Skip to main content
  • CNSNews.com
  • MRC TV
  • Biz & Media
  • Culture & Media
  • TimesWatch
  • Take Action!

Join Us @:
Facebook
Twitter
Amazon Kindle

Free email alerts!

NewsBusters logo
May 24, 2013
  • Home
  • Blogs
  • About
  • Forum
  • Take Action
  • Contact
  • Donate
  • Search
  • RSS

Hot Topics

  • Obama Targets Fox News
  • IRS Targets Tea Party
  • Censoring the News
Home » Blogs » Tom Blumer's blog
  • No Mention of IRS Scandal on NBC's 'Today,' But Plenty of Time for Obama Prom Photo
  • MSNBC’s Chris Hayes Hypes ‘LGBT Injustice’ During Interview With 18-year Old Woman Charged With Sex With Minor
  • Lisa Myers: 'For a Year the IRS Essentially Knowingly Lied to Congress and No One Came Forward'
  • Network Evening Shows Don’t Name Islam in London Terror Attack
  • MSNBC’s Finney On IRS Scandal: ‘Why Didn't Romney Make More Of A Big Deal Of It?’
  • Obama Losing Chris Matthews? Host Rails Against 'Profiling' By IRS: It's Like Targeting Innocent Arabs
  • Jake Tapper Slams Obama Admin for Treatment of Fox News Reporter
  • NBC's Lauer Uses Oklahoma Tornado to Bash GOP Over Sandy Relief

Government/General Motors, UAW Hose Long-Time Members Twice in Two Weeks

By Tom Blumer | October 10, 2010 | 20:54

A  A
Tom Blumer's picture

Solidarity, schmolidarity. 

It was one thing when the United Auto Workers agreed many years ago to temporary "two-tiered" wage structures at the plants of Detroit's Big Three automakers. After all, it was argued, they'll be brought up to a level of full pay and benefits in several years, and new employees aren't as productive as the veterans.

 

It was another thing when the UAW agreed, as noted several months ago (at NewsBusters; at BizzyBlog), that new hourly employees would start out at lower levels of pay and stay there. After all, it was argued, the newbies are coming in of their own free will, and know the score going in.

But in two separate instances in the past several months, the UAW has crossed lines once believed unthinkable. In one case in Indianapolis that was clearly pre-planned at the time of the company's bankruptcy filing, it told members at at Government/General Motors plant that it would shut down unless everyone accepted a 46% pay cut to accommodate a company that wished to buy it (the members said no, and the plant is slated to close). Then, in an even more blatant betrayal, it agreed with GM that about 60% of veteran workers at a reopening plant in Orion Township, Michigan, for the purpose of making small cars will get paid about 48% less than the rest, purely based on seniority.

Why, if you didn't know better, you'd think that the UAW is starting to act like the false stereotype of a greedy, selfish capitalist instead of as an entity that is supposed to be looking out for the well-being of all of its members.

Oh, wait a minute: The UAW is an owner, through its health care plan, of a 17.5% stake in GM. I guess that's enough to justify throwing its decades-old tradition of "solidarity" out the window. It must be, because that is what has happened.

Press treatment of these two situations has been predictably kid-glove. Very few outside outside of Indianapolis are aware of the first situation described above (though Rush Limbaugh did mention it when it was at an earlier stage a couple of months ago). Here are a few paragraphs from the Associated Press's coverage of the situation.

The potential buyer for a General Motors stamping plant in Indianapolis has dropped its bid after workers overwhelmingly rejected pay cuts it sought.
The 457-96 vote against the concessions also was a repudiation of a deal national United Auto Workers officials had backed in hopes of keeping the factory open after GM announced last year it planned to shut it down in 2011.
But local union leaders opposed the offer from Addison, Ill.-based JD Norman Industries, which would have cut base pay at the plant from $29 an hour to $15.50.
"The contract they offered us wasn't a contract," UAW Local 23 bargaining chairman Gregory Clark told The Indianapolis Star after the vote was announced Monday. "It just gutted everything we had come to know as a contract between employers and employees."
GM has been planning to close or sell the 2 million-square-foot plant west of downtown Indianapolis for three years. The plant now has about 640 hourly workers and state officials had offered Norman Industries $2 million in tax incentives if that grew to a promised 1,900 jobs.
... The plant is owned by Motors Liquidation Co., which GM set up during its 2009 bankruptcy to take over discarded property.

