Showing posts with label union. Show all posts
Showing posts with label union. Show all posts

Sunday, February 15, 2009

GM and Chysler News:Union turns to Ford after GM and Chrysler talks stall



SOUTHFIELD, Michigan: Ford Motor became the focus of United Automobile Workers union negotiations over the weekend after talks with General Motors and Chrysler stalled.

The union objected to GM and Chrysler proposals to modify a retiree health care fund that Alan Reuther, a UAW lobbyist, said went beyond the requirements of the U.S. Treasury loans that the two automakers were relying on to survive. The U.S. government requires signed preliminary labor agreements by Tuesday, though it has not said what the consequences would be for missing the deadline.

Ford was continuing to talk with the union, said a company spokesman, Mark Truby, who declined to characterize the talks.

Harley Shaiken, a labor professor for the University of California at Berkeley, said, "What this reflects is that the UAW has a better relationship with Ford and feels that an agreement that suits both sides can be reached and can then be spread to the other automakers."

The terms of the Dec. 19 loan agreements from the U.S. Treasury require GM and Chrysler to persuade the UAW to accept half of scheduled payments into a union-run retiree health care fund next year in equity instead of cash. The automakers are also seeking to eliminate supplemental unemployment pay and to change plant work rules to trim labor expenses.

Ford had said it expected to receive whatever concessions the UAW granted GM and Chrysler, and Ron Gettelfinger, the union's president, said last month that Ford would likely get similar concessions.

The GM and Chrysler proposals on the Voluntary Employee Beneficiary Association "contradict the explicit terms of the Treasury loan agreements, and would severely hurt retirees," Reuther said in an e-mail message. "These proposals are a non-starter as far as the UAW is concerned."

In GM's case, the union must sign off on a cash contribution of $10.2 billion to the fund instead of $20.4 billion, GM said last month. The UAW already agreed to accept reduced cash payments into the health care fund, which was established under the 2007 contract that let automakers pay new workers half as much as traditional union employees.

Gettelfinger said in 2007 that the union was confident the fund could pay the health care benefits of retirees for the next 80 years. He has said he is willing to make additional sacrifices to help the automakers avoid bankruptcy if auto executives, debt holders and others also sacrifice.

Lori McTavish, a Chrysler spokeswoman, and Tony Sapienza, a GM spokesman, declined to comment over the weekend on the status of the talks. Sapienza said Friday that GM was committed to meeting the Tuesday deadline. Chrysler, 80.1 percent of which is owned by Cerberus Capital Management, said it also planned to meet the deadline.

The automakers are also asking the union to end a 54-year-old benefit that ensures almost full pay during layoffs.

The so-called "supplemental unemployment benefit" gives laid-off workers most of their take-home wages. Automakers and the UAW were discussing the future of the program, said people with knowledge of the talks, who asked not to be identified because the negotiations were private. The UAW was not negotiating cuts in core wages or benefits, the people said.

If GM cannot win agreement from the UAW and creditors to reduce its debt, analysts say the administration of President Barack Obama will face a politically tough choice: either pump billions of dollars more into GM or steer it toward bankruptcy as some critics of the bailout have urged. Under Rick Wagoner, its chief executive, GM has resisted suggestions that it would be better able to restructure under a court-supervised bankruptcy. Wagoner has argued that consumers would shun GM cars and trucks if it were in bankruptcy, sending already weak sales into an irreversible tailspin.

Gettelfinger has balked at saddling retired workers with additional risk by taking devalued GM stock instead of cash. GM has received $9.4 billion from the U.S. government and has been pledged another $4 billion if it can show it can be viable at a time when U.S. auto sales are near 30-year lows.

A bankruptcy filing would allow GM to rework its contracts with creditors, the UAW, dealers and its suppliers. But it would also mean even steeper job losses. GM, Chrysler and Ford have cut 250,000 jobs since the start of the decade and are looking to cut more. GM and Chrysler are offering buyouts for most of their 91,000 UAW workers.

Chrysler has been given $4 billion in emergency financing from the U.S. Treasury and is seeking an additional $3 billion.
read more...

Monday, December 1, 2008

The United Auto Workers union is in talks with some of Detroit's Big Three auto makers


DETROIT -- The United Auto Workers union is in talks with some of Detroit's Big Three auto makers to stop a program that pays idled workers, people familiar with the matter said.

The so-called jobs banks, while shrinking, have been viewed by critics as a competitive disadvantage for Detroit auto makers, calling them an overly generous benefit at companies that are posting billions in losses. Union officials and their allies counter that the banks have been an effective way to keep a flexible job pool available and have allowed the companies to implement new technology while reducing overall numbers responsibly.

Labor leaders and auto makers insist that the much-criticized program to pay idled workers has been dwindling away on its own, thanks to new, stricter terms under the current union contract. The size of the revamped program, which pays nonworking employees almost their full wages at General Motors Corp., Ford Motor Co. and Chrysler LLC, has dropped to about 3,000 hourly employees, according to the companies. That's down from 15,000 workers just two years ago, a trend largely driven by time restrictions put in place as part of current union contracts. There are about 1,400 workers in the Ford jobs bank, 1,000 at GM and 500 at Chrysler.

But while officials at Ford expect that the number of employees in its jobs bank will decrease by a third by year end, the numbers will likely swell at GM in the near term because of a new round of cutbacks that have reduced the number of shifts at some plants and closed other facilities faster than expected.

Elimination of the jobs bank isn't likely to be a part of the business plans that the auto makers will submit to Congress this week, when they head back to Washington in an effort to secure billions in emergency loans. But people familiar with the matter at GM said the union has put the issue on the table for discussion. (The Big Three left Washington last month without the $25 billion loan package they were seeking and will return this week with the goal of proving that, with government assistance, they will be viable in the long-term.)

UAW officials, including its president Ron Gettelfinger, are said to understand that they are under pressure to deliver cost concessions. Mr. Gettelfinger "understands the UAW is part of the solution here," a person close to the UAW president said. "He doesn't want to be characterized as the problem." A spokesman for the union declined immediate comment.

The topic is so politically sensitive that Mr. Gettelfinger sought to define the issue last month before members of Congress had a chance to criticize it. "Since September of 2005 through September of 2008, we have lost 47,000 workers at General Motors. By the same token, during that period of time and with that loss, we have all but virtually eliminated our jobs banks at all three companies," Mr. Gettelfinger told a Senate panel. "We recognize that in order for these companies to be competitive, we had to make the tough calls."

During the past three years, the UAW agreed to eliminate tens of thousands of union jobs, reduce health-care coverage for union retirees and cut wages for new hires. Those moves essentially leveled the future playing field between the Big Three auto makers and their foreign-owned rivals in terms of labor costs.

—John D. Stoll and Kate Linebaugh contributed to this article.

Write to Matthew Dolan at matthew.dolan@wsj.com
read more...