Jump to content
  • William Maley
    William Maley

    The Upcoming Fight Between General Motors and the UAW

      Removing products may have caused a Pandora's box to be unleashed before negotiations between GM and UAW begin next year

    General Motors' announcement to idle and possibly close five plants next year comes around the same time that the company begins their negotiations with the United Auto Workers (UAW). Already, the UAW has said they would go "through every legal, contractual and collective bargaining avenue open to our membership," to try and keep the plants.

    GM's rationale for the move is to improve profitability and help reduce the underutilization of its plants. As we reported last week, GM represents 1 million of the 3.2 million units of underutilized capacity in the U.S. through October.

    We should note that GM did not say they were going to close down the plants. They used the word "unallocated". We'll let The Detroit News explain why.

    Quote

    But GM was careful last week in its restructuring announcement when it addressed the affected plants, coining a new term: "unallocated."

    The reason: to avoid the words "idle" or "close," which are explicitly addressed in the 2015 agreement between GM and the UAW. The "Plant Closing and Sale Moratorium," outlined on page 356 of the agreement, states that GM will not will not close or idle "in any form, any plant, asset, or business unit of any type" outside of collective bargaining, with a caveat for extreme market conditions or an "act of God."

    1

    Emphasis mine. Under the current contract, GM cannot close or idle any plant unless it is done through the collective bargaining process. By not providing any future products, GM may have found a loophole they can use in the negotiations. But it may have opened up a Pandora's box. 

    "This was long planned through intentional strategic investment decisions and product movement over our objections. They may have kept the news about it quiet, but this was planned and had to be gradually executed long before sales numbers were known,” the UAW said in a statement to the News.

    "GM and the UAW will talk about numerous topics that affect our employees and our business during 2019 negotiations. As always, our intent is to work with the UAW constructively to address our business challenges in a way that keeps the company competitive in these changing market conditions," GM said in a statement.

    Source: The Detroit News

    Edited by William Maley



    User Feedback

    Recommended Comments

    There are always holes and if you have no product allocated to those plants, then there is no reason to keep the going. This is not socialism, but capitalism.

    UAW needs to EMBRACE the New Era of EVs and work with GM to produce them at these unallocated plants and increase training of needed new skills for their workers.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    1 hour ago, dfelt said:

    There are always holes and if you have no product allocated to those plants, then there is no reason to keep the going. This is not socialism, but capitalism.

    UAW needs to EMBRACE the New Era of EVs and work with GM to produce them at these unallocated plants and increase training of needed new skills for their workers.

    I don't think the problem is with UAW embracing EV's, it is the driving public.

    • Like 1

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    46 minutes ago, A Horse With No Name said:

    I don't think the problem is with UAW embracing EV's, it is the driving public.

    Seems that GM does not think the workers have the skill set based on what they have said for working on and supporting EVs.

    Once we have options out there beyond Leaf, BOLT and Tesla, I think it will do just fine, but this also requires the workforce to retrain for the new technology.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    1 hour ago, dfelt said:

    Seems that GM does not think the workers have the skill set based on what they have said for working on and supporting EVs.

    Once we have options out there beyond Leaf, BOLT and Tesla, I think it will do just fine, but this also requires the workforce to retrain for the new technology.

    I don't think the problem is with the line employees. That is the least of their problems. Being perceived as a legacy brand 20 years after they started building exciting product again by the motoring public is a much larger problem.

    Can you believe the C5 corvette first went on sale 22 years ago?

    • Thanks 1

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    18 hours ago, dfelt said:

    There are always holes and if you have no product allocated to those plants, then there is no reason to keep the going. This is not socialism, but capitalism.

    UAW needs to EMBRACE the New Era of EVs and work with GM to produce them at these unallocated plants and increase training of needed new skills for their workers.

    D-Ham actually did pretty good with the Volt. So I doubt it is about the EVs....

    It’s simply about one thing-money. GM has had plans to more robots in the plants to build these new cars/trucks. A new Sonata   Is built with a quarter of line workers GM uses. Also with EVs, for example, less stuff is assembled as whole pieces or units are brought in from the outside. Simply based on what I have seen from the Volt- you need like half the workers...

    Father time has finally caught up with the assemby process-even the CHinese can build stuff with way less people.....

    • Upvote 2

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    1 hour ago, daves87rs said:

    D-Ham actually did pretty good with the Volt. So I doubt it is about the EVs....

    It’s simply about one thing-money. GM has had plans to more robots in the plants to build these new cars/trucks. A new Sonata   Is built with a quarter of line workers GM uses. Also with EVs, for example, less stuff is assembled as whole pieces or units are brought in from the outside. Simply based on what I have seen from the Volt- you need like half the workers...

    Father time has finally caught up with the assemby process-even the CHinese can build stuff with way less people.....

