As Chrysler shutters its factories Workers denounce UAW concessions

2 May 2009

Chrysler began bankruptcy proceedings on Thursday. After initially announcing that production would stop next week, Chrysler moved to suspend production indefinitely at all its facilities in the US and Canada pending judicial hearings. Chrysler announced on Friday that it would permanently close five active plants...also close three plants that are already idled.

...The company said that it would file a motion by Saturday to sell most of its assets to Fiat. It claimed that all workers at the closed plants would be offered work at other facilities, but the restructuring will lead to the elimination of thousands of jobs.

Workers received details of new contract revisions on Tuesday, less than 24 hours before the vote was scheduled to take place. The UAW told workers that accepting the contract would save jobs...
The whole process, from contract announcement, vote, bankruptcy filing, to plant closure took less than four days. Several Chrysler workers said the process appeared to be a stage-managed plan by the UAW, Chrysler, and the Obama Administration...

Major concessions in the new contract include an immediate cut in retiree health care; the elimination of cost of living adjustments (COLA) and supplemental unemployment benefits; limits on vacation time, and the expansion of part-time and temporary labor.

...Glenn, a worker at the Warren Truck Assembly plant near Detroit, said the UAW misled autoworkers. “They kept promising us that if we passed this contract, they wouldn’t go into bankruptcy. Then the very next day this comes out. Everybody I know voted against the contract. They might as well have put all our ballots in the trash,” he said. Glenn said that all the vehicles had been wrapped in plastic, which he had never seen before. “We’ve shut down for changeovers before, but there have never been these kinds of preparations. Nobody knows what to expect or what’s going on,” he said.... "We walk in on Friday and everything is covered up, and then they said that we had to leave. We got a layoff and no return to work date. The union, who you can’t really believe now, says we will be back in 5 weeks. If that is the case, why are we not getting a return to work date? They didn’t tell us anything. Just, ‘See you guys later.’”

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2009/may2009/chry-m02.shtml

conspiracy:



Yeah, the UAW is complicit.

It seems to me more like the WSWS is grasping at straws to justify its ongoing claim that Obama is anti-worker, despite his fuck-you to the hedge funds in awarding 55% ownership of Chrysler to the UAW.

manage them. The shares will be held in a trust, & voted by an independent manager appointed by a judge.

Nor does UAW get board seats in proportion to its "ownership". It gets one non-voting seat.


Sure, some "ownership". Effectively zilch real power to control the shares, control the board, or make/have input into decisions about the company.


I first learned this from reading WSWS, one of the few places you can read business news from a labor perspective. I found confirmation in MSM sources, but only 3: NYT, WSJ, & Bloomberg.

Pole outlets like CNN/Fox don't go into detail, allowing the proles to believe the union "owns the company".

Do you think it is likely that the UAW is anti-worker?

It's hard to believe otherwise if you know the history.

And I can make a long case history for my position.

seem to square with the number of threads I can find from a quick Google search in which you are complaining about various entities (Wall Street, Chrysler, the Obama administration) attacking the UAW, dissing the UAW, fighting against the UAW, etc. Why would you complain about someone attacking an anti-worker organization, and why would one anti-worker organization attack another?

Is there any doubt about that? Union leadership has been arrogant and out of touch for decades. There has been a pro-democracy insurgent movement within the UAW percolating for years.

If the union makes demands on the company, I nevertheless will support the union, because the demands will benefit workers.

Politics is complicated & doesn't fit into the TV good-guy/bad-guy storylines promulgated to confuse the rubes.

The union is there as an ostensible promoter of the workers' well being, just as the government is ostensibly set up to represent and promote the well being of the general public. But yet somehow each of these entities has a fairly regular habit of serving a shit sandwich to their constituencies.

