Factories and Manufacturing

More stories

  • 113 Shares189 Views

    in Economy

    U.A.W. and Ford Negotiators Reach Accord on Contract Terms

    by

    The deal, subject to approval by union members, could ease the way for deals with General Motors and Stellantis and end a growing wave of walkouts.Negotiators for the United Automobile Workers and Ford Motor have agreed on terms of a new four-year labor contract, people briefed on the talks said Wednesday, nearly six weeks after the union began a growing wave of walkouts against the three Detroit automakers.The deal includes a roughly 25 percent pay increase over four years, those people said. Any agreement would be subject to the approval of the U.A.W. council that oversees relations with Ford, and then ratification by the company’s union workers.The union continues to negotiate with General Motors and Stellantis, whose brands include Chrysler, Jeep and Ram.Two weeks ago — when it said it had reached the limit of what it could afford without hurting its business — Ford offered to increase wages 23 percent, adjust pay in response to inflation and cut the time for new hires to rise to the top wage, to four years from eight. The other companies have made similar offers.But the U.A.W. and its president, Shawn Fain, have pressed for greater concessions, ratcheting up the walkouts and aiming them at factories producing some of the automakers’ most profitable models.Altogether, about 45,000 workers at Ford, G.M. and Stellantis are on strike across the country, including 8,700 workers at Ford’s Kentucky truck plant in Louisville, the company’s largest, and almost 10,000 others at Ford factories in Illinois and Michigan.The tentative deal with Ford could increase pressure on the other companies to reach an agreement with the union. In the past, once the union reached a deal with one automaker, tentative agreements with the others quickly followed. But that history may not be as relevant now because the U.A.W. had never struck all three companies simultaneously until this year.The companies are investing billions in a transition to battery-powered vehicles, which they say makes it harder for them to pay substantially higher wages. Last week, Ford’s executive chairman, William C. Ford Jr., said the union’s demands risked damaging the ability of Detroit automakers to compete against nonunion companies like Tesla and foreign rivals.“Toyota, Honda, Tesla and the others are loving the strike, because they know the longer it goes on, the better it is for them,” he said. “They will win, and all of us will lose.”The U.A.W. makes a different case: that success in its contract battle with the Big Three will give it momentum to organize autoworkers at other companies as well.The U.A.W. began its walkouts when the companies’ union contracts expired in mid-September. It won immediate support from President Biden, who called on the automakers to “ensure record corporate profits mean record contracts” and briefly joined workers on a picket line at a G.M. plant near Detroit late last month.The union initially demanded a 40 percent wage increase over four years — an amount that union officials have said matches the raises the top executives at the three companies have received over the last four years. Those raises are also meant to compensate for more modest increases the autoworkers received in recent years and concessions the union made to the companies beginning in 2007.In addition, the union has called for an end to a system that pays new hires just over half of the top wage of $32 an hour. It has been seeking cost-of-living adjustments that would nudge wages higher to compensate for inflation. And it wants a reinstatement of pensions for all workers, improved retiree benefits and shorter work hours.G.M. and Stellantis faced the most recent escalation of the U.A.W. walkouts when the union called out 6,800 workers at a large Ram pickup truck plant in Michigan on Monday and 5,000 workers at a G.M. plant in Arlington, Texas, that makes large sport utility vehicles including the Chevrolet Tahoe, the GMC Yukon and the Cadillac Escalade.On Tuesday, G.M. reported a third-quarter profit of $3.1 billion, a 7 percent decline from the same period last year, owing in part to the ongoing strike. Ford is scheduled to announce its third-quarter earnings on Thursday. More

