|
The strike
by the UAW against the world's largest auto company is in its second
day and the employers are not particularly concerned. Auto
industry analysts quoted in the Financial Times do not expect the
strike to last more than two weeks at the most as they consider it to
be a symbolic act.
According to UAW officials, the strike is about job security. It
is likely that GM will close further plants and the Union wants to
ensure that any new production is done by Union labor and stays in the
U.S. Auto workers have made huge concessions over the years in
order to help the auto bosses compete with their rivals. This
has only increased the employers' resolve as they move plants to areas
where labor is cheaper. It is the constant threat of outsourcing
that is held over the heads of workers during contract
negotiations.
Another extremely controversial issue is GM's intention to create a
trust fund called VEBA, (Voluntary Employees Beneficiary Association)
The intention is to shift much of its $51 billion unfunded retiree
health care liabilities off the books. According to reports in
the press, this will likely increase GM's stock price as well as its
credit ratings. GM claims that the cost of retirees
benefits adds some $1700 to the cost of each vehicle curbing its
ability to compete. The VEBA is primarily an attempt to shift
the company's retirement obligations on to the Union.
However, the UAW leadership assures GM and all the employers that the
strike is not about VEBA. "This strike is not about VEBA in any
way, shape or form." say UAW President Ron Gettelfinger, "We are
more than eager to discuss it." *
The reason job security is such an issue with the Union leadership
is dues money. UAW membership has declined drastically over the
past 30 years, from a high of about 1.5 million in 1979 to about
600,000 today. The UAW leadership, like the entire leadership of
the U.S. trade union movement, sees organized labor as a business;
they are labor brokers. They consider themselves the CEO's of
this business and the source of revenue is the dues money that the
members pay each month. Subsequently, their very existence
depends on increased dues money not less of it. They want
to slow the further decline of their dues base, their income. It
becomes quite obvious to any observer that this so as the Union
officials use business terms that that they pick up from the
employers. They want to "grow" the Union or they need to
gain "market share".
But there can be no such thing as job security as long as an industry
in is private hands. Some time ago GM wanted to close some
plants and a competition took place between two cities, Arlington
Texas and Ypsilanti Michigan over which plant would close. Both
cities had GM plants. In these situations, the corporation holds
the community hostage while they compete with each other over how low
they can go with taxes and who can offer the lowest wages. All
sorts of other deals are made.
In the end, Texas won out and Ypsilanti lost a job provider. I
recall a lawsuit being filed but, as to be expected, a judge
determined that a community cannot deny a private corporation or a
capitalist the right to do what they like with their capital.
This is a free enterprise system we live in.
So the UAW leadership has a shot term concern that the membership
doesn't decline too rapidly at least until they themselves retire.
There is no doubt that potentially a strike by auto could be the spark
that would lead to a reversal of years of defeats for organized labor
and the working class in general. Despite shifting jobs overseas
and a shrinking workforce, auto in the US still represents about 4% of
GDP and for every auto worker employed, another 10 jobs are dependent
on it. Auto Dealers pay some 20% of all sales tax paid in the
US. There is potential power here.
But the Union leadership has no intention of waging a real fight.
This, like all strikes called by the labor bureaucracy, is a defensive
struggle, an attempt to "soften the blow."
The employers know this. On the national news on the day of
the strike, one commentator said that the strike is "just a
tactical maneuver by the UAW". UAW President, Ron
Gettelfinger has made numerous statements assuring the employers that
all will be well. "No one wins a strike" Gettelfinger said
on national television. Bus as Greg Shotwell, a UAW
dissident who publishes an on line newsletter, Live Bait and
Ammo, correctly points out in his latest newsletter:
"Should rank & file members have to remind the president of
the UAW that everything we ever gained-from union recognition to
Cost-of-Living-Adjustment and Thirty-and-Out-was won in a strike?"
**
Shotwell's newsletter warns members: "The corporations want
to take away everything we ever earned. The union president responds
by calling a strike, and then saying, "No one wins a strike. That's
a set up."
But the objective in a defensive struggle is not to win but at
very best to stay even. In the present situation, the goal of
the Union leadership is to accept concessions but they plead with the
employers to not be so hard; they fear they might force a movement
from below that they won't be able to control. The source of
this strategy is their acceptance of the market, the acceptance that
private individuals can own whole industries and the idea that we have
to compete.
The capitalist offensive has not ceased. U.S. bosses have made
it clear they intend to take back all the gains made in the thirties
and before. They are serious about this. It is most
likely GM will offer some concessions around job security that will
maintain some levels or provide cash settlements to workers much like
they did during the DELPHI settlement. But, with the support of
the UAW leadership, they will cut costs barring a revolt arising from
the UAW's ranks.
Beyond the short-term desires of the Labor leadership, only the
removal of such industries from private hands will guarantee real
security. This would include the control of capital also through
a nationalization of the banks to facilitate the allocation capital in
a planned rational way. Public transportation could then be taken up
and shifted away from the production of cars simply for the profit of
a few billionaires. A first step along this road must be the creation
of a working class party.
I would like to think that the present strike would spread but I do
not see evidence of this. The next couple of days will reveal
more.
Richard Mellor
*San Francisco Chronicle 9-25-07
** http://soldiersofsolidarity.com/
** http://www.futureoftheunion.com/
|
Unions 
