Skip to main content

I've been hoping that someone would take the time to write a diary on this, but I haven't seen anything.  While there's been tremendous focus on the continuing subprime mortgage crisis, there's been little attention given to the looming cataclysmic confrontation between the United Auto Workers (UAW) union and the Big Three automakers (GM, Ford, and Chrysler.)   The current contract between the UAW and the Big Three expires tonight at midnight, and while Ford and Chrysler have indefinite extensions to their contracts, GM has been chosen as the strike target.

DETROIT -- The United Auto Workers union likely chose General Motors Corp. as the lead company in labor talks with the Detroit Three because GM is considered the healthiest and the UAW wants to prevent the nation's largest automaker from moving more manufacturing overseas, industry analysts said.

Two local union officials said they received notice Thursday afternoon that GM would be the lead company in the contract negotiations and the UAW's potential strike target. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because the talks are private.

Many of you may be unfamiliar with the language used here, so I want to give a little background.  

First, where workers are organized, the union negotiates a contract that specifies the terms of work, benefits, and pay.  Unlike in most employment relations where large employers are able to exploit power and information assymetries, with the union two largely equal players are at the table. I could write an entire diary about this, but to simpify (grossly) the key distinction is that where the company knows the wages and benefits paid to all their employees, employees rarely know this, nor have in depth information about the amount of money that their work generates for the company.  In short, most of the assumptions neccesary for the free markets to function that economists dismiss with ceterus paribus (Latin, "all other things being equal,"  sounds much more scientific than abracadbra despite often being its functional equivalent) are not valid.  

Just to present graphic proof of the impact that this has, a few charts.

Few (of my generation) realize that there was a time when 1 in 3 American workers belong to a labor organization, and that in the industrial Midwest (Indiana, Ohio, Michigan, etc) the private sector rates were even higher.  This being built in large part upon the might that was the United Auto Workers union in its heyday under Walter Reuther in the 1960's.

American never had state socialism, because we didn't need it.  The union made us strong.  For a generation of UAW families, the union contract meant that Dad (or Mom) brought home enough pay to give us a middle class living, guaranteed health insurance (vision, dental too) with no co-pay, and the security that came from knowing that it was all binding. The working class became middle class, because if they worked they were guaranteed a living wage and benefits.  But those days are gone, the company long ago introduced co-pays, and there's a constant fear that the plant will be closed.  

And the story in the media is that American workers no longer have the right to expect a living wage and health care benefits.  Because American workers are slothful, lazy creatures that exhibit a human character slighly above that of drug addicts.  Of course the media would never lie to us, if there were even an inkling of evidence that the there was in fact a divergence in productivity growth (making more stuff) and inflation-adjusted wage growth, they would tell us right?

Those lying little sonsabitches, ever since union density (the % of the workforce represented by a labor organization) began to fall in the 1960s, wages have not risen at the same rate as productivity.  Workers are making more stuff, yet they are not being paid for it.  Why, because while workers stand together in unions they are able to overcome those power and information assymetries, but when workers are forced to stand alone at the table, the company has all the information about wages and the power to affect the production of the firm on their side.

Even that apostle of the free market, Adam Smith, understood this.

   "What are the common wages of labor depends everywhere upon the contract usually made between those two parties (workmen - and masters), whose interests are by no means the same.  The workmen desire to get as much, the masters to give as little as possible.  The former are as disposed to combine in order to raise, the latter in order to lower the wages of labor."

(Vol_1*Book_1*Chapt_8)

   "We rarely hear, it has been said, of the combinations of masters, though frequently of those of workmen. But whoever imagines, upon this account, that masters rarely combine, is as ignorant of the world as of the subject.  Masters are always and everywhere in a sort of tacit, but constant and uniform combination, not to raise the wages of labor above their actual rate."

(Vol_1*Book_1*Chapt_8)

   "Masters, too, sometimes enter into particular combinations to sink the wages of labour even below this rate.  These are always conducted with the utmost silence and secrecy, till the moment of execution, and when the workmen yield, as they sometimes do, without resistance, though severely felt by them, they are never heard of by other people."

(Vol_1*Book_1*Chapt_8)

   "Such combinations, however, are frequently resisted by a contrary defensive combination of the workmen; who sometimes too, without any provocation of this kind, combine of their own accord to raise the price of their labor."

(Vol_1*Book_1*Chapt_8)

   "But whether their combinations be offensive or defensive, they are always abundantly heard of.  In order to bring the point to a speedy decision, they have always recourse to the loudest clamour, and sometimes to the most shocking violence and outrage ."

