunity. Billions of dollars are being invested by the government right now to produce green technologies. We should be fighting for this money to be invested in keeping our plant open and saving our jobs.
If I am elected, I will use my skills and experience as a community activist/organizer to do everything possible to build the kind of movement that is capable of doing this. It wouldn’t be easy, but if we mobilize our membership, organize community support and develop a clear plan, it is possible.
These are extraordinary times. We need a vision and a plan to take advantage of the changes taking place in society.
Friday, May 8, 2009
Under Restructuring, GM To Build More Cars Overseas
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/07/AR2009050704336.html
Under Restructuring, GM To Build More Cars Overseas
By Peter Whoriskey, Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, May 8, 2009
The U.S. government is pouring billions into General Motors in hopes of reviving the domestic economy, but when the automaker completes its restructuring plan, many of the company's new jobs will be filled by workers overseas.
According to an outline the company has been sharing privately with Washington legislators, the number of cars that GM sells in the United States and builds in Mexico, China and South Korea will roughly double.
The proportion of GM cars sold domestically and manufactured in those low-wage countries will rise from 15 percent to 23 percent over the next five years, according to the figures contained in a 12-page presentation offered to lawmakers in response to their questions about overseas production.
As a result, the long-simmering argument over U.S. manufacturers expanding production overseas -- normally arising between unions and private companies -- is about to engage the Obama administration.
Essentially in control of the company, the president's autos task force faces an awkward choice: It can either require General Motors to keep more jobs at home, potentially raising labor costs at a company already beset with financial woes, or it can risk political fury by allowing the automaker to expand operations at lower-cost manufacturing locations.
"It's an almost impossible dilemma," said former labor secretary Robert B. Reich, now a professor at the University of California-Berkeley. "GM is a global company -- so for that matter is AIG and the biggest Wall Street banks. That means that bailing them out doesn't necessarily redound to the benefit of the U.S. or American workers.
"More significantly, it raises fundamental questions about the purpose of bailing out these big companies. If GM is going to do more of its production overseas, then why exactly are we saving GM?"
The administration has aroused similar complaints by shepherding a merger between Chrysler and Italian automaker Fiat. But it has extracted a promise from Fiat that it will build small cars in the United States.
The complaints about GM's operations portend a potentially larger argument, a political dispute led in part by the United Auto Workers.
"The bottom line is GM would rather pay $2 an hour -- and it's a slippery slope downward," said Alan Reuther, the UAW's legislative director. "If GM is going to be getting government assistance, they ought to be maintaining their manufacturing footprint in the U.S. rather than going off to China, Mexico and South Korea."
Labor costs in those countries are far lower. While paying a U.S. autoworker with benefits costs about $54 an hour, a South Korean worker earns about $22 an hour, a Mexican worker earns less than $10 an hour and some Chinese workers can earn as little as $3 an hour, industry sources said.
On Tuesday and Wednesday, GM chief executive Fritz Henderson met with legislators and sought to ease their concerns over the overseas operations.
He emphasized that the company, which is shuttering factories at home, is also canceling projects in Mexico, Russia and India.
He also assured legislators that none of the figures are final, and that negotiations with the union are ongoing.
"We continue to work closely with GM, UAW, and all the stakeholders to further refine and develop GM's plan," a Treasury spokesman said.
The U.S. government has loaned GM $15.4 billion. But billions more are expected to be invested, and under the current plan, it will be the majority owner of the company.
The company forecasts that between 2010 and 2014, as the recession recedes, its U.S. sales will rise from 2.4 million to 3.1 million.
Most of that growth -- about two-thirds of it -- will occur in the United States. But about one-third of that growth will come from other countries, mostly Mexico and South Korea.
Those proportions roughly reflect how GM builds the cars it sells in the United States today -- about two-thirds come from the United States and one-third from other countries.
According to the figures shared with lawmakers, the percentage of GM's U.S. sales of cars built in the United States dips from 67 percent in 2009 to 61 percent in 2012. Yet the company projects that by 2014 the percentage will rebound to 66 percent.
Under the viability plan, "the U.S. percentage stays roughly the same," Henderson said in an interview last week.
But the union and some legislators object that the company's U.S.-funded revival should not help pay for expanding foreign operations. Moreover, they believe that planned cuts in Canadian production -- down 23 percent -- will have direct effects on U.S. jobs because the U.S. and Canadian auto industries are so intertwined.
"If you are shutting down plants in this country, U.S. tax dollars should not go for building plants in other countries," said Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio), who was among those who met with Henderson.
But company officials and industry analysts have long argued that, even putting aside the issue of labor costs, it makes logistical sense to build some cars in other countries, even if they are destined for sale in the United States.
Take, for example, the Chevrolet Spark, a tiny car that GM sells in South Korea and elsewhere in Asia. In the next few years, the company plans to send some of those cars -- which are built in Changwon -- to the United States for sale.
But since only about 5 percent of the car's market will be in the United States, the manufacturing will remain in South Korea.
Analysts who study the auto companies and their global operation warn against allowing political passions to obstruct GM's efficiency.
