REPORT: UAW agrees to ban strikes?(!)
According to a post on The Detroit Bureau, a key stipulation in the tentative contract reached between the United Auto Workers and Chrysler is that the union's right to strike will be all but eliminated for at least the next few years.
As quoted in the story, Harley Shaiken, a labor relations specialist at UC-Berkeley, notes that the so-called "no strike" portion of the agreement was arrived at "in the context that it will take anywhere from three to five years for this company to recover." According to TDB, the provisos of the bridge loan means that a strike would be viewed as a default on the agreement, including any local strikes.
The same contract apparently calls for binding arbitration (instead of strikes) on financial issues for any contract arrived at in 2011, and the same arrangement will be in effect in 2015 if Chrysler still owes money to the Treasury Department.
The contract goes in front of the UAW's 28,000+ members for a vote today. Click on the link below for more details.
[Source: The Detroit Bureau | Source Image: Bill Pugliano/Getty]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
Talisman 2:11PM (4/29/2009)
Seems more than fair to me.
Reply
sk 2:11PM (4/29/2009)
Wow didn't see that coming. How do they black mail the car companies now?
Reply
Throwback 4:13PM (4/29/2009)
Well, they will OWN the car companies. If the Chrysler deal goes through they will own 55%. It would be hysterical to see the UAW strike against their own interest, wait a minute...
hypermiler 2:12PM (4/29/2009)
UAW striking against UAW Motors? Inconceivable.
Reply
Sea Urchin 2:15PM (4/29/2009)
I was waiting untill someone would bring it up, reports say that UAW will also own 50+% of GM. President Obama repaid unions to the fullest, i am sorry, i mean comrade...... .
BoxerFanatic 2:21PM (4/29/2009)
What would they possibly have to strike over? They have taken the house!
They own the auto companies, with their partner, the US Gub'ment.
They are getting every last thing they want, handed to them on a platter, and now have no one to strike against, but themselves.
So now it is easy PR to say they won't strike, when it is a foregone conclusion.
Parasites.
Reply
nardvark 2:22PM (4/29/2009)
So who do they hire as scabs when they're striking against themselves? UAW members?
Reply
Big Rocket 2:29PM (4/29/2009)
The ban on union strikes pretty much settles the debate on whether or not the UAW was a problem, and how big of a problem, for the Big 3.
Reply
zamafir 2:37PM (4/29/2009)
Indeed, huge problem, which is why it took so long for ford to agree with them, and why ford is taking so much cash from the fed, defiantly the majority of the blame is on the UAW and not those who ran the companies.
John 2:42PM (4/29/2009)
Not totally.
There is still the issue of jobs bank and job classifications. Both are still in existence and both should be eliminated.
You cannot pay people to sit at home on the couch or only allow them to work under strictly defined job titles with no flexibility and expect to survive.
Big Rocket 3:22PM (4/29/2009)
I should have been clearer.
It WAS a huge problem to have the UAW blackmail the Big 3 with threats of strikes and/or actual strikes, then get any unreasonable demand they can dream of (excessive wages and benefits compared to their American non-union counterparts working for Toyota, Honda, etc). If it had not been a huge problem as the union apologists would like everyone else to believe, nobody would have bothered to place a ban on union strikes. For all those union apologists out there, here is your reality check.
The Other Bob 3:45PM (4/29/2009)
Nice photoshop. It took me a second to notice it.
Reply
Dude 2:47PM (4/29/2009)
But would this include Ford?
Ford is now the only true American Auto company left. Is their anything to stop the UAW from striking Ford out of business in order to increase profits at Govt. Motors and Comrade Corps?
Reply
Taylor 2:52PM (4/29/2009)
If the UAW owns GM, Chrysler, and push for ownership of Ford, would they be considered a monopoly and forced to be busted up?
dukeisduke 2:58PM (4/29/2009)
The government could crank up one of their phony "stress tests", and then when Ford fails it, use that as a justification for taking them over, too.
/prepare to be boarded!
/arrrr!
Throwback 4:16PM (4/29/2009)
Dude, you have hit on the problem of government ownership. Since the government will own part of GM and Chrysler, it is in their interest to put Ford out of business.
cdwrx 4:53PM (4/29/2009)
Of course there is. Ford employs UAW workers who pay dues. There is no way a severely reduced GM and Chrysler could take Ford's market share if Ford went bankrupt. It is in the UAW's best interest to see all companies improve. That said, I have no idea why there has been a reason for the UAW to exist for the last 40 years.
pmalik 2:48PM (4/29/2009)
Hmm that makes sense, considering they owe the company.
Ignoring all the idiots that scream "communism!" when a labor org owns the company, this will actually be an interesting experiment in market efficiency.
Think about it - instead of having the union featherbedding the positions (aka creating inefficiency by padding wages, positions etc.), the obvious strategy for them is to thrive for efficiency and then hand the profits back to the workers. Instead of a regular union, this set up is more akin to each worker owning a whole bunch company stock.
Seriously just ignore the fools like Cudlow and think about how this set up incentives the workers.
Reply
UltimoDragon 4:41PM (4/29/2009)
There's actually a formal term that sort of describes what you're talking about. I can't remember what exactly it is, but I learned about it in communication studies back in college. Basically speaking, there's a 'flattening of the pyramid' between workers and management.
Iridium 2:50PM (4/29/2009)
This is a power grab by the union bosses and the government. The Feds are going to pay off the union leaders to pass anythign they want. The workers are going to get screwed and they won't be allowed to strike.
It is amazing that this deal is being allowed to go through. Who's going to stop it though. The government gets what it wants and the union leaders get a big fat paycheck. Works great for the criminals who run our country and corporations.
Reply