UAW Dissenters Speak Out: Delegates Treating Union Leaders like Royalty

[Ming]

UAW dissenters speak out
Activists battle the odds in challenging union hierarchy
June 18, 2006
BY JASON ROBERSON
FREE PRESS BUSINESS WRITER



LAS VEGAS -- The predictable officer elections, labor-movement cheerleading and diatribes against poor company management on the floor of last week's UAW 34th Constitutional Convention have come to an end -- and dissident union activists once again failed to change the union's direction.

Today, as throughout the union's history, UAW dissidents passionately and sometimes articulately push causes ranging from greater democracy within the union to a stronger voice for retirees and more openness about the details of contract negotiations.

Some become minor stars, reaping widespread press coverage for their boldness. Most simply return to their assembly lines and union halls.

Gary Walkowicz, a Dearborn worker at Ford Motor Co.'s truck plant for 31 years, mustered the confidence to complain to UAW President Ron Gettelfinger in front of 1,400 other delegates on the convention floor.

Walkowicz supported a proposal to allow retirees to vote on parts of labor contracts that affect retiree medical benefits.

It was not favored by the UAW's leaders and it failed, miserably -- delegates voted against it 207-9.

Wendy Thompson, the former president of UAW Local 235 in Hamtramck, criticized delegates from the floor microphone Thursday for treating union leaders like royalty.

"Do we want to come across to these reporters here as a convention who celebrates personalities rather than the issues?" Thompson asked to a painfully silent crowd.

Rob Wilson, a convention delegate from UAW Local 974 in Peoria, Ill., led a dissenting group called Members For Change.

"Power at the bargaining table comes from an involved, informed, empowered and mobilized membership and community support," Wilson said. "We believe it's time for change."

Gregg Shotwell is currently the most recognizable dissenter. Shotwell approached the center aisle microphone Monday with confrontation on his mind.

"I will retire from Delphi, but the company is bankrupt," said Shotwell, a 55-year-old machine operator from Coopersville. "What happens if Delphi stops paying on the pension fund after the GM benefit guarantee expires?"

Shotwell was referring to GM's pledge to guarantee pensions should Delphi get in financial trouble. The parts maker filed for bankruptcy in October.

UAW Vice President Richard Shoemaker told Shotwell he was out of order but said he would answer the question privately at the podium. According to Shotwell, Shoemaker told him the union would negotiate with GM and Delphi on pensions.

The UAW has a tradition of internal strife. In the union's 71-year history, the dissenting arguments of the day often served as historical markers, particularly during World War II and the 1960s.

Despite popular arguments of the times, the UAW's leadership, from Walter Reuther to Ron Gettelfinger, has held fast to the belief that the union is a one-party state. History shows that changes in the UAW's direction run from the top down.

Each generation of dissenters -- after all the petitions, rallies and flyers -- is reminded that the person controlling the microphones makes the decisions.

During Erwin Baur's day, the country was fighting a war against Nazi Germany and the Axis powers. (The 91-year-old UAW retiree got a deferment from fighting because he worked for Detroit's Budd Co. as a tool-and-die maker.) Baur debated R.J. Thomas, the UAW's first president, for ordering workers to sign a no-strike pledge during the war. Ultimately, Baur refused to sign it.

"Leadership, in general, only wants adherence," Baur said in a telephone interview. "I'm for as many views as are possible. The only way progress grows is by an active debate and challenge. That's been my attitude and I've lived with that."

Civil rights issues have also fueled dissent.

Many black workers in the 1960s began pressuring UAW leaders for change. Two noteworthy dissenting groups, the League of Revolutionary Black Workers and the Dodge Revolutionary Union Movement, demanded better representation from the UAW and equal benefits from corporations. Tales of their struggle are chronicled in the 1975 publication "Detroit: I Do Mind Dying." Written by Dan Georgakas and Marvin Surkin, it is widely recognized as one of the most important books on labor struggles in the United States.