"If we start making political decisions with the auto industry, we're going to be in tremendous trouble," said Michael Robinet, vice president of global vehicle forecasts at CSM Worldwide.
Under Restructuring, GM To Build More Cars Overseas
By Peter Whoriskey, Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, May 8, 2009
The U.S. government is pouring billions into General Motors in hopes of reviving the domestic economy, but when the automaker completes its restructuring plan, many of the company's new jobs will be filled by workers overseas.
According to an outline the company has been sharing privately with Washington legislators, the number of cars that GM sells in the United States and builds in Mexico, China and South Korea will roughly double.
The proportion of GM cars sold domestically and manufactured in those low-wage countries will rise from 15 percent to 23 percent over the next five years, according to the figures contained in a 12-page presentation offered to lawmakers in response to their questions about overseas production.
As a result, the long-simmering argument over U.S. manufacturers expanding production overseas -- normally arising between unions and private companies -- is about to engage the Obama administration.
Essentially in control of the company, the president's autos task force faces an awkward choice: It can either require General Motors to keep more jobs at home, potentially raising labor costs at a company already beset with financial woes, or it can risk political fury by allowing the automaker to expand operations at lower-cost manufacturing locations.
"It's an almost impossible dilemma," said former labor secretary Robert B. Reich, now a professor at the University of California-Berkeley. "GM is a global company -- so for that matter is AIG and the biggest Wall Street banks. That means that bailing them out doesn't necessarily redound to the benefit of the U.S. or American workers.
"More significantly, it raises fundamental questions about the purpose of bailing out these big companies. If GM is going to do more of its production overseas, then why exactly are we saving GM?"
The administration has aroused similar complaints by shepherding a merger between Chrysler and Italian automaker Fiat. But it has extracted a promise from Fiat that it will build small cars in the United States.
The complaints about GM's operations portend a potentially larger argument, a political dispute led in part by the United Auto Workers.
"The bottom line is GM would rather pay $2 an hour -- and it's a slippery slope downward," said Alan Reuther, the UAW's legislative director. "If GM is going to be getting government assistance, they ought to be maintaining their manufacturing footprint in the U.S. rather than going off to China, Mexico and South Korea."
Labor costs in those countries are far lower. While paying a U.S. autoworker with benefits costs about $54 an hour, a South Korean worker earns about $22 an hour, a Mexican worker earns less than $10 an hour and some Chinese workers can earn as little as $3 an hour, industry sources said.
On Tuesday and Wednesday, GM chief executive Fritz Henderson met with legislators and sought to ease their concerns over the overseas operations.
He emphasized that the company, which is shuttering factories at home, is also canceling projects in Mexico, Russia and India.
He also assured legislators that none of the figures are final, and that negotiations with the union are ongoing.
"We continue to work closely with GM, UAW, and all the stakeholders to further refine and develop GM's plan," a Treasury spokesman said.
The U.S. government has loaned GM $15.4 billion. But billions more are expected to be invested, and under the current plan, it will be the majority owner of the company.
The company forecasts that between 2010 and 2014, as the recession recedes, its U.S. sales will rise from 2.4 million to 3.1 million.
Most of that growth -- about two-thirds of it -- will occur in the United States. But about one-third of that growth will come from other countries, mostly Mexico and South Korea.
Those proportions roughly reflect how GM builds the cars it sells in the United States today -- about two-thirds come from the United States and one-third from other countries.
According to the figures shared with lawmakers, the percentage of GM's U.S. sales of cars built in the United States dips from 67 percent in 2009 to 61 percent in 2012. Yet the company projects that by 2014 the percentage will rebound to 66 percent.
Under the viability plan, "the U.S. percentage stays roughly the same," Henderson said in an interview last week.
But the union and some legislators object that the company's U.S.-funded revival should not help pay for expanding foreign operations. Moreover, they believe that planned cuts in Canadian production -- down 23 percent -- will have direct effects on U.S. jobs because the U.S. and Canadian auto industries are so intertwined.
"If you are shutting down plants in this country, U.S. tax dollars should not go for building plants in other countries," said Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio), who was among those who met with Henderson.
But company officials and industry analysts have long argued that, even putting aside the issue of labor costs, it makes logistical sense to build some cars in other countries, even if they are destined for sale in the United States.
Take, for example, the Chevrolet Spark, a tiny car that GM sells in South Korea and elsewhere in Asia. In the next few years, the company plans to send some of those cars -- which are built in Changwon -- to the United States for sale.
But since only about 5 percent of the car's market will be in the United States, the manufacturing will remain in South Korea.
Analysts who study the auto companies and their global operation warn against allowing political passions to obstruct GM's efficiency.
"If we start making political decisions with the auto industry, we're going to be in tremendous trouble," said Michael Robinet, vice president of global vehicle forecasts at CSM Worldwide.
