Gindin on the UAW etc
[Patrick Bond forwarded my comments on the UAW and the wreckage of the US motor vehicle industry to Sam Gindin, longtime advisor to the Canadian Autoworkers. Here’s his response.]
From: “sam gindin” sgindin@yorku.ca Date: Sat, 29 Oct 2005 11:25:55 -0400
Hi Patrick,
I share Doug’s perspective. The latest round of concessions didn’t start with the UAW, but given the paradigmatic role auto generally plays, this signals round two of the aggressive attack on the working class that started in the Volcker-Reagan era.
The only way the UAW could have survived this attack - which has been coming for some time - would have been to dismiss the talk of labour concessions on health care (GM’s point of attack) by shifting the issue to the lack of a national health care plan in the US, unique within the developed world. This aspect of the privatization of the welfare state could work in good times, its days were always numbered in bad (both because of the impact on the companies and because of the isolation of the workers who had it). That there is a potential base of support for this is certainly clear from polls, GM’s own statements and simple facts (US spends 40% of the world’s budget on health care and 50% more as percent of GDP than other G-7 countries but 47 million citizens have no health care and regions of the US lack thirds world countries in life expectancy, etc, etc). Such a national campaign would not only have mobilized and defended autoworkers but contributed to a revival of the labour movement and even forced this on the agenda of the Democrats.
That kind of resistance might also have started a discussion on the environmental issue, though this is more difficult - unlike losing health care, autoworkers don’t like the prospect of losing their SUV’s and they have also been in the box of competing for the products that seemed to be the key to survival. But there is now, as Doug hopes, a basis for making the case amongst autoworkers that their security depends on conversion to more environmentally-friendly products. Though putting it this way is still somewhat opportunistic, it opens the door to the larger environmental issues and where environmentalists exist locally, to giving them a larger space for education and organizing (I’ve been raising this with the workers how make the large engines at Ford in Windsor and have been pleasantly surprised at their interest; as well, there ARE environmentally conscious workers within auto plants who have been organizing outside official union channels who are ready to take this up).
A third piece of all this, one Doug is very familiar with but didn’t flag here, is organizing. Delphi workers will not be able to sustain GM wages when 80% of the US parts workforce is non-union and paying half the wages. And as long as this is the case - and even more so once Delphi establishes a ‘new’ standard - The assemblers will go further still in outsourcing (GM had 450,000 UAW members in 1978 and will have 80,000 after the net round of restructuring; falling market share, yes; technology, yes; but most significant has been outsourcing).
The objective foundation for organizing exists. Most of the vehicles sold in N America are assembled here (805) and most of the parts that go into this assembly are still overwhelmingly (at least 90%) produced here. So organizing on a North Americas (international) basis is possible. And the UAW has a strike fund of over $900 million that is just sitting there drawing interest!
Finally, reduced work-time must be put back on the agenda. Obvious enough given the opportunities provided by growing productivity and the solidaristic need to share the few remaining ‘good’ (well-paying) jobs. But not easy given the unease and desire to get the overtime while the jobs are still there. All I can suggest here is that when the layoffs come, the principle should be to limit their extent by at least ending overtime but hopefully going further (the original UAW Ford contract in the 40s provided for going to 32 hour weeks before layoffs took place, a reflection of a solidaristic culture).
The problem is not ideas but the left’s failure - our own failure - to establish a base within the working class.
—–Original Message—– From: Patrick Bond [mailto:pbond@mail.ngo.za] Sent: October 29, 2005 7:14 AM To: sam gindin Subject: Fw: [lbo-talk] Bankruptcy attack?
Don’t know if you’re on Doug’s list but this is interesting - and depressing… Am tempted to send them your MR pieces or a review of your book…
—– Original Message —– From: “Doug Henwood” dhenwood@panix.com To: lbo-talk@lbo-talk.org Sent: Friday, October 28, 2005 10:05 PM Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] Bankruptcy attack?
john taylor wrote:
Hello, I’m a retired autoworker, new to this list.
Hello, welcome.
I’m wondering what folks like you make of all the recent Chapter 11 filings and the attack on Labor?
I read that good article by Chris Kutalik from Labor Notes and another by Jane Slaughter on the Monthly Review and Labor Notes websites (I think the address is something like www.labornotes.org). They seem like a good start, but I just don’t know how we can best get things rolling around this. Need better minds then myself.
As much (and as long) as I admire Labor Notes, I’m afraid they’re not acknowledging that GM and Delphi have real problems. Their losses are real - take a look how badly GM has lagged the broader stock market http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=GM&t=my&l=on&z=m&q=l&c=%5EGSPC (on this chart, GSPC, the red line, is the S&P 500 index: GM stock is essentially where it was 43 years ago, while the S&P is up 1500%). Delphi http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?t=my&s=DPH&l=on&z=m&q=l&c=&c=%5EGSPC is even worse. If the losses were somehow a big scam to justify screwing the workers, then the stocks would be acting a lot better than this.
I’ve got to say, I don’t really know how the unions should respond. High auto industry wages - average hourly earnings (excluding benefits) in “transportation equipment” are over $22, with UAW wages much higher, compared with an average wage of $16 - are a relic of the long-gone days when the big three were a near-monopoly. They’ve been ratcheted down over the years, but it now looks like we’re in the final stages of the process.
Short of really major changes in the economic system, I just don’t see how it can be stopped. Maybe some other folks can come up with some good ideas.
Doug
http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk