CAW Union head Buzz Hargrove threatens to take GM down in '08

"I say to them, you better find a G** damn product for Windsor or we'll take all of the General Motors corporation down in September 2008. General Motors workers have earned the commitment, especially in Windsor."
"If there's a strike, it's the whole GM chain that's out, not just one plant."

-Buzz Hargrove

http://www.autoblog.com/2007/06/07/caw-union-head-buzz-hargrove-threatens-to-take-gm-down-in-08-if/

Buzz is just posturing. This happens all the time, especially when it gets close to contract negotiation time.

Buzz is just posturing. This happens all the time, especially when it gets close to contract negotiation time.

Perhaps, but his membership doesn't see it that way, they think he's going to fight to bring down all of GM just to save their plant. Won't look good when he has to back off that promise.

Uhhh, I don't think it would be in the CAW/UAW's best interests to "take down" GM. In 10 years, the way things are going, I'm wondering if the unions will even exist anymore. :shrug:

Maybe the Union guys should start rolling up their selves and getting ready to man those lines! Well that, and get ready to not sleep.

Note to self: If I start a company, don't hire union labor.

Uhhh, I don't think it would be in the CAW/UAW's best interests to "take down" GM. In 1 year, the way things are going, I'm wondering if the UAW will even exist anymore. :shrug:

Fixed that for you.

Fixed that for you.

:lol:

Seriously, I understand that the UAW/CAW are trying to do what they think is best for their members. But I don't believe they can't see how this is all going to end on its current course. The golden age of the Big 3 has long, long past. There needs to be a new spirit of collaboration and a big attitude adjustment away from "Us vs. Them" or else no one is going to survive.

You cannot allow your employees to decide how your company is to be run. Period. If GM does not have product to put in this plant, or if it is not economically viable to do so, that's just too bad.

Posturing, that's all.

Lets say the CAW members called Hargrove out and there was a CAW strike.

GM has been hording cash, and I'm pretty sure by 2008, GM's sales will be up enough that they will have even more, and will likely be able to ride out the strike.

It's also worth pointing out here that it's the CANADIAN Auto Workers Union that's striking this extremely defiant tone.

The United Auto Workers Union here in the US has struck a far and away more reasonable tone in recent years, and unlike Canadian's Auto workers, the UAW feels a bit more part of the solution of protecting automakers based in their own country (USA) than the CAW leadership tends to feel towards a company that's based across the boarder in a different country, and has acted accordingly in recent years.

With the Canadian dollar coming up to equal value with the American dollar, the CAW should tread lightly. There is no longer lower wage incentives to keep jobs there, and increased efficiency and fewer workers needed to do the job will take away from the health care expense advantage they have.

I can see GM moving more operations back to the US depending on how all this plays out.

Buzz Hargrove is a clown that less and less people take seriously these days. At the last election, he got in big trouble for suggesting people should vote for the quebec separatist party.

I think this says it all.

http://www.autoextremist.com/index.shtml

RANTS by Peter M. DeLorenzo


Clueless in Canada and mired in a state of denial in Detroit, organized labor is pathologically out of touch - and out of time.

Detroit. Canadian Auto Workers union leader Buzz Hargrove is an interesting character. He's quick with media-friendly quips that garner a lot of attention, he's a fierce defender of his union membership, and he fancies himself as the only bright light of rational thinking in the whole union vs. management dance. But he's also a loose-cannon firebrand who is firmly entrenched in organized labor's "entitlement" past and a looming impediment to any substantive progress in the upcoming contract bargaining talks with the Detroit-based automakers.

And he proved that convincingly with his idiotic statements over the weekend at a union rally in Windsor.