Wednesday, May 6, 2009
A Contract is a Contract, Unless You Work for Your Money
A Contract Is a Contract, Unless You Work for Your Money — Letter from UAW member on AIG Bailout Rip Off
Mar 21, 2009
Kate Hammer
Twin Cities Assembly Plant
UAW local 879
This past week Ford workers conceded, yet again, to the demands of the company, Washington and the UAW (mis)leadership. The breach of contract includes a decrease in pay, shorter breaks, no paid leave and forfeiting the Christmas bonus, just to name a few. We were told that we had to make these concessions in order to save our jobs and to qualify for emergency loans. Government policy was to open up our contract to attack our living standards.
Now, at the same time, taxpayer-bailed-out AIG is giving away $165 million in “contractually obligated” bonuses. Tony Rohdin of the Express-Times described this hypocrisy: “Hey, a contract is a contract. Oh, that's right, we ordered the auto companies to renegotiate their deals. We just forgot to apply the same standard to Wall Street. Oops!”
While Ford autoworkers (whom in an entire year make a fraction of what the AIG bonuses are) were put under massive pressure to make concessions, the AIG bonus boys are simply “encouraged” to give back part of their bonus. The bonuses range from $1,000 to in the millions. The New York Times reports that “Seven executives at the financial products unit were entitled to receive more than $3 million in bonuses.” If the 165 million were divided evenly between each of the 400 receiving employees, it would offer $412,500 EACH.
“In return for nearly bankrupting the republic, when their paper transactions make fortunes, they keep their fortunes. When their paper transactions lose money, they keep their fortunes, and expect the heartland to pay the cost. [AIG is] demeaning the value of those who make real things through hard work in the heartland of America, while proclaiming the value of those who barter paper money of decreasing value in manipulated markets [they] then expect the rest of us to pay the price of their failure" (Brent Budowsky, journalist for The Hill).
We are deemed “over compensated” for our labor and consequently, our rightfully earned wages and benefits are repealed. Now, as tax dollars go toward bailing out the greedy financial crooks who are responsible for the failing economy, the administration stands with their hand tied behind their backs. “It’s a contract,” they say. “Nothing can be done.” Where exactly does the government stand in regard to the rights of working class America, the true producers of wealth?
Mar 21, 2009
Kate Hammer
Twin Cities Assembly Plant
UAW local 879
This past week Ford workers conceded, yet again, to the demands of the company, Washington and the UAW (mis)leadership. The breach of contract includes a decrease in pay, shorter breaks, no paid leave and forfeiting the Christmas bonus, just to name a few. We were told that we had to make these concessions in order to save our jobs and to qualify for emergency loans. Government policy was to open up our contract to attack our living standards.
Now, at the same time, taxpayer-bailed-out AIG is giving away $165 million in “contractually obligated” bonuses. Tony Rohdin of the Express-Times described this hypocrisy: “Hey, a contract is a contract. Oh, that's right, we ordered the auto companies to renegotiate their deals. We just forgot to apply the same standard to Wall Street. Oops!”
While Ford autoworkers (whom in an entire year make a fraction of what the AIG bonuses are) were put under massive pressure to make concessions, the AIG bonus boys are simply “encouraged” to give back part of their bonus. The bonuses range from $1,000 to in the millions. The New York Times reports that “Seven executives at the financial products unit were entitled to receive more than $3 million in bonuses.” If the 165 million were divided evenly between each of the 400 receiving employees, it would offer $412,500 EACH.
“In return for nearly bankrupting the republic, when their paper transactions make fortunes, they keep their fortunes. When their paper transactions lose money, they keep their fortunes, and expect the heartland to pay the cost. [AIG is] demeaning the value of those who make real things through hard work in the heartland of America, while proclaiming the value of those who barter paper money of decreasing value in manipulated markets [they] then expect the rest of us to pay the price of their failure" (Brent Budowsky, journalist for The Hill).
We are deemed “over compensated” for our labor and consequently, our rightfully earned wages and benefits are repealed. Now, as tax dollars go toward bailing out the greedy financial crooks who are responsible for the failing economy, the administration stands with their hand tied behind their backs. “It’s a contract,” they say. “Nothing can be done.” Where exactly does the government stand in regard to the rights of working class America, the true producers of wealth?
Tuesday, March 3, 2009
Gettelfinger: Ford agreement meets GM/Chrysler loan conditions
Listen to this: Ron Gettelfinger makes it clear that the proposed Ford/UAW agreement meets the government loan requirements for GM and Chrysler.
http://www.uaw.org/auto/02_24_09auto1.cfm
About 50 seconds in, Gettelfinger says: "I know there's a lot of speculation out there, but I think you're pretty much in line with what we've worked out. In addition, we've smoothed out the payments to the company, so they didn't have to take a big hit in any one year. And in addition to the changes we made in the contract itself, this puts us on par or above the expectations of the loan agreements that was signed by General Motors and Chrysler."
http://www.uaw.org/auto/02_24_09auto1.cfm
About 50 seconds in, Gettelfinger says: "I know there's a lot of speculation out there, but I think you're pretty much in line with what we've worked out. In addition, we've smoothed out the payments to the company, so they didn't have to take a big hit in any one year. And in addition to the changes we made in the contract itself, this puts us on par or above the expectations of the loan agreements that was signed by General Motors and Chrysler."