What has happened in organized Labor is the same thing that has happened on the Democratic party and most of the liberal organizations. They have been gentrified and corporatized, and pursue supposedly "realistic" and "practical" approaches. They serve mainly to explain to the people they represent what cannot be done and hat cannot happen. They get the "stakeholders" together and work out "reasonable compromises" that "solve the problems" - but it is always the problems of the haves that get solved and the have-nots who are forced to compromise. First and foremost the six figure salaries and perks for the people running the show are hat are protected and advanced, and the party officials and union leadership have more in common with the fat cats in industry and finance then they do with the people they are supposed to represent and fight for.

Mostly what the party, the unions, and the liberal organizations do is tell their constituencies to shut up and go away and keep the rabble in line. The leadership has been completely co-opted and works for the wealthy, powerful and privileged.


...

their jobs & keep the plants running, a promise immediately broken.

It was only weeks ago that Obama was being slammed for dissing the UAW. Today, the UAW is complicit.

Now the workers are not smart enough to know what they voted for, which is the implication you're making with the 24-hr claim. If they didn't have time to read it, why did they agree to it?

a corner, told this vote was the only way to save their jobs, & not given enough time either to study the agreement or conference amongst themselves.

after all this time and the UAW propped up as fighting in their interest, they cave and sell out labor.

Good grief.

Go advocate prosecuting torture or something more productive than a BS conspiracy theory.

1. The union leadership can't vote the shares the union supposedly "owns," & the workers certainly can't.

2. The union doesn't get voting board seats in proportion to its supposed "ownership" - it gets one NON-VOTING seat.

3. In return, the union gave up $5.3 BILLION the company OWES to the union health fund, 5% more $14 hires, & numerous other give-backs.

4. Immediately after the vote, the company declared bankruptcy, shuttered all its plants indefinitely, & closed 5 for good.

DO YOU DISPUTE THESE FACTS?

Or do you only know how to do smear?

I respect your position but lately you just seem to be reposting every rubbish article the WSWS publishes. NOTHING is ever good enough fro the people at WSWS. I'm a fan of Trotsky myself but at some point you've got to ask how come they can't point to a prosperous socialist society anywhere. Oh that's right, it's all the capitalists' fault (in other words, it'll never happen but they'll go on saying 'it could, if only the entire world would change at once').

& i've found wsws to be usually accurate ON THE MATERIAL FACTS, & reporting facts & angles difficult to find in the MSM.

Their POV spin is blatant & broad enough to be easy to spot & discount.

Besides which, they have quite an interesting arts section. and they actually go & talk to ordinary people, i'm also a fan of that.

they had excellent reporting, e.g., of the hollywood writers' strike. they interviewed some big names & some small potatoes both.

they do overseas labor as well. i've not found anything as detailed & wide-ranging in the msm.

Frankly, I find the reporting in the wall Street Journal a lot better, and with much more integrity. I just don't pay much attention to their editorial page, which is mostly filled by people who have nothing better to do than grumble about how everything is someone else's fault...rather like the WSWS, come to think of it.

and the ownership changes, imo, have led to some content changes there.

The same facts look different when looking from the top down rather than the bottom up.

I haven't read the WSJ much in a while, but at one time the reporting was fairly good. It was the editorial pages that had the pro-management spin. Of course now we can just come to DU to get the pro-management spin.

What I am hearing from sources in Detroit is that the workers were misled on this and rushed into it. If that is true (can anyone here seriously think that it is unlikely?) then that is something we need to know, and reporting on Labor news of any kind is very difficult to find.

I can't imagine that anyone here does not think or fails to see the sorry state of news reporting in the country, and the almost complete lack of any even vaguely left wing perspective.

If people do not care, or are opposed to left wing politics and organized labor, that is fine - there will always be some in that category. But why cannot left wing and organized Labor points of view be heard and discussed without aggressive attempts at disrupting and discrediting and dismissing any such discussions?



...

