| In the fast-evolving tableau of the American automotive scene, where electric vehicles (EVs) are becoming the main act, the United Auto Workers (UAW) union has endeavored to carve out a role for itself. Through a series of collective bargaining agreements with Ford, General Motors (GM), and Stellantis, the UAW is navigating the turbulent waters of labor relations amidst this technological tide.
A Bumpy Ride: Unionizing the EV Workforce One can't help but notice the UAW's endeavor to keep its footing as the ground shifts beneath the wheels of the traditional automotive industry. The agreement with Ford, bringing thousands of electric vehicle workers into the union fold with a proposed top pay rate of over $40 an hour, underscores the UAW's bid to stay relevant. This, however, falls short of the initial 40% pay raise ambition, a reality check in a terrain where every gain is hard-fought.
Revving Up Wages, but at What Cost? The agreements inked promise a wage increase, with all three auto companies agreeing to a 25% pay raise. On paper, these numbers rev up a hopeful narrative, but one might ponder the sustainability and the ripple effects of such hikes on the industry's cost structure and, eventually, the consumer.
Battery Plants: The New Battleground GM's concession to bring its battery plants under the union’s master agreement is touted as a landmark win for the UAW. Yet, it also hints at a protracted struggle as EV technology evolves and automakers grapple with the complexities of a changing labor landscape. The battle for union representation at these futuristic facilities is just a glimpse of the roadblocks ahead.
Broadening Horizons or Stretching Thin? The UAW’s aspirations to extend its influence beyond the Big Three and into the domain of smaller, non-union EV startups could be seen as an overstretch. While the union leadership hints at a larger playing field come 2028, the path is fraught with challenges, not least of which is the fast-evolving tech landscape that could outpace traditional labor structures.
Conclusion: A Drive with Many Turns The UAW's recent forays into collective bargaining amid the EV transition reflect a bid to stay in the driver's seat. Even before getting final ratification on their tentative agreements with the Big 3, the UAW is setting its sights on Tesla, with an eye towards other players like Rivian, Fisker, and Polestar. UAW President Shawn Fain has also said it is committed to organizing workforces at other carmakers like BMW and Honda with a goal of making negotiations in 2028 between the union and the "Big Five or Big Six. Toyota, for one, seems to have taken immediate notice, announcing increased wages for its factory workers — all of them non-unionized — after the UAW strikes at General Motors, Ford, and Stellantis culminated in pay hikes for unionized employees. Pro-union publication Labor Notes reported that raises at Toyota ranged from $2.94 per hour for production workers and $3.70 for skilled trades employees. This corresponds to top hourly rates of $34.80 for production and $43.20 for skilled trades. Under the new Ford agreement, those rates are $35.70 for production and $42.65 for skilled trades. The road ahead is anything but straight. As the automotive industry accelerates towards a greener future, the union's ability to adapt to new realities will be put to the test. The agreements with major automakers are but a pit stop in a long and uncertain journey, where the endgame is as elusive as ever. Amid the drive towards innovation and efficiency, the UAW’s quest for relevance in a changing labor landscape is a narrative that’s still unfolding. | | | The Trucking Industry Takes A Turn: Joint Employers And Autonomous Vehicles, Oh My by Kimberly Ricci
| | | The NLRB’s joint employer shuffle will soon impact an array of industries. At least it’s a headache that shouldn’t affect the ailing auto manufacturers as heavily as some businesses, but further down the line, the trucking industry is facing this hurdle and more. Let’s run down the current twin concerns for this industry that literally fuels our economy: The board’s new joint employer final rule goes into effect on Dec. 26 and has prompted worries of increased trucking costs due to workers who contract with multiple carriers. Concerns are running high over the NLRB’s broad definition of “essential terms and conditions of employment” that an employer has the contractual ability to control. To qualify as a joint employer, companies only need to share one term, including the following: compensation, supervision, hiring, scheduling, and so on. Are two carriers sharing even one of these terms? Yep, joint employers. As a result, carriers will undoubtedly be diving headfirst into contract-review mode, and trucking contracts frequently overlap with federal health and safety standards, too. So, there’s a lot of potential for getting caught up in a joint employer mess. If a jointly liable carrier is dealing with unfair labor practice charges or a unionized workplace, that “joy” will spread. Joint employers could even be dragged into union negotiations despite keeping their own workplaces union-free. Cue those rising costs, which will be yet another reason why it’s important to nip union activity in the bud everywhere before it takes root. Whew. Autonomous vehicles (AVs) are also causing a trucking tug-of-war:
California Gov. Gavin Newsom surprisingly vetoed a bipartisan bill that would have banned any AV truck over 10,000 pounds without a driver in the vehicle. The Teamsters were not pleased but did celebrate news of an investigation by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration into the safety of GM’s Cruise robotaxi line. Around 600 GM Cruise cars – with no steering wheels or brake pedals – were in operation as part of an in-testing AV robotaxi line. These cars have been involved in multiple high-profile accidents that allegedly caused grievous injuries in San Francisco and Austin. California’s DMV has suspended the Cruise deployment and the permit for its driverless testing. The Teamsters sprung into action while lobbying U.S. regulators against granting a Cruise safety exemption. The union also helped orchestrate an LA protest calling for action on AV taxis. Union officers also testified before lawmakers about this “direct threat to” jobs.