The closest the UAW ever came to a two-party system came with the New Directions Movement, which started in fall 1985 and gradually gained momentum through the 1986 convention. The movement grew out of the UAW's Region 5, the union's largest geographic region covering 17 western and southwestern states.

New Directions included many of the region's local leaders and members who were frustrated over the UAW leadership's cooperation with companies, among other issues.

Continued at Source: http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/a...SS01/606180592

[mbukukanyau]

Well, now that they are fast running their employers out of business, I wonder what they will do after there is no GM or Delphi? go home?

UAW should unionize foreign auto plants

[jwrebholz]

That'll never happen. Toyota/Honda/etc are smart enough to not let them in. The UAW is a parasite--they're just as bad, if not worse, than the "oppressive, ruthless corporations" they claim to defend their people against.

[Mikkoo]

Interesting tactic by the UAW leader, tell a member that he is out of order if he asked a very important question like what if Delphi stops paying on the pension fund? That guy needs to realize who's paying him and be a little more attentive to his membership.

[steverino]

UAW Vice President Richard Shoemaker told Shotwell he was out of order but said he would answer the question privately at the podium. According to Shotwell, Shoemaker told him the union would negotiate with GM and Delphi on pensions.

Like, was that so difficult for Shoemaker to say out loud

[CobaltSScrazy]

well the uaw's relevance in america is non-existant in my humble opinion. look at the facts...

fact: UAW has lost 500,000 members since 1970 (I believe its 1.1 million, it may be slightly less but the message is clear, same with the second fact.)

fact: Foreign automakers have added 500k jobs since 1970.

translation: foreign automakers are eating detroits marketshare and replacing it with their own while adding new jobs in the US however the UAW is not able to unionize these transplants=less membership=less leverage=irrelevance!!!

[69Firebird400]

Originally Posted by CobaltSScrazy

well the uaw's relevance in america is non-existant in my humble opinion. look at the facts...

fact: UAW has lost 500,000 members since 1970 (I believe its 1.1 million, it may be slightly less but the message is clear, same with the second fact.)

fact: Foreign automakers have added 500k jobs since 1970.

translation: foreign automakers are eating detroits marketshare and replacing it with their own while adding new jobs in the US however the UAW is not able to unionize these transplants=less membership=less leverage=irrelevance!!!

Their relevance and influence in the US are clearly reduced from what they were in the 1970s and earlier, but to say it's non-existent is an exaggeration. If the UAW were presently 100% irrelevant, then they would not have the power to destroy/seriously cripple GM via a Delphi strike. Since they have that power in their back pocket, they are still relevant. If they weren't relevant, then GM would not have to talk to them, but I'm pretty comfortable in saying that the 2007 contract negotiations and whatever results from them will be the biggest business story for GM in 2007.

[mgescuro]

Originally Posted by mbukukanyau

UAW should unionize foreign auto plants

THey should.... but the transplants are giving nearly equivalent benefits and perks compared to UAW... without all the hassle and headache that comes with being unionized.

So in their eyes... Why bother?

[61695]

All this is why i would never have a job where i had to be a member of a union.

[timman]

Originally Posted by mgescuro

THey should.... but the transplants are giving nearly equivalent benefits and perks compared to UAW... without all the hassle and headache that comes with being unionized.

So in their eyes... Why bother?

Great...and when there is no other comparison wage to deal with, these "transplants" will no longer need to give comparable "bennie's" and wages. Will they?

[D C]

Originally Posted by timman

Great...and when there is no other comparison wage to deal with, these "transplants" will no longer need to give comparable "bennie's" and wages. Will they?

They just might. The assumption that they'll start paying minimum wage when the UAW is finally broken is hardly justification to unionize.

[timman]

Originally Posted by D C

They just might. The assumption that they'll start paying minimum wage when the UAW is finally broken is hardly justification to unionize.

What was the justification for Unions in the first place? Poor (sustenance)wages and unconcerned attitudes for the worker. The pendulum is indeed swinging the other way for now. When people are tired of barley keeping the lights on with Wal-Mart wages, it'll swing back, and probably with a vengeance.