Throughout my nearly 53 years on earth, my family has owned American cars almost exclusively (with two exceptions, an old Fiat sedan my dad bought for my sister from one of his employees in the 1970s, and a Honda Civic my brother owned in the mid-80s).
Most of the American manufacturers were represented - from 1960 to today (as best as I can recollect) our fleet of anywhere from one to four cars at a time has included three Chevys, a Mercury, three Fords (all vans), two Saturns, four Pontiacs, six AMCs, four Dodges and three Chryslers.
Most of those cars - and all of them into the 1980s - were built in the U.S. by UAW workers or in Canada by CAW workers. My brother (who passed away in 2010) was a UAW shop steward at Lockheed-Martin's Ocala Operations Plant, and his active role in the union made him a target in this right-to-work state - he was ultimately laid off.
Sadly, beginning in the Reagan era, buying an American car did not always mean buying a union-built car. I owned a Dodge Shadow sedan and a Shadow convertible, both built in Toluca, Mexico - as were our two Chrysler PT Cruisers (and a third owned by my sister). We love the PTs - they're dependable, look cool, are economical and are extremely versatile for compact cars - but we'd love them more if they had been on the UAW's approved list. Unfortunately, they were not.
So I vowed a few years ago that my next car would be UAW-built - or at least CAW-built. Now it looks like I may not keep that vow. I'm not happy about that, but after doing some research, I'm okay with it. And hopefully, after following me below the little orange squiggle, you will be, too.
We're planning a road trip from Florida to Milwaukee, WI to see relatives next summer. While the PT Cruiser is roomy (for a compact) and versatile (with split fold-flat back seats) we've come to the conclusion that putting me, my mom and my sister, plus luggage, into the Cruiser will be a tight fit. Add to that the fact both my and my late brother's PTs are 11 years old with well over 100,000 miles on them, and you'll understand why we're considering trading my late brother's Cruiser in on something new (my Cruiser will be used exclusively for my small business).
We're looking for something roomier than the PT Cruisers, but equally versatile, with the ability to balance passenger and cargo space by folding or removing combinations of seating to create room for three plus a large, flat cargo space. That means an SUV, a crossover or a minivan.
We eliminated SUVs right off the bat - we don't need something huge that sucks down gas (yes, I know there are hybrid SUVs - more on that in a second), and since mom is 82 years old, having her climb into a tall SUV is out of the question.
What about crossovers? They have, for sure, become a huge segment of the auto market, and have succeeded in knocking a bunch of minivans out of showrooms entirely, while the survivors are seeing a dwindling market share. Minivans, it seems, have become "uncool," while crossovers are perceived as Cool with a capital C.
I don't particularly care about cool. I care about practical. And most of the crossovers on the market seem absurdly impractical to me. The Chevy Traverse, for example, is about the same size on the outside as most minivans, but has less cargo space than any minivan except the Nissan Quest, gets worse fuel economy than any minivan except the Kia Sedona (which it ties), and costs more (base price of over $30,000) than any of the vans.
Cost is also the main thing keeping me from considering a hybrid SUV or crossover, by the way. Our budget is probably going to max out at under $25,000. If there's a hybrid SUV or crossover on the market that meets that price point, I haven't found it. (It's probably just as well for his sake my father passed away in 2005 - he always said he'd never pay more for a car than he paid for our house, and he managed to live up to that for his entire life. The problem is, he and my grandfather built our house in 1959, at a cost of $10,000. Even used cars are breaking that barrier in ever-increasing numbers these days.)
Call me hopelessly square, but I'm a fan of the minivan. They're roomier, generally more versatile, and less expensive than crossovers. So a minivan is what I'm shopping for.
And therein lies the problem. There are currently no minivans on the market built in the United States by the UAW. The Chrysler Town & Country and Dodge Grand Caravan are on the UAW-approved list, being built by CAW union workers in Windsor, Ontario, so I will look at the Grand Caravan (the lower priced of the two).
