Wednesday, November 25, 2015

New Math for Detroit


                                                       Comments due by Dec. 4, 2015

When union contracts were finally ratified at Ford Motor and General Motors last week, a new era began in the American auto industry. The deals, which culminated labor talks among the nation’s three big automakers, were the most generous for workers in more than a decade and represented a striking shift from years of cuts and stagnant wages. “The feeling among workers was that if you’re not going to get the money now when we are near the top of the market, you’re not going to ever get it,” said Kristin Dziczek, a labor analyst at the Center for Automotive Research in Ann Arbor, Mich. But for automakers, the pay raises will add to the pressure to maintain profits and could spur a shift of less ­profitable car production to Mexico from the United States. Ford and Fiat Chrysler, for example, are considering moving some passenger car production to lower ­wage factories in Mexico from American 11/25/2015 U.A.W. Contracts Change Math for Detroit Automakers ­ The New York Times http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/25/business/new­uaw­contracts­land­best­terms­in­over­a­decade.html 2/5 plants. In their place, the companies would make more high­ profit trucks and sport utility vehicles in the United States. That shift could cause production issues down the road, particularly if gas prices increase and temper consumer demand for pickups and sport utility vehicles. “From the company’s point of view, the U.S. is where you have to build your premium products,” said Harley Shaiken, a University of California, Berkeley professor who studies the auto industry. “To cover the cost of labor, you have to go upscale.” It is all part of the delicate series of changes needed to solve the two­tier wage problem that has been dogging the United Automobile Workers since the system took effect in 2007. And it was the primary hurdle that had to be cleared in the recently completed talks. When automakers began final negotiations on contracts this fall, their goal was to reward union workers financially while containing costs and preserving profits. The companies were also willing to meet the U.A.W. halfway on reducing the gap in pay between entry­level and veteran workers. But the strategy collapsed on Oct. 1, when workers at Fiat Chrysler overwhelmingly rejected a proposed contract that did not eliminate the divisive two ­tier wage system. “We showed we aren’t quite as naïve as they thought,” said Scott McGinnis, an entry level worker at a Fiat Chrysler plant in Michigan. “After that first agreement, a lot of people were insulted.” It was a stunning rebuke of the company and the U.A.W. leadership, and completely altered the course of the talks — and ultimately the cost structures of G.M., Ford and Fiat Chrysler.  Since then, all three companies have agreed to contracts that provide a defined path for every worker to earn the top union wage of $29 an hour. The richer contracts also underscore how healthy the Detroit companies have become since G.M. and what was then the Chrysler Corporation slipped into bankruptcy and needed government bailouts to survive just six years ago. Sales of new vehicles in the United States are expected to hit 17 million this year, the most in a decade, and possibly exceed that in 2016. In that environment, the time was ripe for workers to cash in. Ms. Dziczek estimated that over the life of the four ­year agreements, average hourly labor costs — including health care and other benefits — will rise about 5 percent at Ford, 9 percent at G.M., and 19 percent at Fiat Chrysler. The increases are partly based on the number of entry ­level workers at each company, and the impact that progressive pay increases will have on overall costs. But even with the wage increases and a combined payout of nearly $1 billion in signing bonuses for union workers, the automakers are still well positioned for strong earnings, and able to invest in plant improvements and technology. With vehicle sales and sticker prices rising, G.M., Ford and Fiat Chrysler can probably absorb higher wages while maintaining their profit margins in North America. Executives at the car companies have refrained from publicly discussing the outcome of the labor negotiations and contentious votes by union members. Dennis Williams, the U.A.W.’s president, has also declined interview requests since Ford workers approved their contract last week by a 51 percent majority.
 But interviews with workers and union officials show that anger on the shop floor over two­ tier wages was the deciding factor in the changes in the contracts. On Sept. 15, Mr. Williams emerged from talks with Fiat Chrysler’s chief executive, Sergio Marchionne, with an initial contract proposal that would have raised lower­ tier workers’ pay to $25 an hour, from $16 to $19 an hour, over the life of the deal. “We won tremendous gains,” Mr. Williams said at a news conference, in which he hugged Mr. Marchionne for their collective effort. But a few days later, a top U.A.W. bargainer, Norwood Jewell, was heckled and booed when he presented the tentative agreement to workers at Fiat Chrysler’s big Jeep plant in Toledo, Ohio. A video of the meeting, posted on a socialist website, illustrated the clash. Mr. Jewell was shouted down as he defended terms of the agreement, with one worker yelling out, “Are you working for us or Sergio?” When the contract went to a vote, about 87 percent of the 4,800 workers in the plant voted against it. Other factories also turned it down by big margins. When the final results came in, 65 percent of Fiat Chrysler’s 37,000 workers had rejected it. “There was a lot of anger because people had an expectation that since Chrysler was in the black again, selling vehicles and making profits, it was our time,” said George Windau, a veteran worker at the Toledo plant. The head of the plant’s union local, Bruce Baumhower, said his members were upset that the proposed deal left entry ­level workers well short of the top union wage. “They wanted to see a way to eliminate that,” he said. “But what they got left them about five dollars short.”
After the defeat, the U.A.W. leadership reopened talks with Fiat Chrysler. The union also hired a public relations firm, BerlinRosen, to improve communications with workers on the U.A.W.’s website and Facebook pages. Within a week, a new deal was struck between the union and Fiat Chrysler with a crucial concession — lower­ paid workers would reach the top wage scale after eight years of service. The new agreement was then ratified by a vote of Fiat Chrysler workers, and used as a template for the contracts at G.M. and Ford. But without the lopsided defeat of the first proposal, the two­tier system would have stayed in place for another four years. Fiat Chrysler workers like Darlene Rau were gratified that new employees and veterans stood together to reject the initial contract. “I was kind of surprised it went down because I didn’t think we were so united,” said Ms. Rau, who has worked for six years at the company’s Jeep plant in Detroit. Now, her pay has jumped to $24 an hour from $19, and she will reach the top wage before the contract ends. “I can actually pay my bills,” she said. “And have a little bit left for me.”(NYT 11/25/2015)

