babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


Post New Topic  Post A Reply
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » walking the talk   » labour and consumption   » UAW Strikes GM

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: UAW Strikes GM
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972

posted 24 September 2007 08:44 AM      Profile for Sven     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
UAW now on nationwide strike against GM.

Let's see...over the past five years, GM has had cumulative losses of $4.2 billion.

Can you say: "Squeeze blood out of a turnip"???


From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
N.Beltov
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4140

posted 24 September 2007 08:57 AM      Profile for N.Beltov   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
The major issue in the current negotiations, and the likely cause of the strike, is:

quote:
ABC: A local UAW official said earlier Sunday that negotiators have wrapped up work on most issues and were determining how much money GM must put into a trust fund for retiree health care that will be managed by the UAW. The official spoke on the condition of anonymity because the talks are private.

The health care fund known as a Voluntary Employees Beneficiary Association, or VEBA would be a groundbreaking change for the auto industry and has been the major issue in this year's negotiations. GM has around $51 billion in unfunded retiree health care costs but the company isn't required to put the full amount into the VEBA. The UAW and GM have been wrangling over how much GM should put in and how much can be paid in cash or in stock.


That's 51 Billion of employees' money - which is over ten times the amount of claimed losses as noted by the friendly neighbourhood partisan for bosses.

Here's something from the UAW:

quote:
The UAW announced today that due to the failure of General Motors to address job security and other mandatory issues of bargaining, the union has set a firm strike deadline for 11 a.m. on Monday, Sept. 24.

“We’re shocked and disappointed that General Motors has failed to recognize and appreciate what our membership has contributed during the past four years,” said UAW President Ron Gettelfinger. “Since 2003 our members have made extraordinary efforts every time the company came to us with a problem: the corporate restructuring, the attrition plan, the Delphi bankruptcy, the 2005 health care agreement. In every case, our members went the extra mile to find reasonable solutions.

“Throughout this time period," said Gettelfinger, "it has been the dedication of UAW members that has helped GM set new standards for safety, quality and productivity in their manufacturing facilities. And in this current round of bargaining, we did everything possible to negotiate a new contract, including an unprecedented agreement to stay at the bargaining table nine days past the expiration of the previous agreement.”


UAW Press Release

It's the first national auto strike since 1970. It's probably overdue in any case. Muscles that aren't exercised atrophy as anyone with a good muscle between their ears knows. Not that this is a particularly militant union. The President is even quoted in the New York Times as saying that "Nobody wins in a strike".

Today's New York Times on the strike

[ 24 September 2007: Message edited by: N.Beltov ]


From: Vancouver Island | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
N.Beltov
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4140

posted 24 September 2007 09:06 AM      Profile for N.Beltov   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Hmm. My mistake.

quote:
Mr. Gettelfinger said job security measures were one of the major issues facing negotiators. He said the strike was not connected to G.M.’s push for the health care trust, called a voluntary employee benefit association, or VEBA. Because the proposal is not part of the G.M. contract with the union, the U.A.W. could not strike G.M. over the idea. “We were eager to discuss it,” Mr. Gettelfinger said. “This strike is in no way about VEBA discussions.” In fact, Mr. Gettelfinger said the union had proposed such a trust during negotiations in 2005 on health care cuts, but G.M. chose a more modest proposal. He said the union knew Friday that negotiations were getting bogged down but did not want to strike G.M. over the weekend. “They made it very clear as we moved closer to the deadline that they had no intention of sitting down and negotiating something that was equitable for both sides,” he said.

That's what I get for using the business press to interpret the views of a union.

quote:
Union officials criticized G.M. for continuing to pay bonus compensation to its executives, while pressing U.A.W. members to make concessions.

From: Vancouver Island | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972

posted 24 September 2007 09:06 AM      Profile for Sven     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
N.Beltov, that’s really a disturbing fact (a $51 billion unfunded obligation). How are they going to pay for that?

Sounds like a bankruptcy waiting to happen, no?


From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
N.Beltov
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4140

posted 24 September 2007 09:09 AM      Profile for N.Beltov   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
The "Big 3" have a collective liability of $100 billion. So it's not just a problem for GM.