I do see where you're coming from, but we both know the WSWS website can't report anything straight, they love their adjectives too much. Every cross-post from there is loaded with characterizations and weasel words. I'm not particularly pro-management, but I trust the WSWS about as much as I would a press release from Cerberus (the private capital Co that has owned Chrysler until recently). If WSWS wants to be known for objective reporting, then they should do like the journal and keep their editorial POV separate from their reportage.

'Workers were given copies of the agreement 24 hours before the deadline for holding a vote' is neutral. How you construe that is certainly a matter of perspective, and I respect the fact that perspectives will vary. But it's not up the reporters of a fact to say whether it's a good or bad thing - as soon as they do, I begin to doubt their integrity. I used to work for the UK guardian years back, and Peter Preston, the editor (back then, he's retired now) was constantly stressing the point that a paper's editorial point of view can only be taken seriously to the extent that the reporting is objective and trustworthy. I thought it was good advice 15 years ago and still think so today.

This endless introduction of confusion between the leaders and rulers and the people they represent, as though the two were the same, serves the purpose of suppressing the voice of all but those in power.

You say "the UAW" to describe what the leadership did, and distract us from the very real possibility that the rank and file was misled about this and does not at all represent their best interests, or even their voice on this - such voice as they had.

If the membership was told one thing to get them to rubber stamp this, and the truth is something else, this is something that we need to know and should be able to discuss. The speed with which this was done should make people suspicious. Of course no opposition movement in the ranks had any chance to form. The workers were given no choice - vote for this, or lose their job is the way it as presented.

It would not be out of the range of possibility that the leaders conspired to sell the workers short, nor that the Union leadership sold out the members, nor that the workers were misled, nor that the workers were not entirely clear about how this is coming down. Who the Hell in this country IS clear about what is coming down most of the time, with the realities propaganda and pressure from the ruling class? Why present all of that as beyond the pale and unworthy of consideration?

Oops did I use a commie word when I said "ruling class" and will we now have another round of red-baiting?


...

It seems you'll believe absolutely anything to avoid believing Obama is pro-worker.

no evidence I believe anything of the sort.

But I'm not going to argue with you over my beliefs.

The facts are clear.

Neither the UAW leadership, let alone the "workers," "own" the company, or the shares, since they don't even have the normal prerogatives of majority ownership:

1. the power to vote the shares they own
2. voting seats on the board in proportion to their % of holdings.


Them's the facts, & your snark & attempt to smear me don't change them.

Because I can cross-document them.

Can you demonstrate that a majority of the UAW members now oppose the agreement they voted for?

Can you prove that this was "staged by the UAW, Chrysler, and the Obama Administration" to screw over UAW members?

Do you dispute the FACTS laid out in the article?

Here's MSM Bloomberg, which documents many of the same facts, as well as quoting a worker who believed he was misled on the vote. And I've got more if thAt's not enough for you.

“Obama said none of the plants would close, and two hours later they sent us home,” said Thayer, a 17-year Chrysler veteran. “So now, whom do we call a liar, the president, the UAW or Chrysler, or are they all in bed together?” Thayer asked.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=ashM7Ku7j3ZQ&refer=home


UAW President Ron Gettelfinger said in a statement the union’s retiree health-care fund had accepted a 55 percent stake in Chrysler in return for cutting in half the automaker’s $10.6 billion cash obligation to the fund....Its Chrysler equity could turn out to be worthless, leaving retirees with curtailed health insurance...

...While the UAW gained representation on the Chrysler board through the agreement, its power will be limited because shares owned by the trust fund will be voted by independent trustees, Shaiken said.

...The contract reduced the number of skilled trades classifications, which the UAW used historically to keep work in-house. The contract also has a provision that as much as 25 percent of the total Chrysler-UAW workforce will make $14 to $16 an hour. This increased from 20 percent in an earlier contract.

...Gettelfinger said yesterday the union had accepted the concessions by a 4-1 margin. “Our members have responded by accepting an agreement that is painful for our active and retired workers, but which helps preserve U.S. manufacturing jobs and gives Chrysler a chance to survive,” he said in a statement.