By keeping the plant inside "Old GM" during bankruptcy, UAW President Ron Gettelfinger, in concert with the government, threw the Indy workers under the bus. (Yes, I understand that there's something to be said for the members being foolish for allowing the plant to close, but that's a discussion for other posts.)

As to the Orion Township plant, in a blatant oversight that doesn't look accidental from here, the AP's Tom Krisher "somehow" forgot to tell readers in his October 7 story about the plant's reopening that seniority was the basis for determining who got the 48% pay cut:

General Motors and the United Auto Workers have reached a cost-cutting deal that could help accomplish what once seemed impossible: Making a profit on small cars built in the United States.
The deal, announced Thursday, could cut in half the hourly wage of some longtime UAW workers at a factory in Orion Township, Mich. It's the first time the union has agreed to a pay cut for workers who are not new hires.
A revamped subcompact, the Chevrolet Aveo, will be built at the plant starting next year. The plant is currently closed.
Most other automakers, including GM's main rival Ford Motor Co., build subcompacts in Mexico or other countries with far lower labor costs. U.S.-based automakers have struggled for years to make money on small cars.
Subcompacts generally start around $14,000, so they don't generate enough cash to cover the traditional UAW labor costs.
The plant, which was closed in November 2009, will employ 1,550 blue-collar and salaried employees. Under the wage deal, 40 percent of the line workers will be paid $15 an hour. The remaining 60 percent will make traditional UAW wages of around $29 an hour.
GM has about 3,500 laid-off workers who have yet to be recalled to factory jobs. Once 60 percent of Orion's workers are recalled, UAW members who are still on layoff will get the option of working for $15 an hour or staying on layoff.
If GM doesn't get enough laid-off workers to fill the lower-paying jobs, the automaker can hire new people for $15 an hour.

For the record, Christina Rogers at the Detroit News told her readers on Tuesday who gets to keep making the big bucks, and who gets the shaft:

The United Auto Workers and General Motors Co. have agreed to a two-tier wage structure for recalled workers at the Orion Township plant, a move that will help the automaker make a profit on the new Chevrolet Aveo going into production next year.
The agreement is specific to the Orion assembly plant, where the Aveo will be built. The UAW and GM agreed a year ago that there would be separate labor agreements for small-car plants. Details of the Orion contract were just made public to workers.
The deal affects UAW Local 5960 members and calls for paying about 60 percent of the 1,300 workers recalled to the plant the traditional tier-one wage of $28 an hour with benefits. The remaining 40 percent will get a tier-two wage of about $15 an hour; the split will be based on seniority. ...
When it announced it would restore jobs at the plant last year, GM said the move was possible because of a recently modified agreement making it now “possible for GM to produce these size vehicles in the U.S. in a cost competitive and profitable way.”
... (Plant worker Jose) Facundo said he and other workers were infuriated by the deal because GM workers with 11 years or less seniority have been suddenly told they are going to be paid the tier-two or $15 wage.
“It's outrageous, and we never voted on this,” said Facundo, who has 10 years of seniority.

Again, as noted earlier, I understand the argument that people in this economy should be grateful for having any job, and $15 an hour isn't too shabby. But this deal is coming from a union and a government that would be raising an endless stink if a truly private-sector company tried to pull off the same maneuvers with separate classes of existing workers.

More to the media point: Why didn't Tom Krisher tell the rest of the nation this inconvenient and important fact? Could it be that doing so would make the UAW and GM's government owners look every bit as heartless and soulless as the "giant corporations" they routinely criticize? Actually, I can't imagine the union allowing an entity it doesn't partially own to get away with what is being done in Orion Township.

Meanwhile, I wonder if the same ability to cut less-senior workers' pay is built into the modified contract agreement between the UAW and Ford that was signed a year ago? Tom Krisher should have told us that too.

Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com.

  • Bailouts
  • Bias by Omission
  • Double Standards
  • Unions
  • Business Coverage
  • Economy
  • Media Bias Debate
  • Political Groups
  • Ron Gettelfinger
  • Tom Krisher
  • Wire Services/Media Companies
  • Associated Press
  • Detroit News
  • Major Newspapers
  • Tom Blumer's blog
  • Login to post comments
  • Printer-friendly version
Stop Censoring The Gosnell Trial!