  • 175 Shares119 Views

    in Economy

    A Push for Tech Hubs in Overlooked Places Picks 31 to Vie for Money

    by

    A new federal program will be a test of whether spreading funds outside of big cities will result in economic gains, or in inefficiencies.The Biden administration said on Monday that it had chosen 31 regions as potential recipients of federal money that would seek to fund innovation in parts of the country that government investment overlooked in the past.The announcement was the first phase of a program that aims to establish so-called tech hubs around the country across a variety of cutting-edge industries, like quantum computing, precision medicine and clean energy. In the coming months, the regions will compete for a share of $500 million, with roughly five to 10 of the projects receiving up to about $75 million each, the administration said.The program will test a central idea of a bipartisan bill that lawmakers passed last year: that science and technology funding should not just be concentrated in Silicon Valley and a few thriving coastal regions but flow to parts of the country that are less populated or have historically received less government funding.Proponents of the program say these investments can tap into pools of workers and economic resources that are not reaching their full potential, and improve the American economy as well as its technological abilities.But it remains to be seen if dispatching money to more remote places, which struggle with issues like an outflow of young workers, will ultimately be the most efficient way to use government funding to promote technological gains.The 31 finalists were chosen from nearly 400 applicants, the Commerce Department said. They include proposals to manufacture semiconductors in New York and Oregon, design autonomous systems for transportation and agriculture in Oklahoma, research biotechnology in Indiana and process critical minerals in Missouri.In Washington on Monday, President Biden said these tech hubs would bring together private industry, educational institutions, state and local governments, tribes, and organized labor to produce “transformational” research.“We’re doing this from coast to coast, and in the heartland and red states and blue states, small towns, cities of all sizes,” Mr. Biden added. “All this is part of my strategy to invest in America and invest in Americans.”Senator Chuck Schumer of New York, the majority leader, said in an interview on Monday that the tech hub program, which he had devised with Senator Todd Young, an Indiana Republican, had helped to secure bipartisan support for the CHIPS and Science Act last year.The legislation included $200 billion for basic scientific research, and more than $75 billion in grants and tax credits for semiconductor companies. It aimed to lower the country’s dependence on foreign manufacturers of computer chips and other critical technology.Mr. Schumer said “it was a very big selling point” for the overall bill that the funding was not just going to “three or four cities in blue states.”“There was such divisiveness in the country, the coasts and non-coasts, and a lot of it was because all these new tech and high-end industries were locating on the coasts,” he said. “And so we crafted the tech hub program to be spread throughout the middle of America.”Mr. Schumer was touring Buffalo, Rochester and Syracuse on Monday to celebrate the inclusion of two New York proposals, one focused on semiconductor manufacturing and the other on battery technology.“There’s a lot of talent here that’s not used,” he added.Mark Muro, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution’s Metropolitan Policy Program, described the tech hub program as “a grand experiment” in industrial policy.Mr. Muro said the United States had seen the incredible strength of concentrating technology investments in a few key places like Silicon Valley, where companies in related businesses can benefit by clustering together. But those investment patterns have also resulted in tremendous imbalances in the country’s economy, where “only a few places are truly prospering and much talent and much innovation is left on the table,” he said.“This is a whole different map,” Mr. Muro said, adding, “I think we need to make some experiments and some of them will probably be great investments.”The announcements tried to balance several competing goals of the tech hubs, including whether to invest in as many regions as possible — or whether to concentrate spending in a few areas in hopes of engineering radical economic improvement in those areas. They also reflected the high interest in the program from regional officials and their representatives in Congress.The administration is also trying to do as much as possible with initial funding for the program that remains well below the maximum levels lawmakers set in the CHIPS bill. While that bill authorized Congress to fund a variety of programs, lawmakers still need to greenlight actual money for many of the tech hub investments, as well as other programs.Given those financial constraints, some supporters of the program said on Monday that they hoped administration officials would ultimately focus most of the money on a small set of the announced hubs. Ideally, “you’d be extremely narrow about who gets funding,” said John Lettieri, president and chief executive of the Economic Innovation Group, a Washington think tank. “The more narrow the better.”The later round of funding announcements, he added, “is where we have to be pretty ruthless about shielding the process from politics as much as possible.”Madeleine Ngo More