...On Wednesday, workers voted yes because UAW leaders said the new contract could prevent a bankruptcy and help keep factories operating, said Paul Thayer, 47, a welder repairman at a Chrysler stamping plant in Warren, Michigan.

“Obama said none of the plants would close, and two hours later they sent us home,” said Thayer, a 17-year Chrysler veteran. “So now, whom do we call a liar, the president, the UAW or Chrysler, or are they all in bed together?” Thayer asked.

There were going to be temporary layoffs---a week or two or a month---as part of the bankruptcy, that is why Obama said it would be a quick deal


Thayer hasn't lost his job.

Thayer, like every other Chrysler employee, is now on indefinite furlow. Go tell him "you haven't lost your job".

He may well lose his job. They just shut down 5 plants forever. Where do you think they're going to put those folks?

I'll put you down for: Not able to challenge the facts reported by WSWS.

He was on his way to losing his job weeks ago too. He hasn't lost it yet. No doubt the employees are concerned, but they've been concerned for some time.

He hasn't lost his job. Maybe they should have spoken to someone who had.


So now you're speculating?

them - because they're TRUE.

Not going to touch the rest of your bullshit attempts to cloud the issue.

a majority of UAW members are disgruntled about the agreements. You added an article quoting one person who was concerned, but was still employed. You have to admit that that is completely lame in terms of the information from the UAW about process and agreement.

Look at the things that we know about this agreement, and then tell me that any person who supported organized Labor should not have a problem with them.

It is no more required of us to prove that these are anti-Labor provisions then it is for you to prove that they are not.

Tell me that they are not, if that is your honest opinion about it.

"... (the) plan will bring union auto workers much closer to the level of non-union workers..."

"...auto plants will fill up with second-class, disposable jobs..."

"...the rules limiting use of temporary part-time workers are relaxed..."

"...relief time cut back..."

"...seniority right to bid on individual jobs is canceled..."

"...wage freeze through 2015..."

"...loss of all supplemental pay such as cost-of-living adjustments, Christmas bonuses, and productivity bonuses..."

"...cancels workers’ right to decide on their own contracts until September 2015..."

"...harder to refuse reassignment to a distant plant..."

"Update 1: Chrysler says will produce Plan of Reorganization by August 28. Uhm, my math is rusty but that is a little longer than 60 days."

http://zerohedge.blogspot.com/2009/04/chrysler-chapter-11-case-assigned-to.html

not a couple of weeks at all.

they're in bankruptcy proceedings.

thanks to a gov't-assisted push.

you can try to argue that's a good thing, but you can't argue that the admin didn't push the bankruptcy along by rejecting the initial plan.

Now about that conspiracy?

5 plants permanently shut down.

where do you think they find jobs for the redundant workers in a bankrupt firm in a recessionary economy?

Go figure?

do it is also speculative.

particularly as the same folks said this vote would keep the plants running.

the deadline for the re-org plan is august 28. by my reckoning that's about 120 days, 4 months out.

You make it appear, without any supporting evidence, except that of ONE employee, that the workers have been sold out.

Do you think the workers have been sold out, or no? Do you care whether or not they have been? Do you know what being sold out means, and what the alternatives to that might be?

It is not incumbent for the other member to prove that this is true before we can consider and discuss the possibility that it is true.

The other member is saying that it looks like it is very possible that the rank and file workers are not going to do well with this arrangement, and that other interests - politicians, union leadership, management and investors - controlled the process and the workers had little real input or participation in the process. There is also some credible evidence that the rank and file voted on this without full knowledge of the truth of the arrangement and what it would mean.

Can we know or prove that? No, no yet.

But those of us who care about that possibility, for whom it is a prime concern, are going to be looking at this and discussing it. we are not asking you to agree, not asking you to take a pro-Labor stand, not asking you to see it the way we do. We are asking to have our point of view heard and discussed without threads being clogged up by people who only want to dismiss and discourage any such discussions.

