Chrysler is on strike

BlackLibertyCRD · **Posted:** Wed Oct 10, 2007 4:21 pm

Thousands of Chrysler Workers Walk Out
By DEE-ANN DURBIN and TOM KRISHER, AP Auto Writers

2 hours ago

DETROIT - Thousands of Chrysler LLC autoworkers walked off the job Wednesday after the automaker and the United Auto Workers union failed to reach a tentative contract agreement before a union-imposed deadline.

It is the first UAW strike against Chrysler since 1997, when one plant was shut down for a month, and the first strike against Chrysler during contract talks since 1985. Negotiators stopped talking after the strike began, according to a person briefed on the talks who requested anonymity because the talks are private.

Bargaining between the UAW and the newly private automaker has been slowed by several major issues. The UAW's tentative contract with General Motors Corp. included job security pledges that it was likely to seek from Chrysler, while Chrysler wanted the same health care concessions that the union granted to GM and Ford Motor Co. in 2005. Also at issue was how much Chrysler would pay into a company-funded, UAW-run trust that would take on its roughly $18 billion in retiree health care debt. GM formed that trust as part of its tentative contract.

The UAW apparently is not striking at five plants that Chrysler already had idled this week because of sagging sales of some models, according to another person familiar with the walkout who asked not to be identified because the situation is in flux.

Brett Ward, a forklift driver at the Sterling Heights assembly plant in suburban Detroit, said he thinks a strike is justified, but he hopes the union can get a better deal than the one it reached with GM.

"Hopefully with a strike we'll get some better gains and get a better contract in front of us," he said.

The UAW, which must reach new four-year agreements with all three Detroit automakers, struck GM for two days before tentatively settling with the automaker on Set. 26. The union hasn't yet agreed with Ford.

Chrysler has 24 U.S. manufacturing facilities, including 10 assembly plants. The automaker had already planned to idle five assembly plants and some parts making factories for short stretches during the next two weeks in an effort to adjust its inventory to a slowing U.S. automotive market.

Workers didn't strike the Warren Truck assembly plants in Warren, Mich.; Newark, Del., assembly; Jefferson North assembly in Detroit; Belvidere assembly in Belvidere, Ill., and the Conner Avenue assembly plant in Detroit.

A short strike likely will have little effect on the automaker, which had a 71-day supply of cars and trucks on dealer lots at the end of August, according to Ward's AutoInfoBank. A walkout longer than a month would start to cut into sales, said Paul Taylor, chief economist with the National Automobile Dealers Association.

Talks between the UAW and Chrysler began in July but accelerated last weekend. The union set the 11 a.m. deadline to settle or to strike. The UAW's national contract covers about 45,000 workers at Chrysler's U.S. manufacturing facilities, making it the smallest of the Detroit automakers.

Chrysler was a wild card in this year's negotiations because it was bought by the private equity firm Cerberus Capital Management LP shortly after the talks began. DaimlerChrysler AG, which is now called Daimler AG, sold a controlling stake in the 82-year-old Chrysler to Cerberus in August. The firm has since hired Bob Nardelli, formerly head of The Home Depot Inc., to be Chrysler's chairman and chief executive. Chrysler Vice Chairman and President Tom LaSorda, who led Chrysler before Nardelli was hired, is representing the company in the talks.

Many industry analysts believe Cerberus will fix the money-losing Chrysler quickly, return it to profitability and sell it for a huge profit, perhaps to a foreign auto company that wants a stronger U.S. presence. It was unclear how Cerberus' plans for the company would factor in the talks.

The bargaining appeared to hinge on the UAW granting the same health care cost concessions to Chrysler as it did to GM and Ford in 2005, and on how much Chrysler would pay into a company-funded, UAW-run trust that would take on its roughly $18 billion worth of retiree health care costs. GM has already agreed to form such a trust.

Also at issue was the union's desire for job security pledges at U.S. factories and Chrysler's wish to contract out parts transportation now done by higher-wage union members, according to one of the people briefed on the talks, who asked not to be named because the talks are private.