This dilemma has plenty to do with overall AI anxiety in the workplace, but it’s useful to note how unions are capitalizing upon workers’ fears for their own ends. Do they really care about workers losing jobs or more about their own dues-paying headcount? It’s not hard to figure out the answer to that question, but it’s also fair to say that, in this case, the AI in question might not be the greatest messenger. Perhaps the Teamsters are in the right here, but then there’s that saying: broken clocks, occasionally true… you know the drill. That’s unfortunate, but if businesses want the world to warm up to AI, robotaxis could use a reboot before showtime. | | | | The Joint-Employer Standard Shuffle: Which Businesses Are Most At Risk From The New Rule? by Kimberly Ricci | | | It’s a rough road out there for employers. High-profile union contract negotiations and significant strike activity are adding fuel to economic headwinds, and the NLRB continues to make unionization an all-around easier process, including with their recent Cemex decision. Now, the board has once again expanded the definition of “joint employer” to apply a broader meaning for labor relations purposes. This will also make it easier for unions to target franchises. As a result, an umbrella corporation that is found to be a joint employer must collectively bargain with a union that represents a franchise location. That’s not the only downside of the new standard taking effect on Dec. 26, so businesses will want to be prepared for what’s next. What is next? Hold on tight. Say goodbye to the 2020 hard-and-fast view of limiting joint-liability status to terms or conditions of employment where a business has “direct and immediate control.” The board’s new final rule (see also the fact sheet) holds that businesses can be considered joint employers if they co-determine or both have the contractual ability to control any essential job terms, i.e., compensating, supervising, hiring, firing, supervising, scheduling, and otherwise managing workers. A key qualifier, as well, is the right to control these terms, even if the employer never exercises that right. Crucially, umbrella corporations will now face increased liability, and franchisors can be held responsible for a franchisee’s unfair labor practices. It’s no wonder how McDonald’s warned that this rule could collapse its entire franchise model. The rule’s full effects will also reach further than franchises, including staffing firms and businesses that employ contract workers. An array of industries – food service, retail, manufacturing, construction, hospitality, transportation, tech, and so on – will be impacted. What can employers do? We’re sitting in gray territory ahead of potential challenges to the rule, but a few strategies could be useful:
Every business: Company A will want to use a fine-tooth comb to consider every outside business or agent that directly or indirectly has the right to control essential employment terms of Company A’s workers. If this seems like too much, you ain’t seen nothing yet… Franchisors: Businesses must review franchise agreements for instances where reserved rights of control exist. Franchisors should also not attempt to control any of these areas of employment other than to recommend standards that are necessary to maintain brand reputation. Direction on these areas should only be discussed with managerial employees. None of these guarantees, however, that franchisors won’t still be held liable for franchisee actions.
U.S. lawmakers have vowed to overturn the rule (the effort is a bipartisan one) for its hostile approach to small business, although even if that effort passes both chambers of Congress, it will be overturned by Biden. Yet all is not lost. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is considering litigation and argued that “it defies common sense” how a business can be liable for actions in “workplaces they don't own or control.” As well the International Franchise Association called the rule “overreaching and unworkable.” In other words, expect businesses and trade organizations to challenge the rule, but do not expect a quick resolution. | | | |
|
|
