Ford – UAW Contract: Strike or No Strike?
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.
Dissident leader Gary Walkowicz, a bargaining committee member at UAW Local 600 who represents workers at Dearborn Truck, said union leaders already abandoned pattern bargaining by granting additional concessions to GM and Chrysler.
“If they want a pattern agreement, they should bring GM and Chrysler back up to where we’re at,” he said, adding that he opposes any limits on the union’s right to stop working.
“It strikes at the very heart of what a union is. Without it, they’ll have no reason to protect our pay and benefits.”
Walkowicz accused union leaders of purposely delaying the vote at his factory until next Friday so that a “no” vote there would not encourage other plants to oppose ratification. At the same time, some workers at factories that have approved the agreement are accusing union leaders of vote fraud. As a result, Walkowicz is calling on national UAW leaders to open vote counting to rank-and-file members.
The UAW would not comment, but local leaders, including UAW Local 600 President Jerry Sullivan, accuse dissidents of spreading “misinformation” about the no-strike language to prevent ratification.
Ain’t politics grand? Meanwhile, I wonder how oversight over the UAW’s VEBA gazillions is going right about now. Anyone looking into that?
More by Robert Farago
Comments
Join the conversation
no_slusbox-- I'm a city planner. There's really no private sector equivalent so I can't compare (well, maybe my arch-nemesis--the developer. Well, sort of, and I guarantee you they make more) That link you sent me pretty much makes it look like a wash overall. In some professions the private sector pays more, in some professions the public sector does. But do those salary numbers include benefits along with paychecks? All I know is that my friends in the private sector were doing much better than me financially until the recession. Now they're envious. I'm sure the worm will turn the other way, again, in two years though. I picked security over earning potential, and for now I'm glad I did. And I also agree with you that the public sector SHOULD pay less. One should enter government to serve the public, not to become wealthy.