The Toyota Sienna, Honda Odyssey and Nissan Quest are all built in the United States, but not in union shops (and all three have base prices above $25,000).
The minivan I'm leaning toward is the fully-redesigned 2014 Ford Transit Connect Wagon. I can't directly compare it to the Grand Caravan yet, because it hasn't reached showrooms yet. It could be available as early as October, or it may not be out until spring. I do know it won't be built in the U.S., and won't be on the UAW-approved list - but after looking into it, I really am okay with that.
I'll note here that the Transit Connect will be different from the Transit - the Transit Connect will remain the light cargo and passenger van for both the small business and consumer markets. But as of 2014, Transit will be the name given to Ford's full-sized van, which will replace the current Econoline (E-Series), and which will be built by UAW workers in the U.S. That said, when I write "Transit" throughout the remainder of this diary, I'm referring to the Transit Connect Wagon.
There are several things I like about the all-new Transit Connect that currently has it leading the Caravan. It's a foot shorter and six inches narrower (read more maneuverable and easier to park) than the Caravan, but has almost as much maximum cargo space (138 cu. ft. for the Transit vs. 143.8 for the Dodge), appears to have a lower floor (thus easier for mom to get into and out of) than the Caravan, has available swing-out rear cargo doors (I'm done with liftgates bonking me on the head) and, if Ford's projections match up to the EPA numbers, will get 30+ mpg on the highway vs. 25 for the Caravan.
At $19,995, the Caravan has the lowest base price in the minivan field (more than $10,000 less than its twin, the Town & Country). Ford hasn't announced pricing on the Transit yet, but promises it will be competitive with the Dodge.
As I said above, we will look at the CAW-built, UAW-approved Caravan. And when the Transit hits showrooms in the coming months, we'll compare it directly with the Dodge, and will choose the one that best fits our needs. But if the Transit lives up to my expectations, it will definitely have the edge, despite being built outside the U.S.
Here, at last, is why.
The 2014 Transit Connect will be built in Ford's Valencia, Spain plant. There are two reasons for that: First, the Transit Connect will be part of Ford's "Global Vehicle" lineup, a group of cars and trucks built on a common platform and sold relatively unchanged in a number of global markets; and second, all U.S. Ford plants are currently operating at full capacity. In other words, Ford couldn't hire any more U.S. workers without building an entirely new plant here. Even if that happens, it won't happen before we buy a new vehicle. So my mind is at ease knowing that if I buy the Transit, it won't cost any Americans their jobs.
There's also the fact that as bad as our economy still is, and as many American workers as are still hurting, the situation in Spain is even worse. They've been hammered particularly hard by the European Union's austerity obsession. Spain's unemployment rate is falling - slightly - but still stands at 26.3%. Youth unemployment there is still over 50%. If buying a Transit helps put a dent in the overall number (Ford doesn't hire workers under age 18 to build cars), I see that as a good thing.
But in the final analysis, it was this document that made me feel even better about the Transit. Because while it isn't built by the UAW or CAW, it joins the Chrysler/Dodge minivan twins as one of only three union-built minivans on the U.S. market.
Yes, the Valencia Ford plant is a union shop. More importantly, it's covered both by Spain's progressive worker's rights and environmental laws, and corporate policies which, Ford claims, exceed those laws in some ways.
From the linked document:
In early 2008, Ford joined the United Nations Global Compact (UNGC), a framework for businesses that are committed to aligning their operations and strategies with 10 universally accepted principles in the areas of human rights, labor, the environment and anti-corruption. This action reinforces our commitment to outstanding performance and transparency in these areas.
In answers to a questionnaire from David Berdish, Ford's Manager of Social Sustainability, the manager of Ford of Spain, José Abargues, explained the intricacies of Spain's labor laws and Ford's own labor policies. They make for impressive reading. Two examples stood out to me. I've added emphasis to the portions which particularly got my attention.
