CAW Official: "There Is No Two-Tier Structure That We're Interested In"

Derek Kreindler
by Derek Kreindler
We’re committed to finding, researching, and recommending the best products. We earn commissions from purchases you make using links in our articles. Learn more here
caw official there is no two tier structure that we re interested in

In this episode of Two Steps Forward, One Step Back , the CAW’s Dino Chiodo, chairman of the union’s master bargaining committee for Chrysler and the President of Local 444 in Windsor, appeared to shut the door on a UAW-style two-tier wage structure for new hires.

Chiodo told the CBC

“The company needs to recognize and realize that we are not taking concessions and we will not be going backwards in this round of bargaining…There is no two-tier structure that we’re interested in entertaining whatsoever at this point. It’s just something that’s against our principles.”

While a temporary two-tier structure was something that has been discussed, the comments are particularly pertinent in light of Sergio Marchionne’s frequent comments in the media regarding his desire to bring labor costs down, and his stated willingness to move production out of Windsor and into plants in the United States and other locales.

Of course, given Marchionne’s rhetoric, it’s not unreasonable to expect that the big dogs at the CAW will fire off some of their own comments as well.

Derek Kreindler
Derek Kreindler

More by Derek Kreindler

Join the conversation
10 of 33 comments
  • Guildenstern Guildenstern on Sep 15, 2012

    I'm not usually a Union supporter, I've just heard too many stories of union abuse to be a big fan of theirs. But the CAW is in the right here, it's not the workers fault that management can't sell cars. Chrysler is making a profit, If it wishes to make MORE of a profit then it should be the suits job to find out how to sell more cars, not make the production costs cheaper. Turning inward to boost profits only weakens the whole economy. It's insane to basically say "We are going to cut wages to a point that our own employees can't afford a new car." What do they think will happen then? Those employees end up with less money to put into their economy, that economy becomes weaker, and even less cars get sold. How is that a correct or appropriate solution to the problem of not enough profit? Basic labor wages need to be protected, they work as a peg for most other non executive pay rates. If you let them slip too low soon you'll find Nobody can afford much of anything. The Union isn't just doing this for itself, it's working for the greater good. And that's nice to see for a change.

    • See 5 previous
    • El scotto El scotto on Sep 16, 2012

      Anybody's financial situation is dependent on their salary or annual wage. When I ran our family company I tried to get as many guys on union jobs as I could. My workers made more, my company made more, payday was on Friday, and turds float downhill. They are making making BMWs in America.,2 Disclosure: I live in Virginia and can walk to the mini-mart and buy the Post. I have no idea who sponsors/funds remapping debate.

  • DIYer DIYer on Sep 15, 2012

    The jobs in Canada will move to Mexico, the Big 3 are just looking for any excuse to do so. CAW's all-in labor costs are $60/hour, and Mexico's are only $5.50. Canadian jobs won't go to the US. UAW labor costs are slightly less than Canada's; but politically, the Big 3 won't send US jobs to Mexico right now.

  • Jimboy Jimboy on Sep 15, 2012

    I get the feeling that mostly what I'm seeing here is pro and anti Union rhetoric. I don't think most of you even have a clue exactly what deal either side is fighting for. And frankly, unless you work for the union or one of the automakers it really doesn't concern you at all. Taxes and cost of living are higher in Canada than the U.S. and Mexico, that's a fact. Canada has been building cars as long as the U.S., and far longer than Mexico, that's a fact. Mexico has severe problems with corruption and social issues, that Canada and U.S. don't, that's a fact. Canada has a better social safety net than either the U.S. or Mexico, subsidized by our higher taxes and wages, that's a fact. Therefore, the automaker is required to kick in LESS in Canada than either the U.S. and Mexico, which costs the automaker less in benefits in Canada, that's a fact. So, please predicate your arguments, ( and opinions ) based on some facts, rather than wishful thinking, thanks.

  • Bill mcgee Bill mcgee on Sep 17, 2012

    One thing I've wondered from watching real estate shows on the HGTV station is about the cost of housing in Canada . Most of their content is out of Canada and the prices for both rental and purchasing of residential real estate seem sky-high . Most of these involve prices for properties in Toronto and while I know that Vancouver's prices are much more don't know how they compare to Windsor . The houses they show in Toronto usually are small ,dark , dank basements , no garage , often no parking , in crappy shape , zero curb appeal and they are like at least $500k . Of course its all location, location , location in real estate but don't know how the average schmuck affords it . Of course , other side of the border Detroit sounds much cheaper . And of course the big three or any other company is unlikely to care about paying more so their workers can get better housing when right across the border it's cheaper .