I cannot for the life of me understand how anyone could be strongly pro-Labor and not be interested in discussing this, not have the same concerns and questions that we do about this.


...

Here are some of the concessions and consequences. How can a person be pro-Labor and not be opposed to these? Would you dispute that this list of concessions and the consequences is accurate? Would you claim that these things don't matter? Do you not care about them?

"... (the) plan will bring union auto workers much closer to the level of non-union workers..."

"...auto plants will fill up with second-class, disposable jobs..."

"...the rules limiting use of temporary part-time workers are relaxed..."

"...relief time cut back..."

"...seniority right to bid on individual jobs is canceled..."

"...wage freeze through 2015..."

"...loss of all supplemental pay such as cost-of-living adjustments, Christmas bonuses, and productivity bonuses..."

"...cancels workers’ right to decide on their own contracts until September 2015..."

"...harder to refuse reassignment to a distant plant..."

http://labornotes.org/node/2238

If the workers were misled into the way they voted, they may have unintentionally voted against their interests might they have not?

But the question is WAS the decision against their interests.

I think you are projecting. The truth seems to be that you will believe absolutely anything - or try to get others to - to avoid believing Obama may not "be" pro-worker. He is a politician. What he "is" matters not, but what he does, and politicians do what they are pressured to do - at least the good ones do. How can nay politician magically "be" pro anything? That is not how our system works, and there is always a bias toward the interests of the wealthiest few. Nothing is ever done - ever has been done - for the have-nots until and unless the rulers are pressured. Discussing the interests of the workers and the have-nots is the only ay that pressure can ever be built. Why would anyone here so frantically oppose that as we see people doing?

The article is not mainly about Obama in any case. The fact that we are talking about Obama reflects your agenda, not that of anyone else.


...

they are not the same thing. Much like Democrat leadership aren't the same thing (and are often miles apart - see national health) as people who vote for them

Try here for some views from unionists rather than it's leadership

http://labornotes.org/node/2238

Chrysler's Plan? Send Pay and Standards Down the Drain

The turnaround plan will bring union auto workers much closer to the level of non-union workers. It will widen the two-tier wage structure introduced in the 2007 contract, guaranteeing that auto plants will fill up with second-class, disposable jobs. All workers hired for the next six years will start at $14 an hour and remain there at least until 2015. If that wasn’t bad enough, the rules limiting use of temporary part-time workers are relaxed.

The company will keep pushing out higher-wage workers, and those with less than 20 years’ seniority will receive lesser and lesser amounts of supplemental unemployment pay. It will become harder to refuse reassignment to a distant plant.

The deal will make life on the assembly line worse. Active workers, already working at punishing speeds, will see their relief time cut back. After two hours of work they will get 13 minutes break instead of 16; after another 1.5 hours another 13 minutes rather than 16. Their attendance procedure will be more strict. Their seniority right to bid on individual jobs is canceled, replaced by only the right to change work teams. The dates of two of their vacation weeks will be dictated by the company. No overtime premiums will be paid until the 41st hour worked in a week—in other words, 12-hour days at straight time will soon prevail, especially for skilled-trades workers.

It gets worse. The deal includes a wage freeze through 2015 and the loss of all supplemental pay such as cost-of-living adjustments, Christmas bonuses, and productivity bonuses. All of these were substitutes for what used to be, in the dim distant past, yearly 3 percent base pay raises.

that it was what the UAW was told and so that's what it was telling people in good faith? There are people on top of this whole thing who were the ones squeezing concessions out of these companies and workers, and it wasn't the UAW. It was the administration.

elites & rank & file.

I figure the top union leadership is bought. I can support my opinion with history & documentation.

power to get better deals.

For decades union leadership has focused on getting Democrats elected rather than building and strengthening the union. Union leadership has done fine. Rank and file not so well.

