FYI -- UAW expanding strike to include parts / distribution divisions (GM, Stellantis)

[Reprise]

FYI -- as of noon today, UAW is reported to be expanding their strike to the OEM parts / distribution divisions of GM and Stellantis (talks continue between UAW / FoMoCo.)

Meaning: If you know you'll have need of a hard to get OEM part, it may get harder to find one in the next few weeks.

(note: So many of GM's OEM parts (ACD) are made in Mexico now, so I'm not sure how this affects things).

 

[TollKeeper]

Personally, I hope the big 3 tell the union to F-off, and hire regular non-union folk.

What they are asking for is idiotic to begin with,

What they had already was grossly overpaid.

There was a place and a time for a union. It is not needed anymore.

 

[Mooseman]

It may affect me if parts from the US are hard to get. GM Canada likely has it's own stock of usual parts but some are from the US only.

As for the union thing, we aren't unionized here and it's shit. In my previous job, we were legislated from not being unionized and fought it for 30 years. All we had was collective begging. Of course we eventually won the right but only after I retired. Much better now.

 

[Reprise]

As an aside, I didn't post this to indicate a position on 'pro' vs. 'anti' union, as that's getting close to discussion we (supposedly) consider 'off-limits'. It was intended only to give a heads-up to those who might be looking for OEM parts in the next few weeks.

That being said, we're apparently allowed to voice an opinion on this subject, so I will say now... I am decidedly on the side of workers over corporate interests. E.g.; I am very pro-union, and don't cotton much to those who favor the opposite scenario.

Do I think the unions will get all of their demands? No, I don't. Compromise allows both sides to come out of a discussion as a 'winner', and both live to fight another day.

Am I itching for a (verbal) fight? No. I'd rather you not try and 'convince' me (or others) of your position. This society (I'll loosely include CA along with the US, here) is extremely polarized. I really don't want to get into protracted argument on this subject; I have other avenues for that. But if you're really itching to see how 'frisky' I am... FAFO.

 

[Mooseman]

It is allowed by the rules however we will monitor to ensure any discussion remains respectful.

Postings relating to religion, politics, race, ethnic groups or gender/sexual orientation are prohibited.

Members should refrain from posting messages which can provoke, harass, disturb, agitate or insult other members or minors.

Posts which can be considered rude, unfriendly, angered, ill-mannered, inappropriate, uncalled-for, gratuitous, disturbing, disrespectful, unjust by other site members or site administration may be moderated.

It's not politics per se. We do talk about our jobs so...

Anyway, we'll see how this strike affects us all. We're not on strike in Canada yet but there is some talk about it. Then we'd really be screwed if there's a work stoppage on both sides of the border. New cars aren't selling anyway but parts are always needed.

 

[TollKeeper]

Drove by a Mopar parts distribution warehouse, closed and on strike.

I do agree that the corporate greed is out of control. There is no reason these vehicles should cost what they do.

 

[Mooseman]

I do agree that the corporate greed is out of control. There is no reason these vehicles should cost what they do.

Agreed! With the pandemic's chip shortage causing a vehicle shortage, they realized they can make more money and sell at MSRP or higher by keeping vehicles in low stock and go by orders only. Found out that anything ordered can take 6 to 12 months. And if you're a drug dealer who wants an Escalade, it's a TWO YEAR wait!

 

[northcreek]

And if you're a drug dealer who wants an Escalade, it's a TWO YEAR wait!

DAMN....!!

 

[northcreek]

Bitting the hand that feeds you is never a good thing, just going to force more shut downs and moves to Mexico, China ,etc.
I don't think this strike was well thought out.....

 

[flyboy2610]

I would like to get a 40% pay raise and a 32 hour work week. Getting paid 40% more for 20% less work would still be a net increase.

 

[Reprise]

In negotiations, you always ask for more than you expect to get.

In the case of the UAW, the union made significant concessions back in 2007-2009, during the 'great recession', etc. Those concessions included (but were not limited to):
- pay cuts (not 40%, but the union has already come down to 36%, off the 40%)

- elimination of cost of living increases,

- elimination of defined-benefit pensions (these are the 'traditional' type; they were switched to 'defined contribution' (e.g.; 401k type)

- and the creation of pay tiers (this created a two-tier system where 'new' hires were hired as 'contractors', rather than employees, and given a wage rate significantly lower than the line employees already working.