First:
Freedom of Association and Collective Bargaining:
This freedom is legally mandatory and is ruled by the Spanish Law of Union Freedom (Ley de Libertad Sindical), which has also the rank of fundamental law. Ford Spain fully fulfills the law. Works Council members are elected by the workers every four years. Currently the Works Council in Valencia has 35 seats, owned by the following unions:
UGT (Union General de Trabajadores, or General Workers Confederation) 19
CCOO (Comisiones Obreras, or Workers Commissions) 8
CGT (Confederacion General de Trabajadores, or General Confederation on Labour) 5
STM (Sindicato de Trabajadores del Metal, or Sheet Metal Workers' Union) 3
Workforce is unionized at 88%.
And second:
Work Hours:
The Workers' Statute sets the maximum work hours at 40 hrs/week, and a maximum of 48 weeks per annum, leaving freedom to the companies to negotiate in the collective bargaining for the labor contract anything below this ceiling.
In Ford Spain, our labor contract establishes 38.75 hrs/week for 46 weeks.
Read the bold type again: Workers at Ford's Valencia plant do not exceed 38.75 hours in a work week, and get 6 weeks of vacation every year. The document also notes that once a worker hits age 60, they can become "partial retirees," working just 15 percent of a full-time worker's annual number of days. The retirement age is 64, so this policy allows workers to ease into retirement over a four-year period rather than abruptly going from full-time worker to retiree overnight. That sounds incredibly sensible to me. It's no wonder that, according to Abargues, "In the area near the Ford factory (in a radio [sic - I think he means "radius"] of 100 kilometers) Ford is the factory most people would like to work for." Indeed, the Ford plant is the dominant employer in a region populated by 3 million, Abargues claims.
I am mindful of the fact this is a corporate document published by Ford management, and as such it should be treated with a healthy dose of skepticism. And I don't want to leave the impression that all is sweetness and light at Ford's Valencia plant.
According to the European Industrial Relations Observatory, Ford and its Spanish unions reached an agreement in April that would replace 985 existing workers (of 6,500 currently working at the plant) with 1,000 new hires. As in the agreement reached between the UAW and GM and Chrysler during the auto bailout, those new hires would be paid lower wages than the existing workforce. The 985 workers they're replacing would take early retirement (this is apparently separate from the "partial retirement" plan I mentioned above).
The unions also agreed to a wage freeze for the duration of 2014. However, from 2015 to 2017, wages will begin increasing again by the official inflation rate plus 0.5 percent, and in 2018 by inflation plus 1 percent.
CBS News also reported last month that the International Monetary Fund is pressuring Spain to weaken its progressive labor laws. Spain did amend their laws recently to make it easier for companies to lay off or fire workers, but their parliament is, so far, resisting pressure from the IMF to go farther.
From the CBS report:
"The labor reform is already done -- what we'll do is minor adjustments," Labor Minister Fatima Banez told reporters Friday [August 2].
So yes, just as has happened here, unions are being forced to accept structural concessions that result in lower wages. And yes, Spain's liberal laws have become a target of the austerians, who are working overtime to use the financial crisis to undercut workers' rights and shred the social safety net. But the same baggage, unfortunately, would come with purchasing a UAW-built car.
At least there is union representation at the Spanish plant which will build the Transit, which is more than can be said for the American plants building the Sienna, Odyssey and Quest (though there is a strong ongoing effort by the UAW, with a lot of help from college students in Mississippi, Georgia, Florida and Tennessee, to organize the Nissan plant in Canton, MS).
If the Transit doesn't live up to its hype, and the CAW-built Caravan meets our needs, I'll happily buy a Caravan. But if the Transit is as good as it appears to be on paper, I'll be proud to own it, knowing I have, at least, put some money in the pockets of union workers in a country ravaged even more than the U.S. by idiotic austerity policies. And I'll feel pretty good about that.