UAW Demands 46% Pay Hike

[rmc523]

13 hours ago, jpd80 said:

You would think that if an offer by Ford meets or exceeds a whole bunch of checkpoints,

that the UAW should be compelled to take it to a vote…..

 

Since there is no legislation controlling bargaining, maybe the next step for Ford is a lockout,

it’s sad when it comes to this because nobody wins, what if this ends up in some US plants closing?

 

My concern is that regular members are the ones losing money in the hopes of better conditions 

but what happens when they finally see that some UAW terms are unrealistic and that they have

been out on strike with discernible improvement in those conditions?

 

It really echoes the "my way or the highway" attitude that people in power (on all sides) seem to have these days instead of working toward a compromise that benefits most people, even if it's not fully what either side was looking for.

 

It sounds like this is going to require membership to start getting louder and louder until leadership can't ignore it anymore before Ford gets forced to do lockouts as mentioned above.

 

The sad thing is, as was pointed out in Munro's comments - you push too far and don't look far enough into the future, you'll only hurt yourself long term, with competition taking advantage.

Edited October 19, 2023 by rmc523

[akirby]

9 minutes ago, rmc523 said:

 

It really echoes the "my way or the highway" attitude that people in power (on all sides) seem to have these days instead of working toward a compromise that benefits most people, even if it's not fully what either side was looking for.

 

It sounds like this is going to require membership to start getting louder and louder until leadership can't ignore it anymore before Ford gets forced to do lockouts as mentioned above.

 

The sad thing is, as was pointed out in Munro's comments - you push too far and don't look far enough into the future, you'll only hurt yourself long term, with competition taking advantage.

These people think that if the company makes billions they can just force them to give it to the workers but it doesn’t work that way.  Companies that don’t make decent profit margins are at risk of bad credit ratings, low stock price and they are one recession or price war away from losing money.  It’s not worth staying in business.  Might as well sell everything and invest in bonds.

 

What happened in 2008 is they were enjoying much higher than market wages and then the recession hit and Ford, GM and Chrysler started bleeding money while the transplant easily survived the downturn.  What the union is asking for puts the automakers right back where they were in 2008 (possibly worse).  You’re not getting what you had in 2008 because it’s not financially possible in today’s world.  
 

Whether they like it or not Sandy is right - you have to allow your employer to be cost competitive and you’ll not only thrive but probably grow.  Or you try to suck them dry and you’ll end up without a job.  You can only force higher labor costs if you own all of the suppliers which was the case in the 60s, 70s and 80s with the big three.  Not true today or ever again with all the transplants and imports and American startups.

[fuzzymoomoo]

Is the silent majority starting to speak out?

 

 https://www.fox2detroit.com/news/uaw-members-grow-weary-five-weeks-into-strike-supply-starts-to-thin

[T-dubz]

45 minutes ago, akirby said:

 

Whether they like it or not Sandy is right - you have to allow your employer to be cost competitive and you’ll not only thrive but probably grow.  Or you try to suck them dry and you’ll end up without a job.  You can only force higher labor costs if you own all of the suppliers which was the case in the 60s, 70s and 80s with the big three.  Not true today or ever again with all the transplants and imports and American startups.

Exactly. Think of how much money would be available to give the good workers raises if ford wasn’t forced to continually give more money to the bad workers. Top performers would be making a ton by now but that’s not possible when everyone gets a piece of the pie.
 

In a non-union job, the bad workers don’t get raises. They would need to either work harder, move on to a different job, or accept their lower wage and be fine with it. All of these are better for both sides than having the union involved. If they work harder, they will see a raise and ford will see increased output. If they quit, ford has got rid of a bad employee, and that employee can find a job that better suits their work ethic. If the worker accepts their low wage, ford gets a role player at a lower cost and the employee gets to work at the level they want to.

[GearheadGrrrl]

First, a lockout will backfire because besides increased unemployment insurance rates, though expired the contract is still in force including guarantees of wages if a plant closes, especially if the layoffs are due to a lockout which is a mass discharge without cause.

 

Second, where are all these scabs going to come from? Reality is that the plants would sit empty and eating capital for months because new workers simply aren't available.