I know that there are some members here who are wealthy, who live on trust funds, that many have professional or management careers, and that the membership in general is disproportionately from the upper 10% income bracket. However, for the other 90% of the population we are all rank and file and the struggle of the UAW workers is all of our struggle.

I can understand that those here who do not identify as working class, who identify with the 10% of the population who are in the professional and relatively well off class, may not be sympathetic to organized Labor. That would not be surprising. However, I do think that those who are sympathetic to organized Labor, who do identify as working class should be able to have their voices heard and their opinions considered without red-baiting and insults and attacks, and that those who are not genuinely or strongly pro-Labor would stop trying to claim that they are.

Don't claim that the Democratic party is the voice for Labor - and then try to silence those voices. Don't claim that the Democratic party is the only place for pro-Labor people to go, and then tell them they are not welcome.



...

a few years back I said goodbye to a much better paying job to work for the movement, even I can understand that not all union leadership has the best interests of their members at heart.

This is not a comment on the UAW because I don't know enough about most US unions to comment.

It is very difficult to find coverage of this, and wsws is one source that is doing a good job. I have been reading coverage there, but didn't bother bringing it here. We can't post anything from there because then we will hear an endless litany about the supposed agenda of the source rather than about the issue.

Notice that none of the information in the article is challenged, rather we are only to look at the imagined agenda of the source and so dismiss anything they say.

I fail to see how what is going on here on thread after thread is any different than the red-baiting and McCarthyism and black-listing that was going on in the 50's.


...

Ludicrous.

The WSWS little conspiracy is beyond ridiculous.

So nice to see you.

cross-document them from the WSJ, NYT, & Bloomberg.

Their POV is not hidden, it is quite clear. But so are the facts.

& they're contrary to the spin by folks here who keep talking about "workers owning the company".

First, the idea that there was concerted action between the players is speculation, is a relatively minor point on the article, and is certainly plausible. What you posted does not refute it. Workers are saying they were misled. Were they? You don't know, or do not say.

Secondly, my post, to which you responded wasn't about that. You didn't refute what I said, or even address it.

What was it about my post that spurred you to action, while not addressing my point, nor the point you claim to be addressing?


...

the WSWS is saying workers were misled. You have no idea who these so-called employees are.

The statements by the UAW are very clear.

I will know. It is difficult to get any news right now.

The statements by the UAW leadership may be "very clear" but there is less credibility to your claim that this represents the voice of the rank and file workers then the wsws report does.

In any case, respond to the points, and stop discussing the messengers. You are saying that we should believe the UAW leadership, and not any other source. You have no evidence to support that.


...

What?

their jobs & keep the plants running.

What?

“Obama said none of the plants would close, and two hours later they sent us home,” said Thayer, a 17-year Chrysler veteran. “So now, whom do we call a liar, the president, the UAW or Chrysler, or are they all in bed together?” Thayer asked.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=ashM7Ku7j3ZQ&refer=home

I'd continue with the worker interviews from wsws, but that's a commie/conspiracy rag, so they probably just made them all up & stuck some random people's photos next to the quotes.

here

You can try to make this about the UAW versus it's members, but that just shows the extent you are willing to go to prove the complicit argument.

I can now see why the people who controlled this process were in such a big hurry to have it voted on, and why they represented it as the only possible alternative and made it sound better for the workers than it actually was. The vote could then be waved as a bloody flag - "see? The workers agreed to it so it must be OK!!"

Would it not be just as logical to say that the majority of people have been voting for Republicans over the last couple of decades, so therefore Republicans must be good for the people?

Do you think the agreement is good? Where do you stand? That is what you are avoiding talking about, and that is what you do not want others to talk about.


...

as disagreeing with an article because it was written by Communists. But you know that, don't you?

Disagree with the criticism of aspects of this agreement that are troubling - to say the least - that of course would be troubling to any person who supports organized Labor.

