Following their recent success in the dispute  with the ‘Big 3’ US based car manufacturers (Ford, GM and Stellantis) the United Autoworkers Union strategic organising campaign aimed at recruiting and organising 150,000 non union autoworkers in over a dozen auto manufacturers in the USA has begun with workers at Honda, Hyundai and VW standing up against management intimidation by filing unfair labour practice claims  under US legislation.

The UAW says thousands of workers  inspired by success of the Big 3 campaign which was based on rolling ‘stand up strikes’ workers at at Honda in Indiana, Hyundai in Alabama, and Volkswagen in Tennessee are facing aggressive union busting campaigns,

“These companies are breaking the law in an attempt to get autoworkers to sit down and shut up instead of fighting for their fair share,” said UAW President Shawn Fain. “But these workers are showing management that they won’t be intimidated out of their right to speak up and organise for a better life. From Honda to Hyundai to Volkswagen and beyond, we’ve got their back. The auto industry’s record profits should mean record contracts for these workers, too.”

Fain met with thousands of non-union autoworkers on a Facebook Live broadcast recently where Honda workers reported being targeted by management for pro-union activity at the company’s plant in Greensburg, Indiana. Hundreds of workers at the facility have signed union cards.

At Volkswagen’s Chattanooga plant, the scene of previous union organising campaigns over 1,000 VW workers signed union cards in less than a week, and hundreds more continue to sign up. Management has harassed and threatened workers for talking about the union; confiscated and destroyed pro-union materials in the break room; attempted to intimidate and illegally silence pro-union workers; and has attempted to illegally prohibit workers from distributing union literature and discussing union issues in non-work areas on non-work time.

Volkswagen a German company which recognises union across the globe continues to make public claims of “official neutrality” while aggressively pushing an anti-union message in forced meetings and internal anti union literature.

At Hyundai’s Montgomery, Alabama plant, management has unlawfully confiscated, destroyed, and prohibited pro-union materials in non-work areas during non-work times. Hundreds of workers continue to sign up to win their union despite this illegal interference and intimidation.

Beverly McCall, a team member in engine assembly at the Hyundai plant, was in the parking lot passing out union leaflets on non-work time when a manager told her to stop. “The manager came up and told me you can’t be out here doing that,” said McCall. “I just kept right on doing what I was doing. We have every right to get the word out and they can’t stop us.” 

Among the companies the UAW say they will be targeting are  Toyota, Honda, Hyundai, Subaru, Nissan, Mazda, Volkswagen, Mercedes, BMW, Volvo,  Tesla, as well as startups Rivian and Lucid.

By Sarah Veale, Former Head of Equality and Employment Rights, TUC

After seventeen years of Tory rule, in 1997 the prospect of a Labour Government felt like emerging into sunlight after years spent in a dark, damp tunnel.

Manifesto promises that unions had campaigned for soon appeared on the legislative timetable – the National Minimum Wage, reinstatement of trade union recognition at GCHQ, adoption of the EU Social Chapter, which brought in new rights for part time workers and working time protection. All of these made a big difference to workers. By and large they were swallowed by the employers’ organisations. The size of Labour’s majority forced them to concede that there was clear public support for them.

But what of collective rights, rights for union members to recognition and collective bargaining, rights to individual representation by a union and the repeal of the Tory anti strike laws?

Commitments in the manifesto were there but hedged about and vague. Unions would be recognised, with statutory underpinning but only where there was majority support in the workplace. Collective bargaining following recognition would be on pay, hours and holidays but not training or equality. Workers could take a union “companion” into a formal disciplinary or grievance procedure. But nothing much on repealing the anti-strike laws. It was made clear to the TUC before the election that on these collective matters there would have to be discussions and agreement with the CBI.

Whereas of course it was usual to have discussions between Labour Governments, unions and employers, this time it appeared that agreement would have to be reached – in other words, in a situation where the TUC wanted reform and the CBI clearly didn’t, the CBI was getting a potential veto.

There followed hours and days of parallel lobbying and occasional tripartite meetings. Repeatedly, the TUC hammered out some kind of legislative architecture with Labour, only to find that the CBI had refused to accept it and to end up with an often messy and complicated compromise.

There are many examples of this in the Fairness at Work White Paper, that preceded the Employment Relations Bill of 1999. Applications for statutory recognition would be made to the Central Arbitration Committee (CAC), which would determine whether the union could proceed, then determine the “bargaining units”, the composition of which would have to be agreed by the CAC, who were given a duty to consider the business case.

The bargaining unit had to include a percentage of union members. This was changed in the Bill to include the union also having to demonstrate that it would be likely to win a ballot. The ballot would include a forty per cent turnout threshold plus a fifty per cent majority. (This formula was later applied to strike ballots, but never suggested by Labour for the Brexit referendum many years later, although that affected the entire population, rather than just a workplace).

Other parts of the Bill that were added at the behest of business were the exclusion of small businesses and the so-called mirror de-recognition procedures.