The UAW is asking for all of those things to be reinstated.
The only 'new' thing is the 32hr work week (and I expect they added this as a negotiating point to be eventually given away.)

As for this new contract... this is only my opinion, but it's going to be the last 'big' contract the UAW will get (and they know this). Why? Because electric vehicles are easier to assemble, with fewer parts (and, thus, fewer workers needed in the future). Not to mention the sourcing of plants / materials elsewhere (e.g.; Mexico).

As with other industries, the automakers have posted record profits. From the UAW's standpoint, it's now time to reinstate the things they willingly gave up over the last 15yrs or so. Mary Barra and her counterparts didn't freeze their own salaries (and actual salary is just the tip of the iceberg, in the C-suite.) Those folks make a killing in stock options, which are taxed differently than regular salary.

As one example... Mr. Bezos (Amzn) draws a base salary of about 90K-ish a year. That might seem like a pittance (and that amount keeps him in a lower tax bracket). But the real payout is in the form of stock / options that he gets every year, and by holding onto them the right amount of time before he exercises them, he pays 15% (or even less) on the income derived from them.

So... some of you may say... "well, the union gets 'x', and I don't get that, so they shouldn't get that." That's the power of collective bargaining, folks. Workers of generations past fought (sometimes literally) for those wages / benefits. Meanwhile, certain other people turned wages / benefits into a zero-sum game. When they can divide the people (workers) into 'haves' and 'have nots', it only benefits the people doing the dividing.

There was a time when trade unions were more prevalent; during that time, a blue-collar guy / gal could get a job, provide for the family (on one paycheck), have some money for extra expenses when they came along, and take a vacation once a year with the family. You can do the research for yourself on the 'when' of the weakening / elimination of unions, and the forces behind that. Also, I'm not a Pollyanna -- the people who headed up the unions certainly did some criming of their own, so they're certainly not as pure as the driven snow.

That's a pretty high-level assessment (and a lot of you know that it's pretty easy for me to get into the weeds... LOL). I've dialed my aggression back a little bit, in this response. My gummie must've kicked in

 

[Sparky]

I think some of these big name unions are just the flipside of the same darn coin. They scream about corporate greed, but they do the same type of stuff with the union itself getting rich off the rest of the workers they're supposed to represent. Some force keeping some worthless workers on the job that really should be fired, but the union won't let it happen, and in some cases actually yell at and threaten action against the good workers (that happened to my brother, was yelled at because he "made the other guy look bad" - like what?!). My grandpa had stories of the union bosses telling everyone to "slow down their work" so the company would have to "hire more union workers." He warned them it was foolish because the workload wasn't excessive and they'd just cause everyone to lose their jobs if they did that. They laughed at him and told him the company is flush with money they should easily be able to do this... well, they did it anyway, and ya know what, eventually the company shut down and everyone lost their jobs instead. Brilliant.

I know not all are like that, I get not all unions are bad. But the big sour ones leave a bad taste in my mouth.

Side note - We have been making it just fine on one paycheck and I do not have a 6 figure salary. The last couple of years of stupid inflation has made things a little tighter for sure, but we're still doing ok. It does help the benefits package is quite good. The company is self-insured so health insurance is relatively cheap for us.

 

[TollKeeper]

@Sparky - Agreed. Been on a single paycheck house for 6 years now. Some concessions had to be made, but it was all worth it in the end. Momma gets to personally watch every milestone our 2 littles make. We are also well under the 6 digit income.

Although I will admit, my house does need a lot of maintenance, none of it is structural, or will cause danger/harm to us.

 

[Mooseman]

I've been struggling ever since the inflation is pretty much swallowing my pension hence why I've been working. I'm considering applying to a city job at para-transpo. It's a unionized job and once finished training will make almost double what I make at the dealership. I do have experience driving short buses for the dealership.

Speaking of strike, my wife was on strike for 2 weeks in April and only now they have docked her pay. No warning or anything, $2000 gone. Sure she makes more now but at what cost? I think it's planned that way. They can pay them more by not paying them for a few weeks.