B.J. Widick Archive | ETOL Main Page
From Labor Action, Vol. 14 No. 20, 15 May 1950, pp. 1 & 7.
Transcribed & marked up by Einde O’Callaghan for the Encyclopaedia of Trotskyism On-Line (ETOL).
DETROIT, May 7 – The United Auto Workers (CIO) won the kind of victory in its 100-day-long Chrysler strike that it can hardly stand more than once in about five years.
Two incidents on the day of settlement illustrate how differently this strike has affected the union, in contrast to previous peace agreements.
Downtown at the Sheraton Hotel, Walter Reuther and other UAW leaders refused to pose for any pictures with Chrysler Corporation officials, and there was none of the nonsense of a joint statement the kind that usually reads: “We have achieved a basis for harmonious relations based on mutual understanding,” etc. The strike is over, but there is no peace between the UAW and Chrysler.
At one of the largest local union halls, the photographers rushed out to get the standard strike settlement pictures: hundreds of workers waving their hands, cheering and grinning. It took much pleading to get some artificial action shots, including the one that appeared in the New York Times. Of course there was tremendous relief that the strike was over, but after that kind of strike no one felt like cheering about anything.
This different mood was reflected Thursday night at the national Chrysler delegate conference where 100 delegates heard Walter Reuther outline the pension plan, the health insurance concessions, and the contract changes made in the new agreement between the corporation and the union. The subdued atmosphere almost puzzled Reuther. Outside of questions for a half hour, there was no discussion except that begun by one delegate from Chrysler Local 7 who quietly challenged some of Reuther’s interpretations. The vote of ratification was almost unanimous, perhaps five or six delegates voting against it. The Stalinists kept completely quiet, and some of the critics of Reuther who are so vociferous when he is not around were also silent. The “shock” of this strike has by no means passed away, as the routine membership meetings revealed on the following night.
Reuther outlined the pension plan won from Chrysler as including $100 a month for workers at 65 with 25 years seniority, an improvement over Ford where the seniority requirement is 30 years. Credit hours at Chrysler are 1,630 for a full year, while at Ford they are 1,600. Chrysler payments into the trust fund will amount to about 7 cents for one year. There is no fixed cents per hour for five years, as Reuther claimed existed in the Ford agreement. Chrysler will put in less whenever social security payments are increased. There is joint administration of the benefits, NOT of the fund.
On pensions Reuther has developed a new tack. The main aim of the UAW strategy now is to force an increase in social security payments, for the only good pension plan really is one for all workers in ail industries at the age of 65 no matter what companies they worked for. (There is no more talk of building up a pension fund in one company and then increasing the benefits. That’s where the cents-per-hour agreement has disappeared.)
The UAW got Chrysler to agree to the payment of one half of what an individual worker pays for minimum service under Blue Cross and Blue Shield health plans. This amounts to $1.50 monthly, with most workers paying a larger share to cover their families. Among other fringe benefits, the union obtained an increase of sick payments to $28 weekly, beginning with the fourth day of sickness. These two concessions are superior to those existing at Ford or Nash, the latest important agreements signed by the union.
The UAW did win its 10-cent package, judging by all indications. Of course, if social security payments increase, Chrysler will be able to decrease its payments into the pension fund, without informing the union. (At Ford the company must inform the union when it drops its payments.)
Among contract changes, the union obtained a voluntary checkoff; some minor improvements in seniority provisions; and an important reduction in the wage differential between Detroit and out-of-town plants by getting a flat 3 cent hourly increase for the out-of-town plants. It obtained a $31 increase in vacation pay for those workers with 3 to 5 years seniority.
Likewise, the union was able to eliminate the most notorious feature of the Chrysler "company security” section of the old contract which read: “The union agrees that it will not oppose the discharge or discipline of anyone who instigates, leads or induces any other employee to take part in any unauthorized strike.” Now the union may negotiate on this vital question, and this is an important modification of the harsh clause which caused more than one chief steward to lose his job, without any recourse to negotiations or appeal to the umpire.
In contradiction with this improvement. however, there is now included a new clause in the section dealing with the functioning (not the structure) of the chief stewards. Readers of Labor Action may recall that the corporation sought to change the present operation of the chief stewards by foisting the General Motors setup on the Chrysler workers. The company wanted to limit the time which the stewards may negotiate to two hours daily, as in GM. Under the Chrysler contract chief stewards could and often did take all day on grievances or related matters.
The Chrysler strike lasted another week because the company would not give up its insistence on some change in the clauses dealing with the chief stewards. Above all, Local 7 leaders, including all “factions,” insisted that UAW negotiators stand pat on not permitting any weakening of the present setup.