This pattern continued throughout the whole period of Labour rule. The TUC and the CBI (or increasingly the small business groups, such as the British Chambers of Commerce) asked for legislative changes, or objected to proposed legislative changes, and the Government came up with a compromise, sometimes after asking the TUC and CBI to try to reach an agreement.

Will it be different this time?

With the CBI recently hugely weakened by its internal problems, it may be that an incoming Labour Government will seek to bring the various employers’ groups together as appropriate to consider proposals for reform of employment and union rights. When it comes to sectoral collective bargaining the public sector employers would presumably be part of the dialogue, as well as private sector organisations to represent the contracted-out services.

Judging by the relationships already forming between the Opposition and various employers’ organisations, together with the messaging to unions about restraint and economic necessities, it is likely that the process of legislative change will essentially be similar to that that which went before.

It is also important to bear in mind that the economy is not going to be in the same relatively healthy state as it was in 1997. The Labour leader and shadow Chancellor have warned that expenditure will be tightly restricted. Unions will need to consider how to maximise opportunities in areas of the economy where there is to be investment, eg, green energy, while working to embed new methods of pay determination through new statutory collective arrangements.

At the same time, the promised improved individual rights for all workers, eg, the ban on zero hours contracts, will need a great deal of attention to secure maximum effectiveness. The TUC and affiliates will need to be closely involved in the design and the Parliamentary passage of the Employment Bill, both of which could be fraught with technical difficulties.

Employers will no doubt be involved in parallel lobbying and even with a large majority, Labour may err on the side of caution, as they did previously.

It is important therefore that unions reflect on the past when approaching relations with an incoming Labour Government.

What to watch out for

Now that the UK is no longer in the EU, formal social dialogue between unions and employers is no longer required in relation to EU employment Directives. It was never required for domestic legislation but was nonetheless often used. If it is to emerge under a future Labour government, for example, in relation to collective agreements at sectoral level, unions will need to secure from the outset an agreed mechanism for negotiating and enforcing the agreements.

Relations with the new Government in 1997 often resembled negotiations. The TUC was offered union recognition but was told that this would be all it would get in terms of trade union legislation. There would be no repeal of the Tory laws on industrial action. The laws restricting trade union activity that were introduced under successive Tory governments remained on the statute book – and are still there today.

It is important for unions, through the TUC, to privately decide which reforms and changes are the most important to the Movement. It is very unlikely that the TUC will get everything that it wants, so focussing on what is both necessary and achievable is crucial – and very challenging! It will also be important to keep up the public campaigning to maximise pressure on issues where legislation is not forthcoming.

In this context, keeping as close an eye as possible on the reactions and lobbying of employers is essential.

The Government may argue that not doing some things, eg, not repealing EU derived legislation under pressure from employers, counts as giving something to the unions – it can get very transactional at times.

The TUC will have to consider how important it is to them for the architecture of Government to change. It would no doubt be much better for employment relations and for workers and unions if the former Ministry for Labour, or some such department, were to be formed, taking in parts of the various Business departments and parts of the Department for Work and Pensions.

However, is this really a priority, given the huge pressures on an incoming Labour Government and the time that it would take up? Already the Labour Party is hinting that reform of the House of Lords and Regional Government will more likely be a second term priority. Will a Ministry or Department of Labour similarly be postponed and how much does this matter? On the other hand, if there is to be a new statutory system of collective bargaining at sectoral level, doesn’t this necessitate a Ministry for Labour?

When working with a Labour Government on proposed legislation, it is crucial to ensure that those involved understand how legislation is drafted, and how Parliament works. All sorts of details can be missed, for example, the title of the Bill. It must include broadly what will be in the Bill, so if trade union law is to be repealed as part of an Employment Bill, the title should provide specifically for that.

The Employment Relations Act 1999 put all the statutory recognition provisions into a Schedule, that was inserted by the Bill into the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. This could have been repealed very swiftly indeed in Parliament when the Tories came into power – although it never was, which might say something about how effective the legislation turned out to be in practice.

Other issues to watch are the commencement dates, the number of provisions that will be enacted by subsequent secondary legislation, any sunset clauses, exhaustive lists of those to whom it will apply, consequent repeals of older legislation and more besides. Unions should ask to see a draft Impact Assessment and draft clauses for the Bill.

Unions will want to campaign for full and speedy repeal of the Trade Union Act 2016 and the Minimum Service Level legislation, as promised by the Leader of the Opposition. Unions will also want  to include other reforms, such as the introduction of electronic balloting for all union ballots – which stands a good chance of being adopted – and repeal of the old Tory anti strike legislation – which is less likely to succeed but important to attempt.

Previous Governments, both Tory and Labour, have made a fetish of regulation. It has been elevated from a process to a principle. The Tories want less of it, as a principle, and Labour wants it to be better. Surely all that needs to be agreed is that doing regulation well, making sure that it is enforceable and ensuring that it addresses actual risks, should be the underpinning of good government. This could be achieved by training for civil servants and indeed MPs and peers and by moving the internal Better Regulation Executive, which is part of the civil service, out of the Business and Trade Department into the Cabinet Office.