The purpose of the Sunday meeting, according to the Windsor Star, was to rally the 1200 members of Local 1973, who were upset with the fact that GM had decided to build a new six-speed transmission at their St. Catharines (Ontario) plant instead of in their Windsor (Ontario) transmission facility. Hargrove, in classic management-bashing rhetoric, told the assembled workers that "They made the decision to put the transmission in St. Catharines, and they say publicly if they don't get the right deal in St. Catharines it will not come to Canada, therefore eliminating Windsor. I say to them, you better find a goddamn product for Windsor or we'll take all of the General Motors corporation down in September 2008. General Motors workers have earned the commitment, especially in Windsor." Hargrove went on to say that a strike action would be used as a weapon to destroy GM when his union's contract negotiations begin in 2008 (the UAW contract negotiations begin this summer).

In effect, Hargrove is saying, let's take an entire industry that's literally and figuratively hanging by a thread and destroy it with a strike - and destroy our own jobs in the process. Makes a lot of sense, doesn't it? To the highly corrosive mindset at the helm of the CAW, apparently it does, unfortunately.

Hargrove's comments are not all that dissimilar from Ron Gettelfinger's of late. Gettelfinger, the UAW president, has been spouting off like it's 1972 - hammering home organized labor's classic refrain revolving around the concept of "more" - more money, more health care, more pension increases and of course, more entitlement. Remember folks, this is the same guy who firmly believes that the infamous "Jobs Bank" - where workers get paid to do nothing - is perfectly rational in this day and age, and should remain in effect indefinitely.

Whether these guys live in a weird Twilight Zone of Denial or they're just pathologically out of touch - or both - it's clear to everyone within a hammer throw of their senses that there isn't a snowball's chance in Hell that the Detroit-based automakers can survive in the newly-limned global automotive market if the existing union contracts are left essentially untouched in the upcoming negotiations - as these union leaders are making noises suggesting that they should be.

All of the eye-popping concessions and agreed-upon perks that seemed so "fair" in the late 80s and early 90s are now so outrageously out of sync with reality that I would think these union leaders would be embarrassed to even mention them in public, but nooo, they not only mention them, they're under the impression that they're entitled to them - as if the domestic-based automakers will always be there and will always be able to foot the bill.

Gettelfinger and Hargrove's powers of selective rationalization must be truly awe-inspiring; either that, or they actually believe that the plummeting market share of what is left of the car companies quaintly known as the "Big Three" is but a temporary hiccup and that there's a virulent plot of some sort at work here - part of a vast conspiracy to deprive them of their benefits packages.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: If the Detroit-based car companies had the cojones to do it, they could "lock-out" the current membership of the UAW and CAW. And do you know what would happen then? There would be short-term pain to be sure, but then there would be fifteen people lining up for each and every job all across this country and in Canada - all eager to work for reduced wages and benefits.

These union leaders don't believe that could ever happen, but perhaps they should pay attention to what happened to the 1,500 members of the Aircraft Mechanics Fraternal Association when they went on strike against Northwest Airlines two-and-one-half years ago. Northwest stuck to their guns, and the entire work force ended up getting replaced.

The current management of the UAW and CAW not only doesn't get it, they're frighteningly incapable of getting it. They are unable to function in a world that has changed around them to such a degree that their views on the issues are simply irrelevant in a global automobile industry that has been turned upside down and sideways.

Hargrove and Gettelfinger have yet to come to terms with the fact that they face a clearcut choice in these upcoming contract negotiations. And that choice comes down to this: They either accept a reduced number of jobs at a reduced pay scale and with reduced benefits, or they will be left with no jobs at all.

The American automobile industry is in crisis. And with plants and jobs teetering on the brink of disaster in the U.S. and in Canada, these times demand serious people willing to seriously contemplate the issues at hand in a rational and realistic manner. We need deep thinkers capable of seeing the Big Picture, people who are willing to reconfigure the status quo, leaving the hoary old rhetoric right where it belongs - in the past - while working on molding a future filled with hope and promise. One that's fueled by a boldly competitive mindset in tune with the rest of the automotive world.

Right now, Buzz Hargrove and Ron Gettelfinger have given every indication through their inflammatory statements and juvenile grandstanding that they are shockingly ill-qualified for the task.

Thanks for listening, see you next Wednesday.

