Will The UAW Accept Performance Pay?
It’s not difficult to understand why the UAW has never contemplated agreeing to a wage rate tied to the profitability of its employer firms: simply put, it’s been a long time since big profits were the norm among the union-represented Detroit automakers. But now that Motown is back in the black and handing out record profit-sharing checks, it looks like the UAW could finally tie its own fate to that of the automakers… on certain conditions. UAW boss Bob King tells The WSJ [sub]
It would be an advantage if you can guarantee to the [Detroit] companies certain things on fixed costs so that they would remain competitive. When you’re successful, that’s good. But if you’re sharing more of the risk, you need to have more of the upside
In short, tying the union’s wage to the automakers’ financial performance is only an option if there’s something in it for the UAW. And end to two-tier? More US production? Board seats for the union? Who knows, possibly even a pay increase. With GM Vice Chairman Steve Girsky saying things like
there is a big pay-for-performance element going through the company and there is going to be more of it,
one has to assume GM might be willing to play “let’s make a deal” with the union. Girsky’s been on the labor and management side of the equation.. in fact, at the moment he is (apparently) on both sides, as both a Vice Chairman of GM and the UAW VEBA fund’s representative on the Board of Directors. With that kind of connection between labor and management, and with much of the “risk” around Detroit’s performance having been removed by the government bailout, a UAW performance pay deal seems more likely than you might think. Whether it’s a good idea is another, far more complex question that I’ll leave to the comments section.
Comments
Join the conversation
I long for the good old days-- kick em off
This is fun to watch. It humors me as an individual -- but discourages and saddens me to no end as an American -- to watch the left-leaning elements work CJ and MikeAR into a lather. Even though those two are far closer to my own political -- make that moral -- POV than anyone who attempts to justify the continued existence of labor unions in this country today. So, in one more stab of measured futility, here are the facts: -Unions are well-known throughout history as being in cahoots with crime, organized and otherwise. Does that mean the UAW is complicit? Not necessarily. Does that make Bob King a crime lord? Hardly... though in physical stature, lack of social charisma, and the size of the obvious chip on his shoulder, he does resemble the Unabomber a little. Just saying. -Unions were necessary 100 years ago, and they were necessary in developing the litany of workplace protections that exist today. However, it isn't "The Jungle" out there anymore. Employers simply can't abuse workers to that extent today -- if for no other reason than there are far too many cell phone cameras and investigative "journalists" out there, eager to pounce on an easy public interest story on a deadline. And... -If you don't like your pay or your working conditions, you are entitled to make your case individually for better circumstances. You are also free to leave, in search of a better life somewhere else. That is where workers' general rights should begin, and end. Period. I used to view unions as corrupt entities, filled with mindless thugs. That's changed over the months, though. I now consider union members to simply be weak-willed, either unwilling to stand up for themselves... or self-aware enough to realize they wouldn't get very far if they had to do fend for themselves.