(Vol_1*book_1*Chapt_8)

Even Adam Smith realized that power and information assymetries plague the employment relationship when capital is allowed to combine into corporations, but workers are forbidden to do so.  As was the case until the abolition of anti-combination laws in 19th century Britain, and is increasingly the case in this country as restrictions are placed on the ability of workers to combine into unions. However, those who would speak his name as though it invokes the sacred have conveniently forgotten to read this part of the book. That's the problem with fundamentalist zealots though.

And for the last 40 years American labor has been under attack, and the ability of the working class to combine into unions that they might have a middle class living has been degraded.  When workers unite, and stand together they can negotiate as equals with their employers.  And when the company wants to keep the fruits of their labor (i.e. when there is a productivity increase but wages are held stagnant), the workers can go on strike.  

And this gets back to the UAW and what's happening today.  When wages are set on the "free market" with workers divided and the company united, the inevitable tendency is that they will descend to a level sufficient only to keep a man alive and nothing more.  When workers unite, they can can share in what they put on the table, and if the company isn't interested in playing fair, then workers can refuse to put more on the table if it will benefit the company alone.  They can go on strike.

Traditionally, negotiations between the Big Three and the UAW have followed a pattern negotiation model. In this, the UAW chooses a strike target, a company against whom they wil strike if no agreement can be made.  And they get the best deal that they can get from them, and them use that deal as a template for contracts with the other two.  Before the arrival of foreign non-union manufacturers, this meant that the UAW was able to negotiate an industry wide wage that meant that no company had a competitive advantage from paying subpar wages. The arrival of Toyota, Honda, and the rest in the US has challenged this, and more ominously "free trade" deals have opened the door to offshoring production to contries where even the meager protections of US labor law are not present.

As you read this, union halls in Cadillac, Michigan, Lordstown, Ohio, and elsewhere are being readied for use as strike headquarters.  The impact of a national strike would be dramatic.  180,000 GM workers off the job, probably somewhere around hald again that laid off at suppliers as GM plants are idled.  And all this concentrated for the most part in 3-5 states in the Midwest.

The sticking point in negotiations between the UAW and GM is the creation of a new union run Volunteer Employee Benefits Association (VEBA) that would assume the responsibility for health insurance from the company.  Previous deals of this sort where struck between Goodyear and the Steelworker's and auto supply firm Dana and the UAW.  

For employers, the advantages of such arrangements are obvious: They can remove a huge unfunded liability from their financial statements. With that liability eliminated, employers’ credit ratings are likely to improve, making future borrowing both easier and cheaper.

Union members, in turn, also benefit. Through the employer contributions to the VEBAs, what had been unfunded promises to provide retiree health-care benefits are backed by hard dollars that can’t be used for any purpose other than to pay for benefits.

"The promise was rich, but the delivery could be zero" if a company later went bankrupt and liquidated, said Steve Ferruggia, a principal with Buck Consultants in Secaucus, N.J.....

An auto industry VEBA would dwarf the Goodyear and Dana VEBAs. At the end of last year, General Motors Corp. alone had $47 billion in unfunded retiree health-care liabilities.

While a VEBA for any of the Big Three automakers would be gigantic, putting together a VEBA of such size would have certain advantages, Mr. Ferruggia said. Large VEBAs, for example, would be better able to weather fluctuations in investment performance than smaller ones.

Unlike pension benefits which are guaranteed through the Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation (PBGC),  retiree healthcare benefits are not guaranteed by any government insurance program.  There is tremendous skepticism among the rank and file about this, what happened at LTV, where the company didn't fully fund the VEBA  and it went bankrupt looms over the whole process.  But in the end, the UAW is likely to agree to the creation of a VEBA that will assume healthcare liabilities.  However, the UAW and GM are at loggerheads because GM wants to discount their current liability to something on the order of 50-75% of what the owe under current contracts.  Thus, a strike is a strong possibility in order to extract the closest amount to what is actually owed to workers.

I'd like to close with this.  Even if you don't give a damn about the UAW or organized labor, this matters.  Because the creation of a new union run insurance system would introduce a significant new player into the national debate on healthcare.  And I have no doubt that the possibility of a UAW VEBA and the influence of David Bonior are what lead the Edwards campaign to propose the healthcare plan that they did.  The idea being to use the power of union VEBAs to fuel the creation of a government run healthcare plan that will bring a single payer plan through the power of the market.  And the thing is that there's a strong possibility that it would actually work.