Comments

Blumer

Submitted by Cool Arrow on Sun, 10/10/2010 - 9:12pm.

I'm still freaked over Caterpillar opening in Seguin Tx and China when Obama promised those pie-faced union members in Peoria that if we passed the Stimulus, CAT would rehire a whole slew of workers.

  • Login to post comments

Just one in a series of Obama

Submitted by Beukeboom on Mon, 10/11/2010 - 9:44am.

Just one in a series of Obama campaign promises he had no intention of keeping. Collect the whole set!

  • Login to post comments

How are you on the New NewsBusters Mr. Blumer?

Submitted by The Vet on Sun, 10/10/2010 - 9:13pm.

   Did you see the article linked from Drudge? Google has cars that can drive themselves. How long will it be until we have robots that can build cars that can can themselves?

  If I was in the car building business, I would be seriously looking at this whole robot thing. Robots don't have to pay union dues and wait, robots aren't unionized at all.

 Google just pwned you scifi boys.

  • Login to post comments

Still figuring it out

Submitted by Tom Blumer on Sun, 10/10/2010 - 9:16pm.

Slowly but surely. More slowly than surely thus far.

  • Login to post comments

I wouldn't be so sure ...

Submitted by Tom Blumer on Sun, 10/10/2010 - 9:18pm.

... couldn't you program artificial intelligence to demand union scale? :-->

  • Login to post comments

Robots building cars...

Submitted by Tenebrous on Sun, 10/10/2010 - 10:38pm.

Robots have been building cars, in part, since when? Middle '90s? How long will it be until robots build a car in total? We're still waiting. 

This is the same failed logic that says, "We can put a man in the moon. We should be able to eliminate poverty!" One does not imply the other.

---- Let us all eviscerate the trolls and fill their carcasses with bile and venom.
Visions and Principles blog
  • Login to post comments

More like the mid 80's..........

Submitted by old cro on Mon, 10/11/2010 - 2:30am.

Robotic welders were doing their thing then. Prior to that, I dunno.

  • Login to post comments

It's a different world when the shoe is on the other foot

Submitted by Dave. on Sun, 10/10/2010 - 10:48pm.

Looks like the UAW people are finding out the hard way the GM isn't a cash cow with and endless supply waiting to be milked with impunity.

Imagine my distress.

-Dave

Vote for the American in November

  • Login to post comments

I don't get it.  When the

Submitted by mamabear on Mon, 10/11/2010 - 9:51am.

I don't get it.  When the auto companies were going under and unions were scrambling to try and keep wages for their workers, everyone here complained that union workers make too much.  Unions are anti-capitalist, and they kill the industries they operate in by making profitability impossible.

Now the unions are working  with employers and trying to fit into the new reality of this world, which is, in fact, that we are all lucky to have jobs who have them, and they are betraying their members.  The Addison deal would have lowered wages, yes, but increased the number of jobs by 300%.  I think you could argue either way which is better for members-- higher wages or more jobs.  You also failed to mention that employees staying and taking the pay cut would get cash bonuses up to $35,000, those who didn't want to could transfer to another plant and keep their seniority.

But you guys will ding unions coming or going, it doesn't matter what they do!

But this deal is coming from a union and a government that would be raising an endless stink if a truly private-sector company tried to pull off the same maneuvers with separate classes of existing workers.

I'm sorry, isn't the first deal you mentioned, with JD Addison, a deal with a truly private company?  You can't ding the unions for working too closely with a private company and not benefitting their members, then complain that they are only working with government and union-stake employers in a way they never would with a private company!

And while that seems like an awfully large gap between tiers, seniority-based pay scales have been standard in unions and private companies for ages, haven't they?  I'll admit, I would be pretty unhappy if I'd worked at that plant for 10.5 years, however:

UAW President Bob King told the Free Press this week the union estimates show all Orion workers who were laid off at the union’s top wage may be able to return to the plant at that level. The union is hoping all 300 eligible workers will take advantage of a retirement incentive, which would allow the other 800 first-tier workers to return at the top wage. About 500 Orion workers were already making the lower wage before they were laid off.

http://www.cheersandgears.com/topic/69558-gm-orion-assembly-workers-to-p...