    Very true, the skateboard concept never took off in the 90's when it was all the rage at GM as it would reduce to 25% the number of folks needed to create an auto and the UAW is all about keeping idiot jobs to keep their leadership in power. We are so way past that. The new jobs will be in maintaining the robots that build stuff. Welcome to the 21st century until the 22nd century when robots repair robots and humans are useless as robots will create all due to AI. :P 

    • Upvote 1

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    2 hours ago, daves87rs said:

    D-Ham actually did pretty good with the Volt. So I doubt it is about the EVs....

    It’s simply about one thing-money. GM has had plans to more robots in the plants to build these new cars/trucks. A new Sonata   Is built with a quarter of line workers GM uses. Also with EVs, for example, less stuff is assembled as whole pieces or units are brought in from the outside. Simply based on what I have seen from the Volt- you need like half the workers...

    Father time has finally caught up with the assembly process-even the Chinese can build stuff with way less people.....

    China is actually getting much better in some ways with innovation than we are, which is rather frightening. 

    I don't think Sherrod Borwn, D-Ohio Senate, and Rob Portman, R-Ohio Senate, will save Lordstown with there meeting with Ms Barra.

    To me, public perception of GM still lags the quality of product, which is going to e the over riding Meta issue here.

    • Upvote 2

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites


    Join the conversation

    You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
    Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

    Guest
    Add a comment...

    ×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

      Only 75 emoji are allowed.

    ×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

    ×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

    ×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




  • Similar Content

    • By dwightlooi
      Since the launch of the XT4 with the rather anemic (if more refined) LSY engine, many (including myself) had questioned why GM does not offer the Tripower 310 bhp / 348 lb-ft (L3B) 2.7T 4-cylinder in the XT4 (at least) as an option. To a lesser extent some have also questioned why the LSY is putting out a mere 237bhp / 258 lb-ft whereas the outgoing LTG engine is good for 265~272 bhp / 295 lb-ft. Is it just so that it can have 258 lb-ft arrive @ 1,500 rpm? Now, we have the answer...
      It's the 9-speed Automatics.
      Adopting the 9-speed automatics is deemed a priority for refinement and fuel economy. The new GM-Ford 9TXX transmissions, jointly developed with Ford promises better fuel economy and better shift quality. There are currently two versions of this transmission:-
      9T50   -- 258 lb-ft 9T65   -- 280 lb-ft The need to pack 9-speeds into a very slim transmission case meant that they have to use an ovoid cross section torque converter, a tension chain coupling and abandon the high torque capability of the previous generation top dog 6T80 (369 lb-ft) transmissions used in the 410 hp / 368 lb-ft 3.6L Twin-Turbo (LF3) powered Cadillac XTS. The lack of torque capability is also in part why Ford abandoned the use of the GM-Ford 9TXX transmissions, choosing instead to develop an 8-speed evolution of the decade old 6T80 for use in their high torque applications like the Ford Edge ST (2.7L Ecoboost V6 with 335 hp / 380 lb-ft). Ford also asserts that the new 9-speed autos did not yield any fuel economy improvement when tested with their engines and the refinement improvements alone did not justify the costs and weight increases.

      View full article
    • By dwightlooi
      Since the launch of the XT4 with the rather anemic (if more refined) LSY engine, many (including myself) had questioned why GM does not offer the Tripower 310 bhp / 348 lb-ft (L3B) 2.7T 4-cylinder in the XT4 (at least) as an option. To a lesser extent some have also questioned why the LSY is putting out a mere 237bhp / 258 lb-ft whereas the outgoing LTG engine is good for 265~272 bhp / 295 lb-ft. Is it just so that it can have 258 lb-ft arrive @ 1,500 rpm? Now, we have the answer...
      It's the 9-speed Automatics.
      Adopting the 9-speed automatics is deemed a priority for refinement and fuel economy. The new GM-Ford 9TXX transmissions, jointly developed with Ford promises better fuel economy and better shift quality. There are currently two versions of this transmission:-
      9T50   -- 258 lb-ft 9T65   -- 280 lb-ft The need to pack 9-speeds into a very slim transmission case meant that they have to use an ovoid cross section torque converter, a tension chain coupling and abandon the high torque capability of the previous generation top dog 6T80 (369 lb-ft) transmissions used in the 410 hp / 368 lb-ft 3.6L Twin-Turbo (LF3) powered Cadillac XTS. The lack of torque capability is also in part why Ford abandoned the use of the GM-Ford 9TXX transmissions, choosing instead to develop an 8-speed evolution of the decade old 6T80 for use in their high torque applications like the Ford Edge ST (2.7L Ecoboost V6 with 335 hp / 380 lb-ft). Ford also asserts that the new 9-speed autos did not yield any fuel economy improvement when tested with their engines and the refinement improvements alone did not justify the costs and weight increases.
    • By Drew Dowdell
      Since the launch of the XT4 with the rather anemic (if more refined) LSY engine, many (including myself) had questioned why GM does not offer the Tripower 310 bhp / 348 lb-ft (L3B) 2.7T 4-cylinder in the XT4 (at least) as an option. To a lesser extent some have also questioned why the LSY is putting out a mere 237bhp / 258 lb-ft whereas the outgoing LTG engine is good for 265~272 bhp / 295 lb-ft. Is it just so that it can have 258 lb-ft arrive @ 1,500 rpm? Now, we have the answer...
      It's the 9-speed Automatics.
      Adopting the 9-speed automatics is deemed a priority for refinement and fuel economy. The new GM-Ford 9TXX transmissions, jointly developed with Ford promises better fuel economy and better shift quality. There are currently two versions of this transmission:-
      9T50   -- 258 lb-ft 9T65   -- 280 lb-ft The need to pack 9-speeds into a very slim transmission case meant that they have to use an ovoid cross section torque converter, a tension chain coupling and abandon the high torque capability of the previous generation top dog 6T80 (369 lb-ft) transmissions used in the 410 hp / 368 lb-ft 3.6L Twin-Turbo (LF3) powered Cadillac XTS. The lack of torque capability is also in part why Ford abandoned the use of the GM-Ford 9TXX transmissions, choosing instead to develop an 8-speed evolution of the decade old 6T80 for use in their high torque applications like the Ford Edge ST (2.7L Ecoboost V6 with 335 hp / 380 lb-ft). Ford also asserts that the new 9-speed autos did not yield any fuel economy improvement when tested with their engines and the refinement improvements alone did not justify the costs and weight increases.


