Uaw Enters Final Round With Ford

The intriguing drama of the contract negotiations between the UAW and the auto giants never fails to capture the nearly undivided attention of both national and foreign interests - citizen and big-wigs alike.

The cloak-and-dagger ploys at the bargaining table, the loud rhetoric and threats, the sudden appearance of what appears to be a somewhat friendly atmosphere, then a switch to angry and bitter accusations holds center stage as the public audience watches, listens and waits.

For whatever happens as a result of those sparring matches is bound to affect people outside the union and the auto industry as well as the members of each.

Tensions really begin to build, almost to a crescendo, as the contract expiration date draws near and round-the-clock bargaining gets underway. It is then that speculation abounds over whether there will be a strike. 

This year's round of talks between the UAW and Fort Motor Company, unanimously selected by the union as a target to set the pace for the rest of the industry, has reached that point. The union's contracts with each of the four auto companies expire in less than a week - at midnight, Sept. 14.

In view of the high rate of unemployment that has swept the nation, which experts predict will get worse, and in view of government foot-dragging, a heavy burden is placed on the auto industry. Therefore, it is most essential that the parties agree on programs, not only for the job security of auto workers but to provide more jobs.

The UAW presented its proposals to the auto makers in August, citing job security and ways to create more jobs as the key issues. On August 31 Ford submitted its first set of proposals, a "take-away" package which did not address those issues at all. This sent shock waves through the union.

Union officials and union members angrily labelled Ford's offer as "outrageous" - "75% take-away and 25% stand-pat" - and accused the company of pushing for a strike, which Ford denied. Last weekend the parties went into closed-door blackout sessions, which means no reports to the public while subcommittees work on the various proposals. 

One promising sign, however, is that the union and the company agreed to assign a new subcommittee the task of grappling with the union's proposal for shorter work time to provide more jobs.

But the bets are on that there will be a strike which will last only a so-called 'hot minute.' And many believe the companies have been secretly getting together, since much in Ford's proposal was essentially the same as General Motors' responses to UAW demands.

This has been an issue- in the past, and the union has vigorously protested any attempt toward industry-wide bargaining. Each of the companies know that whatever Ford agrees to, the other three will have to face - and perhaps more.

The target concept was introduced in 1950 under the guidance of the late Walter P. Reuther, who developed the subsequent "flexibility approach" which was initiated later through adoption by UAW convention delegates. This method was used successfully to avoid spelling out the union's key demands, against which the companies would prepare in advance.

Ford Motor Company was chosen as the most logical pace-setter this year for several reasons. For one thing, Ford, which employs 14,000 UAW members in Canada and 155,000 in the United States, is the No. 2 auto maker. Ford reported record profits of $770 million for the first 6 months of this year, second only to General Motors' astounding record-breaking profits.

Chrysler reported profits of $155.1 million but had suffered tremendous losses, including those of its subsidiaries in Britain. American Motors was trailing badly.

The UAW has had two setbacks in areas of major importance to the union and is determined to correct them. One is the portion of the 1973 company-union agreement - approved by the union - which diverts ten cents an hour from the Cost of Living Allowance (COLA) to help pay for workers' fringe benefits. The other involved the Supplemental Unemployment Benefit (SUB) funds, which, combined with state unemployment compensation, provides laid-off workers with up to 95 percent of their take-home pay.

The massive layoffs during the 1974-75 recession broke the fund at both Chrysler and G.M. and created a panic situation when high seniority employees found that no funds were left when they applied for SUB.

However, the SUB fund at Ford managed to get through that recession without going bankrupt.

Since that unforgettable period, the union has been determined to build safeguards around the SUB funds. And Ford's failure to offer an increase in SUB contributions was a major factor in raising the UAW's ire.

"The fact that we have not had a problem at Ford doesn't mean we won't have a problem in the future," angrily declared UAW Vice President Ken Bannon, who is director of the union's Ford department.

UAW President Leonard Woodcock had set the tone earlier when he said: "Now that they (Ford) are the pattern setters, they have to negotiate SUB problems to take into account what happened at the other two companies."

Woodcock also said that Ford is well able to pay the cost of the union's package, including an increase in SUB benefits. This is one of the issues the union vows not to back away from. Another is the company's proposal that Ford workers begin to share the cost of health care, to which the UAW replied, "No way."

The company favors continuing the diversion from the COLA fund to help pay the cost of other benefits, but refused to add the present COLA to the base pay. It ignored the union's demand for additional days off with pay, which the UAW had substituted for its original proposal for a 30-hour week to provide more jobs.

Newly-hired employees would, under Ford's proposal, be paid $1 less than the current rate and given 25 cent raises each 13 weeks until after one full year, when they would get the full amount. New workers now get 45 cents an hour less than the full rate, which they receive after 12 weeks under the present contract.

The company also proposed that newly hired workers be given no health-care coverage for the first 90 days of employment. The turnover among new employees is high and costly, since many do not remain long enough to obtain seniority, which is 90 days. Three years ago the union made concessions in the area of pay for probationary workers, but further reductions are considered extremely unattractive.

Ford would require that a worker have a year of seniority in order to be eligible for bereavement pay, which allows three days off with pay when there is a death in the employee's immediate family. An employee is eligible for this benefit after 90 days.

The company offered pay raises up to 77 cents an hour over a three-year period -the increases would depend on the employee's job classification- and ignored the union's demands for additional days-off-with-pay to provide more jobs, and for pension supplements for retirees whose pension checks are being eaten up by inflation.

The union was even more angry over Ford's proposal that Ford workers start sharing the cost of health care. But the company said it is willing to give skilled tradesmen a premium raise, higher life insurance benefits and full medicare payments.

Several persons who have followed auto negotiations over the years say they do not believe Ford is really serious about those proposals, that Ford just threw a package on the table to get things started. But UAW negotiators say they are not taking anything for granted, and that "an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure."

The UAW has a record $175 million strike fund which, according to the union's financial experts, could withstand a 16-week strike against Ford. Last May's increase in strike benefits provides that a single union member would receive $40 a week, a married person $5 and one with a family $50.

But, in the reasoning of some observers, the fact that Ford would lose a great deal of money could lessen the possibility of a long strike. While Ford is idled, Chrysler, the No. 3 automaker, could move so far ahead that it might be difficult for Ford to catch up.

A union official reminded during a conversation last week that the other auto makers need not gloat over Ford's dilemma because they will also have to stand the test at the bargaining table. Collusion with Ford won't work, he said.

It was the Ford workers who pioneered the union's breakthrough on a pension program in 1949. But it was the 104-day Chrysler strike in 1950 that won the agreement for funded pensions. Ford and General Motors had to follow that lead and include the funded pension program in their contracts.

The union has maintained consistently that it has had to fight for every benefit it has won for its members. This year, as stated earlier, the auto negotiations are very crucial to the entire nation. Even auto workers who do not want a strike realize they may have to sacrifice to win the battle for greater job security and the creation of more jobs.