  • 125 Shares119 Views

    in Economy

    Bill Ford Says U.A.W. Strike Is Helping Tesla and Toyota

    by

    Mr. Ford, the executive chairman of Ford Motor, said nonunion automakers would make gains against Michigan automakers because of strikes by the United Automobile Workers union.The monthlong strike by the United Automobile Workers and the union’s demands for substantial pay and benefits increases risk damaging the U.S. auto industry, hurting its ability to compete against nonunion foreign rivals, the executive chairman of Ford Motor said on Monday.The fight should not be seen as the U.A.W. against Ford, or its crosstown rivals, General Motors and Stellantis, said William C. Ford Jr., the great-grandson of the company’s founder Henry Ford, noting that at times U.A.W. officials have referred to the automakers as the union’s “enemy.”“It should be Ford and the U.A.W. against Toyota, Honda, Tesla and all the Chinese companies that want to enter our home market,” Mr. Ford said at the company’s Rouge plant in Dearborn, Mich.“Toyota, Honda, Tesla and the others are loving the strike, because they know the longer it goes on, the better it is for them,” the executive chairman said. “They will win, and all of us will lose.”Mr. Ford’s remarks alluded to a period several decades ago when the U.A.W. won increasingly rich contracts that were later seen by many industry experts as having hobbled the three Michigan automakers in the face of competition from Japanese and European carmakers. Ford came to the brink of collapse, and G.M. and Chrysler — now part of Stellantis — had to seek bankruptcy protection after the 2008 financial crisis.“Ford’s ability to invest in the future isn’t just a talking point,” Mr. Ford said. “It is the absolute lifeblood of our company. And if we lose it, we will lose to the competition. Many jobs will be lost.”In a statement, the U.A.W. president, Shawn Fain, said Mr. Ford should “stop playing games” and meet the union’s demands, or “we’ll close the Rouge for him.” Mr. Fain added that the U.A.W. was not fighting the company but “corporate greed.”“If Ford wants to be the all-American auto company, they can pay all-American wages and benefits,” Mr. Fain said. “Workers at Tesla, Toyota, Honda and others are not the enemy — they’re the U.A.W. members of the future.”Ford, G.M. and Stellantis have been negotiating new labor contracts with the U.A.W. since July. Over the past month, the union has called on workers at a few plants to go on strike. The action has idled three Ford plants, two G.M. factories and one Stellantis plant. Workers at 38 G.M. and Stellantis spare-parts warehouses are also on strike.The strategy is intended to increase pressure on the companies to meet the union’s demands for significantly higher wages, shorter working hours and expanded pensions, and to end a system that pays new hires just over half of the top U.A.W. wage of $32 an hour.The companies have offered wage increases of more than 20 percent over the next four years and certain other measures in line with the union’s demands, but the U.A.W. is pressing for greater concessions.Last week, the union called for a strike by 8,700 workers at Ford’s Kentucky truck plant in Louisville, the company’s largest.Ford executives said last week that the company had made a record offer to the union and that sweetening the deal would hurt the automaker’s ability to invest in electric vehicles and other new models and technologies.Mr. Ford, who has had a role in every round of negotiations with the U.A.W. since 1982, said the talks had reached “a crossroads” and warned that labor contracts that burdened the automakers with heavy costs could affect the U.S. economy.“The price of failure should be clear to everyone,” he said. “Let’s come together and reach an agreement, so we can take the fight to the real competition.” More

  • 125 Shares109 Views

    in Economy

    Ford Says It Won’t Raise Its Contract Offer to U.A.W.