Saturday, January 31, 2009
Live Bait & Ammo #123: You Already Know the Answer
Live Bait & Ammo is written by Gregg Shotwell, a well-known UAW activist from Michigan.
Live Bait & Ammo #123: You already know the Answer
Ron Gettelfinger said the UAW “will not reopen its contracts.” [“As a Condition of Loan, UAW cannot Strike against General Motors” -Detroit Free Press, 1/08/09]
You know what that means. The UAW will reopen the contracts.
Gettelfinger said the union will ensure that "...what we do is done in the best interest of our members as well as our retirees." [“Autoworkers Union begins talks on Concessions”- Associated Press, 1/08/09]
You know what that means. Grab your ankles.
Rick Wagoner harmonized, “GM can continue to operate without cutting benefits to retirees.” [“Wagoner: Retiree Benefits Safe” -Detroit Free Press 1/08/09]
You know what that means. Don’t wake the sleeping giant.
Ron Gettelfinger stands for concessions. That’s why he went to Washington: to signal his readiness to make sacrifices on behalf of auto workers. He’s well known in tight circles.
Some of Gettelfinger’s “most enthusiastic supporters are the top executives of the U.S. auto industry.” [“Union Leader Presides Over Painful Changes” -Washington Post, 5-15-06]
For example, Automotive News named Ron Gettelfinger “The Person of the Year” and toasted him at a special banquet in honor of his successful capitulation of every thing the union stands for, in other words, “.....he convinced the UAW's rank-and-file that the concessions were necessary.” [“Gettelfinger Achieved Landmark Labor Deals” -Automotive News, 12/31/07]
The enthusiasm is contagious.
Dale Buss of the anti union Mackinac Center for Public Policy “gushes that the cooperative attitude of Fraser and Bieber pales in comparison to the UAW’s newest strategy under President Ron Gettelfinger.” [“UAW Gets Praise from Unlikely Source” - Rick Haglund, AP, Grand Rapids Press, - 3/2/05]
That’s nothing.
David Cole, the son of a former President of General Motors, and a director of the Original Equipment Suppliers Association, six automotive supplier companies, and the Center for Automotive Research gushed, "Somebody ought to give UAW President Ron Gettelfinger the Nobel Prize....If we were in England, he'd be knighted." [“Manufacturing jobs, UAW at Risk with 2-tier Wage” -Detroit Free Press, 10/04/2007]
Ron is a man of deep, corporate convictions. He believes in “shared abundance”.
“Shared abundance means labor and management can win together, by working on common goals, instead of fighting over who has to absorb the pain created by idle capacity,” he said. At American Axle, Gettelfinger added, labor-management cooperation has helped elevate the supplier to a top-ranked performer — even in the eyes of Wall Street. “Not only has American Axle’s UAW-represented work force increased since 1994,” he said. “Its stock price has more than doubled.” [“UAW Trades Wages for Jobs”--Detroit News, 1/29/04]
Despite his belief in “shared abundance” he’s realistic about the results of concessions “....if you concede a benefit, you figure it’s gone. It would be hard to get it back. I’ve said before, I’ve been in negotiations for a number of times over the years, I don’t ever remember a company calling us up and saying, ‘Hey, you know what? We’re doing so well since those negotiations, we feel like we shorted you guys and want to give you a little more.’ (Laughs) I know once it’s negotiated away, it’s gone.” [Interview: Detroit Free Press, 7-12-05] That’s right, he “laughs” for the record.
Of course realism did not protect him from a stick in the eye. "I did not anticipate that we would be where we're at with Axle," Ron Gettelfinger told the Detroit News. [“UAW: No Role in Axle Talks” -Detroit News, 4/29/08] Nonetheless, he’s a master at squeezing lemonade from bitter rinds.
He gave Delphi everything the company wanted and called it a victory. [see Live Bait &Ammo #WTF]
So, what exactly did Gettelfinger expect when he negotiated funeral arrangements for the UAW in exchange for an underfunded VEBA? He got the shyster’s promise, but he didn’t get the money.
I think that bears repeating. He didn’t get the money. He destroyed solidarity forever by cutting wages for new hires and abolishing their hopes for pension and health care in retirement and
HE DIDN’T GET THE MONEY.
Did he really expect the companies would push piles of cash across the table at some later date?
More to the point, do we really expect the leopard to change his spots?
In February 1998 Billy Robinson, the president of Local 2036, in Henderson, Kentucky called Ron Gettelfinger for advice. At that time Gettelfinger was the UAW Region 3 Director. Billy explained that negotiations at Accuride were stalled. Gettelfinger said, “Take ‘em out.” Billy cautioned him that Accuride had hired union busting consultants and did not appear willing to negotiate. Gettelfinger repeated, “Take ‘em out.” [Live Bait & Ammo #30]
Forty days later members of Local 2036 voted to reject the union busting contract for a second time, but also to return to work unconditionally. In response, Accuride locked them out. It was apparent that Accuride was not interested in bargaining. Accuride intended to bust the union.