14 comments:

Anonymous said...

As much as I think it is necessary to pay the automobile industry's workers more I don't think it will work out in a happy ending for everyone. If you look at it from the executives of the large companies like GM and Ford they need to keep their companies alive. With mandated wages like that the company might be compelled to or even need to move their factories out of the country so they can pay workers less. This would hurt the economy. But if they don't do that then it does benefit those people and the economy. It is hard to find a perfect equilibrium for wages with keeping both parties happy, if it even is possible. I do think that the idea of having workers that have worked for eight years or more reach the top wage scale. It just makes sense and gives incentive to be loyal to the company. But no matter what they make it, the workers will ask for more money at some point.

- Justin Grossmann

Anonymous said...

I found the article to be interesting because it showed how powerful and effective unions can be, even when it comes to huge companies. I think that it is great that employees will be getting a pay increase and can reach the top wage scale after 8 years with the company. These incentives are sure to keep employees happy and loyal to the company. However, from the company's point of view the increase in pay means expenses are going up. This increase in wages causes the company to look for ways to decrease costs, possibly through a reduction in workforce or relocating their factories. I think that in the short run these pay increases will benefit employees but in the long run they might end up hurting them.

- Hernan Gallego

Jesenia munoz said...

This article was interesting to read because you get to take a look at both sides of the spectrum. On one end, I think like an employee and of course the increased wages seem great and will make me more loyal to my company. This is a huge incentive for the employees and would definitely lead to a decrease in turnovers and a possible increase in job satisfaction. On the other hand, companies can suffer through this increase in wages because they will have to find a way to lower costs in order to afford higher salaries. this may lead to the company relocating or even a decrease in the quality of its products.

Valon Brahimi said...

This article really gained my interest because it showed the potential unions have throughout the globe with big companies as well. Having an increase in wages for employees definitely raises the satisfaction of working there which will increase the amount of work done. Employees will go to work happy because they know their salary is great so you have to take your job more seriously. The negative thing about this is that prices of products can be decreased so wages for employees can't be increased, which can lead to a decrease in the companies profit, and maybe into the lose of more jobs raising the unemployment rate.