The existing quasi-independent Regulatory Policy Committee (RPC) was set up in 2009, following on from various other iterations (Better Regulation Task Force/Commission/Committee). The TUC decided during the 2000s that it would involve itself in the various bodies and was successful in using them to gain some small regulatory improvements to TU and other legislation which had not previously been agreed.

Is there a need for a separate body to achieve this and is there a risk that if so, it will get in the way of policy objectives?

More recently, the TUC has been helped considerably by the RPC issuing “red lights” against proposed TU legislation which had defective Impact Assessments. But how would the TUC react to having a Labour Employment Bill, or parts of it, held up and “red lighted”?

Some of the legislation introduced by former Labour governments has proved to be very hard to enforce, including the statutory recognition legislation and the Agency Work regulations. It is important to look at putative legislation from the other end of the telescope. An initial question should be “Is it easy to enforce?”

The current system of taking breaches of employment rights to Employment Tribunals is cumbersome and expensive. It may not be a first order issue, but the TUC may want to consider whether there are better ways to enforce employment rights, especially where a claim has the potential to impact groups of workers.

In 1997/8 the new Labour Government added quite a lot of “extras” into the Employment Relations Bill, eg, rights for part time workers (derived from joining the Social Chapter of the EU). This can lead to hurried drafting and can distract from the main political objective of a Bill – although of course the rights themselves were very welcome and important.

In this context, although unions want changes to discrimination legislation, it may be unwise to try to add this into the first Employment Bill.

On issues such as discrimination, legislation generally goes wider than employment. Much equality legislation also covers the provision of services for example. For that reason, it is usually better to work with other organisations to achieve change. Although it is important for unions to be at the forefront of progressive changes to social issues, this does not mean leading them, especially where there may be differences of view within and between unions.

While arguing for employment and union rights it will help if the arguments are based on the improvements for productivity that have been shown to result from a happier workforce that has an independent collective voice.

There are some small but important reforms that are needed, for example, restoration of the duty on ACAS to promote collective bargaining.

Finally, successive Tory governments have removed TU representatives from the Boards of many regulatory bodies, even where the TUC has statutory representation rights. Where they have not removed them altogether, they have chosen people who were not nominated or supported by the TUC. This is unacceptable. Previous Labour Governments have been generously pluralistic, allowing Conservatives to take places on various public bodies. This caused problems on several occasions and should not be repeated.

This blog was first published by the Institute of Employment Rights and is re-published with the permission of Sarah Veale.

UAW President Shawn Fain leads union to victory with the Big 3 automakers in the USA.

The UAW has reached a historic tentative agreement with General Motors that paves the way for a just transition and wins record economic gains for autoworkers.  

This follows agreements reached with Ford and Stellantis.

The GM settlement along with agreements reached with Ford and Stellantis amounts to a massive win for the United Autoworkers whose campaign of strategic Stand Up Strikes by union members at the Big 3 US Auto manufacturers.  

US media outlets are describing the settlements and disputes with the Big 3 as a ‘big win’ for the United Autoworkers.

The GM agreement includes gains valued at more than four times the gains from the union’s 2019 contract. It provides more in base wage increases than GM workers have received in the past 22 years.  

The GM also brings into the master agreement all US Joint Venture battery manufacturing plants.

This represents a “leapfrog” in negotiations from GM, putting the company in front of others in terms of their offer to UAW, but then GM ended up being the last to come to a final agreement.

Batteries are an important win for UAW because in discussions over this strike, interviewers have repeatedly goaded UAW President Shawn Fain to  blame electric vehicles them for the problems facing the auto industries and UAW members.

Fain refused to take the bait insisting that the UAW is looking for a “just transition” to electric vehicles that ensures workers still get treated fairly as the industry is upended.

The agreement provides for 25% in base wage increases through April 2028, and will cumulatively raise the top wage by 33% compounded with estimated cost of living adjustment (COLA) to over $42 an hour. The starting wage will increase by 70% compounded with estimated COLA, to over $30 an hour. 

The GM agreement ends wage tiers that have divided the union. It will lift up those members who have been left behind and unify our membership for the fights ahead.  The deal also brings battery production workers into the Master Agreement. Both of these groups have been left out of the Master Agreement, and have been told they would never come in. 

Many thought GM would never put more money on the table for their hundreds of thousands of retirees. In this agreement, however, GM has agreed to make five payments of $500 to current retirees and surviving spouses, the first such payments in over 15 years. 

The agreement reinstates major benefits lost during the Great Recession, including Cost-of-Living Allowances and a three-year Wage Progression, as well as killing divisive wage tiers in the union. It improves retirement for current retirees, those workers with pensions, and those who have 401(k) plans. Like the other two, the GM deal includes a right to strike over plant closures. 

GM workers will return to work while the agreement goes through the ratification process, with the UAW National GM Council convening in Detroit to review the agreement.