In June 1998 Gettelfinger ascended to International Vice-President in charge of Ford. From that lofty perch he began to display all the “social movement” of a chicken crossing the road. First, he supported the strike and made a commitment to stand behind them “for as long as it takes”. Then, he concurred with the International Executive Board to cut off strike benefits. Then, he agreed to put the Local under administratorship. Then, at the hearing, he pretended not to know anything about the Local, or Accuride. Then, he agreed to restore strike benefits at twice the normal rate. Then, he agreed to cut benefits, for a second time. Then, he agreed to pull the local union charter, if they didn’t ratify. On March 28, 2002 the UAW International sent a letter to Accuride stating, “The International Union and its Local 2036 hereby disclaim interest in representing hourly employees at Accuride’s Henderson, Kentucky facility.” Nobody from the International bothered telling the locked out UAW members of Local 2036 anything, not even so much as ‘Good riddance’. Looking back, one has to wonder, just what the Fickle Finger meant when he said, “Take ‘em out.”
The record begs the question: why does Gettelfinger roll over in negotiations?
Don’t trouble your head. It’s a rhetorical question like, “Why did the chicken cross the road?”
You already know the answer.
SOS, Gregg Shotwell
Live Bait & Ammo #123: You already know the Answer
Ron Gettelfinger said the UAW “will not reopen its contracts.” [“As a Condition of Loan, UAW cannot Strike against General Motors” -Detroit Free Press, 1/08/09]
You know what that means. The UAW will reopen the contracts.
Gettelfinger said the union will ensure that "...what we do is done in the best interest of our members as well as our retirees." [“Autoworkers Union begins talks on Concessions”- Associated Press, 1/08/09]
You know what that means. Grab your ankles.
Rick Wagoner harmonized, “GM can continue to operate without cutting benefits to retirees.” [“Wagoner: Retiree Benefits Safe” -Detroit Free Press 1/08/09]
You know what that means. Don’t wake the sleeping giant.
Ron Gettelfinger stands for concessions. That’s why he went to Washington: to signal his readiness to make sacrifices on behalf of auto workers. He’s well known in tight circles.
Some of Gettelfinger’s “most enthusiastic supporters are the top executives of the U.S. auto industry.” [“Union Leader Presides Over Painful Changes” -Washington Post, 5-15-06]
For example, Automotive News named Ron Gettelfinger “The Person of the Year” and toasted him at a special banquet in honor of his successful capitulation of every thing the union stands for, in other words, “.....he convinced the UAW's rank-and-file that the concessions were necessary.” [“Gettelfinger Achieved Landmark Labor Deals” -Automotive News, 12/31/07]
The enthusiasm is contagious.
Dale Buss of the anti union Mackinac Center for Public Policy “gushes that the cooperative attitude of Fraser and Bieber pales in comparison to the UAW’s newest strategy under President Ron Gettelfinger.” [“UAW Gets Praise from Unlikely Source” - Rick Haglund, AP, Grand Rapids Press, - 3/2/05]
That’s nothing.
David Cole, the son of a former President of General Motors, and a director of the Original Equipment Suppliers Association, six automotive supplier companies, and the Center for Automotive Research gushed, "Somebody ought to give UAW President Ron Gettelfinger the Nobel Prize....If we were in England, he'd be knighted." [“Manufacturing jobs, UAW at Risk with 2-tier Wage” -Detroit Free Press, 10/04/2007]
Ron is a man of deep, corporate convictions. He believes in “shared abundance”.
“Shared abundance means labor and management can win together, by working on common goals, instead of fighting over who has to absorb the pain created by idle capacity,” he said. At American Axle, Gettelfinger added, labor-management cooperation has helped elevate the supplier to a top-ranked performer — even in the eyes of Wall Street. “Not only has American Axle’s UAW-represented work force increased since 1994,” he said. “Its stock price has more than doubled.” [“UAW Trades Wages for Jobs”--Detroit News, 1/29/04]
Despite his belief in “shared abundance” he’s realistic about the results of concessions “....if you concede a benefit, you figure it’s gone. It would be hard to get it back. I’ve said before, I’ve been in negotiations for a number of times over the years, I don’t ever remember a company calling us up and saying, ‘Hey, you know what? We’re doing so well since those negotiations, we feel like we shorted you guys and want to give you a little more.’ (Laughs) I know once it’s negotiated away, it’s gone.” [Interview: Detroit Free Press, 7-12-05] That’s right, he “laughs” for the record.
Of course realism did not protect him from a stick in the eye. "I did not anticipate that we would be where we're at with Axle," Ron Gettelfinger told the Detroit News. [“UAW: No Role in Axle Talks” -Detroit News, 4/29/08] Nonetheless, he’s a master at squeezing lemonade from bitter rinds.
He gave Delphi everything the company wanted and called it a victory. [see Live Bait &Ammo #WTF]
So, what exactly did Gettelfinger expect when he negotiated funeral arrangements for the UAW in exchange for an underfunded VEBA? He got the shyster’s promise, but he didn’t get the money.
I think that bears repeating. He didn’t get the money. He destroyed solidarity forever by cutting wages for new hires and abolishing their hopes for pension and health care in retirement and
HE DIDN’T GET THE MONEY.