Perhaps someone can educate me, as i do not know everything regarding Union/labor relationships.

1. i thought strikes were illegal?
2. As the article mentions, hypothetically, if the CAW was to go on strike, what legal rammifications would GM face if they just terminated all those employees and hired new, non union labor?
3. What incentive does GM have by keeping their shops union? is there anyway to phase out unions or is it basically an all or nothing deal?

thanks guys!

I think this says it all.

http://www.autoextremist.com/index.shtml

Agreed 100%. His rant came to mind when I read the thread title. Hey here's a thought, maybe DeLorenzo should take over for Lutz when his day is done..... he's clear thinking enough and certainly not afraid to call a spade a spade. He also has a pretty clear memory when it comes to GMs glory days and identifying/acknowledging where GM has failed and what has to be done to right the ship.

Hey, I know he just a journalist/advertizing guy, but he shows more clarity and understanding of what it takes for GM to be GM than most of the company's leadership regimes have shown since the late 60s. I mean c'mon, how does a car company stray so far from what it does best to reach a point where they say, oops we lost our way.

Perhaps someone can educate me, as i do not know everything regarding Union/labor relationships.

1. i thought strikes were illegal?
2. As the article mentions, hypothetically, if the CAW was to go on strike, what legal rammifications would GM face if they just terminated all those employees and hired new, non union labor?
3. What incentive does GM have by keeping their shops union? is there anyway to phase out unions or is it basically an all or nothing deal?

thanks guys!

I am pretty sure strikes are legal except for gov't employees in the US.

I really don't know about the 2nd bullet. But after a few days of no show, you can be terminated.

I think the need for unions is going away. What was once a good job in the states isn't anymore. Times change and people should adapt. I don't think they should rely on the company to make this adaption for them.

The Windsor plant is unfortunate but if the CAW really plays hardball all GM needs to do is offer up the jobs lost to anyone willing to cross the line for 80% of what the CAW workers make and that will be that. Look no further than Catapillar and the Detroit News and Free Press in recent times.

Buzz is in for a very rude surprise, though he probably has a clue it's coming.

Watch what happens when GM and F let Cerberus take the lead in negotiations with the UAW this summer. There's a reason everybody is hoarding cash right now, and it isn't to give the unions fat new contracts.

Buzz is in for a very rude surprise, though he probably has a clue it's coming.

Watch what happens when GM and F let Cerberus take the lead in negotiations with the UAW this summer. There's a reason everybody is hoarding cash right now, and it isn't to give the unions fat new contracts.

It's increasingly apparent you hit things on the head.

Chrysler right now is perhaps the strongest car company in the US. Daimler is going to pay all outstanding debts, Chrysler's current upcoming crop of products is fully funded, and that's before you even get to any of Cerberus' billions in cash. You haved 2 former Chrysler hands on the "Advisory" board, and Chrysler's latest sales are up a very impressive 11% over last year (Ford's down almost 7% and GM is up 4.7).

I think alot of union leaders are going to be in for a pretty strong thrashing if Cerberus does what I think they're likely to do, and no doubt, GM and Ford are more than content to let them lead the way.

Although the UAW negotiations this year should be good entertainment, I get a feeling that the main event is going to be the CAW. The UAW leadership seems to at least get it, and their retoric is easily dismissed as early posturing to look good to the rank and file. But the CAW under Hargrove..... better get the popcorn and pull up a comfortable chair for that one. :think:

Perhaps someone can educate me, as i do not know everything regarding Union/labor relationships.

1. i thought strikes were illegal?
2. As the article mentions, hypothetically, if the CAW was to go on strike, what legal rammifications would GM face if they just terminated all those employees and hired new, non union labor?
3. What incentive does GM have by keeping their shops union? is there anyway to phase out unions or is it basically an all or nothing deal?

thanks guys!

