In Detroit's Big 3 Auto Talks, AP 'Forgets' GM and Chrysler Workers Can't Strike, UAW's Conflicts of Interest
It's hard to figure out why Tom Krisher at the Associated Press bothered filing a report on the status of contract talks between Detroit's Big 3 automakers and the United Auto Workers. The only reason I can discern is that he wanted to brag about how he and his wire service pals have access to anonymously-sourced info about how the talks are going. Surprise: As has been the case almost always for about the past 30-plus years, It's coming down to the wire with the two sides supposedly far apart at two of the three companies. Knock me over with a feather.
Krisher failed to inform readers of three quite important sets of facts. First (seriously), he never told readers that General Motors and Chrysler workers have no-strike contract clauses prohibiting them from job actions until 2015, i.e., only Ford is financially vulnerable. Second, he failed to note that the government still holds a significant (and probably board-controlling) share of GM, or that a UAW healthcare trust owns 46.5% of Chrysler (down from an original 55%). Finally, because he didn't disclose the ownership stakes, he failed to note the obvious conflict of interest the UAW has in negotiating with Ford, or the possible government-influenced pressure on the union to drive a hard bargain with Ford on GM's behalf.
Here are several paragraphs from Krisher's report (bolds indicate language misleading readers into believing that a strike is possible at any one or more of the companies):
AP Sources: UAW, Ford, Chrysler far apart in talks
Ford, Chrysler and the United Auto Workers remain far apart in labor talks with just a week left before their contracts expire, two people briefed on the talks said Wednesday.
Negotiators for the two companies and the union have started serious talks on wages in the past few days, even though the union's contracts with all three Detroit carmakers expire at 11:59 p.m. on Sept. 14, the people said.
General Motors Co., on the other hand, has been talking pay with the union for about two weeks and is ahead of its crosstown rivals, said another person briefed on the talks. All three people asked not to be identified because the companies and union have agreed to keep negotiations private.
Contracts between the UAW and Detroit's automakers are widely followed because they set the wages for about 111,000 autoworkers nationwide. They also set the bar for wages at auto parts companies and other manufacturers.
This year's talks are the first since Chrysler and GM accepted government aid and emerged from bankruptcy protection in 2009. So far, talks between the union and the companies have been amicable, despite little movement on wages with Chrysler Group LLC and Ford Motor Co., two of the people said. The lack of progress raises the possibility that the contracts could be extended beyond next week's deadline.
... Both sides must reach agreements and union members must vote on the deals before new contracts can take effect.
UAW President Bob King has said he'd like to reach agreements with the companies before the contracts expire.
... When union negotiators reach agreements with the companies, they may have a tough time selling them to the rank-and-file, many of whom want to win back lost pay raises and other concessions made to the companies during the financial crisis.
... Ford workers are particularly sensitive about compensation after CEO Alan Mulally's $26.5 million pay package for last year and the company's restoration of merit raises for white-collar workers.
As to the "concessions" referenced in the second-last excerpted paragraph, there were very few, at least at current workers at GM. I'm not saying that; now-retired UAW President Ron Gettelfinger said so in announcement to GM workers in May 2009:

As to Mulally's pay, while it does seem excessive to yours truly, I'm not on the Board of Directors, and it's not my call. In any event, what Mulally made last year is not that far above what a few players in big-league sports make -- and they don't run multibillion-dollar enterprises, and they didn't keep one of them from heading down the path to a government bailout that executives at the other two firms did.
But getting back to AP's Krisher: Why even bother writing up such an embarrassingly incomplete report so heavily reliant on anonymous sources speaking in broad generalizations?
Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com.
- Tom Blumer's blog
- Login to post comments
















Comments
Because the UAW would never try to punish Ford for daring to...
Submitted by Phryj1 on Thu, 09/08/2011 - 1:25am.
...be successful on it's own instead of having to submit to the almighty Obama and his union crony administration. Nah, they'd never do that. Unions love capitalism! They'd never try to hurt a private company on Obama's behalf!
Progressives seem to be completely averse to facts and logic. Apparently, reality has a conservative bias.
I'm not sure about this
Submitted by guefy on Thu, 09/08/2011 - 7:52am.
I went back and read other things, and I see that the union did indeed give up striking for concessions in bankruptcy courts. So what I typed below is mute.
**
Maybe one of us doesn't understand union contracts. My union contract always has had the no-strike clause, but if negotiations cease, and the contract date passes, we can strike, and have before. I never have voted in favor of a strike, and always have voted for every contract.