    by

    The company said it had reached the limit of what it could offer to the United Automobile Workers union, which has expanded its strike to Ford’s largest plant.Ford Motor said on Thursday that it could not improve its contract offer to the United Automobile Workers union without hurting its business and its ability to invest in electric vehicles.The automaker also said the union’s decision to expand its strike to Ford’s largest factory, the Kentucky Truck Plant, would probably hurt workers at other factories and lead to layoffs across the auto industry.“We are very clear,” Kumar Galhotra, president of the Ford division that makes combustion engine vehicles, said in a conference call with reporters. “We are at the limit. Any more will stretch our ability to invest in the business.”The U.A.W. is negotiating new labor contracts with Ford, General Motors and Stellantis, the parent of Chrysler and Jeep. The union’s members have struck selected plants and parts warehouses owned by the three companies. On Wednesday, its talks with Ford broke down, and the union responded by calling on the 8,700 U.A.W. workers at Kentucky Truck to walk off the job.“If the companies are not going to come to the table and take care of the membership’s needs, then we will react,” the U.A.W. president, Shawn Fain, said in an online video after the strike in Kentucky was announced.Production at the plant, in Louisville, stopped Wednesday evening. The factory makes the Super Duty versions of Ford’s F-Series pickup trucks as well as the Ford Expedition and Lincoln Navigator full-size sport utility vehicles.On its own, the Kentucky Truck plant generates about 16 percent of Ford’s revenue. On a typical day, a new vehicle rolls off its assembly line every 37 seconds.The plant is so large that a prolonged idling will probably cause stoppages and layoffs at up to 13 other Ford plants that make engines, transmission and axles. Factories owned by the 600 suppliers that provide parts for Ford could also have to lay off workers, Mr. Galhotra said.“This goes way beyond just hitting Ford’s profits,” he said.The U.A.W. is seeking a substantial increase in wages as well as a cost-of-living provision, an expanded retirement plan, improved retiree health care benefits and job security as automakers make the transition to producing electric vehicles. It also wants to end a system in which new hires start at a little more than half the top U.A.W. wage of $32 an hour.Ford has offered to increase wages 23 percent over four years, adjust wages in response to inflation and cut the time for new hires to rise to the top wage, to four years from eight.The U.A.W. went into a negotiating session on Wednesday expecting Ford to sweeten its offer, according to the union. Mr. Galhotra said Ford was prepared to discuss adjustments to its existing offer but not to make a completely new proposal.The differences became clear quickly, and Mr. Fain instructed Ford workers at the Kentucky plant to strike, union and company officials said. Mr. Fain and other union negotiators left the meeting minutes after it started.“Unfortunately, we had to escalate our action,” Mr. Fain said in his video. “We came here today to get another offer from Ford, and they gave us the same exact offer as two weeks ago.” More

  • 75 Shares169 Views

    in Economy

    G.M. Reaches Deal With Canadian Union

    by

    General Motors and the Unifor union reached an agreement hours after more than 4,000 workers went on strike on Tuesday.General Motors and a Canadian union, Unifor, reached a tentative deal on a new contract on Tuesday, ending a short-lived strike by more than 4,000 workers that began earlier in the day.The deal includes the same raises and other terms that Unifor had agreed to last month with Ford Motor, including a 20 percent wage increase for production workers over three years and a 25 percent raise for skilled trades workers.The contract must be ratified by Unifor members before it can take effect. Workers at Ford’s Canadian operation have ratified their contract.Work was expected to restart at the three G.M. plants and distribution centers that were struck on Tuesday afternoon.This agreement “recognizes the many contributions of our represented team members with significant increases in wages, benefits and job security while building on G.M.’s historic investments in Canadian manufacturing,” the company said in a statement.The tentative deal was reached after nearly 4,300 Unifor workers walked off the job at midnight on Tuesday at three locations in Ontario: a vehicle assembly plant and stamping site in Oshawa that makes the company’s popular Chevrolet Silverado pickup truck; a plant in St. Catharines that supplies engines and transmissions to G.M. factories around the world; and a parts distribution center in Woodstock.Unifor had been pushing G.M. to accept the same terms as those in the Ford contract, a practice known as pattern bargaining that the automakers and their unions have long used.“When faced with the shutdown of these key facilities, General Motors had no choice but to get serious at the table and agree to the pattern,” Unifor’s national president, Lana Payne, said in a statement. “The solidarity of our members has led to a comprehensive tentative agreement that follows the pattern set at Ford Motor Company to the letter.”Ford’s agreement with Unifor, in addition to wage increases, provides productivity bonuses, higher entry-level wages, improved pensions, cost-of-living allowances and other improvements. G.M. also agreed to convert all temporary workers into permanent employees over the life of the agreement.Workers at G.M.’s CAMI Assembly Plant in Ingersoll, Ontario, are covered by a separate contract and did not go on strike on Tuesday. Unifor represents 315,000 workers in a variety of industries.In the United States, the United Automobile Workers union is on strike at a G.M. pickup truck plant in Missouri, a sport-utility plant in Michigan and parts warehouses around the country. The U.A.W. has also struck two Ford plants. At Stellantis, the maker of Chrysler, Jeep and Ram vehicles, union members have struck one factory and 20 parts warehouses.Altogether, about 25,000 of the 150,000 U.A.W. members employed by the three automakers are on strike. Like Unifor, the U.A.W. is seeking a substantial increase in wages, pensions for a greater number of workers, and a shorter time to move up to the top wage level.Talks began in July, and the strike began on Sept. 15, when the current labor contracts with the companies expired. More