Maria Tan said...

This article explores the dilemma of wage determination. Low wages would be more preferable for companies because they can make a larger profit and distribute that profit more towards its product or service; unions would favor a high wage. Having a high wage would increase productivity and satisfaction of employees but not as much revenue will be generated if the wage was low. It is difficult to find a middle ground.

Savanah Catucci said...

This article talked about wages of workers in the auto industry. It says that new vehicles in the United States are expected to hit 17 million this year, the most in a decade. This is far more than I thought there would be. I liked this because it shows how employees want more money and want the pay gap between entry level workers and veterans to shrink. It also shows how employers can be hurt by increasing employee wages, but it is something that they have to do in order to keep their workers happy.

Savanah Catucci

Unknown said...

This article explains an ungoing problem with worker wages and the gap umongst workers. It shows how keeping the workers happy and paying them more can hurt the company because there is less money available to put into the good itself. But in that same sense productivity would be high with happy workers. Either way something must be done.

Anonymous said...

I found this article very interesting because it talks about the wage gap between entry workers and veterans and wanting it to decrease. I believe that this topic needs to be more addressed because it is a very talked about topic and we need to put forward action to our words. This article mentions that auto vehicles are supposed to hit 17 million this year, which is crazy to me. This article also talks about what would happen if employers increased their wages vs. their wages now. That topic is also an interesting one because there are pros and cons to either argument. Overall I believe this article was very informative.

-Eva Hart

Anonymous said...

I enjoyed this article because it showed that entry level workers aren't oblivious, and can tell when they are getting taken advantage of. With sales of automobiles at an all time high in a decade, workers are requesting more. Numbers show with benefits and wage increases being granted both the worker and the company will benefit. Although a raise in both seems tremendous to the naked eye company's will see their profits rise.

-Vincent Vasheo

Anonymous said...

I found this article to be very intriguing and enjoyable to read because it describes the issues of wages a worker makes and the gap created due to different levels of workers such as new and old and how this "gap" should be downsized. There should be a middle ground but there never is a place to meet in the middle with business. I believe it would be a positive for the wages to be increased so productivity will increase due to the attitude of the workers.
-Michael McGuire

Anonymous said...

This was a very interesting article. It explains the ongoing on problem with wage workers and the gap amongst workers. Making workers happy by paying them more will significantly decrease the money available for the company and goods that they make. I think the rise in wages for the workers will be beneficial. Increasing pay might increase the profit of the company.

Diamond Melhado

Anonymous said...

This article discusses how workers want increased wages. I think it is great that their wages have increased by a substantial amount, but in the long run this might not be helpful to the workers. The companies will have to cut costs in order to pay their workers more and in order to do this they might relocate so factories to other countries.
Sabrina Ruggiero

Anonymous said...

This article talks about how workers are lacking a good pay. So they argued to have an increased amount. I think its a good idea for the workers to have an increased wage but not so good for the company because the companies will have to lose some in order to pay the workers at such a dramatic change of pay. Even though i think increasing the pay is beneficial, i don't think it should be such a major jump to a higher amount, due to the fact that companies will lose available money and things to be produced. But it can also result to happier workers, which can increase productivity.

- Marchelle Correa

Unknown said...

Good to see that American Automotive makers have finally reached some agreement as to the fairness of their wages. I understand the workers' frustrations about profits being high yet no change in compensation. I becomes demotivating and ultimately leaves no incentive for workers to be at their full productivity. It is clear the two tier wage system has been keeping wage changes at a stand still. The workers seem to be very united and on the same page with what they want. I think what has been agreed on recently is fair. Workers can achieve a higher wage based on seniority instead of all being the same regardless of productivity or seniority. Hopefully the pay raise will motivate workers to produce at a higher quantity so that labor will stay in America and not move overseas. Hopefully the changes that are being made will make American car production more efficient.