Divisive Chrysler contract nearly fails

The roller coaster ride is over.

For ten days United Auto Workers members at Chrysler were on pins and needles as their votes threatened to derail a contract that surrendered decades of hard-won gains. Of the first large locals to vote, most gave it thumbs down.

Then the top UAW brass began visiting the plants that hadn’t voted. They argued that this agreement was the best that could be obtained. Charging dissidents with spreading misinformation, the leaders insisted that workers’ jobs would be protected—although their own “informational” flyer only promised work through the current model cycle.

Still, after some big locals were swayed to vote yes, Oct. 23 contract opponents got a boost with the solid no vote at two plants in Kokomo, Indiana. Then things shifted again. After intense lobbying of Michigan plants, the fear factor—fear of a long strike, retaliation for voting no, or just fear of an uncertain future—took over. UAW President Ron Gettelfinger and his lieutenants seemed almost certain to have a majority behind the contract.

Thus by Oct. 24, with only one plant left to vote Oct. 26 and 27, it was clear that the workers at Belvidere, Ill., would have to vote almost unanimously against the contract for it to fail. Thomas Littlejohn, president of Belvidere local 1268, opposed the contract on the basis that the long-term temporary workers at his plant would not be made permanent. Though fearful of the consequences and lacking any confidence that their vote would make a difference, 55 percent of the workers at Belvidere Assembly voted no.

In the end approximately 55 per cent of production and 51 per cent of skilled trades workers voted for ratification.

Almost immediately after the results were announced the UAW issued a news release. “Now we’re going to come together as a union,” proclaimed UAW President Ron Gettelfinger—and now it’s on the company to move ahead, increase their market share and continue to build great cars and trucks here in the U.S.”

Tom LaSorda, Chrysler’s vice chairman and president, joined the chorus. “We are pleased that our UAW employees recognize that the new agreement meets the needs of the company and its employees by providing a framework to improve our long-term manufacturing competitiveness,” he stated.

One would think an overwhelming majority voted enthusiastically for these concessions—concessions that include a wage for new hires equal to 1.5 times the poverty rate for a family of four, a fund for retiree health care that is dependent on the stability of Wall Street, and the eventual demise of the traditional pension.

In fact the total vote represents a combination of defiant no votes and reluctant yes votes, with at most a few thousand votes separating the two. The vote among skilled trades workers, whose jobs are threatened by the combining of classifications under a new “Workplace Competitiveness Model,” was at best 200 votes short of defeating the provisions specific to them.

Bosses to workers:
Let the cuts begin!

Three weeks ago WW asked several questions concerning the just-ratified UAW contract with General Motors. “Rather than guaranteed jobs, could the end result of these givebacks be the opposite? Could these concessions in fact deliver the automakers the funds needed to finance their expansion into the lucrative global marketplace? Could the devalued labor power of autoworkers here be the catalyst for the construction of new factories abroad, factories that use the most advanced technology and the fewest number of workers possible?”

The answers came swiftly. Days after ratification, GM boasted on the financial pages that, by the end of the four-year contract, its labor costs would be halved. Next came the news that GM—in order to facilitate its quest to conquer global market share—would likely build new plants overseas. Then GM announced the elimination of 2,000 jobs in Lansing, Mich. The signatures on the agreement were barely dry, and the promises of job security morphed into their opposite!

Chrysler is following that same pattern. While the workers in Belvidere were still in a question and answer session, International union officials informed them that Chrysler would be cutting the third shift at their assembly plant. The 600 temporary workers would get the axe. To be reinstated they would probably have to accept a “non-core” job and take a drastic cut in pay.

Any illusions that the union might eventually get back what they gave up on the basis of Chrysler’s improved profitability were dispelled by CEO Bob Nardelli. “The auto industry has an insatiable appetite for cash,” he stated bluntly the day after the ratification was made public.

Chrysler management and their labor ambassadors managed, through strong-arm tactics, to get their way. On the shop floor, however, the class peace is ruptured and the divide can only widen—not only between labor and management but between class collaboration and militant rank-and-file resistance.

The powerful NO vote shows the potential for a grass roots, rank and file challenge to this divisive, brutal, cost cutting corporate strategy.

Martha Grevatt has worked in the Chrysler Twinsburg stamping plant for 20 years.

E-mail: [email protected]