(Scypre.com) – Almost one out of every ten unionized auto workers in the United States initiated a strike on Friday, aiming to exert pressure on Detroit’s major automakers to increase wages during a time of significant profits and a challenging transition from traditional gasoline-powered vehicles to electric ones.
In a historic move, the United Auto Workers (UAW) union organized strikes simultaneously at General Motors, Ford, and Chrysler owner Stellantis. Their objective is to make a strong statement to these companies, seeking to regain some of the compensation and benefits that workers had relinquished in previous decades.
The strikes are presently confined to three assembly plants: a GM facility in Wentzville, Missouri, a Ford plant in Wayne, Michigan, near Detroit, and a Jeep plant operated by Stellantis in Toledo, Ohio.
President Joe Biden extended his support to the striking workers, dispatching aides to Detroit to assist in resolving the standoff. He emphasized that the “Big 3” automakers should share their substantial profits.
Union President Shawn Fain indicated that if the companies do not present improved offers, workers might expand the strikes to additional plants. The employees are pushing for a 36% across-the-board wage increase over a four-year period, while the companies have countered with offers ranging from 17.5% to 20%.
Workers on the picket lines expressed the hope that the strikes would not be prolonged. Nevertheless, they affirmed their dedication to the cause and appreciated Fain’s determined approach.
The UAW, in its 88-year history, had traditionally negotiated with one automaker at a time, minimizing the industry-wide impact of any potential work stoppages. Each agreement with an automaker served as a blueprint but not a guarantee for subsequent contract negotiations.
Currently, approximately 13,000 out of 146,000 workers across the three companies are participating in the strike, disrupting the automakers’ operations while managing the strain on the union’s $825 million strike fund.
Should the contract negotiations prolong and the strikes escalate to affect more plants, the costs would escalate for both workers and the companies. Auto dealers could face shortages of vehicles, leading to increased prices and potentially driving customers to purchase from foreign automakers with nonunionized workers. This situation could also add pressure to an economy that has been benefiting from a decline in inflation.
The novel negotiation approach is the brainchild of President Fain, the first leader elected directly by the union’s members. He campaigned against what he termed “company-unionism,” emphasizing the need to stand against plant closures and demand more financial concessions from the automakers.
David Green, a former local union leader elected to a regional director position, stressed the necessity for a new bargaining approach, citing the need for a shift from the status quo that has seen a decline in workers’ circumstances over the past two decades.
Carlos Guajardo, a long-term employee of both Ford and GM, endorsed the new strategy, recognizing its potential to sustain the strike fund and effectively convey workers’ demands.
These strikes are poised to influence the future of the union and the American auto industry, particularly at a time when U.S. labor is asserting its influence amid a transformative shift from internal combustion vehicles to electric ones.
Moreover, these walkouts will have implications for the upcoming presidential election, testing President Biden’s claim of being the most union-friendly president in U.S. history.
The strategy of limited strikes could have far-reaching consequences, according to GM CEO Mary Barra, as many factories rely on each other for components and disruptions in one plant can significantly impact the entire manufacturing network.
In response to strike disruptions at its Wayne plant, Ford instructed around 600 non-striking workers not to report to work on Friday.
President Fain acknowledged the audacious nature of the union’s demands but emphasized that the automakers are recording substantial profits and can accommodate them. He disputed the notion that costly settlements would force the companies to raise vehicle prices significantly, arguing that labor costs constitute a small fraction of overall vehicle costs.
Apart from wage increases, the union’s negotiators are advocating for the restoration of cost-of-living pay raises, an end to wage tier discrepancies for factory jobs, a 32-hour workweek with 40 hours of pay, reinstatement of traditional defined-benefit pensions for new hires, and pension enhancements for retirees, among other demands.
Beginning in 2007, workers conceded cost-of-living raises and defined benefit pensions for new hires. Wage tiers were introduced to aid the companies during the Great Recession. However, with substantial profits and soaring CEO pay packages, many now advocate for the reinstatement of these concessions.
In the backdrop of these negotiations looms the momentous shift to electric vehicles. The union aims to secure representation for workers in joint-venture electric vehicle battery factories that the companies are establishing, ensuring that members have opportunities to work in the future of the automotive industry.
Top-scale assembly plant workers currently earn approximately $32 per hour, in addition to sizable annual profit-sharing checks. The average annual pay for Ford employees, inclusive of overtime and bonuses, was reported to be $78,000 last year.
The Ford plant currently on strike employs about 3,300 workers, while the Toledo Jeep complex and GM’s Wentzville plant have approximately 5,800 and 3,600 workers respectively.
The union has refrained from targeting the companies’ major revenue generators, namely full-size pickup trucks and large SUVs.
Automakers contend that they are facing unparalleled demands, developing and producing new electric vehicles while simultaneously manufacturing traditional gasoline-powered cars, SUVs, and trucks to sustain their operations. They express concerns that escalating labor costs could force them to price their vehicles higher than those offered by foreign automakers with U.S.-based factories.