  • 138 Shares119 Views

    in Economy

    U.S. Scales Back Hopes for Ambitious Climate Trade Deal With Europe

    by

    A negotiating deadline is quickly approaching, and the United States has lowered its expectations for a groundbreaking trade deal.For the past two years, the United States and the European Union have been working toward a deal that would encourage trade in steel and aluminum made in more environmentally friendly ways to combat climate change.But longstanding differences on the way governments should treat trade and regulation have cropped up, preventing the allies from coming to a compromise. With an Oct. 31 deadline to reach a deal approaching, the United States has significantly narrowed its ambition for the pact, at least in its initial iteration.The outcome has been deeply disappointing for American negotiators, including Katherine Tai, the United States trade representative in charge of the talks, according to people familiar with the negotiations. In speeches last year, Ms. Tai described the potential deal as “historic” and “a paradigm-shifting model” that would reduce carbon produced by heavy industries, while also limiting unfair trade competition from countries like China, which has been pumping out cheap steel that is not manufactured in an environmentally friendly way.U.S. negotiators had envisioned setting up a club of nations committed to cleaner production, initially with Europe and later with other countries, that together would act to block dirtier steel, aluminum and other products from their markets. Steel and aluminum production is incredibly carbon intensive, with the industries together accounting for about a 10th of global carbon emissions. But Europeans raised a variety of objections to the approach, including arguing that it violated global trade rules for treating countries fairly.Now, the Biden administration is trying to salvage the talks by pushing for a narrower deal in the coming weeks. The more limited U.S. proposal currently includes an immediate agreement for countries to take steps to combat a flood of dirtier steel from countries like China, as well as a commitment to keep negotiating in the coming years for a framework that would discourage trade in products made with more carbon emissions, the people familiar with the negotiations said.Katherine Tai, the U.S. trade representative, has been seeking a far-reaching deal with the Europe Union.Pete Marovich for The New York TimesThe agreement is expected to be a point of discussion at a summit planned for Oct. 20, when President Biden will meet the president of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, at the White House.The stakes are high: The United States is poised to bring back Trump-era tariffs on European steel and aluminum on Jan. 1, unless the sides reach an agreement, or American negotiators issue a special reprieve. Mr. Biden paused those tariffs for two years in 2021, when negotiations began with Europe.Restoring cooperation between the United States and Europe after years of rocky relations during the Trump presidency has been a key objective for Mr. Biden and his deputies.But the talks faced a basic obstacle: the United States and Europe have fundamental differences in how they are addressing climate change, trade and competition from China, and neither side is yet willing to significantly depart from its own policies.The Biden administration has largely dispensed with traditional trade negotiations focused on opening international markets, arguing that past trade deals that lowered global barriers to trade helped multinational corporations, rather than American workers, while supercharging the Chinese economy.Instead, the Biden administration has embraced tariffs, subsidies and trade arrangements that protect industries in the United States and allied countries, while blocking cheaper products made in China. It has done so in lock step with U.S. labor unions, which are opposed to removing tariffs and other policies that protect their industries.The European Union has criticized the American tariffs and subsidy programs as protectionist policies that threaten to undermine international trade rules.