The union normally settles with one U.S. automaker and then uses that deal as a pattern for an agreement with the other two. But several industry analysts have said that Chrysler and Ford have different needs and therefore need different contracts.

Agreements must be ratified by UAW members to go into effect. GM's 74,000 UAW members have been voting on their agreement for the last week and totals were expected Wednesday.

hyedipin · **Joined:** Thu May 11, 2006 10:20 am **Posts:** 1667

Blow to US Economy. I don't see Asian car makers getting hit by strikes. Why?

DarbyWalters · **Posted:** Wed Oct 10, 2007 4:46 pm

No Unions

Reflex · **Joined:** Mon Jan 29, 2007 8:48 pm **Posts:** 567

They are non union for the most part. No union = no strike...

This is mostly posturing just as the GM one was last month.

chadhargis · **Posted:** Wed Oct 10, 2007 5:17 pm

I know some people feel the need for unions, but I gotta tell ya, I think they do more harm than good.

If someone wants a better benefit package, more pay, a better retirement, etc....then they have the choice to go work some place else. If my company decided to cut out my retirement plan, or drop my health care, it wouldn't take me too long to turn in my resignation and go find another job.

That's the beauty of capitalism. Better benefits attract better workers. Better workers build better products. If one company treats their employees badly, then sooner or later, they'll have only poor quality employees left and they'll go under. It's just good business sense to take care of your workers. No unions needed.

That's just my opinion. I'm not economist, and I didn't sleep at a Holiday Inn Express last night.

MrWinkey · **Joined:** Tue Apr 18, 2006 3:16 pm **Posts:** 37

Well the nice bennies you enjoy today are because of strikes and such from the past.

The reason your company and my company have to provide good bennies to compete with the Union jobs.

If your company or my company thought for a single minute it could save more $$ and get away with not offering bennies it would. Most large corps offer healthcare because of the tax break not because they care about their workers.

Agian this is one of the huge reasons that we dont have pension funds anymore and have 401K's and the growing concern how many of the younger generation will be able to retire.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/retirement/interviews/munnell.html

http://www.pbs.org/healthcarecrisis/

Reflex · **Joined:** Mon Jan 29, 2007 8:48 pm **Posts:** 567

And over almost before it began: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21218645/

Six hours? Big deal...

BlackLibertyCRD · **Posted:** Wed Oct 10, 2007 7:58 pm

Reflex wrote:

And over almost before it began: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21218645/

Six hours? Big deal...

Yeah! Nevermind

Pablo · **Joined:** Thu Feb 02, 2006 10:06 pm **Posts:** 1201

"The guarantees, which translate into job security for union workers, are in many cases only for the life of current products, the person said. GM made guarantees at many factories that include the next generation of cars, trucks and parts."

Considering that they need to scrap most of their current product line... this sure does not mean much.

danoid · **Posted:** Wed Oct 10, 2007 9:04 pm

hyedipin wrote:

Blow to US Economy. I don't see Asian car makers getting hit by strikes. Why?

Kia strikes all the time. Nobody in the US pays attention though. If the UAW were smart they'd globalize just like the manufacturers. Heck this strike doesn't even touch the minivan plant in Windsor or the 300/Magnum/Charger plant in Toronto. That's the CAW...

Cowpie1 · **Posted:** Wed Oct 10, 2007 9:28 pm

MrWinkey wrote:

Well the nice bennies you enjoy today are because of strikes and such from the past.

The reason your company and my company have to provide good bennies to compete with the Union jobs.

If your company or my company thought for a single minute it could save more $$ and get away with not offering bennies it would. Most large corps offer healthcare because of the tax break not because they care about their workers.

Agian this is one of the huge reasons that we dont have pension funds anymore and have 401K's and the growing concern how many of the younger generation will be able to retire.

Unions are not the primary reason for realistic pay and benefits. The demand for the worker is the primarly reason.