1. Not illegal. Actually, there is a right to strike. However, if a court decides a strike violates a contract, then they can order members back to work. If they refuse, they're fined for each day. There are exceptions for public safety and health. For instance, police and firefighters can't strike, even though they're union. The Postal workers are union, but can't strike. Ditto many civilian government workers.

2. Terminating any worker who legally strikes is against the law. GM could get slammed hard for that in fines. However... that said, there are steps GM or any company can take if they want to attempt to go that route. But it would be pretty ugly, pretty expensive, and would involve taking some pretty extreme legal risks. GM can legally be taken down for failing to negotiate in good faith. The feds can step in and require a cooling off period. There can be a forced mediator assigned by the courts. And that barely scratches the surface. While all of this is going on, both sides are hemmoraging bank vaults of cash. anywhere from just a few days to perhaps months or longer.

The UAW's 117 day strike in 1970 is solely responsible for there being no new 1970 Camaro. The few Camaros that actually were made had to be destroyed because they didn't pass 1971 emission standards.

3. GM as all other automakers have done, have already phased out unions through attrition and improved efficiency. There are roughly 538,000 UAW members in 2006. In 1980 it was 1,530,000. And that's with an increase over the past couple of years. Automakers have also won concessions in recent years in using non union labor for janitorial and other support jobs.

But to directly answer your question, it's far and away easier for GM to keep their unions as long as the unions as long as there's mutual agreements on things. Is it easier on you to hire a contractor to add a room to your house, or is it easier to go out and recruit, and oversee the individuals yourself? Another point is the learning curve. The union has people who know machinary and processes inside and out. Finally, there's going to likely be pretty drastic action against people going in to work at GM after GM fires all the union. Would YOU be willing to risk being perhaps followed home? Maybe even your car targeted? Let alone deal with the daily issue of crossing a picket line. It's bad enough for temporary workers in a long drawnout strike. Imagine what it would be like in a lockout?



The most likely scenario in all this IMHO is that there will be a very long strike and most all avenues will be exhausted. The union has a fraction of the membership and dues coming in as they did in the 1970s in it's heyday, so a 4-5 month strike would be devastaing. Ford has been selling everything it has and morgaging the rest, GM has been stockpiling cash and using every option finance backgrounded CEO Wagoner can come up with. Chrysler now has no debt, funded vehicle programs, and sugar-daddy Cerebrus' billions to back it up. The automakers will use a combination of wearing the union down and using the courts to show that the strike is threating to end the US auto industry.

After an attempt to reclaim it's former strike glory, the UAW will be forced by the courts, financially drained members and a almost whiped out strike fund to accept a mediator and a offer that includes a dramatically different health care package, & changes in work rules in exchange for job security (most all the job sheeding has already been done by buyouts and attrition, so there probally isn't a need to downsize much more), modest pay increases, and perhaps benefits based on profits or profit sharing.

At that point, the UAW will have a big advantage over the CAW, and GM will still have extra plant capacity in the US, a US dollar as cheap as the Canadian one, and what will be an intresting slugfest. :)



Agreed 100%. His rant came to mind when I read the thread title. Hey here's a thought, maybe DeLorenzo should take over for Lutz when his day is done..... he's clear thinking enough and certainly not afraid to call a spade a spade. He also has a pretty clear memory when it comes to GMs glory days and identifying/acknowledging where GM has failed and what has to be done to right the ship.

Hey, I know he just a journalist/advertizing guy, but he shows more clarity and understanding of what it takes for GM to be GM than most of the company's leadership regimes have shown since the late 60s. I mean c'mon, how does a car company stray so far from what it does best to reach a point where they say, oops we lost our way.

Delorenzo is intresting, but not without flaws.

Bob Lutz's success is in his ability to work the system and find creative ways to make things happen, even if it involves playing sides off of each other (we mortals would probally call it "Intrigue" or "Games"), more automotive business experience than entire departments combined.... and he's also so independantly wealthy that he's free to do things without worring about being fired.

DeLorenzo would probally last a week at GM.

Just a thought, but what sort of protection does GM have against workers who come back from a strike and perform their job half-ass, affecting overall quality, because they're upset with the company?

