Edmunds.com | Inside Line | Auto Observer Your Account | Help | Directory
You are here:
![[F]](http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com/media/townhall/webxicons/site.gif){kind=small}
Forums
Automotive News & Views United Automobile Workers of America (UAW)
16705 messages, Last post on Nov 25, 2009 at 6:56 PM
You are in the Automotive News & Views Forum. Your Hosts are steve_ & claires
|
|
|---|---|
|
Replying to: lumoy (Jan 05, 2009 7:57 pm) The United Auto Workers union launched a nationwide strike against General Motors on Monday as 73,000 UAW members walked off the job and hit the picket lines at the nation's largest automaker. UAW President Ron Gettelfinger blasted GM management, saying that the company had not been willing to meet the union part way in negotiations. "This is nothing we wanted," he said about the strike. "No one benefits in a strike. But there comes a point where someone can push you off a cliff. That's what happened here." Company officials did not respond to Gettelfinger's comments, other than to say they were disappointed that the first national strike against the company in more than 37 years had been called, and that they hoped that an agreement to end the walkout could be reached soon. Gettelfinger said at the midday press conference that the union is ready to discuss the company's key bargaining goal of shifting an estimated $51 billion in healthcare expenses for retirees and their family members to union-controlled trust funds. But he said that other issues had derailed hopes of an agreement. The union president said he was looking for assurances from the company about the job security of UAW members. He said he wanted guarantees about how much GM would invest in U.S. plants and about how many new vehicles would be built in the United States. The UAW has seen its membership at GM plummet by 70 percent since 1994, as the automaker dumped its parts unit and closed plants to try to align its production more in line with its shrinking U.S. market share. Outcome of strike A new labor contract was ratified by UAW members exactly one week after the tentative agreement was reached, passing by a majority 62% vote. In the contract are several product and employment guarantees stretching well into the next decade. One of GM's key future products, the Chevy Volt, was promised to the GM Poletown/Detroit-Hamtramck plant in 2010. Also included is a VEBA (Voluntary Employee Beneficiary Association) which will transfer retiree health care obligations to the UAW by 2010. This eliminates more than 50 billion dollars from GM's healthcare tab. It will be funded by 30 billion in cash and 1.4 billion in GM stock paid to the UAW over the next 4 years of the contract. It also eliminates 70% of the labor cost gap with GM's Japanese rivals. |
|
|
|
|
This strike had nothing to do with the rules at GM. A supplier to GM was on strike and the GM UAW shut down the 2 plants that were working at full production in order to force GM to force the supplier to meet the UAW demands. This strike cost GM almost $3 billion. Sure would like to have that money now. General Motors workers who build the Chevrolet Malibu, one of G.M.’s most popular and important new vehicles, went on strike Monday at a plant in Kansas after they were unable to reach an agreement with the company on local work rules. Union members walked a picket line outside the General Motors Fairfax Assembly plant in Fairfax, Kan., on Monday. The plant is one of two that make the redesigned Chevrolet Malibu. It is the second strike by a United Automobile Workers local against G.M. this spring after a decade without any single-plant work stoppages. Workers at a plant that builds crossover vehicles, which are big sellers for G.M., near Lansing, Mich., have been on strike for nearly three weeks. Together, the plants employ about 4,500 people. The two walkouts are in addition to a long strike at one of G.M.’s parts suppliers, American Axle and Manufacturing, which forced G.M. to close many of its truck and sport utility vehicle factories in March and April. Though U.A.W. officials deny it, some labor experts say that the union is singling out critical G.M. plants for strikes in hopes that G.M. will prod American Axle to reach a deal with its workers. “It’s very rare that you get strikes on issues like this,” Professor Chaison said. “They’re trying all ways possible to put pressure on American Axle, having found themselves at a disadvantageous position in that strike. They’re still showing that they’re a party that must be reckoned with, that they still have some influence and leverage in negotiations.” |
|
|
|
|
Replying to: manegi (Jan 05, 2009 9:59 pm) That's exactly what the US should be doing. |
|
|
Replying to: lumoy (Jan 05, 2009 7:57 pm) GM and Chrysler go bankrupt (chapter 7 or 11). Existing contacts are voided by the bankruptcy court. Salaries are reduced significantly. Under the reorganization (if chapter 11), existing pension benefits are assumed by the Fed (PBGC). When this happens, promised pensions are severely reduced to match PBGC max benefits. Retiree health care benefits are eliminated and retirees go onto Medicare. All this happened not too long ago to the US Steel Industry. What makes you thing the US auto industry(and it's workers) will come out any better?
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: srs_49 (Jan 06, 2009 4:56 am) I am pretty sure the steel industries pension funds were severely underfunded.
|
|
|
Replying to: 62vetteefp (Jan 06, 2009 5:05 am) I agree that the steel industries pension funds were severely underfunded, much to the dismay of their workers/retirees who thought they were in good shape.
