UAW Socialists Stumped

We haven’t said much about the United Auto Workers (UAW) lately. That’s because the union has kept a low profile. And why wouldn’t they? At the expense of nothing very much, their members continue to either draw the same paycheck (on the government’s dime) or cash-out (on the government’s dime). They also get billions in (federal) cash money into their VEBA health care superfund. And stock in both New Chrysler and New GM. Not that they really wanted a stake in their zombie masters, but, hey, it’s better than getting slapped in the face with a wet fish. Still, ’tis the nature of the beast to bitch. On the union’s far left, the The Party for Socialism and Liberation (“a newly formed working class party of leaders and activists from many different struggles, founded to promote the movement for revolutionary change”) has a thing or two to say about the UAW’s New Deal with New Chrysler. Only it doesn’t sound like the stuff of barricade manning.

The contract, which covers 26,800 UAW-represented workers, is full of concessions. The contract allows Chrysler to hire as many new workers as it can at a wage and benefit rate roughly half that paid to current UAW workers. Cost-of-living increases are suspended. Workers will lose two paid holidays in both 2010 and 2011 and will also lose performance bonuses and Christmas bonuses in 2009 and 2010. Meanwhile, the prices of food and gas continue to increase.

The contract calls for binding arbitration on a new contract through 2015. If no agreement can be reached on a new contract, the arbitrator must base total hourly labor costs on a rate comparable to Chrysler’s U.S. competitors, including foreign-owned manufacturers.

That’s a lot of concessions . . .

In the Wiggles World perhaps. Here in the real world, the UAW comes out of this smelling of roses. Despite ChryCo’s bankruptcy, not one union worker was thrown out on the street without a paycheck, a payoff, a pension or benefits. The new hires are the new hires. And their medical benefits took a symbolic hit.

Reading the PLS’ diatribe, you kinda get the impression that the union agitators understand this. Hence their call for a “broader fight back initiative,” and a conclusion that doesn’t really conclude much of anything.

What should labor do? Would it have been enough to reject the contract concessions and launch a fight against Chrysler? There is no guarantee that such an approach would have been effective, and it would have put labor even more on the defensive, allowing the media pundits to paint the UAW as the obstacle to “saving Chrysler.” Simply fighting a defensive contract-by-contract, company-by-company struggle is a recipe for defeat.

Workers have shown that they are ready to fight back, as the Republic Door and Hartmarx struggles have illustrated. Labor needs to launch a broader fight-back initiative, a political fight against the attempt of the capitalists to solve their economic crisis on the backs of the workers.