Originally posted to ManfromMiddletown on Fri Sep 14, 2007 at 08:26 AM PDT.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  I'm going to have to go (6+ / 0-)

    shortly, but I should be back to answer comments around 2 PM EST.  

    I just wanted to make sure that something was written on this.

  •  Good diary, MfM. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ManfromMiddletown, dkmich, Thirst

    Solidarity.

    "The greatest anti-poverty movement in American history is the organized labor movement." John Edwards

    by TomP on Fri Sep 14, 2007 at 08:26:39 AM PDT

  •  If I were Gettelfinger (5+ / 0-)

    If I were Gettelfinger, I'd give the Big 3 the bailout and take on the VEBA in exchange for this: the Big 3 would have to agree to A) sign a joint public statement with the UAW explicitly supporting single-payer health insurance, and B) agree to put $5 million per year, per company into a labor-management fund dedicated to lobbying for single-payer.  It's time for the Big 3 to tell the Chamber and NAM to fuck off and say what you know they';ve been thinking since the late '70's -- US manufacturing would be better off with government health care.

    •  I agree (5+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      eugene, alizard, dougymi, TomP, Thirst

      I think that the biggest underreported aspet of this is the VEBA.

      You're talking about a gigantic healthcare pool.  I'm convinced that this is the reasont that Edwards healthcare plan was written as it was.  To use the power of union VEBAs to bring government healthcare. Bonior.  That's all I have to say to that.

      As for the common sense (or lack thereof) of the big three telling NAM and the Chamber to fuck off, two words.

      Class solidaity.

      Faux's right, the corporate elites have class solidarty to this Friedmanite monster that the American economy has become.

      On a less happen note, the possibility of a strike made me recall Ragnarok, as in the Norse twilight of the Gods.  The only end times story where everybody knew what was going to happen, and couldn't do a damn thing about it but be brave and fight.

      It makes me a little sick to think about.

      I've got family that depend on this.

      I really have to go now, or I will miss the bus.

      •  what's the fun of an Armageddon (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        ManfromMiddletown

        story that says "nobody showed up to the fight and everyone lived happily ever after?"

        If the UAW strikes, I hope that it wins and that GM doesn't use the victory as an excuse to declare bankruptcy or move all its production to places where there's either national health care (Canada) or nobody in a position to demand it (Mexico).

        Looking for intelligent energy policy alternatives? Try here.

        by alizard on Sat Sep 15, 2007 at 03:04:11 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  I'm a UAW member myself (5+ / 0-)

    Thanks for posting this.  I've been concerned about this round of negotiations for a couple of years now.  This is critical.

    Procrastination: Hard work often pays off after time, but laziness always pays off now.

    by Linnaeus on Fri Sep 14, 2007 at 08:37:16 AM PDT

  •  Repeal Taft-Hartley in next Congress! (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    splashy, Mike Erwin, Thirst

    The Taft-Hartley Act has been the biggest obstacle to union organizing for the last 60 years:

    The Labor-Management Relations Act, commonly known as the Taft-Hartley Act, is a United States federal law that greatly restricts the activities and power of labor unions. The Act, still largely in effect, was sponsored by Senator Robert Taft and Representative Fred A. Hartley, Jr. and passed over U.S. President Harry S. Truman's veto on June 23, 1947, establishing the act as a law.

    Truman had described the act as a "slave-labor bill", adding that it would "conflict with important principles of our democratic society".

    The Taft-Hartley Act amended the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA, also known as the Wagner Act), which Congress had passed in 1935.

    If Dems achieve a filibuster-proof Senate next election, this will be possible.

    I wish you the best in your negotiations. You might want to consider organizing a consumer boycott if it comes to a strike. If it's large enough, even the blockheads at GM will get the message.

    -6.38/-3.79::'A man is incapable of comprehending any argument that interferes with his revenues.' Descartes

    by skrymir on Fri Sep 14, 2007 at 09:55:49 AM PDT

    •  I'm not UAW (6+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      eugene, skrymir, splashy, alizard, dkmich, Thirst

      just an interested observer, because my father's a retiree at GM, and my brother in law has a job on the line.

      This is an important point about Taft-Hartley though.

      Toyota got caught with their pants down in Kentucky, when an internal memo detailing plans to slash wages from $27/hr to $12/hr was accidentally released.  They're waiting for the UAW to be crushed to act, thinking that they won't face union pressure.  But instead, there's a growing drive to unionize at Toyota, because the workers there realize that the company has the power to cut wages at will.

      And in so many of these states that the transplants are in , it's hard to organized because the union has to represent all workers in the bargaining unit, even the ones who don't join the union and pay their dues.