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: srs_49 (Jan 06, 2009 5:23 am) When General Motors left Washington empty-handed last week, among the lingering questions was whether its huge pension fund could topple and crush the government’s pension insurance program. United Automobile Workers members at a benefits meeting last week. Workers worry that bankruptcies in the auto industry could shred their pension plans. When any pension fund fails, usually as part of a bankruptcy, the government takes over its assets as well as its payments to retirees. In G.M.’s case, its plan would dwarf the nation’s pension insurance fund. Still, G.M. appears to have enough money in the pension fund to pay its more than 400,000 retirees their benefits for many years — even with the markets swooning around it. That is largely because of the conservative way G.M. has managed the fund recently, and it explains why G.M. has not joined the long list of companies pressing Congress for pension relief. But this glimmer of hope in a bleak auto landscape could change drastically, particularly if G.M. struggles along for a few more years, only to go bankrupt. The company’s blue-collar work force is still building up new benefits with every additional hour worked, and the pension fund will have to grow smartly to keep up with those costs. If G.M. continues paying people to retire early, the costs will grow even more, because the plan will have to pay retirees for more years than it budgeted. And G.M. is not contributing additional money to the plan right now. Already, G.M. says it will be paying retirees about $7 billion a year for the next 10 years. The fund’s assets were worth $104 billion at the end of 2007, more than enough to cover its obligations of $85 billion. Since then, the assets have declined and the obligations have grown, each by undisclosed amounts. The company says it does not plan to add any money to the fund for the next three or four years. Even if G.M. were forced into bankruptcy, the government might insist that it keep the fund, and cover any shortfalls with its own money. G.M. acknowledged in its most recent annual report that from 1993 to 2007 it spent $103 billion “to fund legacy pensions and retiree health care — an average of about $7 billion a year — a dramatic competitive and cash-flow disadvantage.” During those 15 years, G.M. paid only $13 billion or so in shareholder dividends. The company has been sending far more money to its retirees than to its owners. After falling $20 billion behind on its pension earlier this decade, G.M. doggedly put money into its plan to catch up. It has also agreed to invest more than $30 billion in a fund to cover future health-care expenses. But these efforts have starved its business. |
|
|
in message 7190, i succumbed to the obviously intelligent argument that by supporting bridge loans to the BIg 3 to avoid bankruptcy and keep the plants opened, the uaw now should be required to sell its black lake family education center and golf course. since it would be a fire sale, i suggested we all get together (your money, my connections) to buy it for about 50% of its 13 million taxable value ( and then turn it into a nice place with some real amenities and "improvements" more likely to attract a higher class of customers than those blue collar lowlifes who have used i t for 40 years.. too many damn trees and ponds over there anyway--needs more condos and some snowmobile trails. once we get rid of the overpaid 145 local employees and bring in some walmart level rates and temp visas workers--it might even start to make money. not a single person has jumped on my offer. i don't understand--given the large numbers who share the view that the uaw should be forced to stop wasting its dues money on its members. there goes my chance to finally turn the corner and become a good trickle down republican--oh well!
|
|
|
Replying to: lumoy (Jan 05, 2009 8:58 pm) You keep throwing out that phony number. It needs to be refuted. Two young ladies in our Church recently had babies. Neither had health care coverage. Both got excellent Prenatal care and delivery. They take their babies in for checkups all paid by the State of CA. The only thing they paid for is circumcision. Your argument on Canada health care is totally flawed, but I would not expect any thing different from your lifetime of brainwashing by the UAW.
|
|
|
Your first on my list to contact................ Random: "General Motors workers who build the Chevrolet Malibu, one of G.M.’s most popular and important new vehicles, went on strike Monday at a plant in Kansas after they were unable to reach an agreement with the company on local work rules." (bold emphasis mine)... Therein lies a large part of the problem...the import transplants have, according to the books I have read, virtually NO "local work rules"...if it needs to be done, anyone may be assigned to do it...so, their labor cost is lower simply by being more efficient...the books also cite various Big 3 in-house studies where they are literally watching the imports make more cars with fewer employees, hence the 1)lower overhead and 2) greater productivity, neither of which you will ever see from Big 3 UAW plants...the union work rules are simply the rot that is eating the tree alive, and it will not survive until the rot is eliminated... I believe one example was either Toy or Honda, running a plant with 2,000 employees, making a similar number of cars as a UAW plant needing 6,000 employees... These archaic work rules should be abolished, and the UAW along with it...the 1960s are gone, we do not own the world, and they apparently make a product as good as ours, or better, with less workers and less overhead...the UAW is the new Jurassic Park...time to go...if a transplant can do with 2000 what the Big 3 need 6000, I defy anyone to justify keeping the union and the work rules as they are... And anyone who does try to defend the absurd, would you run a hardware store with 10 employees, if you were doing the same amount of business as your competitor down the street who sold just as much, with equal quality and service, with only 3 employees???...your labor overhead would drive you into B, just like the Big 3 are now... |
|
You are here:
Forums
Automotive News & Views United Automobile Workers of America (UAW)
New? Join Now!
Forum Tools
Search Forums
Browse by Vehicle
Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
Today's Chats
