Chrysler's "Wildcard" In Labor Talks: Marchionne
Chrysler is coming off a strong year sales-wise, but negotiations with the Canadian Auto Workers will force the company to make a tactical decision; should Chrysler take a tough line in an effort to reduce costs, or look for a quick settlement in order to hold off a strike, maintaining their sales hot streak.
All of Chrysler’s minivans and rear-drive cars (such as the Chrysler 300, Dodge Charger and Dodge Challenger) are built in Canadian plants/ With 27 percent of its vehicles made in Canada, a strike would have serious ramifications. In its native market, the Dodge Grand Caravan is a top-selling nameplate,while in the U.S., Chrysler’s double-digit sales gain could be in jeopardy. Chrysler is thought to be the automaker being target for a strike by the CAW, but other observers feel that the company will take a hard line in negotiations.
Chrysler’s potential “wildcard” (as industry observer put it) is CEO Sergio Marchionne. A report in The Globe and Mail claims that
Chrysler’s Canadian operations are expected to deliver nearly a third of the company’s $3 billion profit in 2012 alone. Aside from vehicle assembly, a strike at the Toronto-area casting plant would put a major crimp in the company’s production pipeline. But with Chrysler looking to cut labor costs while getting workers to accept a profit sharing deal, it’s tough to predict how the showdown between Marchionne and CAW President Ken Lewenza will go down. If Chrysler is the first automaker to negotiate, the deal will likely set a precedent for future negotiations with the other two domestic automakers.
More by Derek Kreindler
Comments
Join the conversation
I understand that regular hourly rate in Canada of $3X.XX is high, but isn't a wage for new employees in the US of $15.78 incredibly low? Is this frozen for the entire 4-year period or subject to performance/inflation based increases? I'm struggling to see how automakers can actually attract resonable employees for a salary of only 33k USD.
Correct me if I am wrong here, but my understanding was that the Canadian facilities' total labour costs compared much more favourably (yes, with a 'u') to the US plants when benefits were added in, because the employer's part of health care coverage was so much more expensive in the US. Maybe looking at hourly wages rather than total labour costs per hour is not entirely objective?