What finally emerged was the inclusion of this sentence in the old contract: “The privilege of chief stewards to leave their work during working hours without loss of pay is subject to the understanding that the time will be devoted to the prompt handling of legitimate grievances and will not be abused, and that the chief stewards will do the work to which they are assigned at all times except when necessary to leave their work to handle grievances as provided herein.”
Reuther insisted that this new sentence simply was a face-saving gesture for the company. “How can we object to putting the word legitimate before the word grievance?” – a reasonable argument, but, as the speaker from Local 7 replied, the fact is that now the threat of loss of pay is implied, and also now the chief steward may have to argue he is on a legitimate grievance. Previously it was assumed that he was. The company could not argue about it. He interpreted this new sentence, as did the whole leadership of Local 7, as a new club over the heads of the chief stewards.
The second major point of discussion, what there was of it at the conference, concerned Reuther’s remarks about the hard-boiled atttiude of the company, and his review of the timetable of events and concessions won only after 8 weeks of the strike. The Local 7 delegate told Reuther and the conference that the leadership had made a big mistake in not having Chrysler delegate conferences every other week so that the secondary leadership could be informed of developments, to educate the rank and file and to give the strike a more democratic character. He suggested that the confusion and some of the bitterness could have been prevented, and the morale of the workers would have been much higher at the end of the strike, if they understood the social aspects of the struggle. Reuther’s reply was that the union had tried to inform the ranks through the mass rallies and the radio programs, but this was an evasion of the point raised.
The fact that the UAW had signed a three-year contract with Chrysler with two reopening clauses (May of each year) was explained by Reuther as necessary since the workers could not and would riot want a major struggle before that time. Both in terms of evaluating the militancy of the ranks (look how solid they were for 100 days in spite of the confusion!) and in terms of a disturbing trend towards conservative unionism, the viewpoint of Reuther was wrong, the delegate from Local 7 declared.
Reuther quickly challenged this point of view: “The UAW will remain a dynamic, militant, democratic trade union, and don’t worry so much about the so-called trend towards business unionism which will lead to complete class collaboration,” Reuther declared rather vigorously, but when he was kidded from the floor about misquoting a certain book on the UAW, he dropped the subject. Reuther also pointed out there were two reopening dates in the contract.
And this was the whole of the discussion of a strike that was the second longest and certainly the bitterest in the UAW history since the early organizing days and sit-down strikes.
The local union membership meetings were routine and desultory affairs, with the ranks absent in large numbers, and with disillusionment evident everywhere. Ratification was overwhelming.
This strike was the most significant since the 1946 General Motors stride. For the next three years UAW members will be asking what happened. How come we sacrificed so much, and yet were able to gain so little? Reuther told the delegates that the progress of the union should be measured NOT from the yardstick of what the workers were entitled to, but rather where they were yesterday, what they got today, and where they would be going tomorrow. From that standpoint, of course, the union made gains in the new contract. But the workers, agitated by Reuther’s many speeches, are becoming increasingly interested in all that they are entitled to! This is a major source of the feeling of frustration and disillusionment among the workers. The whole pension campaign has served only to emphasize the insecurity of life. (How many thousands of Chrysler workers will have 25 years seniority before they are 50 or 55? They don’t get •anything from the pension plan except salt on their wounds.)
Chrysler failed to break visibly the solidarity of the ranks to the union. This is a real tribute to the idea of unionism and the reputation of the UAW. No picket lines for 100 days, only token squadron patrols, and yet no back-to-work movement. Chrysler failed to keep the UAW from making a few contract gains, although they did inch their way into the chief steward functioning. It seems obvious that Chrysler misjudged what would happen in the coal strike, and also it underestimated the UAW-CIO.
However, by prolonging the strike, the corporation did weaken the union in the sense that the workers sacrificed heavily and are in no position for a major struggle for a while. It did discredit the Reuther leadership to this extent. Many workers thought that Reuther could easily get more from Chrysler than anyone else. Reuther’s prestige has gone down considerably. He knows it. Only after Reuther left negotiations did Chrysler make important concessions on the contract. He was not in them during the last two weeks. Norman Mathews, headed the negotiators. It is clear the company prefers to deal with him rather than Reuther.
In overall result, the UAW is tamer now than it was before the Chrysler strike began. Chrysler did General Motors a big favor. Any half-way reasonable agreement will be readily accepted by the Reuther leadership and the General Motors ranks. And everyone – that is, the vast majority of workers – will say ‘Thank God we don’t face what the Chrysler workers did.” But more on that in another article.
B.J. Widick Archive | ETOL Main Page
Last updated: 24 January 2024