 

Finally, one can easily see the framework of a settlement, but some leaders on both sides enjoy listening to their own orations too much to put it down on paper and hopefully approved- It looks like UAW and the automakers will settle for 30% raise and eliminating tiers so that is pretty much settled. Union representation at future plants is largely in the hands of the yet to be hired workers, the most the companies can guarantee is union recognition by a simple majority of workers signing membership cards without an election. That leaves the issue of defined benefit pensions to be settled, and given that few companies can saddle their balance sheets with such an obligation, a solution will probably require setting up an independent company to handle pensions and absorb the liability or transferring the responsibility to the federal government, where it ends up if pensions become insolvent anyways.

[silvrsvt]

22 minutes ago, GearheadGrrrl said:

First, a lockout will backfire because besides increased unemployment insurance rates, though expired the contract is still in force including guarantees of wages if a plant closes, especially if the layoffs are due to a lockout which is a mass discharge without cause.

 

Second, where are all these scabs going to come from? Reality is that the plants would sit empty and eating capital for months because new workers simply aren't available.

 

Unemployment benefits are dependent on what state you're in. Plus they are still not the same $$$ as what you would get working fulltime.

 

As for the worker situation, it all depends....

[akirby]

13 minutes ago, GearheadGrrrl said:

That leaves the issue of defined benefit pensions to be settled, and given that few companies can saddle their balance sheets with such an obligation, a solution will probably require setting up an independent company to handle pensions and absorb the liability or transferring the responsibility to the federal government, where it ends up if pensions become insolvent anyways.

None of that is needed or will happen.  They already have company 401K contributions to cover retirement.  Zero overhead for the company and zero future liability and more importantly it stays with the employee forever even if they change companies.

[fuzzymoomoo]

GM is saying they’re at the limit now too

 

https://www.freep.com/story/money/cars/general-motors/2023/10/19/uaw-strike-gm-says-it-cant-meet-demands-without-devastating-effect/71240679007/

[Flying68]

51 minutes ago, GearheadGrrrl said:

First, a lockout will backfire because besides increased unemployment insurance rates, though expired the contract is still in force including guarantees of wages if a plant closes, especially if the layoffs are due to a lockout which is a mass discharge without cause.

 

Second, where are all these scabs going to come from? Reality is that the plants would sit empty and eating capital for months because new workers simply aren't available.

 

Finally, one can easily see the framework of a settlement, but some leaders on both sides enjoy listening to their own orations too much to put it down on paper and hopefully approved- It looks like UAW and the automakers will settle for 30% raise and eliminating tiers so that is pretty much settled. Union representation at future plants is largely in the hands of the yet to be hired workers, the most the companies can guarantee is union recognition by a simple majority of workers signing membership cards without an election. That leaves the issue of defined benefit pensions to be settled, and given that few companies can saddle their balance sheets with such an obligation, a solution will probably require setting up an independent company to handle pensions and absorb the liability or transferring the responsibility to the federal government, where it ends up if pensions become insolvent anyways.

Case law in both California and Michigan holds that layoffs resulting from labor disputes are not claimable for unemployment.  California had a specific case where there was a limited strike (similar situation to the UAW vs Big 3) and the employers responded by laying off all employees until the dispute was resolved.  California Supreme court held that when anyone strikes, it is considered an action by all, thus any layoff arising from the labor disputes are excluded from unemployment benefits.  Most states have similar laws, although I haven't seen any recent case law, I would presume most would hold the same theory.  If you strike, you subject your fellow employees to layoffs that are not covered by unemployment.  Lockouts would be treated similarly.  UAW members are treading on thin ice right now over demands that many people consider to be unreasonable.

[Oac98]

3 hours ago, fuzzymoomoo said:

Is the silent majority starting to speak out?

 

 https://www.fox2detroit.com/news/uaw-members-grow-weary-five-weeks-into-strike-supply-starts-to-thin

I would be pissed off too if we had went on strike and been off for 5 weeks. I know you’re LIVID and rightfully so! Your contract as it is is already better than what we got up here in Canada. It’s time for this fuckery to end, this hardline stance shit is stupid now especially when we all know and they fuckin know some of the demands are nonsensical.

[NitroRichFire]

Hmmm, if my old memory serves me correctly, back in 1996 the UAW pushed too hard and Caterpillar shutdown the York, PA plant and moved it. Thousand of folks lost their jobs and benefits and had to start over, my neighbor was one to them. So the question is how far do they push? Below is what FORD is offering the UAW, I will let "YOU Be The Judge".