Did he really expect the companies would push piles of cash across the table at some later date?
More to the point, do we really expect the leopard to change his spots?
In February 1998 Billy Robinson, the president of Local 2036, in Henderson, Kentucky called Ron Gettelfinger for advice. At that time Gettelfinger was the UAW Region 3 Director. Billy explained that negotiations at Accuride were stalled. Gettelfinger said, “Take ‘em out.” Billy cautioned him that Accuride had hired union busting consultants and did not appear willing to negotiate. Gettelfinger repeated, “Take ‘em out.” [Live Bait & Ammo #30]
Forty days later members of Local 2036 voted to reject the union busting contract for a second time, but also to return to work unconditionally. In response, Accuride locked them out. It was apparent that Accuride was not interested in bargaining. Accuride intended to bust the union.
In June 1998 Gettelfinger ascended to International Vice-President in charge of Ford. From that lofty perch he began to display all the “social movement” of a chicken crossing the road. First, he supported the strike and made a commitment to stand behind them “for as long as it takes”. Then, he concurred with the International Executive Board to cut off strike benefits. Then, he agreed to put the Local under administratorship. Then, at the hearing, he pretended not to know anything about the Local, or Accuride. Then, he agreed to restore strike benefits at twice the normal rate. Then, he agreed to cut benefits, for a second time. Then, he agreed to pull the local union charter, if they didn’t ratify. On March 28, 2002 the UAW International sent a letter to Accuride stating, “The International Union and its Local 2036 hereby disclaim interest in representing hourly employees at Accuride’s Henderson, Kentucky facility.” Nobody from the International bothered telling the locked out UAW members of Local 2036 anything, not even so much as ‘Good riddance’. Looking back, one has to wonder, just what the Fickle Finger meant when he said, “Take ‘em out.”
The record begs the question: why does Gettelfinger roll over in negotiations?
Don’t trouble your head. It’s a rhetorical question like, “Why did the chicken cross the road?”
You already know the answer.
SOS, Gregg Shotwell
Monday, January 26, 2009
Auto Bailout Makes Workers Pay: But Will It Save the Industry?
Jan 14, 2009
By Brett Hoven, UAW Local 879 (personal capacity)
The rapidly declining sales of cars and trucks have put the future of the U.S. auto industry and its workers into question. The current crisis and government bailout is now threatening to destroy the decent living standards that the United Auto Workers (UAW) spent years struggling to achieve, and to establish a precedent of driving union work standards to non-union levels.
Sales at the Big Three (Ford, GM, and Chrysler) dropped in October, November, and December by 30-50%, making 2008 the worst year for the U.S. automakers in decades. The mainstream media most frequently blames poor management decisions at the Big Three for the crisis.
There’s no doubt that investing in SUVs, which provided huge short-term profits, instead of more fuel-efficient small cars for the past few decades has now made the situation dramatically worse for the American companies, not to mention the environment.
But sales have also fallen dramatically for the Japanese companies Toyota and Honda. Toyota has even announced that it expects to lose money for the first time since the 1930s.
The entire global automotive industry is facing a major crisis of overproduction and overcapacity, which stems from the anarchy of capitalism. In the pursuit of profits, each auto company tries to produce as many vehicles as they can, regardless of what people need or can afford.
Now, with record job losses and tighter restrictions on credit, it’s unlikely sales numbers will return to their previous levels anytime soon.
Bailout
After announcing they were nearing bankruptcy, the CEOs of the Big Three asked for a government bailout. Yet while $700 billion was handed over to the banks with hardly any conditions, the $17 billion auto bailout came with harsh conditions for workers. UAW activist Gregg Shotwell describes it as “chump change for fast-track union busting.”
The final terms of the government loans signed by Bush call for reducing wages and benefits to the non-union levels at Honda, Toyota, and Nissan by the end of 2009, cutting more jobs and closing more factories, eliminating company-funded unemployment benefits, moving from set-benefit pensions to 401Ks, and allowing the companies to make half of their required payments into the union-run retiree healthcare funds (VEBAs) in company stock.
These new attacks will come on top of the historic concessions that were given up by the UAW in 2007, which included cutting wages for new hires in half and putting the responsibility for retiree healthcare on the union, as well as plant closings and the loss of tens of thousands of jobs.
Concessions have never saved autoworkers’ jobs. They are simply a way to make workers pay for the mistakes of their bosses and the crisis of the for-profit system. As Shotwell put it, “The only thing lower wages guarantee is increased competition for more lower wages.”
That’s not to say that we should let the auto industry be destroyed. Without a bailout, it is likely that the Big Three would collapse, resulting in the loss of up to 3 million jobs according to some estimates.
While the bailout avoids this doomsday scenario – for now – it does nothing to solve the fundamental problems of the auto industry. It will not stop, and in fact calls for, massive attacks on autoworkers and a new round of mass layoffs and plant closings.
The hundreds of thousands of autoworker jobs, as well as the millions of family members, local businesses, and communities that rely on them, should be saved.
