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
Saturday, January 31, 2009
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)