Unions are in NO way contributing to truck driver pay and benefits for example. The demand for quality drivers is moving the pay and benefits upward. For instance, a good driver with a clean record and consistent work history will have a job with ANY carrier within 24 hrs. And, as is not uncommon, some wiggle room in negotiating. Try that with a union shop.

Regarding pensions vs 401K's: Give me a 401k with a wide array of investement choices over a pension that may get dumped to the the governement anyday. At least it will be my money and is portable to any other employer or can be rolled over to an IRA if necessary.

No union can guarantee that the corporation will even be able to keep the doors open. Even though I truly like my company, it doesn't concern me one bit if the company were to go belly up. Like I said, I could get a job with equal pay and benefits in 24 hrs. Even as recent as 1 week ago, I have had companies that contact me occasionally with offers.

I watch UAW workers all the time at the Ford Plants wasting time, reading papers, picking their rear, etc. I regularly watch as forklift operators just kick back on the lift and read a paper because they are only "required" to unload so many trucks and hour and once they get that minimum work done, they kick back and goof off even though there are more trailers to get unloaded. I have absolutely no sympathy for them. If they want to run the auto companies into the ground and then whine that they are getting a raw deal, here's a quarter... call someone who cares.

I have likewise been to various "Jap" plants in the U.S. and seen excellent working conditions, onsite health spas, onsite daycare, generous employer 401k matching, etc. I also have talked with a number of the workers who are real happy where they are.

I wish the UAW well, but have no doubt that they are running themselves into the dirt with all their demands. Heck, I was hoping that since Chrysler went private, they would go ahead an bust the union and move forward. Wouldn't be a pretty sight, but might go a long way to getting the quality and service from Chrysler we have been lacking.

jeep06 · **Posted:** Thu Oct 11, 2007 1:13 am

Cowpie1 wrote:

MrWinkey wrote:

Well the nice bennies you enjoy today are because of strikes and such from the past.

The reason your company and my company have to provide good bennies to compete with the Union jobs.

If your company or my company thought for a single minute it could save more $$ and get away with not offering bennies it would. Most large corps offer healthcare because of the tax break not because they care about their workers.

Agian this is one of the huge reasons that we dont have pension funds anymore and have 401K's and the growing concern how many of the younger generation will be able to retire.

Unions are not the primary reason for realistic pay and benefits. The demand for the worker is the primarly reason.

Unions are in NO way contributing to truck driver pay and benefits for example. The demand for quality drivers is moving the pay and benefits upward. For instance, a good driver with a clean record and consistent work history will have a job with ANY carrier within 24 hrs. And, as is not uncommon, some wiggle room in negotiating. Try that with a union shop.

Regarding pensions vs 401K's: Give me a 401k with a wide array of investement choices over a pension that may get dumped to the the governement anyday. At least it will be my money and is portable to any other employer or can be rolled over to an IRA if necessary.

No union can guarantee that the corporation will even be able to keep the doors open. Even though I truly like my company, it doesn't concern me one bit if the company were to go belly up. Like I said, I could get a job with equal pay and benefits in 24 hrs. Even as recent as 1 week ago, I have had companies that contact me occasionally with offers.

I watch UAW workers all the time at the Ford Plants wasting time, reading papers, picking their rear, etc. I regularly watch as forklift operators just kick back on the lift and read a paper because they are only "required" to unload so many trucks and hour and once they get that minimum work done, they kick back and goof off even though there are more trailers to get unloaded. I have absolutely no sympathy for them. If they want to run the auto companies into the ground and then whine that they are getting a raw deal, here's a quarter... call someone who cares.

I have likewise been to various "Jap" plants in the U.S. and seen excellent working conditions, onsite health spas, onsite daycare, generous employer 401k matching, etc. I also have talked with a number of the workers who are real happy where they are.

I wish the UAW well, but have no doubt that they are running themselves into the dirt with all their demands. Heck, I was hoping that since Chrysler went private, they would go ahead an bust the union and move forward. Wouldn't be a pretty sight, but might go a long way to getting the quality and service from Chrysler we have been lacking.

