Stakes are huge in strike against General Motors

The Mahoning Valley has an enormous stake in the United Auto Workers strike against General Motors.

Even in its much smaller configuration, the GM Lordstown plant is an economic anchor for the Valley. In addition to about 4,000 hourly and salaried workers at the plant, the disposal income of thousands of GM and Delphi retirees fuel the local economy. Not to mention thousands of satellite jobs created by the assembly and fabricating plants.

Obviously, it is in the best interests of the active employees and the retirees that an agreement is reached that provides for job security and preservation of pensions and health benefits. Obviously, it is in the interest of the company to reach an agreement that will allow it to continue to produce automobiles in the United States and to return to long-term profitability.

It is difficult to see how a strike helps either side reach those goals. As UAW President Ron Gettelfinger said during a press conference Monday, no one wins in a strike.

We might add, though, that no area of the nation is likely to lose more than ours does if GM does not make a commitment to maintaining domestic auto production.

Lordstown focus

Last week, Automotive News reported that plants with the most to lose were Lordstown; Spring Hill., Tenn.; and Kansas City, Kan., because they are scheduled to be losing the vehicles they produce.

Production of the Chevrolet Cobalt and Pontiac G5 are scheduled in Lordstown only through June 2009.

Lordstown’s product was also mentioned Monday by the Associated Press, which reported that failure to reach an agreement on job security issues was the cause of Monday’s walkout. Specifically, AP reported, the union wanted GM to promise that future cars and trucks such as the replacement for the Chevrolet Cobalt small car or the next generation Chevrolet Volt plug-in electric car, will be built at U.S. plants.

Domestic small-car production is especially endangered because low profit margins on those vehicles encourage companies to look at foreign sites, where costs are lower.

A common expression by striking workers Monday was that the strike was about “preserving the American middle class.”

GM just had three quarters of modest profits after two years of massive losses. It has eliminated more than 150,000 UAW jobs the last two years with buyout packages that cost billions and is still struggling to extricate itself from its obligations to Delphi without taking down what’s left of Delphi in the process.

Not that easy

We should all wish that all it would take to preserve the middle class is a strike against an American auto company that is struggling to survive almost as hard as the middle class is.

But protecting U.S. market share and containing costs to preserve domestic production are creatures of Washington policy as much as corporate policy. Free trade is not necessarily fair trade. If foreign-made cars are imported into the United States at tariff rates far below those placed on U.S.-made exports, that’s decidedly unfair trade. If U.S. automakers pay more for health insurance for their workers than for the steel used to make cars, that’s a reflection of a health care crisis that has to be addressed in Washington, not Detroit.

The best that can be hoped for now is that when union and company negotiators return to the table this morning they will be able to find new common ground.

The last nationwide strike against General Motors was 37 years ago. It was a much more dominant automaker then than it is now. Toyota was only a speck in its rearview mirror, but that speck was larger than it appeared.

Today, Toyota has pulled alongside GM, but there are other specks in the mirror, many approaching faster than the company or its workers might want to acknowledge.

The sooner the strike ends, the faster GM and its employees will be able to work together to stay ahead of the competition.