If these things are not a problem for you, then you will of course disagree with the OP and the members here posting in support of it.

Where do you stand on these? Would you claim that these items are not true? That they don't matter? Or that they are not troubling for you?

"... (the) plan will bring union auto workers much closer to the level of non-union workers..."

"...auto plants will fill up with second-class, disposable jobs..."

"...the rules limiting use of temporary part-time workers are relaxed..."

"...relief time cut back..."

"...seniority right to bid on individual jobs is canceled..."

"...wage freeze through 2015..."

"...loss of all supplemental pay such as cost-of-living adjustments, Christmas bonuses, and productivity bonuses..."

"...cancels workers’ right to decide on their own contracts until September 2015..."

"...harder to refuse reassignment to a distant plant..."



http://labornotes.org/node/2238

I'll be a MOPAR man.

I love my LIBERTY.....................................................................and my DAKOTA ain't bad either!

GET WELL SOON DODGE BOYS!

I have owned and driven some great MOPAR vehicles in my over 40 years of driving. Cuda, Roadrunner, Duster, Demon, Dodge Rams, Dakotas, Jeeps...I loved them all for getting my family and me where I had to be, when we had to be there.

I haven't seen much in the news about the reactions of UAW members.

Just all the M$M initial happy happy joy joy shit.

It's right there on the UAW site, not sure if they're as trustworthy as the WSWS.

The commission concluded that no one could have known that 'terrorists' would have flown airplanes into buildings.

It's right there on their site.

http://www.9-11commission.gov/

I am becoming ever more suspicious of this agreement when I see the defenders of it falling back on this "the majority of workers voted for it" argument rather than being able to defend he actual agreement.

The same thing happens in organized Labor that happens every day right here - the handful of people defending power and privilege and wealth dominate the discussion and drive the herd off the cliff, often with misleading or dishonest arguments, and when that fails using fear-mongering and pandering to prejudice and bigotry, and when that fails creating such a disruptive uproar that no discussion can go on at all.


...

If this is the only argument you have to defend the agreement, then that supports the idea that it is not very good.

So - throw out the official UAW line, and throw out the the wsws and discuss the issues. Where do you stand? Let's talk about the agreement, and let's be honest about where we stand - on the issues, not the talking points.

"The membership voted for it, so it must be good" is the talking point that is being used to support the agreement. But repeating that talking point does not reveal to us here you stand in regard to organized Labor, does it?

"The people voted for Republicans, so they must be good" makes about as much sense as your argument does.



...

People who shout down news because they don't see it as politically useful are something the thread would be better off without.

neutral observer.

People can check out the facts for themselves in Bloomberg, NYT, WSJ & decide who's credible.

(Me).

You apparently can't handle the debate.


edited for clarity.

UAW Says Won't Control Chrysler

"...55% of the auto maker will be owned by a retiree health care trust fund and not the union itself.

'It's this independent trust that will own these shares,' UAW President Ron Gettelfinger said...The trust--known as a Voluntary Employee Beneficiary Association, or VEBA--is supposed to take ownership of 55% of Chrysler as part of a government-brokered cost-cutting plan that union workers ratified earlier this week...

'The VEBA is CONTROLLED BY THE OUTSIDE INDEPENDENT DIRECTORS who have been appointed by a judge to serve on that,' he said. 'We have less UAW representation on the VEBA. And as far as the board seat that the VEBA is going to get with the approval of the UAW, the voting will be done by independent directors…'"

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124120108093077927.html


Chrysler UAW workers approve concessions

ROCKFORD — If ever a landslide victory could be termed “reluctant,” it was today's approval by United Auto Workers Local 1268 members of contract concessions...“There’s not a lot of other options,” said Jeremy Endress of Capron, who has worked at the Belvidere plant for 10 years. “Either this goes through and we have work, or we’re all on the unemployment line.”