Essentially, it looks like they are trying to arrange it so that if everyone who can takes buyouts and the number they expect to returns, no one comes back at a pay cut.  If they have to come back and they don't want to, they can request a transfer or wait for a tier-1 job to open up.

Everyone knows it sucks to work in manufacturing these days, but it sounds like the unions are finally working with employers a little more realistically to try and keep their worker's jobs.

When a man makes up his mind without evidence, no evidence disproving his opinion will change his mind- Robert Heinlein
  • Login to post comments

In the Indy deal ...

Submitted by Tom Blumer on Mon, 10/11/2010 - 5:43pm.

... all workers were in the same boat, and there weren't going to be seniority-based tiers. 

The reason the Indy deal is a betrayal is that by keeping the plant in "old GM," Ron Gettelfinger was able in May 2009 to tell workers at "new GM" that he hadn't lowered their wages or benefits a bit. About six months later, they negotiated the unprecedented two-tier agreement, where existing workers at Orion (part of "new GM") were busted down 45% or so.

Walter Reuther had his faults, but I don't see how he ever would have tolerated this.

  • Login to post comments

I'm just confused as to what

Submitted by mamabear on Mon, 10/11/2010 - 6:28pm.

I'm just confused as to what you think the union should have done.  Part of the art of negotiation is figuring out when the other side is serious about their demands.  If the new owner of the Indy plant could have tolerated higher wages, then settling for less would have been at least a failure, if not a betrayal.  But they left the deal and the plant is closing, which means that they weren't playing around when they said they needed wages lowered.  So should the union have stuck to their guns and not tried to negotiate keeping the plant open at all?

Clearly, no one should have told these workers that their wages weren't going to go down, but I'm actually kind of pleased to see that they are willing to work with employers.  I've been a member of the UAW and a teamster, and I always found it frustrating that unions were unwilling to budge on wages even when everyone involved could see that times were going to be hard.  Even when it was my wages they were talking about!  I also saw unions really stand up for workers that were being mistreated, so I don't think they are a bad thing at all.  But the antagonistic attitude with management has been outdated for a long time, and it seems like they are finally realizing that.

When a man makes up his mind without evidence, no evidence disproving his opinion will change his mind- Robert Heinlein
  • Login to post comments

In the Orion case ...

Submitted by Tom Blumer on Mon, 10/11/2010 - 11:05pm.

... everyone should have been willing to take a 25% or so haircut instead of forcing lower-seniority workers who had been making exactly or almost exactly the same as higher-seniority workers to bear all of the pain.

Why didn't they? Because the UAW exists to protect the benefits of its longtime members at the expense if necessary, first of newbies, and then of (relative) short-timers. If everyone would have taken the same cut, that bubble would have burst. They can't have that.

  • Login to post comments

everyone should have been

Submitted by mamabear on Tue, 10/12/2010 - 10:27pm.

everyone should have been willing to take a 25% or so haircut instead of forcing lower-seniority workers who had been making exactly or almost exactly the same as higher-seniority workers to bear all of the pain.

But the union, at least, claims they are trying to set the cut off so that doesn't happen.  Workers who were making the lower wage to begin with will keep making it, everyone at the higher wage can return at it, provided people eligible for retirement incentives take them.

The next question is what happens from here-- is the two tier structure permanent, with workers jumping to the next tier after a certain number of years on the job?  Or is this a way to phase out those higher wage jobs altogether once everyone currently in them retires?

When a man makes up his mind without evidence, no evidence disproving his opinion will change his mind- Robert Heinlein
  • Login to post comments

You're not correct when you say ...

Submitted by Tom Blumer on Wed, 10/13/2010 - 1:42pm.

"Workers who were making the lower wage to begin with will keep making it"

If that were so, the worker complaining in the excerpt at the DetNews wouldn't be complaining.

As to your question: "The next question is what happens from here-- is the two tier structure permanent ...?" -- That die has been cast at every GM, Ford, Chrysler plant already. Under current contracts, newbies "permanently" get newbie pay and benefits, and labor costs gradually decline as old hands retire. What happens when there's nothing but newbies is anyone's guess, but employees' ability to make a strike stick is dubious, given that mostly non-union foreign makers have a bit over 50% of the market.