      •  A thought (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Thirst

        About the motivation for the UAW to organize Toyota and make up for the potential loss of thousands of dues paying members.  I can't speak for the Toyota plant in Kentucky; I work at another Toyota plant.  The UAW using safety issues to attempt to organize is laughable.  I have not seen a company so involved in work force protection.  The injuries that I have seen, all but 2 were from someone bypassing a safety guard.  I'd have to see the leaked letter, seems too convenient for the UAW that they showed up.

        Not that I'm against unions, they have great track record of improving the lives of workers, as ManfromMiddletown explains so well.  I'm just saying that they should not use deception and coercion to organize; I've also seen the union make things worse.

        Never underestimate the power of stupid people (Republicans) in large numbers.

        by pritchdc on Fri Sep 14, 2007 at 10:34:02 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  They could skip the NLRB process (0+ / 0-)

        Starting off as a minority union and working from there...

        After World War II, however, unions effectively abandoned both "direct affiliation" and "minority unionism" as common practices. Over the past half-century, union membership has come to mean membership in an organization that has demonstrated majority support among workers at a particular worksite, recognized by an employer as the exclusive representative of workers for purposes of collective bargaining. Labor is not as open in its membership, in admitting different configurations of workers, as it was in the past.

        • from Freeman & Rogers "Open Source Unionism"

        There's a series of essays on this at Solidarity Unionism

        No returns for privilege; full returns for labor! Labor has a right to all that it creates.

        by Mike Erwin on Sat Sep 15, 2007 at 05:52:49 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Good diary (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ManfromMiddletown, dkmich, Thirst

    one quibble.  The strike headquarters isn't in Cadillac, Michigan. It's in Lansing (cadillac plant, though). I just left there. It ain't looking good. Looks like the picket lines tomorrow.

    A learning experience is one of those things that says, 'You know that thing you just did? Don't do that.' Douglas Adams

    by dougymi on Fri Sep 14, 2007 at 10:05:00 AM PDT

    •  That's what I get (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      eugene, dougymi, Thirst

      for reading Michigan Live online.

      If there is a strike, I think it's going to be a matter of how many plants are struck, and whether the company thinks that they can use this to try to break the union, bringing in scab labor and the like.

      •  I don't see that (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        dkmich, pritchdc, Thirst

        There's too much equipment to maintain now. Too many automated lines, robots, computer assisted manufacturing for a scab to understand.  I can't see any production making it worth their while unless the scabs train for a long period first. Even then things will break and no production will be  shipped. This isn't the seventies anymore.

        There are very few jobs that someone can just walk in and do.  Even if they managed to get across the picket line, it'll take quite a while for any production attempts to actually build cars.  

        GM is trying to assert a level of quality to recapture market share (especially for a brand like cadillac) that if they brought in scabs, the level of quality would go right down the toilet.  If that happens, GM would shoot themselves in the foot. Cars built by scabs can't possibly achieve the same quality that experienced UAW members bring and the PR problems brought on by poor quality would destroy an already tarnished company like GM or even Ford.  They can't afford it.

        That's not to say that they won't try to break the union. I expect that by offshoring and outsourcing, though, in the same manner that delphi has done it. Just the threat of offshoring has put a chill on these negotiations. GM has already threatened to offshore production.

         

        A learning experience is one of those things that says, 'You know that thing you just did? Don't do that.' Douglas Adams

        by dougymi on Fri Sep 14, 2007 at 10:29:05 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  That's a take on Edwards' proposal (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    dkmich

    that I think needs to be heard.  I suspect that a major qualm people have with Edwards is that he doesn't seem to be fully supporting single payer.  If he's actually subtly setting up things to go that way by themselves....well, that's a whole different situation, if you hear what I'm saying.

  •  After Bush told the auto CEOs to kiss off, (0+ / 0-)

    one would think that they would be pissed off enough to do something to help themselves.  Why do we have Honda and Toyota plants here?  Wouldn't GM need at least the same presence here as they do?  If GM reduced it relative presence here to be equal to the presence of Honda/Toyota, how much of GM in North America would disappear?  Rough guess?  I really blame Bill Clinton for all of this.  That SOB lied his ass off to everyone.  No one would have sat quietly by and let NAFTA pass if he had been a Republican.   Main reason why I won't vote for HRC.  "Birds of a feather"  

    While I have you, thanks for being here and speaking out on labor issues.  For many of us, you fill a big hole in this blog.

    No justice, no peace.

    by dkmich on Sat Sep 15, 2007 at 03:18:48 AM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site