Even though the UAW would be a major beneficiary if Chrysler returns to profitability, the union will have no role in the day-to-day management of the company.

“I asked that question,” Jacques Walker of Rockford said. He was working for Chrysler in Detroit when he transferred to the Belvidere plant three years ago. “We’ll have someone sitting on the board of the (group administering health benefits), but we’ll have no say in how the company is run.”

Many of the concessions were related to health care, and several hurt Chrysler’s retirees. Workers said the new contract calls for higher co-pays, less prescription coverage, and the elimination of dental and vision care for retirees as of July 1.

Steve Kitzman, who lives near Waukegan and retired from the plant after 35 years, drove in only to be told that only active members could vote. “It’s kind of disappointing to drive down here,” Kitzman said. “They did make changes to some of the programs set up for retirees, and we don’t have any say in it.”

http://www.rrstar.com/archive/x303487643/Belvidere-Chry...

Can you demonstrate that a majority of the UAW members now oppose the agreement they voted for?

Can you prove that this was "staged by the UAW, Chrysler, and the Obama Administration" to screw over UAW members?

In fact, check your response to my first comment about complicity by they UAW.

established credentials, in which case they must be dismissed, or they come from the M$M, which is full of shit so they must be dismissed. And if they both agree that's even more suspicious :crazy:

always saints & boy scouts.

The unions are champions when Obama is seen as siding with bankers, but they are questionable when Obama supports a deal that they sign off on.

This place is getting nutty

:crazy:

;)

:scared:

UAW head Gettlefinger had an animus against Sherrod Brown and refused to endorse him in the 2006 Ohio Senate primary. I am not impressed.

k&r

It looks like defenders of the UAW are encountering some more radical people who want to take control of the union. And they're doing it over an issue that's been before everybody for a long time; are unions any damn good for their workers?

In the face of declining membership, unions have been acting out of fear. Maybe they're power hungry, or maybe they remember the early days of organizing when being a public union member was the equivalent of being a terrorist.

Back in the 1950's or so, unions were considered part of the industrial structure, as loyal to America as their bosses if not more so. I remember public service shorts from the AFL-CIO that used to be run as fill films on TV in my youth. Unions were given a big arm around their shoulders and brought into the Good Guys Club.

And as a result the unions lost more and more power, defended their workers less, and let things slide.

Now there's the rumblings of people who want unions to do more, get involved, start striking, may be do some leg breaking like the old days. And they have a perfect issue in this Anti-Christler ownership deal.

Nothing is going to be resolved here, although it's interesting to see the argument occurring.

for their present condition. They bought the management's bull crap that they would be well taken care of and that unions were their enemy. Far too many workers were driven by basic greed when they reacted by saying why in hell should we pay dues when we can get the same wages and benefits as those in the union. Well, they got well taken care of. Their jobs were outsourced, their pensions cut and their health insurance canceled. The only ones who have any hope of retaining any portion of these benefits are those who are still represented by the unions. Any worker who is not represented is totally at the mercy of their employer. Were unions perfect, hell no, but they sure were more protective of the workers than the vast majority of any non-union managers were of their employees.

It seems to me that some on this board would believe that it is the union workers fault that the car manufactures failed. They believe that it was their greed that took down the companies. No, it was the type of management that has become the staple of American industry. They are professional managers with their MBAs who don't know a damn thing about the products they are attempting to sell. Why are small businesses so successful? It is because the owner is fully aware of every aspect of the business. The most successful managers are those that came up through the ranks, obtained additional education and coupled this with their vital experience. A deadly combination for success.

so it's been all over the news here in Cleveland. It's a stamping plant and I've heard figures of 900 and 1200 employees. At any rate, a UAW spokesperson was on and angry, of course, about the closing, but mostly because they weren't told anything. They found out they were closing because the information was in the bankruptsy proceedings! They will be open for about another year though and then the claim is that no jobs will be lost.