With Nothing New To Build, The UAW Charges Mitsubishi More

Edward Niedermeyer
by Edward Niedermeyer

Automotive News [sub] reports that Mitsubishi will have to give UAW workers at its Normal, Ill plant a $1.60/hr raise because it doesn’t yet know what vehicle or platform it plans to build there in the future. Mitsubishi’s 2008 contract with the UAW required the disclosure, but the Japanese automaker requested an extension which the union membership proceeded to vote down. Because the extension failed, Mitsubishi is required by the terms of its contract to raise hourly pay to $25.60/hr. The plant in question currently builds Mitsubishi Eclipse, Endeavor and Galant models, which have collectively sold 11,215 units through August of this year. And thanks to the combination of low demand for Normal-built products, and the union’s failure to extend the decision period, it seems as though Mitsubishi may just walk away from the plant.



In a statement, the automaker said

We are disappointed with the results of this vote. Mitsubishi Motors Corp. remains concerned at the slow pace of economic recovery in the United States and current sales projections for the U.S. market. As a result, MMC is unable to announce a new model for assembly at MMNA at this juncture. In response to today’s unfortunate development, MMNA is exploring its options.

It sounds like it’s not going to be a very happy Labor Day this year, for Local 2488. But hey, at least they’ll get an extra $1.60 per hour until Mitsu decides to shut the place down. Still, with Mitsubishi averaging about 4,500 sales per month in the US and falling (for comparison, that’s less volume than the Infiniti G37, the Dodge Avenger or the Volvo Brand), you’d think the union might give their employers time to come up with a new product. Or, as we so often find ourselves saying around here, not.

Edward Niedermeyer
Edward Niedermeyer

More by Edward Niedermeyer

Comments
Join the conversation
2 of 66 comments
  • Mmnaworker Mmnaworker on Nov 16, 2010

    I work at the Illinois plant. As usual only one side is told. Two years ago we took a $5.00 cut in pay, no 401K match, no quality bonuses, added insurance out of pocket deductibles, and a clause that after 2 years we would get back $1.67 if no new model. We realized then we had to give concessions or face a possible plant closure with the economic times. If Mitsubishi came to us and said give us the $1.67 back and we will guarantee a new model, we would have given it to them. They had two years to figure out what to do with their new models. In 2002 we posted in our plant a $600 profit, so give us the cars to build and we make them with just as high quality and productivty as any Japan plant. JUST GIVE US THE CARS TO BUILD AND MITSUBISHI ACTUALLY MARKET THE CARS AND WE WILL BOTH WIN.

  • Mmnaworker2 Mmnaworker2 on Dec 10, 2010

    First off,the reporter for this article is a idiot.The headline is pure BS.You need to get both sides before creating a lopsided "story".We gave,gave & gave back to this company and we are willing to give more to stay open.But when they have years to figure out what to do and come to us the last minute and ask for MORE time & MORE money with NO promise to keep the plant open,we said no.If you think that us(UAW)getting back a $1.67 an hr,that we gave them years ago is gonna save the company..it won't!.By the way..we gave Mitsubishi more than $40 MILLION in savings with the cuts we took and they did NOTHING with it.Now they want a $1.67 hr back and it will save the world,GIVE ME A BREAK!!We are more than willinig to help the company survive,now they need to show us they are serious and cut back on "perks"for staff & Family and managment.We did our part,we put our heart & soul into this plant for 22+ years.Would i be willing to work for less money?..yes i would,just give me a future and cars to build.SO...Mitsubishi,either SHIT OR GET OFF THE POT.We are tired of the games.

  • Grg These days, it is not only EVs that could be more affordable. All cars are becoming less affordable.When you look at the complexity of ICE cars vs EVs, you cannot help. but wonder if affordability will flip to EVs?
  • Varezhka Maybe the volume was not big enough to really matter anyways, but losing a “passenger car” for a mostly “light truck” line-up should help Subaru with their CAFE numbers too.
  • Varezhka For this category my car of choice would be the CX-50. But between the two cars listed I’d select the RAV4 over CR-V. I’ve always preferred NA over small turbos and for hybrids THS’ longer history shows in its refinement.
  • AZFelix I would suggest a variation on the 'fcuk, marry, kill' game using 'track, buy, lease' with three similar automotive selections.
  • Formula m For the gas versions I like the Honda CRV. Haven’t driven the hybrids yet.
Next