I think you hit the nail square on the head!! It makes you wonder anymore which side has the most greed. I guess we will have to deal with it either way, but here in MI, jobs are FEW and FAR between!!! I have worked 30+ yrs in manufacturing parts for the major auto makers, 5yrs ago the union gets voted in, 2 months from now I will be jobless. 5 yrs we went from 1000 employees to 0....thanks for WHAT??? If you would have mentioned NAFTA in your very nicely written post, I think you would have teared up a lot of fellow "workers" on here....including me! Thanks for the voice on this matter.

:)

p.s. we won't even mention the outrageous CEO's salaries with 'bennies' over a mil/yr. The rich get richer and the poor (working man)..........well, your screwed!!!
p.s.s. sorry for the politics,,, wrong place, right time!!

Jeger · **Posted:** Thu Oct 11, 2007 5:52 am

Bust the Union and move forward? Now THAT would be news!

We have hired a few workers at my place of employment that were laid-off from Delphi. There are a few good ones but most are making a bad name for that group....very poor work ethic, and think its ok. Sorry folks this aint a UAW shop...you have to earn your keep here. EDIT: Sorry let me rephrase that, You can still get fired for not doing your job.

MrWinkey · **Joined:** Tue Apr 18, 2006 3:16 pm **Posts:** 37

Well there is good union shops and bad union shops.

Currently our shop is a good one. Dosent mean it will not turn into a bad one.

There is no BS about how much stuff I have to fix this or that. It's about trying to keep decent medical care and to prevent a jerky boss or 2 from laying off all the workers to replace them with his drinking buddies.

People still do get fired. They still get laid off. If you dont like how your union/goverment/school district is run GET INVOLVED!

BOTH (UAW & Auto makers) of them are at fault if they let them negotiate deals like some of you are saying. It's poor biz sense and it's bad for the employee.

Yep some of the other auto makers have good bennies and such. They know it's cheaper/easier/better to keep the people happy and have them not form a union.

If all the employers would do like Toyota (one example) we would not need unions anymore and everyone would be happy. Like everything else this a big cycle.....unions get too big...make screwy demands.....get broken and taken down.....big biz starts makin unreasonable demands of workers....workers start a union.....It all goes around.

http://www.homepages.indiana.edu/040904/text/workweek.shtml
http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?FortyHourWeekHistory
http://www.americanheritage.com/blog/20069_25_469.shtml

Anyways I'm not saying Unions are good or bad because they are both. It is the same with soooo many things.

Please read up on some of these issues and make your own informed decsion.[/b]

Threeweight · **Joined:** Mon May 14, 2007 5:57 pm **Posts:** 679

I'm not a huge fan of the unions (the current mess the Detroit automakers are in are in part because the unions joined with management to oppose rational fuel economy standards, now both their gooses are cooked). However, I think it is a little silly to say demand for quality workers has been the primary factor driving wages and benefits (at least in the last decade). Real buying power of US wages has been stagnant, with companies looking to either off-shore production, outsource production, or lay off experienced workers to bring in cheaper, younger workers.

Capitalism is a beautiful thing, but whatever the econ 101 professor told you, the labor market in modern capitalism isn't driven primarily by competition for quality workers, but rather by maximizing revenue for shareholders through reducing costs as much as possible. At times that goes hand in hand with treating workers well, but more often than not, it means ruthlessly cutting costs through outsourcing, downsizing, and offshoring..

Hero · **Joined:** Sun Apr 16, 2006 5:32 pm **Posts:** 122

As far as unions go, it all comes down to the fundemental values of labor vs. capital. Without one you cannot have the other, workers' unions are formed and supported by the government to balance power between the worker and corporation. The union cannot work with power above this balance as therefore they would take in more capital than they produce therefore creating a labor implosion. Corporations, however, can function without unions although the lack of worker protection can lead to an abuse of power by the employer creating a "privilage to work" idealogy.

This ideaology is prevalent today, one can say "well if you don't like it here than go somewhere else." Well what if there is nowhere else to go, so much of America is economically depressed. The systematic deregulation of labor started with Reagan in 1981, by taking away government protection from labor therefore allowing the corporations to have free reign over setting the rules of labor and therefore setting their own priorities for profits.

