Well, it was time to ask the question:

Why can't GM simply use a "lockout" to force the UAW to renegotiate the contract that's currently due to expire in 2007?

Assuming that you locked out every single UAW member that was directly employed by GM, and every UAW member that works for Delphi, how long would it take the UAW to expend its entire strike fund? Moreover, what are the legalities involved?

Before I say any more, I should point out that the NHL owners are better equipped in terms of financial resources (relatively speaking) than GM. However, GM does have very substantial inventories of cars. In the event of a disruption of supply, GM's dealer organization could survive for a very long time.

Of course, the NHL owners are very bold and forward thinking. I could never level the same sort of praise against GM's current management.

 

1. It's called a CONTRACT for a reason. GM would be at fault for breeching and could end up in court.

2. Autoworkers get paid whether they make cars or not. You lock them out, you still pay them. Instead of making something you can sell, they get to sit home and watch TV.

3. It would effect the whole industry. Look at the ripples occuring now that GM's lost money just on sales. Imagine the fallout if they did an illegal lockout and still blew massive money.

4. Not only would what you suggest send GM to court, cost GM heavily in fines and legal costs, be a financial nightmare in GM paying workers without having nothing of value to show for it, it would also poison the well WHEN in 2007, the contracts DO come up for renegotiation.

In short, we're comparing apples to rutabagas.

All in all, a great way to send GM into the abyss.

 

I think the idea would be, if you're locking them out you're not going to be paying them.

But yeah, it wouldn't work. The UAW is adversarial enough as it is, you can just imagine how prickly they'd be for the next 50 years with this on their memory. And you could never hire enough replacement workers to get the plants back up to speed in a reasonable time.

Most importantly, it'd be illegal. Unions have legal rights to prevent this sort of things.

 

Not when there's an existing and binding contract that both sides signed, though. I doubt the court would look kindly on GM if they attempted to reneg on it.

 

Typical of troll boy (?) to throw out a little gem of this kind of 2nd grade logic.

Simply put...where else you gonna' go to play or watch Hockey? But there ain't no shortage of car manufacturers to fill in the gap left by such a ignorant plan....

Wow, I can't believe I bothered to answer yet another brain fart by troll boy....

 

A quick (actually, probably quite lengthy) look into labor laws in the US would certainly make you understand why this wouldn't be legal. To say that labor and unions have to move delicately around each other would be an understatement.

And before the inevitable question of "why can the NHL get away with it?", the rules are different when dealing with a legally-authorized monopoly such as a professional-sports league.

 

Not to mention...The NHL is going great these days...

 

It would be illegal to do so now but would be perfectly legal to do when the master contract is up in 07. One problem is, if GM locks the workers out, they would be eligible for unemployment compensation.Another would be the financial impact of GM having to pay alot of the suppliers for parts and other workers not covered by the master contract.

The UAW has alot of cards to play. A strike at just one carefully picked plant can shut down most of GM, forcing GM to pay the workers at other plants that were dependent on parts from the strike plant.

 

They can. When the contract is up in '07. The NHL owners had to wait for their collective agreement to end too.

I don't believe workers are eligible for UI when locked out --- the union has money set aside for strike pay if that were to happen. I believe it's been reported that that the UAW has deeper pockets than GM if it were to come to a strike or lockout.

I think GM's best position is to make it clear that Chapter 11 is a very real possibility if they can't get an agreement they can live with. I know I'd prefer a job with reduced benefits to no job at all.

 

tehehehehe.....

 

Im gonna give Redzed the benefit of the doubt here... Not that I really think he doenst understand this, but for the good of others who dont understand this.

GM is under a binding contract, as mentioned above. If the broke it, they would get RAPED in court. What I believe Red was asking though, was why doesnt GM perform the lockout after the current contract expires in 2007... That is an entirely different ball of wax.

It is possible to perform a lockout, and have no liability, however, I find it hard to believe that the UAW has not thought of that and negotiated something into the current contract to prevent that. Im not familiar with the UAW contract, so I cannot give further input on that subject.

Now, speculatively, if GM was to lock the UAW out, would it do them any good? (Assuming of course that it was not breaching contract in doing so)

I personally dont think so. It would only serve to further solidify Union solidarity and resolve. The UAW would be far less pliable when the contract negotiations did open. Remember, no matter how many cars GM has on hand, they WILL run out some day if no more are built. The UAW knows that. The UAW, in this situation, holds all the cards.

Getting help from the UAW is going to be like squeezing champagne from a boulder. Just aint gonna happen. This is going to be an interesting fight.

 

im young and dumb and dont know much about unions but what about this. say WHEN THE CURRENT CONTRACT ends, what if GM were to hire a bunch of non-union workers and have them work until a decent contract can be written up? its that legal being as tho there isnt a contract with the workers anymore? is gm legally able to run without a union? (i would assume so given the fact that other businesses dont have a union) and if they did this what could happen (provided its legal of course). and if it isnt legal what happens?

 

Thats called hiring scabs. Its been done in the past in lots of industries. Bad things can and have happened when companies hire scabs to break picket lines.

GM is of course able to run without the union, as there are no laws REQUIRING them to use union labor. Only the contract signed by the company and the union. However, the UAW has such overwhelming strength, that they would simply not allow it. The US is no longer in a climate where bad things happen to scabs, but the UAW would have the media after GM like white on rice, saying that theyre exporting hundreds of thousands of jobs, hiring illegals, butchering babies. You get the idea.

Thats all theoretical, since I assume UAW has a clause in the contract that extends the contract's protection until a new one is negotiated.

The major US flag airlines (American, United, Continental) are having similar problems. Ridicoulous legacy contracts negotiated at a time when they had a monopoly on their market (The airlines even moreso than GM, because of the old FAA regulations). Now that they have to compete, the Unions arent willing to budge.

 

It's also worth noting that the NHL players weren't locked out until the contract between the players union and the league expired. If the owners tried to lock out the players during an active contract, the league would have wound up in court just as fast.

I'm curious though, could the UAW be "locked out" after the current contract expires. I highly doubt it would/could ever happened...but in theory...?

 

Yes there is. The only way to get rid of the union is to have it decertified or close the plant (as WalMart did with some of their stores in Canada). GM cannot arbitrarily lock out the workers and hire scabs, even when the contract expires. They are forced by law to negotiate in good faith and attempt to come to an agreement with the union.