Sounds good for the workers in the short term. My question is: does the UAW ever hassle management for designing products that each year fewer and fewer people want to buy? I don't know if its either appropriate or productive for a union to argue business strategy with management during wage/benefit negotiations, but if ever there ever was an industry that needs to refocus on it's core goals, it's the US auto industry. Further organizing a declining industry strikes me as making only marginal progress.

Nathan,

That's a very perceptive post. This is a good example of where unions act rationally in both the short- and the long-term interests of their membership.

Clearly, if the UAW had thought it prudent it could have organized the membership around a strike and, if it were successful in persuading people to walk out, brought the Big 3 to their knees. Given the JIT philosophy employed by the Big 3, they are unusually susceptible to a walkout.

The UAW did not do that, however. Moreover, it acted smartly, not stupidly or cowardly, in its contract demands. For the press to characterize the union's bargaining posture as defensive or reactionary is just so mistaken.

I think you missed it. The UAW deal is essentially the first phase of a massive negotiated buy-out of the increasingly aging workforce in the industry: a trade for continued pension/health support for real time wages. And the companies are released to downsize in a more or less regulated manner. The so called "neutrality" agreements are gimmes; they've had one in Vance for years, but despite years of trying, the Union simply hasnt been able to get the cards! And the two tier aint gonna help them organize anyone, especially in the South. Don't get me wrong, I support the deal, but it's by no means progressive. The Union simply didnt have much of a choice with the membership clamoring for protection of their health and pension bennies and the employers losing market share by the day. Everyone knew the Union had nowhere to go.

Cosimo-- I don't actually disagree that there are strong aspects of the deal turning the UAW into a nice retirement home for present members, which was my initial take on the deal as well. But I don't buy that the organizing agreements are gimmes-- the Dana agreement is new and the breakthrough at Mercedes could be crucial for organizing other transplants throughout the South.

The proof will be in the pudding and I've been critical of the failure of the UAW to be more aggressive in organizing, but I think this deal has positive breakthroughs for organizing that should not be undersold.

the federal government guarantees pension at a rate of 50 to 60 cents on the dollar,should a company goes bankrupt or disolve itself. somewhere it was written that if daimler were to disolve chrysler, daimler they would guarantee these pensions,this was supposedly agreed too at the time of merger. we are trying to determine if this is true or false.
with all the talk of daimler dumping chrysler this has become a great concern to it's retirees.