  • Login to post comments

Union "leadership"

Submitted by MaximusBraveheart on Mon, 10/11/2010 - 12:28pm.

What brilliance to simply leave it to seniority & not productivity!  Gee, otherwise you would have to actually work your best... now THAT would be BAD for America, right?   Also amazing how all the "leaders" have this seniority & are thus not affected.  Heck, why have a vote?  Just make sure the age of cut off is less than 50% of the workers.  The magically "qualified" workers make 2X more!  Now there is an incentive to downtrod your fellow union members.  I feel so SAFE now that the government & unions are directly controlling more & more of our Country!  NOT!

-- Maximusbraveheart -- Is TRUTH knowable? Moral Relativism is the abandonment of Truth. Truth is knowable. Truth conforms to Reality. Reality is observable by evidence & witness in this day & from history. Relativism is Sesame Street play land.

  • Login to post comments

Yes, seniority should not

Submitted by KimberlyW on Thu, 11/11/2010 - 1:16am.

Yes, seniority should not only be the sole basis to retain employees. Bad thing is still happening because of the recession. Lay-offs, cost-cutting, bankruptcy is still everywhere. I feel sad for those who lost their jobs. We saw those companies that we thought would never shut down filed bankruptcy, even automobile companies have been struggling. It' sad that people have to settle for lesser wages just to keep the job.

  • Login to post comments

oops

Submitted by old cro on Mon, 11/15/2010 - 3:35am.

mistake

  • Login to post comments

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Stop Censoring The Gosnell Trial!

Editors' Picks

  • Deputy kills PBS NewsHour staffer (Washington Examiner)
  • Oklahoma disaster was tragic, but larger ones have occurred (USA Today)
  • Mainstream Media Scream: Today’s Savannah Guthrie questions GOP ‘overreach’ (Paul Bedard, Washington Examiner)
  • Desperate Carney complains asking about scandals like asking about birth certificate (RCP)
  • Look at NYT's partisan-hack rewrite of the IRS hearing (Draw and STRIKE!)
  • Study: Christians who tithe have better finances than those who don't (TGC)
  • The media are willing accomplices to Obama (PolitiChicks)
  • FBI has suspects in mind in Benghazi; Obama prefers to try them in court (AP)
Ann Coulter's picture
Ann Coulter
Ann Coulter Column: When Did We Vote to Become Mexico?
Chuck Norris's picture
Chuck Norris
Chuck Norris Column: Why Tim Tebow Is an Ultimate Clutch Player
Walter E. Williams's picture
Walter E. Williams
Walter E. Williams Column: Hating America
Michelle Malkin's picture
Michelle Malkin
Malkin Column: Obama's Emptiest Benghazi Talking Point
Ann Coulter's picture
Ann Coulter
Coulter Column: Sorry, Sen. Rubio, But Your Immigration Plan Is Still Problematic
More >

RSS FeedAmazon KindleFacebookTwitter

Stop Censoring The News!

Gosnell's Just the Tip of the Iceberg
more cartoons
NewsBusters

Executive Editor
Matthew Sheffield

Editor at Large
Brent Baker

Senior Editors
Tim Graham
Rich Noyes

Managing Editor
Ken Shepherd

Associate Editor
Noel Sheppard

Contributing Editors
Tom Blumer
Geoffrey Dickens
Dan Gainor
David Limbaugh
Mithridate Ombud
Clay Waters
Scott Whitlock

Senior Contributor
Mark Finkelstein

Contributing Writers
Matthew Balan
Michael M. Bates
Erin R. Brown
Jack Coleman
Kyle Drennen
Douglas Ernst
P. J. Gladnick
Stephen Gutowski
Matt Hadro
D. S. Hube
Kathleen McKinley
Dave Pierre
Amy Ridenour
Julia A. Seymour
Terry Trippany
Rusty Weiss
Brad Wilmouth

Publisher
Brent Bozell

Site Design
Dialog New Media

  • Home
  • Blogs
  • About
  • Forum
  • Contact
  • Donate
  • Search
  • Account
  • rss
  • CNSNews
  • MRC TV
  • Biz & Media
  • Culture & Media
  • Take Action!
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • Amazon Kindle
  • Advertise
  • Jobs

Copyright © 2005-2013 NewsBusters.
Privacy Policy | Terms of Use