Could've sworn I wrote my post in English...maybe it was some ancient Turkish: "...it allows for the hiring of lower-cost replacements
in what will remain union jobs."
A "bargaining unit" is composed of jobs which fall under a union's certified right to represent the workers holding those jobs. In essence, it is the JOBS which are unionized, not the people. Depending on the provisions of the union contract, a person taking one of those jobs IS REQUIRED to become and remain a union member (a so-called "closed shop"), has the CHOICE of not joining the union (an "open shop"), or may be required to pay a fee equal to the union's per person administrative costs in providing representation while still having the CHOICE of not becoming a member (a "modified open shop").
The Big 3 have closed shops...any person taking the job will have to become a member unless they are employed in a Right to Work state, such as Arizona.
Replacements may be hired at entry-level wage rates (there are likely ranges of wage rates for these jobs, with higher rates being paid for seniority and/or experience), they may not be entitled to full benfits during an introductory period, and/or they may not receive the same level of benfits after they become full-time due to a multi-tiered benefit system...all of which can lead to much lower labor costs.
Finally, since this involves the terms and conditions of employment for bargaining unit jobs, all of the offered buyout terms had to have been negotiated with the UAW.
Thus, you drew a conclusion based upon a media article which was assolutely wrong and then started a thread which makes it appear that GM is going non-union, which it is not.
I hope this helps in your upcoming Labor Law Newsletter publication series.
Threaded Mode
