So-Called “Work Rules” are probably the most poisonous effect of the unionization of America’s manufacturing base. But perhaps there is hope in Trenton, Michigan, where a UAW assembly plant has agreed to ease the work rules and restrictions in hopes of having a new plant built there in 2011.
The new rules would move Trenton to a team-based structure where workers can do a wide range of jobs. The new rules would eliminate all but two classes of workers: a technical specialist and a production specialist. Union contracts traditionally have several classes of workers that limit the type of work certain workers can perform.
For those unfamiliar with “work rules,” here is a definition:
a set of rules, usually established by one or more unions in an agreement with management, specifying the tasks to be done by each employee
In short, they are a positive expression of your work duties. As an employee, you are not required to, and generally cannot even be asked to do anything that is not expressly required of your position. Arguably, if the mechanic calls in sick, and your lathe stops working — even if you know how to fix it you are typically not allowed to, doing so would “deprive the mechanic of his job.” Instead, you get paid to sit next to an idle machine all day. In the event that you do fix it, the mechanic who called in sick will likely get paid for the job that you did.
Of course, the consequence is a terribly inflexible workforce. And inflexible equates to inefficient. And inefficient workers lead to bankruptcy. It requires no great minds to realize the severe implications of such policies: rigid workforces who cannot or will not do anything more than the absolute minimum required of them. Such an environment doesn’t foster innovation, creativity, or efficiency – hallmarks of successful businesses everywhere.
“There is (sic) no negotiations anymore,” Pacheco said. “They (the UAW) are told what to do and they do it.” Although I’d say it certainly is a “negotiation,” the UAW was given the option of flexible work-rules with the possibility of a new plant being built in 5 years, and they took it. Regardless, when your back is against the wall, you’ve gotta bend to some demands. If it was fair for the UAW to shut down General Motors in 1989, then it’s fair for the automakers to say to the UAW today, “We can no longer afford to play this game. We cannot afford to idle our plants and pay the workers for not producing. We can no longer afford to pay you for being incompetent yet secure, if it is security you desire, we’ll build you another plant and we’ll continue to accept ‘closed shop’ practices, but you’ve got to give a little, too.”
The UAW would be wise to understand that “negotiations” work both ways.