Instead of closing factories, we should be demanding to convert them to socially useful production. There is a dire need to transition to a sustainable, environmentally-friendly transit system. Such a system would shift the focus toward efficient and inexpensive public transportation on trains and buses, as well as fully-electric cars.
This would not only prevent job losses but would actually create many jobs. Instead of government handouts to the inept CEOs, the UAW should be demanding nationalization of the auto industry under democratic control by autoworkers and the public.
Role of UAW Leadership
Unfortunately, the UAW leadership has agreed to make major concessions without even attempting to mobilize autoworkers to defend themselves. For the heads of the UAW, as well as the leaders of the Democratic Party who claim to represent our interests, it’s not a question of whether autoworkers will take more cuts; it’s a question of when.
Because they accept the logic of competition, which is the driving force of capitalism, the UAW believes that making the Big Three more profitable is the only way to save the industry.
If wages and benefits are cut at the Big Three, it will put pressure on the other auto companies to follow suit. Two years ago, when they were still making billions of dollars in profit, Toyota was already calling for cuts in labor costs. Without a union to oppose them, it will be easy for Toyota to match any cuts at the Big Three.
In addition, the UAW leadership’s failure to resist concessions will further weaken any attempts to organize workers at the non-union foreign transplants, an essential task for the union.
Any concessions accepted in the automotive industry will set a precedent, which will accelerate the race to the bottom as other industries attempt to achieve the same concessions. They will say “Autoworkers took cuts; our workers need to take cuts.”
Workers Need to Fight Back
The only way autoworkers can secure a decent future for themselves and their families is by organizing a fight-back. The UAW should be mobilizing its membership for a fight, reaching out to local communities, the labor movement, and the wider working class for solidarity.
While the UAW leadership was on its knees negotiating major concessions in Washington, the workers at Republic Windows & Doors were becoming heroes to many Americans by standing up for themselves and occupying their factory, the very tactic that made the UAW strong in the 1930s.
Imagine what would be possible if the UAW had taken a similar approach. They could have drawn on the massive anger at the rich and the Wall Street bailout. They could have pointed out the hypocrisy of wealthy congressmembers criticizing how much autoworkers make (see box), and demanded no concessions and the development of a green manufacturing infrastructure to save jobs and the environment.
But for any fight-back to take place, it will require rank-and-file activists organizing in their factories and communities against concessions and job losses. Only a movement from below, demanding a better future for autoworkers and society as a whole, can win this fight.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Are Autoworkers Overpaid?
Much of the media focus during the bailout debate was on how much money UAW members earn. There were exaggerated claims of autoworkers making $73/hour, which the companies used to turn public opinion against the union. But starting wages at the Big Three are now at $14/hour, below the average rate at the Japanese companies.
In order to come up with $73/hour, analysts added up not only workers’ wages but also pensions of current retirees, family healthcare costs, and other benefits. Then they divide this by the number of current workers.
The non-union Japanese companies didn’t start manufacturing in the U.S. until the 1980s, so they have very few retirees (currently, Toyota has less than 300). Fewer retirees plus the dramatic rise in healthcare costs explain the difference in labor costs between the American and Japanese companies.
But even with these higher costs, all labor expenses (including pensions and healthcare) make up less than 10% of the cost of a new car. Further, labor costs have declined dramatically in recent years. GM, for example, now produces the same number of vehicles as it did in 1992 with one-third as many workers!
The real problem is that most American workers don’t make enough. In fact, the root cause of the current economic crisis is that workers can’t buy back what they produce. Despite productivity rising over 60% across the entire economy, wages have declined for most workers over the past 30 years. We should be fighting to raise all workers’ living standards, not blaming those who can still make a living.
Jan 14, 2009
By Brett Hoven, UAW Local 879 (personal capacity)
The rapidly declining sales of cars and trucks have put the future of the U.S. auto industry and its workers into question. The current crisis and government bailout is now threatening to destroy the decent living standards that the United Auto Workers (UAW) spent years struggling to achieve, and to establish a precedent of driving union work standards to non-union levels.
Sales at the Big Three (Ford, GM, and Chrysler) dropped in October, November, and December by 30-50%, making 2008 the worst year for the U.S. automakers in decades. The mainstream media most frequently blames poor management decisions at the Big Three for the crisis.
There’s no doubt that investing in SUVs, which provided huge short-term profits, instead of more fuel-efficient small cars for the past few decades has now made the situation dramatically worse for the American companies, not to mention the environment.
But sales have also fallen dramatically for the Japanese companies Toyota and Honda. Toyota has even announced that it expects to lose money for the first time since the 1930s.
The entire global automotive industry is facing a major crisis of overproduction and overcapacity, which stems from the anarchy of capitalism. In the pursuit of profits, each auto company tries to produce as many vehicles as they can, regardless of what people need or can afford.
Now, with record job losses and tighter restrictions on credit, it’s unlikely sales numbers will return to their previous levels anytime soon.
Bailout
After announcing they were nearing bankruptcy, the CEOs of the Big Three asked for a government bailout. Yet while $700 billion was handed over to the banks with hardly any conditions, the $17 billion auto bailout came with harsh conditions for workers. UAW activist Gregg Shotwell describes it as “chump change for fast-track union busting.”