Those Merricans could really use universal health care, eh? It would even make their capitalists more competitive with automakers from other countries.


From: Vancouver Island | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
bliter
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14536

posted 24 September 2007 09:11 AM      Profile for bliter   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
But who planted that turnip?

excerpt form link:

quote:
"It's sort of an odd thing, the first thing that happens with an automaker in case of a strike is their cash increases, as their payroll stops, and they still keep collecting cash for the cars that have been shipped,"

Not truly so odd. We have a major city's administrators laughing all the way to the bank with with unpaid salaries for non-delivered services.

The article makes no reference to GM's Canadian operations to what degree, if any, will they be affected? Too what degree is GM Canada reliant on parts from the U.S. plants?


From: delta | Registered: Sep 2007  |  IP: Logged
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972

posted 24 September 2007 09:13 AM      Profile for Sven     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by N.Beltov:
Union officials criticized G.M. for continuing to pay bonus compensation to its executives, while pressing U.A.W. members to make concessions.

Why would an executive take a job—or stay in an existing job—at GM if the compensation wasn’t competitive with what they could get at another company?

I know that if I got a job offer to work for GM, I’d say “No fuckin’ way.” Why would I go to work for GM for less money than I make now?


From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
N.Beltov
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4140

posted 24 September 2007 09:20 AM      Profile for N.Beltov   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Good grief, Sven. Listen to yourself. Why make a connection between financial constraints and the wages and working conditions of regular GM employees when you won't do the same for executives? Are you an advocate of socialism for the rich and capitalism for the rest of us? And, since you've already made reference to turnips, did you think no one would notice this contradiction or did you just assume that we all fell off a turnip truck?
From: Vancouver Island | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972

posted 24 September 2007 09:22 AM      Profile for Sven     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Now, at the same time, I don’t think shareholders want to reward executives if the company isn’t doing well—or making dramatic progress towards that objective. If GM continues to bleed losses, not only shouldn’t executive bonuses be paid, GM shouldn’t exist. So, I would agree with the UAW that bonuses shouldn’t be paid just to keep executives at the helm.

ETA: I cross-posted with N.Beltov. I pretty much agree with you on this, N.Beltov. That being said, GM’s in a pretty tough position if it needs to attract competent managers.

[ 24 September 2007: Message edited by: Sven ]


From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
N.Beltov
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4140

posted 24 September 2007 09:27 AM      Profile for N.Beltov   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
The NY Times article actually claims that the executives weren't given cash bonuses last year; instead, they were given stock awards and other perquisites. But it amounts to the same thing.
From: Vancouver Island | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972

posted 24 September 2007 09:30 AM      Profile for Sven     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by N.Beltov:
The NY Times article actually claims that the executives weren't given cash bonuses last year; instead, they were given stock awards and other perquisites. But it amounts to the same thing.

Actually, it doesn’t. A bonus is cash. A stock option isn’t worth shit unless the stock goes up. If a million stock options were granted to an executive five years ago, the option exercise price would be about $42 per share (the price-per-share at that time). Because GM’s share price is $35 today, those options aren’t worth shit.

ETA: In addition to stock options, the top executives also received stock awards. Stock awards have value but the recipients usually have to retain the shares for a certain number of years before selling them (and, if the stock value continues to drop, so does the value of the shares they are holding).

[ 24 September 2007: Message edited by: Sven ]


From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
N.Beltov
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4140

posted 24 September 2007 09:40 AM      Profile for N.Beltov   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
There are the other, undisclosed, perquisites as well. And the stock options may be flexible until GM stock does go up. In any case, concessions for employees and stock options, etc. for top officials are still different treatment of people who get paid from the same source. It's still useful to point that out and good propaganda for the union.
From: Vancouver Island | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972

posted 24 September 2007 09:50 AM      Profile for Sven     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by N.Beltov:
There are the other, undisclosed, perquisites as well.

