Still Pluggin Along

Late nights in Detroit:

After resuming contract talks mid-morning Saturday, General Motors Corp. and the UAW continued to make progress -- so much, in fact, that several subcommittees have already settled some of their issues, people familiar with the talks said Saturday.

“Some of them are finished up,” Chris (Tiny) Sherwood, president of UAW Local 652 at GM’s Lansing Grand River plant, which makes Cadillac cars and SUVs, told the Free Press late Saturday afternoon.

While a substantial amount of work remains, Sherwood, like others, did not expect an agreement by Saturday night.

But the news out of downtown Detroit, where the talks have been ongoing for eight weeks, was encouraging enough that Sherwood, a 40-year UAW member, decided to temporarily close up his local’s standby strike operation.

His local had hundreds of picket signs printed that read “UAW on Strike,” and several members had been staying at the office late into the night, ready to trigger a telephone chain to members to quickly launch a strike.

“We’re going to shut down here right now,” said Sherwood, who has lived through three strikes.

With the VEBA being a seeming inevitability, perhaps it was smart for Gettelfinger and co. to quickly accept the premise and fight like dogs to make it as equitable as possible:

GM executives have long indicated an interest in creating a health care trust, and within the last two weeks, people close to the talks said, Gettelfinger has expressed a willingness to negotiate one.

Two of the main sticking points to creating a VEBA are how much money GM would contribute to the creation of a trust and the source of the assets, labor experts said. People familiar with the talks say GM proposed paying no more than 65% of its estimated liability into a fund. Analysts said union leaders want more than 70%.

They said the automaker would use a combination of cash, stock, real estate and proceeds from new borrowing.

“My sense is that an agreement on the VEBA is there, but that becomes meaningless unless they can agree on the terms,” said Harley Shaiken, a labor expert from University of California at Berkeley, who has been in contact with union members.

“It’s like agreeing to purchase a house -- all you have to do is agree on the price. Well, that’s a big deal.”

Another tough negotiating point has been whether the parties would be willing to share the burden or benefit of future changes in health costs. The UAW wants GM to agree to add money to the trust if costs grow faster than expected. GM wants a refund if costs aren’t as great as expected or a national health care program diminishes the retiree health care burden, analysts and others said.

I just don't get out GM could expect to relieve itself of some of the health burden without paying a real significant chunk up front. Saving even 25% in the long run seems a real deal for them.

Another thing that scratches at the underlying issue of healthcare and business; GM is negotiating for a refund if a national universal healthcare plan is put into place. They're putting into contingency plans what has long been the business community's sworn enemy, universal healthcare, and trying to negotiate a victory out of it. Even in a plan like Edwards', the most progressive of the '08 contenders (outside of Kucinich), GM is conceding that companies would actually have to pay less for healthcare than they do now. And, as we've been beaten over the head with repetition of this fact, healthcare costs are the number one cost per car for the big three (I won't get into the whole competitiveness of the product right now).

So, I beg, are these companies not coming out full force for true universal healthcare? It would only lower their costs, make them more competitive, and make things a hell of a lot easier with the union. But I guess it's just impossible to work toward a common goal with someone you've treated with such hostility and disregard over the years.

Also, just wanted to note the WaPo's coverage of the negotiations; they can't seem to wait even a second longer than the facts require to start fanning strike fires. Here's the third paragraph of their newest story, and note that the first two are one and two sentences, respectively:

"This way, they need no notice to call a strike," said Harley Shaiken, a professor at University of California at Berkeley specializing in labor issues. "It keeps the pressure on the negotiators on both sides of the table to get a deal."

Meanwhile, the Free Press mentions a strike; but as the chunk I quoted from earlier showed, it was about the strike being possibly averted, not imminent.

I guess its sometimes hard for people on a national scale to understand that unions aren't just about going on strike and potentially damaging their poor companies.