“This administration is trying to significantly retool the way we go about global economic engagement,” said Emily Benson, the director of Project on Trade and Technology at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a think tank. “What’s unclear is the degree to which our allies buy into that agenda.”For their part, European officials are putting their efforts into an ambitious new carbon pricing scheme, that would tax companies across a range of industries in Europe and elsewhere for the greenhouse gases emitted during manufacturing. European officials have urged the United States to adopt a similar approach but American officials argue such a system is not viable in the United States, where Congress would be unlikely to impose new carbon taxes on American companies.The two governments also differ in how to approach China, which makes more than half of the world’s steel, often by burning coal. American steel makers say their Chinese counterparts receive generous government subsidies that allow Chinese steel to be sold at artificially low prices, unfairly undercutting competitors.European officials have been more reluctant to target China specifically. While the E.U. government has begun to take a more skeptical look at Chinese exports, many European nations still regard the country more as a vital business partner than a geopolitical rival.Given the close alignment between the United States and Europe on many issues, the history of trade negotiations between the governments is surprisingly bleak.The Obama administration pursued a trade deal with Europe that ultimately crumbled as a result of irreconcilable differences over regulation and agriculture. After lobbing both criticism and tariffs at Europe, the Trump administration tried for a more limited agreement, with similarly unimpressive results.The Biden administration successfully de-escalated some of those trade fights. But fundamental differences remain in how the United States and Europe view the role of government and regulation.“It’s incredibly complicated, largely because we have markedly different priorities,” said William Alan Reinsch, the Scholl Chair in International Business at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. “I can see a path but the path involves both sides making concessions that they really don’t want to make.”Miriam Garcia Ferrer, a spokeswoman for the European Commission, said the countries were “fully committed to achieving an ambitious outcome” by October.Valdis Dombrovskis, the European commissioner for trade, has warm relations with the American trade representative but that has not yet resulted in an agreement.Andy Wong/Associated PressThe European Union is seeking a permanent solution to U.S. tariffs and “re-establish normal and undistorted trans-Atlantic trade” while also driving decarbonization and addressing the challenge of global steel overproduction, Ms. Garcia Ferrer said.Sam Michel, a spokesperson for the U.S. trade representative, said that the Biden administration had “been fully committed to these negotiations over the last two years and we are hopeful both sides can reach an agreement that demonstrates the close partnership between the United States and the European Union.”People close to the talks say the outcome has been particularly disappointing given the close alignment and warm relations between Mr. Biden and Ms. von der Leyen, and Ms. Tai and her counterpart, Valdis Dombrovskis, the European commissioner for trade.Ms. Tai and Mr. Dombrovskis committed earlier this year to meeting every month. Mr. Dombrovskis, the former prime minister of Latvia, hosted Ms. Tai at a seaside dinner in the Latvian capital in June, and she brought him to the White House on July 4 to watch fireworks from the lawn.U.S. officials initially thought those meetings might mark a turning point for the negotiations. In a trip to Brussels in July, Ms. Tai told her counterparts that time was running out and that they needed to get something done.But that top-level commitment did not fuel momentum at lower levels of the bureaucracy, and progress fizzled as European negotiators left for summer holidays.The pace of talks has accelerated over the past month, but for a much more limited agreement.Jennifer Harris, a former senior director for international economics at the National Security Council who played a key role in starting negotiations, expressed optimism that progress could be made in the final days and weeks of the negotiations, especially given the upcoming meeting between Mr. Biden and Ms. von der Leyen.The talks now need “the kind of swift injection of tailwind that only leaders can provide,” she said. “I don’t think either leader is going to let this thing fail.” More