 

[Bob Rosadini]

7 hours ago, GearheadGrrrl said:

First, a lockout will backfire because besides increased unemployment insurance rates, though expired the contract is still in force including guarantees of wages if a plant closes, especially if the layoffs are due to a lockout which is a mass discharge without cause.

 

Second, where are all these scabs going to come from? Reality is that the plants would sit empty and eating capital for months because new workers simply aren't available.

 

Finally, one can easily see the framework of a settlement, but some leaders on both sides enjoy listening to their own orations too much to put it down on paper and hopefully approved- It looks like UAW and the automakers will settle for 30% raise and eliminating tiers so that is pretty much settled. Union representation at future plants is largely in the hands of the yet to be hired workers, the most the companies can guarantee is union recognition by a simple majority of workers signing membership cards without an election. That leaves the issue of defined benefit pensions to be settled, and given that few companies can saddle their balance sheets with such an obligation, a solution will probably require setting up an independent company to handle pensions and absorb the liability or transferring the responsibility to the federal government, where it ends up if pensions become insolvent anyways.

 

Very good-you have made the case that they have a good deal....defined benefit pensions???  That ship sailed a long time ago.

 

Only thing in the way now is Fain's arrogance.

[grbeck]

On 10/18/2023 at 2:30 PM, GearheadGrrrl said:

Keep in mind that's not news but an opinion piece.

 

The editorial attributes very specific - and controversial - views and actions to UAW leaders. If the editorial has misrepresented either their views, or what they have done in support of those views, those named in the editorial can sue the writer and the publication. It doesn't matter that this is an opinion piece as opposed to a straight news article.

 

Given that they have not, it's safe to say that the editorial is accurate. 

[grbeck]

Someone needs to remind UAW leaders of the history of Studebaker.

In the wake of World War II, Studebaker's executive team refused to take a strike - as GM did after the war was over - to keep its labor costs in line. (Strikes were frowned upon during the war, and lucrative "cost plus" contracts with the federal government for war material meant that companies could afford the higher costs.)

 

As a result, not only were Studebaker workers making more per hour than their Big Three counterparts, but Studebaker employed more line workers than it needed.

 

The postwar seller's market masked that inefficiency, but then true competition returned in early 1953 (when production controls imposed by the federal government during the Korean War ended). The roof soon fell in at South Bend. 

[GearheadGrrrl]

Problem with that analogy is that Studebaker had a lot of problems besides labor costs, such as not having the economies of scale and captive suppliers like the Big 3 had. 

[grbeck]

45 minutes ago, GearheadGrrrl said:

Problem with that analogy is that Studebaker had a lot of problems besides labor costs, such as not having the economies of scale and captive suppliers like the Big 3 had. 

 

Uncompetitive labor costs exacerbated those issues. 

 

In 1954, even UAW leadership encouraged UAW members in South Bend to vote on a contract that brought wages more in line with those paid by the Big Three. 

[fuzzymoomoo]

Sounds like GM might be close. 
 

https://www.detroitnews.com/story/business/autos/2023/10/20/uaw-president-shawn-fain-bargaining-update-strike-day-36/71253055007/

 

 

[ice-capades]

GM Passes New Offer to UAW, BUMPS Wage Increases to 25% Compounded

https://www.detroitnews.com/story/business/autos/2023/10/20/uaw-president-shawn-fain-bargaining-update-strike-day-36/71253055007/

 

General Motors Co. has passed another offer to the United Auto Workers that would give its hourly employees a 23% general wage increase for a 25% compounded boost over the life of the pact, the company said Friday.

 

GM previously had a 20% not-compounded wage increase on the table. The automaker's previous offer brought workers to top wages after four years. GM said it now has a "faster path to max wages" but didn't specify the new timeline. Under the new offer, a GM hourly employee represented by the UAW would make $40.39 per hour by the end of the agreement, up from $32.32 currently.

 

GM also said it has offered to reinstate cost-of-living allowances for seniority workers in the first year of the contract. The company said it will convert all active full-time temporary employees with one year of employment to seniority level employment upon ratification of the deal. Temp wages will be increased 26% to $21 per hour. GM will provide workers a bonus upon ratification of the deal but didn't specify how much the bonus will be.

 

"It is time for us to finish this process, get our team members back to work and get on with the business of making GM the company that will win and provide great jobs in the U.S. for our people for decades to come," the company said in a statement.

 

Details of the deal were made public before UAW President Shawn Fain's Facebook Live event at 4 p.m. Friday — day 36 of a strike against the Detroit Three with 34,000 autoworkers out at picket lines at various plants. Fain is expected to update members on bargaining.

