UAW workers: Strike against GM wasn’t worth it
Union’s deal with Ford has them second guessing six-week efforts
General Motors hourly workers Mike Yakim and Sean Crawford are lucky.
They each work at a GM factory pretty much guaranteed to keep building vehicles over the next four years. That’s considered by union members to be job security.
Still, both men said they now think that the six-week strike against GM was not worth it in the end.
“I lost six weeks of pay and it didn’t accomplish its goal, product allocation being a goal,” said Yakim. He works at GM’s Lansing Delta Township Assembly plant, where he transferred after GM shuttered Lordstown Assembly in Ohio. He had hoped, during bargaining, the union would win new product to restart Lordstown.
“The allocation of products was tremendously important, and we didn’t get it,” said Yakim, who lives in an apartment near Lansing. His family still lives in Lordstown. “That was the ‘no’ vote right there. We don’t
UAW spokesman Brian Rothenberg said the strike achieved gains for the union membership. “There will be substantial investments based on commitments outlined in the GM contract over the next four years.”
have any guarantees.”
In the contract, GM promised a $7.7 billion investment in U.S. manufacturing and to create or retain about 9,000 jobs over four years. The UAW GM department skimped on specifics in its initial highlights, but its more detailed “white book” listed investments in Lansing Delta, Spring Hill Assembly in Tennessee, Wentzville Assembly in Missouri, Detroit-Hamtramck Assembly and the Warren Tech Center.
Still, that’s five out of GM’s 33 U.S. production facilities, whereas the UAW’s tentative agreement with Ford Motor Co. provides detailed investment into all its U.S. facilities.
UAW spokesman Brian Rothenberg said the strike achieved gains for the union membership. “There will be substantial investments based on commitments outlined in the GM contract over the next four years,” he said.
More job security
The GM strike was effective, said Harley Shaiken, a professor at the University of California, Berkeley, who specializes in labor.
“It is easy to second guess it after the fact,” said Shaiken. “But I think GM gave more in some critical areas that wouldn’t have been possible absent the strike.”
But second-guessing is what some UAW members are doing in light of seeing the detailed Ford investments released Friday in that tentative agreement. It outlines exactly where Ford would invest $6 billion in U.S. manufacturing over the next four years and create or retain 8,500 jobs.
“I don’t think we got what we needed to get,” said Crawford, who works at Flint Assembly. There, GM builds its top-selling Chevrolet Silverado and GMC Sierra pickups, so Crawford isn’t worried that GM will idle his factory. But he and Yakim think workers should have remained on strike longer to get a deal with promised and detailed job security.
“The details were scant to say the least at General Motors and the lack of equality in pay and lack of job security were the two biggest reasons I voted ‘no’ on the contract,” said Crawford.
Union members at Ford have until Nov. 15 to vote on ratification for the proposal.
Lordstown protest
A spokesman for GM declined to comment on the lack of detailed plant investments, saying it was a UAW decision. A UAW spokesman said the union outlined in its highlights GM’s total investment in U.S. manufacturing and the closures of three plants.
Listing detailed product investment and plant allocation was tricky for the UAW’s GM Department, labor experts said. The union remained on strike until the tentative agreement was ratified. It would be illegal for a union to strike over product allocation to plants. That issue is considered “a permissive bargaining issue” only. Therefore, if UAW members did not ratify the tentative agreement and remained on strike, GM could protest it was an illegal strike if the rejection was due to an issue over product allocation.
Product allocation was a touchy subject for union members following GM’s decision in November 2018 to close four U.S. plants: Detroit-Hamtramck, Lordstown and transmission plants in Warren and Baltimore. All are closed but Detroit-Hamtramck, where GM agreed to invest $3 billion to build an electric pickup, other electric vehicles and battery modules.
About 50 protesters showed up at the UAW National GM Council’s Oct. 17 meeting in Detroit chanting, “No product, no vote.” They wanted the council to reject the proposed tentative agreement with GM if the deal did not restart Lordstown.
UAW members at GM ratified the contract on Oct. 25 by 57%-43%. Crawford and Yakim believe the ratification happened because strikers voted their pocketbook.
“People were desperate for money,” said Crawford.
Ford versus GM
Labor experts said the UAW Ford
Department listed detailed investment plans also because they coincide with the company’s ongoing business model, regardless of what changes might occur in the near-term auto environment, said Marick Masters, director of labor at Wayne State University.
“It’s also not clear from Ford’s presentation in the package how many of these are new commitments versus what Ford was already planning to do,” said Masters. “GM doesn’t want to lock itself into commitments it has to break down the road because of the changing nature of the environment.”
For example, a vehicle that’s in demand today could go out of style tomorrow. Also, it’s unknown when or whether consumers will shift to electric vehicles.
GM’s plan included $7.7 billion in investment compared to Ford’s $6 billion, but Ford’s appears to be more tantalizing because it’s more detailed, said Kristin Dziczek, vice president of Industry, Labor & Economics at the Center for Automotive Research (CAR) in Ann Arbor.