:lol:

The golden age of the Big 3 has long, long past. There needs to be a new spirit of collaboration and a big attitude adjustment away from "Us vs. Them" or else no one is going to survive.

You cannot allow your employees to decide how your company is to be run. Period. If GM does not have product to put in this plant, or if it is not economically viable to do so, that's just too bad.

Never a truer word spoken.

The golden era has past the Big 3 as it has done the UAW. If the UAW can point to an industry where current employees are better off than UAW members, I'd like to hear about it.

Why should the UAW look for an improvement to current worker conditions/benefits if the fortunes of the Big 3 are in decline and future uncertain?

A strike would be of no benifit to anyone at this point. You can strike all you want, but if what your demanding isn't fesible, it's not gonna happen, and your gonna be out of a job anyways.

Just a thought, but what sort of protection does GM have against workers who come back from a strike and perform their job half-ass, affecting overall quality, because they're upset with the company?

It's normally part of any labor agreement, but typically members understand that their jobs, reputation, and the chance to win future models for their plant are based on the work they do. It's very different from the stereotype US autoworker of the 80s.

A pretty famous example (rumored or real) was GM's Van Nuys plant that made 3rd gens. Labor there gained a rep for spitefully sabotaging quality during their campaign against GM in the 80s to keep Van Nuys open.

GM shuttered the plant the moment the last 3rd gen rolled out in '92.

On an interesting sidenote............... I read the BON employee section. There have been threads on the subject of the upcoming contract negotiations.............. and they are very interesting, and enlightening.

To say that many UAW workers live in a dreamland, is an understatement.

There are some who are complaining from here to high heaven, and saying that they need to strike................ if they are forced to pay $30 a month for their insurance, for their family, and have $20 copays. One fellow even went on about how would he be able to pay for it, if more than one of his kids got sick at the same time................ and he had to pay multiple copays.

I laughed so hard, I almost fell out of my chair. Maybe they should live like the rest of us, in the real world. You know, the world where those who are actually lucky enough to have employer sponsored insurance, are paying over $200 every other week, for the priveledge............. and have $30 copays (yes, this is me, and I'm happy to have it, as my husbands company was about $100 a month more, and had a $2000 deductible, vs my $450).

Their level of entitlement is amazing to me.

As far as unions go the CAW/UAW seem very out of touch with the way other unions think, well different from the way most trade unions run things. The crappy part is that the CAW/UAW is the most well known union and they make things look bad for everyone. :(

. . .

This is going to be interesting. I'm happy to hear that this buyout may actually work for Chrysler.

Originally posted by GuoinM

Delorenzo is intresting, but not without flaws.

Bob Lutz's success is in his ability to work the system and find creative ways to make things happen, even if it involves playing sides off of each other (we mortals would probally call it "Intrigue" or "Games"), more automotive business experience than entire departments combined.... and he's also so independantly wealthy that he's free to do things without worring about being fired.

DeLorenzo would probally last a week at GM.

Yeah, I know. I was originally saying it with tongue somewhat in cheek, but he does have a certain clarity that seems to be lacking at the General sometimes; not to denigrate what Lutz and Wagoner have done in the short timeframe they've been at the reins. I do worry about what happens after Lutz finally moves on. Firebrands like Delorean and Lutz who get things done just don't seem to come along too often.

Back on topic.... It will be curious to see what havoc Cerebrus can/will wreak in the isolated-from-reality world the UAW/CAW have built for themselves. I'm just glad it looks like they're first at bat and not the General though...

A pretty famous example (rumored or real) was GM's Van Nuys plant that made 3rd gens. Labor there gained a rep for spitefully sabotaging quality during their campaign against GM in the 80s to keep Van Nuys open.

A very interesting strategy.....make sure you build sh*tty cars in an effort to keep your job and the plant open. No one could see what's wrong with that logic? :rolleyes:

Unions can kiss my ass. So can Hargrove for that matter.