2004 Chrysler Crossfire Coupe 2-door 3.2l on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Here's what the UAW will be angling for in next year's contract negotiations

The United Auto Workers union is about to enter a new round of negotiations with the Detroit Three automakers, and this time, the focus is on the end of the two-tier wage system. Introduced in 2007, the two-tier wage system was enacted to allow General Motors, Ford and Chrysler to categorize its hourly employees under two categories: Tier 1 for veteran employees with full rights and benefits, and Tier 2 for short-term or entry-level employees compensated under a different schedule. The idea was that the system would permit the automakers to invest more in their plants and hire new employees as part of their respective recovery plans without being saddled with all the costs associated with hiring full-time employees. Now that the automakers are (more or less) back on their proverbial feet, however, the UAW wants to see an end to the two-tier system, and will likely make that a center-point of its negotiations next year to replace the current arrangement that is scheduled to end in September 2015. Not all members of the UAW will necessarily be interested in ending the two-tier system, however. According to The Detroit News, some Tier 1 workers may be more interested in negotiating a raise in their hourly rate – something which they haven't received in almost a decade. Tier 2 workers, meanwhile, may be more motivated to keep the tiered system in place, as their arrangement includes provisions for profit-sharing payments that have seen the automakers pay out billions to so-called short-term employees in lump-sum payments. Reconciling the two competing demands from two categories of union members and presenting a united front in negotiations may prove the biggest challenge for the UAW's new president, Dennis Williams. And with the right to strike – something which was suspended during the last round of negotiations in 2011 – the union has a bigger bargaining chip in its pocket.

Canada bailed out GM, Chrysler without really knowing what they were getting into

The Auditor General of Canada recently issued a report that makes at least one thing clear: it doesn't know how effective Canadian government loans given to General Motors and Chrysler in 2009 were in ensuring the viability of both companies. That year, the Canadian and Ontario governments dished out $10.8 billion CAD ($9.6B US) to GM and $2.9 billion CAD ($2.6B US) to Chrysler, but hadn't yet sorted out precisely how the funds were to be used before disbursing them. This happened in spite of the fact that, according to a piece in Bloomberg, the loans weren't meant to be handed out until authorities were clear on the manufacturers' plans for reorganization. In fact, federal officials hadn't finished establishing the concessions made by all the involved parties, the pension liabilities, nor the long-term soundness of the automakers' financial positions. On top of that, apparently it didn't keep close tabs on the money after loaning it: the report says that $1B CAD should have been applied to GM Canada pension plans but was instead given to GM to use. Chrysler repaid $1.7 billion, while GM handed back $3.8 billion and Bloomberg believes the feds in Ottawa still own 110 million shares of The General, which, at the stock price as of writing, would be good for another $3.9 billion. Those were mad, bad days, though, and we're not sure what point the report serves, other than to say, "Oh, by the way...." News Source: BloombergImage Credit: Bill Pugliano / Getty Images Government/Legal Chrysler GM bailout

Automakers want to stop the EPA's fuel economy rules change, and why that's a shortsighted move

With a Trump Administration looming, the EPA moved quickly after the election to propose finalizing future fuel economy rules last week. The auto industry doesn't like that (surprise), and has started making moves to stop the EPA. Ford CEO Mark Fields said he wanted to lobby Trump to lower the standards, and now the Auto Alliance, a manufacturer group, is saying it will join the fight against cleaner cars. The Alliance represents 12 automakers: BMW, Fiat Chrysler, Ford, GM, Jaguar Land Rover, Mazda, Mercedes-Benz, Mitsubishi, Porsche, Toyota, VW, and Volvo. Gloria Bergquist, a spokesperson for the Alliance, told Automotive News that the "EPA's sudden and controversial move to propose auto regulations eight months early - even after Congress warned agencies about taking such steps while political appointees were packing their bags - calls out for congressional action to pause this rulemaking until a thoughtful policy review can occur." The EPA was going to consider public comments through April 2017, but then said it would move the deadline to the end of December. That means that it can finalize the rules before President Obama leaves office. The director of public affairs for the Consumer Federation of America, Jack Gillis, said on a conference call with reporters last week when the EPA originally announced its decision that it is unlikely that President Trump will be able to roll back these changes. Gillis also said on the same call that any attempt by the automakers to prevent these changes would be history repeating itself. "These are the same companies that fought airbags, and now promoting the fact that every car has multiple airbags," he said. "These are the same companies that fought the crash-test program, and now are promoting the crash-test ratings published by the government. So, it's clear that they're misperceiving the needs of the American consumer." There are more reasons the Allliance's pushback is flawed. Carol Lee Rawn, the transportation program director for Ceres, said on that call that the automotive industry is a global one, and many automakers are moving to global platforms to help them meet strict fuel economy rules around the world.