FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

The Lesson of the Chrysler Rebels

by CHRIS KUTALIK

Negotiations between the Big Three automakers and the United Auto Workers (UAW) were anything but predictable this year. Nationwide strikes at both General Motors and Chrysler, union givebacks on an unprecedented scale, and the stirrings of a strong “vote no on the contract” opposition inside the union have shredded the old auto pattern-agreement playbook.

For decades, “the pattern” meant for autoworkers a stable, almost ritualistic set of negotiations for the auto industry. The union would pick one of the Big Three as its strike target, company and union negotiators would retreat behind closed doors to hammer out terms, and then a tentative agreement would be quickly floated to sidelined members and local officers for a resounding vote up.

Concessions, local competitive operating agreements, contract re-openings, and other setbacks chipped away at the pattern’s strength — and auto workers’ wages, benefits and working conditions — year after year following the opening concessionary wave at Chrysler in 1979. But the basics of the script seemed to stay true with each round.

That is, until this year.

UAW international officials and staff no doubt expected that the four-year contract signed with GM in mid-October would seamlessly become the template for UAW agreements at Chrysler and Ford as per the usual pattern. But they hit tougher resistance than expected on their first try at GM and a virtual rank-and-file rebellion on the second at Chrysler.

Pattern gets broken

Though nearly identical to the GM agreement in its concessions, the Chrysler agreement lacked many of the GM’s vague “gentleman’s agreement” job security protections.

According to Bill Parker, president of UAW Local 1700 and the chair of the Chrysler bargaining committee, this omission is particularly painful for Chrysler workers, who had taken concessions negotiated at the local level in return for promises of future vehicle production.

Parker galvanized opposition when he refused to rubber stamp approval of the deal Oct. 10. Unlike the UAW’s GM and Ford departments, Chrysler members have a freer hand in electing their national bargaining committee. Parker was voted in to be a tougher voice at the negotiating table.

But Parker would have remained a lone voice if it weren’t for a host of angry active and retired Chrysler workers who lobbied their co-workers at nearly every plant gate. Hastily written, photocopied fliers were handed out by the hundreds. With headlines like “Solidarity — No Exceptions,” they slammed the agreement’s two-tier wage provisions. Another asked, “If we sell out our children, who will buy cars? Who will defend pensions?”

If UAW leaders really wanted a contract that would have been agreeable to the union’s ranks, they could have thrown out the old playbook and called from the new one being written on the shop floor by its own members.

They could have modeled actual democracy by opening up negotiations and allowing members to make their choices directly. They could have prepared members with a long contract campaign and mobilization similar to that of the Teamsters during the UPS strike of 1997.

And they could have looked beyond the bargaining table for answers to the Big Three’s crisis.
Try new playbook

Instead of agreeing to a union-run retiree health care trust, they could have used the political window opened this year to become the motor of a movement for national health care that would solve the costs borne by the struggling auto manufacturers.

Instead of rallying against tougher fuel-efficiency standards, they could have been pushing the companies to end their unpopular over-reliance on SUV and truck sales.

A playbook like that, while risky, could have provided the only way out for an ailing union that seems to have forgotten its past legacy of taking big risks, like the 1937 Flint sit-down strikes that paved the way for bigger gains for working people as a whole in this country.

Without that member-driven leadership conscious of the world around it, the closed-door UAW-Chrysler agreement looks headed for the dust bin. And a growing number of UAW members and supporters are saying, good riddance.

CHRIS KUTALIK is an editor of Labor Notes in Detroit. He can be reached at: chris@labornotes.org

 

 

 

More articles by:
June 27, 2016
Robin Hahnel
Brexit: Establishment Freak Out
James Bradley
Omar’s Motive
Gregory Wilpert – Michael Hudson
How Western Military Interventions Shaped the Brexit Vote
Leonard Peltier
41 Years Since Jumping Bull (But 500 Years of Trauma)
Rev. William Alberts
Orlando: the Latest Victim of Radicalizing American Imperialism
Patrick Cockburn
Brexiteers Have Much in Common With Arab Spring Protesters
Franklin Lamb
How 100 Syrians, 200 Russians and 11 Dogs Out-Witted ISIS and Saved Palmyra
John Grant
Omar Mateen: The Answers are All Around Us
Dean Baker
In the Wake of Brexit Will the EU Finally Turn Away From Austerity?
Ralph Nader
The IRS and the Self-Minimization of Congressman Jason Chaffetz
Johan Galtung
Goodbye UK, Goodbye Great Britain: What Next?
Martha Pskowski
Detained in Dilley: Deportation and Asylum in Texas
Binoy Kampmark
Headaches of Empire: Brexit’s Effect on the United States
Dave Lindorff
Honest Election System Needed to Defeat Ruling Elite
Louisa Willcox
Delisting Grizzly Bears to Save the Endangered Species Act?
Jason Holland
The Tragedy of Nothing
Jeffrey St. Clair
Revolution Reconsidered, Guest Starring Bernard Sanders in the Role of Robespierre
Weekend Edition
June 24, 2016
Friday - Sunday
John Pilger
A Blow for Peace and Democracy: Why the British Said No to Europe
Pepe Escobar
Goodbye to All That: Why the UK Left the EU
Michael Hudson
Revolts of the Debtors: From Socrates to Ibn Khaldun
Andrew Levine
Summer Spectaculars: Prelude to a Tea Party?
Kshama Sawant
Beyond Bernie: Still Not With Her
Mike Whitney
¡Basta Ya, Brussels! British Voters Reject EU Corporate Slavestate
Tariq Ali
Panic in the House: Brexit as Revolt Against the Political Establishment
Paul Street
Miranda, Obama, and Hamilton: an Orwellian Ménage à Trois for the Neoliberal Age
Ellen Brown
The War on Weed is Winding Down, But Will Monsanto Emerge the Winner?
Gary Leupp
Why God Created the Two-Party System
Conn Hallinan
Brexit Vote: a Very British Affair (But Spain May Rock the Continent)
Ruth Fowler
England, My England
Jeffrey St. Clair
Lines Written on the Occasion of Bernie Sanders’ Announcement of His Intention to Vote for Hillary Clinton
Norman Pollack
Fissures in World Capitalism: the British Vote
Paul Bentley
Mercenary Logic: 12 Dead in Kabul
Binoy Kampmark
Parting Is Such Sweet Joy: Brexit Prevails!
Elliot Sperber
Show Me Your Papers: Supreme Court Legalizes Arbitrary Searches
Jan Oberg
The Brexit Shock: Now It’s All Up in the Air
Nauman Sadiq
Brexit: a Victory for Britain’s Working Class
Brian Cloughley
Murder by Drone: Killing Taxi Drivers in the Name of Freedom
Ramzy Baroud
How Israel Uses Water as a Weapon of War
Brad Evans – Henry Giroux
The Violence of Forgetting
Ben Debney
Homophobia and the Conservative Victim Complex
Margaret Kimberley
The Orlando Massacre and US Foreign Policy
David Rosen
Americans Work Too Long for Too Little
Murray Dobbin
Do We Really Want a War With Russia?
Kathy Kelly
What’s at Stake
Louis Yako
I Have Nothing “Newsworthy” to Report this Week
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail