About That United Auto Workers Contract With Fiat Chrysler Automobiles

Aaron Cole
by Aaron Cole

it’s probably dead.

The Detroit Free Press reported that the deal appears to be mathematically impossible after several large locals voted down the proposed contract this week.

The margins of defeat have been growing since Mopar and axle operators workers voted down the proposal by just over 50 percent and 65 percent last week, according to reports. Workers in Toledo, which builds the Jeep Wrangler and may lose the Cherokee to Sterling Heights, Michigan in order to build more Wranglers, voted overwhelmingly against the proposal; 87 percent declined the contract according to the Free Press.

Union workers at Fiat Chrysler Automobiles plants say that the contract, which does not specify production sites or moving plans — such as shifting truck and car production — doesn’t assuage concerns that more jobs will be lost to Mexico.

According to reports, workers at FCA plants have voiced concerns that the proposed UAW contract didn’t provide a clear path for lower-paid, entry workers to make as much as veteran Tier 1 workers. Newly hired Tier 2 workers, who make on average $9 less per hour than Tier 1 employees, comprise about 45 percent of FCA’s hourly workforce.

UAW President Dennis Williams dismissed concerns that the contract didn’t make clear a path to higher wages, saying that workers could apply for higher paying jobs within FCA.

The workers have also expressed concerns that the health care cooperative, created as a way to control costs, is lacking clear details.

Voting on the contract will continue Wednesday, but it’s unclear what may happen when workers turn down the proposal. Negotiators for the union and FCA could work again on a new deal, workers may strike or limit future work at FCA’s plants.

Aaron Cole
Aaron Cole

More by Aaron Cole

Join the conversation
3 of 10 comments
  • RideHeight RideHeight on Sep 30, 2015

    It'd be nice to hear from someone with skin in this game instead of the usual barking-loungers.

  • Charliej Charliej on Oct 01, 2015

    Fiat has plenty of underutilized plants outside the US, if the UAW decides to strike. So do Ford and GM. The UAW may think that they can dictate terms to the automakers, but those days are over. It would take some time, effort and money to move production out of the UAW's reach, but it can be done.

    • Highdesertcat Highdesertcat on Oct 01, 2015

      I agree. And I hope that it WILL actually be dome. The UAW has been disastrous for the US auto industry since time immemorial. The UAW isn't happy that Americans are provided decent paying jobs by the transplants in the South. The UAW's never-ending insidious agenda of unionizing auto plants in RTW states is a recipe for disaster by bringing the same Detroit 3 bankrupting scenario to otherwise profitable employers. All this drama for union dues. Let's move UAW jobs to non-union locations, inside and outside the US. Whatever it takes to maximize shareholder profits.

  • Ltcmgm78 It depends on whether or not the union is a help or a hindrance to the manufacturer and workers. A union isn't needed if the manufacturer takes care of its workers.
  • Honda1 Unions were needed back in the early days, not needed know. There are plenty of rules and regulations and government agencies that keep companies in line. It's just a money grad and nothing more. Fain is a punk!
  • 1995 SC If the necessary number of employees vote to unionize then yes, they should be unionized. That's how it works.
  • Sobhuza Trooper That Dave Thomas fella sounds like the kind of twit who is oh-so-quick to tell us how easy and fun the bus is for any and all of your personal transportation needs. The time to get to and from the bus stop is never a concern. The time waiting for the bus is never a concern. The time waiting for a connection (if there is one) is never a concern. The weather is never a concern. Whatever you might be carrying or intend to purchase is never a concern. Nope, Boo Cars! Yeah Buses! Buses rule!Needless to say, these twits don't actual take the damn bus.
  • MaintenanceCosts Nobody here seems to acknowledge that there are multiple use cases for cars.Some people spend all their time driving all over the country and need every mile and minute of time savings. ICE cars are better for them right now.Some people only drive locally and fly when they travel. For them, there's probably a range number that works, and they don't really need more. For the uses for which we use our EV, that would be around 150 miles. The other thing about a low range requirement is it can make 120V charging viable. If you don't drive more than an average of about 40 miles/day, you can probably get enough electrons through a wall outlet. We spent over two years charging our Bolt only through 120V, while our house was getting rebuilt, and never had an issue.Those are extremes. There are all sorts of use cases in between, which probably represent the majority of drivers. For some users, what's needed is more range. But I think for most users, what's needed is better charging. Retrofit apartment garages like Tim's with 240V outlets at every spot. Install more L3 chargers in supermarket parking lots and alongside gas stations. Make chargers that work like Tesla Superchargers as ubiquitous as gas stations, and EV charging will not be an issue for most users.