UAW: still an important role - Opinion & Analysis: Manufacturing - Brief Article

Automotive Industries, May, 2002 by Ron Harbour

With all of the new automotive manufacturing plants locating in the South these days, the common response I hear on this strategy is that it's a flight from the UAW.

There's no denying the influence of organized labor, but such decisions are far broader than just a labor issue. Ironically, many of these same companies helped start the labor movement. That's right, management started labor unions.

Before you think I fell off my chair and hit my head, let me explain. If you truly understand the history of organized labor in the auto industry, you realize its formation in the 1930's and 1940's was largely a reaction to the way people were being treated by the companies that employed them.

Workers had to endure difficult unsafe conditions. Ergonomics was a totally foreign concept, so workplace injuries were an everyday event. Most significant was the lack of respect given to hourly workers. It was a class society, and no one in management believed any hourly worker could contribute anything of substance.

The formation of the UAW was in response to this problem, as well as a belief that the type of work they were doing justified better pay.

Beyond those obvious reasons, I believe there are deeper sociological motivations. People like to belong to social groups. We are fans of sports teams. We join clubs of all kinds. We wear hats and shirts displaying loyalty to our chosen groups. We relate to people who share our lives, like those we work with 40 or more hours per week.

The auto companies were not meeting these needs. The UAW gave them that sense of belonging. The OEMs made them only feel like a necessary evil.

All autoworkers, from the president to the line worker, want to be proud of their company and the product they make. But it was hard to do when that company treated you so poorly.

So why have labor unions been unable to organize employees at most of the new plants in North America over the last 10-20 years? Because these companies did what their competitors didn't do - they made all employees valued, contributing, respected members of their organization.

These employees feel they are apart of the company. Their identity comes from belonging to the company and they don't feel a need to belong ton union to fill avoid that isn't there.

This isn't lost on the companies that are organized. I have seen more change in the last decade among the traditional Big Three than ever before. The common denominator among the best plants is the active involvement of the workforce and dramatically changed environment in which they work.

I recently took some relatives from California on a tour of an American car assembly plant and they were shocked at how clean, well lit and safe it was. The people were so friendly along the line -- it completely changed their whole perception of an auto plant.

In the best plants, I take tours with the union shop chairman and if they don't reveal it, I would have trouble knowing the difference between him or the plant manager. The knowledge of the plant, the business and what needs to be done to be competitive is equally strong.

Many believe that companies represented by unions can't be competitive in the long run. I'm not sure that's true. But both companies and their unions are finding they may have to redefine their roles in the workplace.

What companies and unions must realize is that fighting each other is only going to help them lose faster to their competition. Unions cannot negotiate job security. Only competitiveness can ensure jobs, and customers will have the final say.

You can't keep plants open making vehicles no one wants to buy. Competitive plants may employ fewer workers, but strong companies will grow and have more plants and thereby more jobs and more secure jobs.

RON HARBOUR is president of Harbour and Associates, manufacturing consultants in Troy, Mich. www.harbourinc.com