I read the linked article, but I don't understand why Chrysler and GM UAW can't strike once the contract ends. Did they agree to this as part of the bankruptcy when they accepted ownership of the company? Confusing.
**
Your point is still interesting
Submitted by Tom Blumer on Thu, 09/08/2011 - 8:24am.
All I can figure is that the government must have some kind of ability to sanction the union and/or its management if it does call for a strike at GM or Chrysler.
Or, in theory (pretty much purely in theory), management has the right to replace any workers who do go out on strike.
So what are you saying???
Submitted by c5then on Thu, 09/08/2011 - 8:22am.
That because the interest of the UAW union who owns a good chunk of GM and their retirement healthcare system which is heavily invested in Fiat/Chrysler, you are trying to say that they will only strike against Ford in whom they have no stake?
Hmmmmmm. Makes sense... If the nascent GM stock and Fiat/Chrysler stock takes a hit, it would be bad for the union and their members. I wonder what the NLRB would make of a major shareholder of GM negotiating with number one competitor Ford? I wonder if the NLRB and the UAW can spell conflict of interest?
Madison and Jefferson and Franklin built a Republic - Roberts killed it!
Why aren't the clowns from
Submitted by shirtsbyeric on Thu, 09/08/2011 - 8:32am.
Why aren't the clowns from Wisconsin occupying the White House? Where is Michael Moore? Where is Tom Morello? Obama stole the workers rights!
Driving a 'hard bargain' with Ford means...
Submitted by P. Aaron on Thu, 09/08/2011 - 9:41am.
...an equal hard bargain for American taxpayers when GM & Chrysler (uh...taxpayers) have to cough up benefits & pay to the UAW.
Hence the reason I own
Submitted by Snappy on Thu, 09/08/2011 - 10:10am.
Hence the reason I own Toyotas and Nissans. and will NEVER buy another GM or Chrysler product. Aside from poor quality I cant abide propping up private industry with public dollars to skirt the checks balances of a free market system.
Constitutional law prof-president and contractural guarantees
Submitted by CO2Maker on Thu, 09/08/2011 - 11:08am.
In order to take over GM and Chrysler, the O'Bama administration abrogated established contractural laws (guaranteed in the Constitution), booted the primary creditors under the curb, and gave control to the automaker unions. Now the unions, who are owners of GM and Chrysler and are prohibited from striking them, are planning to strike Ford.
Yep, I'm on the kewl GM team in the green uniforms, and you're on the Ford team, wearing blue. Those three guys in striped shirts are on our team, too, just to be fair and to guarantee the outcome is fair to all and doesn't have a disparate impact on the other green players on our bench and their supporters in the stands.
Ownership
Submitted by djaymick on Thu, 09/08/2011 - 12:22pm.
A point that has been missed. It's funny how the reporter tells us "all three people asked not to be identified because the companies and union have agreed to keep negotiations private". Well, Aren't the American taxpayers the "company" now? As we've seen in Wisconsin, the unions were upset because they couldn't participate in the new laws. They screamed for transparency and to have a voice in the process. However, that all changes when it comes to their negotiations.
Alan Mulally took over as CEO
Submitted by Reaver on Thu, 09/08/2011 - 2:09pm.
Alan Mulally took over as CEO from the disaster that was Bill Ford, turned the company around and saved them from having to be bailed out like their rivals.As far as I'm concerned whatever Ford pays him is inadequate.
Gee, Ford is gonna get
Submitted by JoeBob on Thu, 09/08/2011 - 4:25pm.
Gee, Ford is gonna get hammered by the people that own its competition. And yet everybody's screaming that Ford's starting 5000 new jobs in India; is it any stinkin' wonder why they would?
I wish Ford could just cut the UAW loose. They'd be better off.
Submitted by Phryj1 on Thu, 09/08/2011 - 9:06pm.
I don't know what their legal options are, but setting up shop in right-to-work states would be a good start. In light of Big Labor and the NLRB's (which is supposed to be independent, not a gov't sanctioned union enforcer) treatment of Boeing and it's S.C. workers, American companies should start migrating operations to right-to-work states for their own survival. The unions are killing them and slowly but surely destroying this country.
Progressives seem to be completely averse to facts and logic. Apparently, reality has a conservative bias.
Message to all Ford Employees
Submitted by phryingphish on Fri, 09/09/2011 - 8:13am.
The UAW WILL put you out of a job.
Since when is China the major
Submitted by phryingphish on Fri, 09/09/2011 - 8:16am.
Since when is China the major exporter of cars to the US? Did the UAW not want to upset Toyota or Honda?