  • 163 Shares169 Views

    in Economy

    U.A.W. Will Not Expand Strikes at G.M., Ford and Stellantis as Talks Progress

    by

    The United Automobile Workers reported improved wage offers from the automakers and a concession from General Motors on workers at battery factories.The United Automobile Workers union said on Friday that it had made progress in its negotiations with Ford Motor, General Motors and Stellantis, the parent of Chrysler, and would not expand the strikes against the companies that began three weeks ago.In an online video, the president of the union, Shawn Fain, said all three companies had significantly improved their offers to the union, including providing bigger raises and offering cost-of-living increases. In what he described as a major breakthrough, Mr. Fain said G.M. was now willing to include workers at its battery factories in the company’s national contract with the U.A.W.G.M. had previously said that it could not include those workers because they are employed by joint ventures between G.M. and battery suppliers.“Here’s the bottom line: We are winning,” said Mr. Fain, wearing a T-shirt that read, “Eat the Rich.” “We are making progress, and we are headed in the right direction.”Mr. Fain said G.M. made the concession on battery plant workers after the union had threatened to strike the company’s factory in Arlington, Texas, where it makes some of its most profitable full-size sport-utility vehicles, including the Cadillac Escalade and the Chevrolet Tahoe. The plant employs 5,300 workers.G.M. has started production at one battery plant in Ohio, and has others under construction in Tennessee and Michigan. Workers at the Ohio plant voted overwhelmingly to be represented by the U.A.W. and have been negotiating a separate contract with the joint venture, Ultium Cells, that G.M. owns with L.G. Energy Solution.Ford is building two joint-venture battery plants in Kentucky and one in Tennessee, and a fourth in Michigan that is wholly owned by Ford. Stellantis has just started building a battery plant in Indiana and is looking for a site for a second.G.M. declined to comment about battery plant workers. “Negotiations remain ongoing, and we will continue to work towards finding solutions to address outstanding issues,” the company said in a statement. “Our goal remains to reach an agreement that rewards our employees and allows G.M. to be successful into the future”Shares of the three companies jumped after Mr. Fain spoke. G.M.’s stock closed up about 2 percent, Stellantis about 3 percent and Ford about 1 percent.The strike began Sept. 15 when workers walked out of three plants in Michigan, Ohio and Missouri, each owned by one of the three companies.The stoppage was later expanded to 38 spare-parts distribution centers owned by G.M. and Stellantis, and then to a Ford plant in Chicago and another G.M. factory in Lansing, Mich. About 25,000 of the 150,000 U.A.W. members employed by the three Michigan automakers were on strike as of Friday morning.“I think this strategy of targeted strikes is working,” said Peter Berg, a professor of employment relations at Michigan State University. “It has the effect of slowly ratcheting up the cost to the companies, and they don’t know necessarily where he’s going to strike next.”Here Are the Locations Where U.A.W. Strikes Are HappeningSee where U.A.W. members are on strike at plants and distribution centers owned by Ford, General Motors and Stellantis.The contract battle has become a national political issue. President Biden visited a picket line near Detroit last month. A day later, former President Donald J. Trump spoke at a nonunion factory north of Detroit and criticized Mr. Biden and leaders of the U.A.W. Other lawmakers and candidates have voiced support for the U.A.W. or criticized the strikes.When negotiations began in July, Mr. Fain initially demanded a 40 percent increase in wages, noting that workers’ pay has not kept up with inflation over the last 15 years and that the chief executives of the three companies have seen pay increases of roughly that magnitude.The automakers, which have made near-record profits over the last 10 years, have all offered increases of slightly more than 20 percent over four years. Company executives have said anything more would threaten their ability to compete with nonunion companies like Tesla and invest in new electric vehicle models and battery factories.The union also wants to end a wage system in which newly hired workers earn just over half the top U.A.W. wage, $32 an hour now, and need to work for eight years to reach the maximum. It is also seeking cost-of-living adjustments if inflation flares, pensions for a greater number of workers, company-paid retirement health care, shorter working hours and the right to strike in response to plant closings.In separate statements, Ford and Stellantis have said they agreed to provide cost-of-living increases, shorten the time it takes for employees to reach the top wage, and several other measures the union has sought.Ford also said it was “open to the possibility of working with the U.A.W. on future battery plants in the U.S.” Its battery plants are still under construction and have not hired any production workers yet.The union is concerned that some of its members will lose their jobs, especially people who work at engine and transmission plants, as the automakers produce more electric cars and trucks. Those vehicles do not need those parts, relying instead on electric motors and batteries.Stellantis’ chief operating officer for North America, Mark Stewart, said the company and the union were “making progress, but there are gaps that still need to be closed.”The union is also pushing the companies to convert temporary workers who now make a top wage of $20 an hour into full-time staff.Striking at only select locations at all three companies is a change from the past, when the U.A.W. typically called for a strike at all locations of one company that the union had chosen as its target. Striking at only a few locations hurts the companies — the idled plants make some of their most profitable models — but limits the economic damage to the broader economies in the affected states.It also could help preserve the union’s $825 million strike fund, from which striking workers are paid while they’re off the job. The union is paying striking workers $500 a week.G.M. said this week that the first two weeks of the strike had cost it $200 million. The three automakers and some of their suppliers have said that they have had to lay off hundreds of workers because the strikes have disrupted the supply and demand for certain parts.Santul Nerkar More