There are no “undisclosed” perquisites. They are all shown in GM’s definitive Form 14A filed annually with the SEC. After Sarbanes-Oxley, the SEC requires very detailed disclosures of executive compensation. Failure to comply with those disclosure rules can mean jail time. If there’s one thing that gets the attention of executives, it’s the possibility of jail time.

quote:
Originally posted by N.Beltov:
And the stock options may be flexible until GM stock does go up.

Stock options usually have a life of ten years (sometimes less). But, if the stock price is stagnant (or worse), they are still worthless.

quote:
Originally posted by N.Beltov:
In any case, concessions for employees and stock options, etc. for top officials are still different treatment of people who get paid from the same source. It's still useful to point that out and good propaganda for the union.

Maybe the union rank and file would accept stock options, too? The Northwest Airlines pilots took massive pay cuts but received significant equity ownership in the airline. If the airline improves, so does the value of the pilots’ equity interest. If not, their equity interest is worthless.


From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
N.Beltov
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4140

posted 24 September 2007 10:05 AM      Profile for N.Beltov   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
For those interested in more than "Stock Options with Sven", there are a few links worth noting:

Labour Start - will have updates, including from media sympathetic to working people

UAW News and Discussion

UAW home page: includes a list of union-made vehicles


From: Vancouver Island | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
bliter
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14536

posted 24 September 2007 10:05 AM      Profile for bliter   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Sven:

quote:
Let's see...over the past five years, GM has had cumulative losses of $4.2 billion.

The industry needs to learn to give customers what they want, particularly in view of the public's growing environmental concerns and awareness.

With, reportedly, so many Ontarians reliant on the auto industry, criticism of the product should not be interpretted as being anti-union. It should spur the industry's self-examination and improvement.

G.M. is doing good work with its proposed, Volt plug-in vehicle, but it really needs to get the lead out. Such a vehicle, that would handle the average commute, would sell like hot cakes - if affordable, of course.


From: delta | Registered: Sep 2007  |  IP: Logged
N.Beltov
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4140

posted 24 September 2007 10:09 AM      Profile for N.Beltov   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
"We Bargain For Fairness."

quote:
UAW President Ron Gettelfinger: Those who have only a hammer for a tool will insist the only way to fix the American auto industry is to hit UAW members with severe wage and benefit cuts. We disagree.

For one thing, labor costs represent just 10 percent of the cost of a new vehicle. So it is evident that the cost structure of the U.S. auto industry cannot be adjusted in a meaningful way by focusing on less than 10 percent of costs, while ignoring the other 90 percent.
In addition, data collected by the U.S. Census Bureau demonstrate that U.S. autoworkers are among the most productive manufacturing workers anywhere in the world, producing value added worth $206 per worker per hour – far more than any of us earn in wages and benefits.

A high-road strategy

Members of our union have no interest in entering a competition based on who can work for the lowest possible pay. Instead, we intend to pursue a high-road strategy centered on creating high-quality, high-performance workplaces that lead to success in the marketplace for our employers and good jobs with good wages for our membership.



From: Vancouver Island | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972

posted 24 September 2007 10:11 AM      Profile for Sven     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by bliter:
The industry needs to learn to give customers what they want, particularly in view of the public's growing environmental concerns and awareness.

With, reportedly, so many Ontarians reliant on the auto industry, criticism of the product should not be interpretted as being anti-union. It should spur the industry's self-examination and improvement.

G.M. is doing good work with its proposed, Volt plug-in vehicle, but it really needs to get the lead out. Such a vehicle, that would handle the average commute, would sell like hot cakes - if affordable, of course.


I totally agree with that. No one in the auto industry in the USA (and certainly not in Europe) is anywhere close to Toyota in hybrid vehicle development. The European companies’ efforts on “alternative” fuels are focusing on more diesel engines.

I haven’t purchases a vehicle from one of the Big 3 in more than fifteen years. Although, most of the Japanese companies are building their vehicles here.


From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
N.Beltov
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4140

posted 24 September 2007 10:17 AM      Profile for N.Beltov   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Sven, did you have anything to contribute in regard to showing support for the workers here?
From: Vancouver Island | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972

posted 24 September 2007 10:30 AM      Profile for Sven     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by N.Beltov:
Sven, did you have anything to contribute in regard to showing support for the workers here?