      This post has been promoted to an article

      This post has been promoted to an article

      View full article
    • By Drew Dowdell
      Since the launch of the XT4 with the rather anemic (if more refined) LSY engine, many (including myself) had questioned why GM does not offer the Tripower 310 bhp / 348 lb-ft (L3B) 2.7T 4-cylinder in the XT4 (at least) as an option. To a lesser extent some have also questioned why the LSY is putting out a mere 237bhp / 258 lb-ft whereas the outgoing LTG engine is good for 265~272 bhp / 295 lb-ft. Is it just so that it can have 258 lb-ft arrive @ 1,500 rpm? Now, we have the answer...
      It's the 9-speed Automatics.
      Adopting the 9-speed automatics is deemed a priority for refinement and fuel economy. The new GM-Ford 9TXX transmissions, jointly developed with Ford promises better fuel economy and better shift quality. There are currently two versions of this transmission:-
      9T50   -- 258 lb-ft 9T65   -- 280 lb-ft The need to pack 9-speeds into a very slim transmission case meant that they have to use an ovoid cross section torque converter, a tension chain coupling and abandon the high torque capability of the previous generation top dog 6T80 (369 lb-ft) transmissions used in the 410 hp / 368 lb-ft 3.6L Twin-Turbo (LF3) powered Cadillac XTS. The lack of torque capability is also in part why Ford abandoned the use of the GM-Ford 9TXX transmissions, choosing instead to develop an 8-speed evolution of the decade old 6T80 for use in their high torque applications like the Ford Edge ST (2.7L Ecoboost V6 with 335 hp / 380 lb-ft). Ford also asserts that the new 9-speed autos did not yield any fuel economy improvement when tested with their engines and the refinement improvements alone did not justify the costs and weight increases.


      This post has been promoted to an article

      View full article
    • By Drew Dowdell
      Since the launch of the XT4 with the rather anemic (if more refined) LSY engine, many (including myself) had questioned why GM does not offer the Tripower 310 bhp / 348 lb-ft (L3B) 2.7T 4-cylinder in the XT4 (at least) as an option. To a lesser extent some have also questioned why the LSY is putting out a mere 237bhp / 258 lb-ft whereas the outgoing LTG engine is good for 265~272 bhp / 295 lb-ft. Is it just so that it can have 258 lb-ft arrive @ 1,500 rpm? Now, we have the answer...
      It's the 9-speed Automatics.
      Adopting the 9-speed automatics is deemed a priority for refinement and fuel economy. The new GM-Ford 9TXX transmissions, jointly developed with Ford promises better fuel economy and better shift quality. There are currently two versions of this transmission:-
      9T50   -- 258 lb-ft 9T65   -- 280 lb-ft The need to pack 9-speeds into a very slim transmission case meant that they have to use an ovoid cross section torque converter, a tension chain coupling and abandon the high torque capability of the previous generation top dog 6T80 (369 lb-ft) transmissions used in the 410 hp / 368 lb-ft 3.6L Twin-Turbo (LF3) powered Cadillac XTS. The lack of torque capability is also in part why Ford abandoned the use of the GM-Ford 9TXX transmissions, choosing instead to develop an 8-speed evolution of the decade old 6T80 for use in their high torque applications like the Ford Edge ST (2.7L Ecoboost V6 with 335 hp / 380 lb-ft). Ford also asserts that the new 9-speed autos did not yield any fuel economy improvement when tested with their engines and the refinement improvements alone did not justify the costs and weight increases.


      View full article
  • Social Stream

  • Today's Birthdays

    1. 1990Suburban
      1990Suburban
      (30 years old)
  • Who's Online (See full list)

  • My Clubs

About us

CheersandGears.com - Founded 2001

We ♥ Cars

Get in touch

Follow us

Recent tweets

facebook

×
×
  • Create New...