Throughout the 1950's-1970's a person having graduted from high school could enter the industrial workforce with a union job. On that union salary alone they could own a home, two vehicles, support their housewife and three children. Plus have medical and retirement benefits. America was the number one importer of raw materials and number one exporter of finished goods, we were the richest country on earth as well as being the greatest creditor nation. This is (regulated) capitalism at its finest.

Since 1981 to the current day, America has been backsliding. We now export our raw materials and mass import finished goods from countries such as China. We have had three Presidents who mass spent and borrowed to keep the country afloat in their vision. We are now the greatest debtor country with the highest trade defecit and national debt, those countries whom we are endebted to are buying up our economic interests and mainstay businesses like so many of our people like to buy crap from WalMart. THIS is deregulated, laissez faire capatalism at its finest. You know the economic system which lead us into the Great Depression in 1929, the kind that was championed by the likes of Benito Mussolini, Fransico Franco, and Adolph Hitler...

ATXKJ · **Posted:** Thu Oct 11, 2007 4:40 pm

" Benito Mussolini, Fransico Franco, and Adolph Hitler..."

They were all socialists -

The depression was rooted in Government control of the banking industry (another socialist idea) -started after WWI

Goglio704 · **Posted:** Thu Oct 11, 2007 8:04 pm

I'll give people credit. This has stayed fairly civilized up to this point. It is decidedly off topic and sure to get ugly soon. Close families will get in fistfights over the union versus non-union debate. Agree to disagree and leave it alone would be my suggestion.

Cowcatcher · **Posted:** Thu Oct 11, 2007 8:12 pm

While present day blue collar workers have forgotten, even the most right leaning economists will allow that without the labor union movement a true middle class might never have developed in the USA. Many would offer that the waning strenght of unions in the last thirty years is in no small part responsible for the dwindling middle class in the USA today.

Hero · **Joined:** Sun Apr 16, 2006 5:32 pm **Posts:** 122

ATXKJ wrote:

" Benito Mussolini, Fransico Franco, and Adolph Hitler..."

They were all socialists -

The depression was rooted in Government control of the banking industry (another socialist idea) -started after WWI

Socialists? You could make the streach that Hilter was the ringleader of the National Socialist German Workers Party although he implemented the same ideals of the economic system which Mussolini created and defined as fascism. I'm not trying to belittle you, but you cannot say any of those men were to the left in any sense. There is not much difference between left and right economic ideologies beyond how they are implemented, socialism is economics under government control without any remnants of capitalism while facism is government under corporate control with extreme laissez faire capatalism.

Check out the 14 Points of Fascism: http://www.ellensplace.net/fascism.html

NOTE: The 14 Points was written in 2004 by Dr. Laurence Britt, a political scientist. Dr. Britt studied the fascist regimes of: Hitler (Germany), Mussolini (Italy), Franco (Spain), Suharto (Indonesia), and Pinochet (Chile).

As far as the Federal Reserve system goes (or any other form of banking by private interests rather than centralized under the government), that applies more to the right wing. Article I, Section 8, Clause 5, of the United States Constitution provides that Congress shall have the power to coin money and regulate the value thereof and of any foreign coins. A private banking cartel runs the Federal Reserve, not some socialists as you claim. The Federal Reserve System was established by President Woodrow Wilson in 1913 (not after WW1 as you claim).

So please explain why if the government was in control of U.S. currency pre-Fed, how and why did "socialists" (those government control guys) privatize it?

Cowcatcher wrote:

While present day blue collar workers have forgotten, even the most right leaning economists will allow that without the labor union movement a true middle class might never have developed in the USA. Many would offer that the waning strenght of unions in the last thirty years is in no small part responsible for the dwindling middle class in the USA today.

Workers' Unions are, in the plainest sense, for democracy by and for the workers in the workplace. Otherwise you have the profit-motivated corporate overlords running their own show against the working citizen.

Chrysler is on strike

Who is online