 

The union met with GM and Stellantis NV to discuss economic offers on Thursday. Negotiations between GM, Stellantis, Ford Motor Co. and the UAW are continuing Friday.

 

At a labor rally in Detroit on Thursday, UAW Vice President Mike Booth, director of the GM department, confirmed the union passed a new “comprehensive proposal” to GM.

 

"We will be meeting tomorrow (Friday) to continue bargaining in good faith,” he said.

 

He told reporters the issues remaining at the table include "retirement security, retirement health care, whether you have a defined benefit or defined contribution (plan), we need a vessel that people can retire comfortably.”

 

The union started its targeted plant strike strategy on Sept. 15. Since then, it has called on members at plants across the country to walk out and picket.

 

Ford facilities on strike include its Super Duty Kentucky Truck Plant, its Michigan Assembly Plant, which makes the Bronco and Ranger, and the Chicago Assembly Plant that makes the Ford Explorer and Lincoln Aviator.

 

GM workers are on strike at the automaker's Chevrolet Traverse and Buick Enclave Plant in Delta Township and its midsize truck plant in Wentzville, Missouri. Stellantis' Jeep plant in Toledo, Ohio, is on strike. And all of GM and Stellantis' parts distribution centers are striking.

Edited October 20, 2023 by ice-capades
Additional Content

[ice-capades]

Simply stupid move by GM that can only prolong the strike and encourage the UAW to continue its strike to maximize concessions from the Big 3. Enough already is more than enough already! 

Edited October 20, 2023 by ice-capades

[fuzzymoomoo]

15 minutes ago, ice-capades said:

Simply stupid move by GM that can only prolong the strike and encourage the UAW to continue its strike to maximize concessions from the Big 3. Enough already is more than enough already! 

Aside from the retirement stuff, they pretty much matched what Ford has on the table. Here’s a good comparison, no subscription necessary: https://www.autonews.com/uaw-talks-2023

Edited October 20, 2023 by fuzzymoomoo

[akirby]

3 hours ago, GearheadGrrrl said:

Problem with that analogy is that Studebaker had a lot of problems besides labor costs, such as not having the economies of scale and captive suppliers like the Big 3 had. 
 

 

 

Extremely high labor costs was a main factor in the 2008 crisis that saw GM and Chrysler go bankrupt and Ford teeter on the brink before getting concessions from the UAW to get closer to the non union mfrs.  There were other factors but if you don’t think having labor costs that are drastically higher than your competition is a big problem then you don’t understand running a business (or history).

[fuzzymoomoo]

1 hour ago, akirby said:

 

 

Extremely high labor costs was a main factor in the 2008 crisis that saw GM and Chrysler go bankrupt and Ford teeter on the brink before getting concessions from the UAW to get closer to the non union mfrs.  There were other factors but if you don’t think having labor costs that are drastically higher than your competition is a big problem then you don’t understand running a business (or history).

It wasn’t necessarily the active labor (though it was definitely on the high side) but more legacy costs. They gave out a TON of pension buyouts from 2005-2010 in an effort to reduce legacy costs, something the vocal majority of the current active employees conveniently forget. It’s the whole reason VEBA was created for post-retirement healthcare. Those legacy costs are something the import manufacturers have never really had to worry about here. 

Edited October 20, 2023 by fuzzymoomoo

[akirby]

47 minutes ago, fuzzymoomoo said:

It wasn’t necessarily the active labor (though it was definitely on the high side) but more legacy costs. They gave out a TON of pension buyouts from 2005-2010 in an effort to reduce legacy costs, something the vocal majority of the current active employees conveniently forget. It’s the whole reason VEBA was created for post-retirement healthcare. Those legacy costs are something the import manufacturers have never really had to worry about here. 

When I say labor costs that absolutely includes legacy costs.  Current employees get to pay for the sins of the past.

[fuzzymoomoo]

16 minutes ago, akirby said:

When I say labor costs that absolutely includes legacy costs.  Current employees get to pay for the sins of the past.

I know, but I’m not sure how many people understand how it breaks down. 

[mackinaw]

Mr. Fain slams Ford, and says there's real movement at GM and Stellantis.

 

https://www.detroitnews.com/story/business/autos/2023/10/20/uaw-president-shawn-fain-bargaining-update-strike-day-36/71253055007/