All I can say is that the employees and the company are both in a very, very difficult position. For the sake of the employees, if not the consumers, I hope there’s still a GM around in ten years.


From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
N.Beltov
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4140

posted 24 September 2007 10:43 AM      Profile for N.Beltov   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I thought so.
From: Vancouver Island | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 24 September 2007 01:17 PM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Sven:

Maybe the union rank and file would accept stock options, too? The Northwest Airlines pilots took massive pay cuts but received significant equity ownership in the airline.


Sven, if you and your neighbours lose your jobs, it will negatively impact on the local furniture store whose business depends on your prosperity - right?

So, here's a suggestion:

Get some neighbours together, go see the store owner, ask her for deep discount prices, and offer in exchange some tiny shares in your businesses.

Let me know how good a reception you get.


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
abnormal
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1245

posted 24 September 2007 04:49 PM      Profile for abnormal   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Posted by Sven:

Why would an executive take a job—or stay in an existing job—at GM if the compensation wasn’t competitive with what they could get at another company?


Simple. When companies end up in deep shit there are two groups that stay. Those that the powers that be really need (and are willing to throw money at to keep) and those that can't find another job. Either they're grossly overpaid for what they do and can't find equivalent or better work elsewhere or they are borderline incompetent, or both.

Now, executive management aside, which group do you think are left at GM (and that includes unionized employees)?


From: far, far away | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
bliter
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14536

posted 24 September 2007 08:44 PM      Profile for bliter   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
One question asked in my first post has been answered by none other than CAW president, Buzz Hargrove:

http://www.caw.ca/news/newsnow/news.asp?artID=1536


From: delta | Registered: Sep 2007  |  IP: Logged
bliter
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14536

posted 25 September 2007 02:38 AM      Profile for bliter   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
NY Times: "Both sides see a crossroads.":

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/25/business/25auto.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin


From: delta | Registered: Sep 2007  |  IP: Logged
bliter
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14536

posted 25 September 2007 10:00 AM      Profile for bliter   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Buzz Hargropve wasn't kidding:

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2007/09/25/gmoshawa.html


From: delta | Registered: Sep 2007  |  IP: Logged
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 09 October 2007 08:47 PM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
One Sided Class War: The UAW-GM 2007 Negotiations
by Sam Gindin
quote:
With health care the number one issue in American polls, an election in the air, and Wall Street and the media pressuring the UAW to get GM off the hook, the UAW could have declared that this problem can't be solved in bargaining. It could have fought against workers being stampeded into a false solution. It would of course have been attacked as destroying the American auto industry. But that attention would also have given it a platform to make its case and speak on behalf of the 47 million Americans without health care, the tens of millions with inadequate care and the millions about to lose the plans they formerly assumed they had for life.

The union could, in other words, have placed the issue squarely on the national agenda and looked to convert a looming disaster into an opportunity. This would undoubtedly have meant real risks, but in addition to defending its members, leading such an initiative might also contributed to the long-awaited revival of the moribund American trade union movement.

That did, of course not happen. The top leadership, its clear, is too integrated into 'jointness', too cautious, too much a part of the history of defeats to contemplate such a response. What happened instead was that GM shifted the responsibilities for administering the health care needs of retirees to the union.
....
The main promise of the GM-UAW agreement, as in all concessionary agreements, is job security. It's worth recalling the history of such promises. At the end of the 1970s, the UAW membership stood at 450,000. After a series of agreements, each solemnly promising job security, the GM membership is now at 73,000 – a stunning decline of 84%! It is difficult to see why new job security promises would put any worker at ease.

One of the problems with making concessions is that it reinforces the view that workers were the problem to the performance problems and so if they take less, the companies' problems can be fixed. As such, concessions also divert attention from the real problems. Another is that it never stops; having discovered that workers will accept less, its too tempting for companies, especially in the face of competition, to keep demanding more.

In the auto industry, health care has indeed been a problem for the U.S.-based companies. But as we noted above, the answer doesn't lie in making health care protection even worse, but in fixing this particular American disaster.



[ 10 October 2007: Message edited by: M. Spector ]


From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca