Although Toyota was a 50% stakeholder in the NUMMI facility in Freemont, California, it may end up carrying 100% of the closure costs. The LA Times reports that Liquidation Motors, the company which took over GM’s assets won’t fund any of the severance pay or other expenses to the closure of NUMMI. “Motors Liquidation is not contributing at all” (to the closure costs), said Tim Yost, a spokesman for Detroit-based Motors Liquidation Corp., “We don’t believe there will be a requirement for us to do so.” Paul Nolasco,  a Toyota spokesperson in Tokyo said that “Although we cannot provide any figures at this time, it is something for which we plan to make allowance in our earnings report.” Toyota was planning for a smaller-than-expected loss for this financial year, and the addition of these extra costs (should they happen) will affect the company and its stock price. On the other hand, it also puts Toyota in the exact same boat as the American taxpayers.

Opel’s union boss and chief thorn-in-the-side for GM’s attempt at regaining control of its European division, Klaus Franz, recently met with CEO Fritz Henderson and is telling German media that “Henderson agrees that Opel should be led back to its traditional strengths in Europe, with a high level of independence  and autonomy within the GM organization.” But Franz is looking for more than kind words from Fritz, namely a future Opel share offering. “This way, GM can prove that it’s serious about Opel’s independence,” Franz tells RTL. Franz and Opel’s employees want a complete business plan along the lines of the one they’ve been negotiating for the past year and a half. Meanwhile, GM has also said that it will pay back the remaining €600m ($900m) worth of German government’s bridge loans by the end of the month. Between the Moody’s report that GM needs $8.5b to turn Opel around and the division’s continued desire for independence, a solution to the situation won’t be easy or cheap. It may be in GM’s strategic interests to keep Opel under its wing, but to what extent and at what cost?

There’s no love lost between carmudgeon Peter Delorenzo and GM’s failed Car Czar, the exec whose singular inability to create compelling branding or class-leading products helped transform the world’s largest automaker into a nationalized welfare queen. No wait. Sorry. The self-styled Autoextremist hates the United Auto Workers (UAW). And now that the UAW has rejected a contract with Ford that would have given it parity with post-C11 GM and Chrysler, Sweet Pete has unleashed the dogs of demagoguery. “Wait a minute, wasn’t it the rampant wage and benefit increases over the last three decades that contributed immeasurably to the domestic auto industry’s demise? And yes, it took two parties to make those deals, but really? After everything that has transpired in the last year the union is still clinging to the notion that they actually have a dog in this hunt when it comes to getting this industry off of the ground again? That somehow, some way, when things get all back to normal again they can go right back to the “M.O.” that helped bring this industry to its knees in the first place? I’ve got one word for the UAW and its behavior: Reprehensible.” DeLorenzo’s ire is not entirely misplaced, but it’s close . . .

(Read More…)

Who in their right minds thought that the United Auto Workers (UAW) rank and file would ratify a contract that included a no-strike clause? That would be like cutting off your balls to spite your penis. And so they haven’t (ratified the contract that is). Sure, Chrysler has one of them no-strike deals, but they’re dead in the water. Ford’s on its way back to profit! Ford’s CEO said so himself. Many times. As Alan Mulally and UAW Prez Ron Gettelfinger have learned, if you talk out of both sides of your mouth, you’re heading for a big old bitch slapping. On Friday, Big Ron told the Detroit Free Press that the UAW won’t return to the bargaining table if the measure was defeated. So Ford’s unionized work force will carry on as before, until the existing accord (so to speak) expires in 2011. The rejection will not play well with Ford’s investors, who were looking for the Blue Oval Boys to reduce their labor costs to match those of the transplants and cross-town welfare queens.

(Read More…)

By last Friday, it was clear that the United Auto Workers rank and file found their new, no-strike contract rank, and filed their objections during voting. In other words, the union’s members rejected the deal. Which left Ford CEO Alan Mulally’s rep seriously dinged. After all, Big Al’s been talking-up Ford’s return to profitability ever since he banked that first $25 million paycheck. The union vote against the strike was a vote for Big Al’s plan. If he’d kept his mouth shut or, better yet, constantly warned against looming collapse, the UAW might have made the ultimate concession. But then investors wouldn’t have dumped more money into Ford and the Ford family members signing Mulally’s big ass paychecks would have been seriously spooked. Big Al can’t win from losing, as the Brits would say.

(Read More…)

Well, the “what makes an American car American” debate just got a little more interesting (and a lot more interesting than the “who ‘won’ the CTS-V Challenge” rigmarole). Automotive News [sub] reports that Ford’s Oakville, Ontario plant and GM’s Delta Township plant have ceased production of Flex, Edge, MKX, MKT, Acadia, Traverse and Enclave as supplier Rico Automotive is unable to supply key transmission components. The reason for the parts stoppage: labor violence… in India. Turmoil at Rico’s plant in Gurgaron (30 miles from New Delhi) came to a head on the 18th, when clashes between temporary workers and factory staff left an employee dead. Now GM stands to lose 7,200 units of production, while Ford admits “several thousand” units won’t be built over the next week. This striking illustration of how globalized the auto industry is, is causing some analysts to question the wisdom of using Indian suppliers. They argue that labor unrest like this is common in the subcontinent, compounding already-challenging logistical and shipping-cost issues. But GM and Ford aren’t exactly about to stop investing in Indian firms and production capacity either, since that market shows more growth potential than the US. One thing is for sure: there’s no such thing as an “American car,” let alone an “American car company” anymore. Government ownership notwithstanding.

It sure looks that way. The Detroit Free Press reports—without any commentary whatsoever—that six out of eight locals who’ve voted have rejected the deal. This despite the usual specter of United Auto Workers’ voter fraud/intimidation issue (contract votes are not subject to independent monitoring). To wit: “Details of tally not available” and “Number of represented workers not available” and “51% of workers who voted were for the deal” and “according to that unit’s Web site.” Not to mention this nugget from the main news story: “Not all UAW locals that have completed voting have divulged precise tallies, and UAW officials in Detroit have declined to provide details.” Anyway, it looks like the proposed contract with Ford is failing fast. So . . . now what? As we’ve said before, the usual M.O. is for the UAW to go back to the bargaining table, get the required headline change (no no strike clause) and return with the same basic deal as before. In these post-GM C11 days, a strike at Ford seems completely beyond the realm of possibility. But if push comes to shove, expect Ford—lauded as the non-bailout queen—to send more production outside the country. Which they have done and will do, anyway.

It gives me great pride to give UAW Local 435 workers the opportunity to partner with Fisker Automotive to create a greener America by building a plug-in hybrid car that will compete globally

So goes the line from Gary Casteel, the new Union boss for Fisker’s new Wilmington, Delaware plant at Automotive News [sub]. Why would the luxury EV startup hitch its wagon to the union that helped bring down Detroit? Was it a condition of GM’s sale of the plant where Pontiac Solstice/Saturn Sky were once built? Or does Fisker think that running a union shop might help bring in federal dross? Or are projected profit margins so strong that Fisker just doesn’t care? One thing’s for certain: though the UAW has agreed to a number of concessions over the past year, there’s a reason that most new US auto plants avoid union representation like the plague. From VW and Kia to Hybrid Kinetic Motors and Tesla, new US factories are being located in Southern states and California largely to escape the profit and productivity-sapping union. Either Fisker knows something that they don’t, or inviting the union into the new shop was a potential error of enormous magnitude.

And it wasn’t even close. Though the proposed concessions didn’t even move Ford to parity with its UAW-VEBA-owned cross-town rivals, 92 percent of the KC plant’s workers rejected the deal. According to The Detroit News, a UAW national Vice President tried to convince workers to accept the deal prior to the vote, but was apparently shouted down by angry employees. “(He) spoke and was booed,” said one worker who the DetN did not identify. “There were a lot of ‘No’s!’ It was a very loud meeting.” And apparently, it was the no-strike clause that got workers so steamed. Which makes a certain amount of sense… after all, what good is a union that can’t strike? The problem is that the no-strike clause was a crucial factor in convincing Fiat to take charge of Chrysler, an automaker the UAW ended up with a 60 percent stake in. And now, the worker’s rejection of a Ford agreement strikes an equally rippling blow to the UAW’s pattern-bargaining strategy. Can the UAW have it both ways? It sure looks like it’s going to try. Though KC was the first local rejection of the deal (five other plants narrowly approved it, two have rejected), a vote is approaching (on Friday) at the Dearborn Truck plant that has been a hotbed of UAW dissent. So much so, that it appears that UAW leadership may have delayed the Dearborn vote until after all the other locals’ votes. Still, if the Dearborn vote fails, which it well could, we could see major turmoil within the ranks of the UAW.

When the Detroit uses the word “misunderstanding” in the lede graph of a story about The United Auto Workers (UAW), you just know there is some serious negotiation, posturing, ass-covering and ass-kicking going on behind the scenes. In this case, it seems that the union’s members are not happy about a no-strike clause in their proposed contract with Ford. “The Detroit News has learned that the [no-strike] language, which was included in recent contract changes the UAW negotiated with General Motors Co. and Chrysler Group LLC, was mandated by the Obama administration as a condition of its bailout of the two companies. It was designed to ensure the competitive gains that were forced through by the White House could not be reversed in 2011 contract negotiations between GM and Chrysler and the UAW, according to people familiar with the situation.” What’s this got to do with Ford? Can you say “pattern bargaining?” It seems that the UAW, who practically invented the term, can’t quite bring themselves to use it now. Or keep their members in the loop.

(Read More…)