The final terms of the government loans signed by Bush call for reducing wages and benefits to the non-union levels at Honda, Toyota, and Nissan by the end of 2009, cutting more jobs and closing more factories, eliminating company-funded unemployment benefits, moving from set-benefit pensions to 401Ks, and allowing the companies to make half of their required payments into the union-run retiree healthcare funds (VEBAs) in company stock.
These new attacks will come on top of the historic concessions that were given up by the UAW in 2007, which included cutting wages for new hires in half and putting the responsibility for retiree healthcare on the union, as well as plant closings and the loss of tens of thousands of jobs.
Concessions have never saved autoworkers’ jobs. They are simply a way to make workers pay for the mistakes of their bosses and the crisis of the for-profit system. As Shotwell put it, “The only thing lower wages guarantee is increased competition for more lower wages.”
That’s not to say that we should let the auto industry be destroyed. Without a bailout, it is likely that the Big Three would collapse, resulting in the loss of up to 3 million jobs according to some estimates.
While the bailout avoids this doomsday scenario – for now – it does nothing to solve the fundamental problems of the auto industry. It will not stop, and in fact calls for, massive attacks on autoworkers and a new round of mass layoffs and plant closings.
The hundreds of thousands of autoworker jobs, as well as the millions of family members, local businesses, and communities that rely on them, should be saved.
Instead of closing factories, we should be demanding to convert them to socially useful production. There is a dire need to transition to a sustainable, environmentally-friendly transit system. Such a system would shift the focus toward efficient and inexpensive public transportation on trains and buses, as well as fully-electric cars.
This would not only prevent job losses but would actually create many jobs. Instead of government handouts to the inept CEOs, the UAW should be demanding nationalization of the auto industry under democratic control by autoworkers and the public.
Role of UAW Leadership
Unfortunately, the UAW leadership has agreed to make major concessions without even attempting to mobilize autoworkers to defend themselves. For the heads of the UAW, as well as the leaders of the Democratic Party who claim to represent our interests, it’s not a question of whether autoworkers will take more cuts; it’s a question of when.
Because they accept the logic of competition, which is the driving force of capitalism, the UAW believes that making the Big Three more profitable is the only way to save the industry.
If wages and benefits are cut at the Big Three, it will put pressure on the other auto companies to follow suit. Two years ago, when they were still making billions of dollars in profit, Toyota was already calling for cuts in labor costs. Without a union to oppose them, it will be easy for Toyota to match any cuts at the Big Three.
In addition, the UAW leadership’s failure to resist concessions will further weaken any attempts to organize workers at the non-union foreign transplants, an essential task for the union.
Any concessions accepted in the automotive industry will set a precedent, which will accelerate the race to the bottom as other industries attempt to achieve the same concessions. They will say “Autoworkers took cuts; our workers need to take cuts.”
Workers Need to Fight Back
The only way autoworkers can secure a decent future for themselves and their families is by organizing a fight-back. The UAW should be mobilizing its membership for a fight, reaching out to local communities, the labor movement, and the wider working class for solidarity.
While the UAW leadership was on its knees negotiating major concessions in Washington, the workers at Republic Windows & Doors were becoming heroes to many Americans by standing up for themselves and occupying their factory, the very tactic that made the UAW strong in the 1930s.
Imagine what would be possible if the UAW had taken a similar approach. They could have drawn on the massive anger at the rich and the Wall Street bailout. They could have pointed out the hypocrisy of wealthy congressmembers criticizing how much autoworkers make (see box), and demanded no concessions and the development of a green manufacturing infrastructure to save jobs and the environment.
But for any fight-back to take place, it will require rank-and-file activists organizing in their factories and communities against concessions and job losses. Only a movement from below, demanding a better future for autoworkers and society as a whole, can win this fight.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Are Autoworkers Overpaid?
Much of the media focus during the bailout debate was on how much money UAW members earn. There were exaggerated claims of autoworkers making $73/hour, which the companies used to turn public opinion against the union. But starting wages at the Big Three are now at $14/hour, below the average rate at the Japanese companies.
In order to come up with $73/hour, analysts added up not only workers’ wages but also pensions of current retirees, family healthcare costs, and other benefits. Then they divide this by the number of current workers.
The non-union Japanese companies didn’t start manufacturing in the U.S. until the 1980s, so they have very few retirees (currently, Toyota has less than 300). Fewer retirees plus the dramatic rise in healthcare costs explain the difference in labor costs between the American and Japanese companies.
But even with these higher costs, all labor expenses (including pensions and healthcare) make up less than 10% of the cost of a new car. Further, labor costs have declined dramatically in recent years. GM, for example, now produces the same number of vehicles as it did in 1992 with one-third as many workers!
The real problem is that most American workers don’t make enough. In fact, the root cause of the current economic crisis is that workers can’t buy back what they produce. Despite productivity rising over 60% across the entire economy, wages have declined for most workers over the past 30 years. We should be fighting to raise all workers’ living standards, not blaming those who can still make a living.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)