  • 150 Shares119 Views

    in Economy

    A Rural Michigan Town Is the Latest Battleground in the U.S.-China Fight

    by

    Firestorms over Chinese investments, like a battery factory in Green Charter Township, are erupting as officials weigh the risks of taking money from an adversary.Yard signs along the quiet country roads of Green Charter Township, Mich., home to horse farms and a 19th-century fish hatchery, blare a message that an angered community hopes is heard by local leaders, the Biden administration and China: “No Gotion.”The opposition is to a plan by Gotion, a subsidiary of a Chinese company, to build a $2.4 billion electric vehicle battery factory on roughly 270 acres of largely uninhabited scrub land. An investment of that magnitude can transform a local economy, but in this case it is unwelcome by many. Residents fear that the company’s presence is a dangerous infiltration by the Chinese Communist Party and it has led to backlash, death threats and an attempt to unseat the elected officials who backed the project.The debate over the factory has turned a township of about 3,000 people located 60 miles north of Grand Rapids against each other and into an unlikely battleground in the economic contest between the United States and China. The resistance is part of a broader movement by states to erect new barriers to Chinese investment amid concerns about national security and growing anti-China sentiment.“It’s the Communist influences that I’m bothered by, because they have shown repeatedly that they don’t care about our rules, our laws or anything,” said Lori Brock, who lives on a 150-acre horse farm near where the battery factory is being built. “They shouldn’t be able to buy here.”Gotion purchased 270 acres of land in Green Charter Township with plans to build an electric vehicle battery plant.Cydni Elledge for The New York TimesThat sentiment has been reverberating in the United States and on the Republican presidential campaign trail this year. In August, the campaign of Nikki Haley called Michigan’s Democratic governor, Gretchen Whitmer, a “comrade” for backing the Gotion factory. On Wednesday, Vivek Ramaswamy, a Republican candidate who has called for banning Chinese investments, will hold a rally at Ms. Brock’s farm.Gotion has insisted that it has no ideological ties to China. John Whetstone, a company spokesman, said Gotion was “in no way affiliated with any political party,” explaining that it had pledged to the township not to partake in any activity that supports or encourages any political philosophy.Animosity toward China has been deterring Chinese investment in the United States in recent years. Annual investment by Chinese companies has fallen to $5 billion in 2022 from $46 billion in 2016, according to a recent report by Rhodium Group, as relations between the world’s two largest economies soured. Employment at Chinese firms in the United States has declined by nearly 40 percent since 2017, to 140,000 workers.But investment is starting to turn around as a result of new federal incentives — included in the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act — that were meant to spur American production of electric vehicles. Foreign companies, including those from China, are trying to capitalize on tax credits for businesses that manufacture renewable energy products inside the United States.The Coalition for a Prosperous America, which represents American manufacturers, estimates that Chinese companies could gain access to $125 billion in U.S. tax credits related to “green energy manufacturing” investments.“There are really strong commercial logics driving this, and those commercial logics aren’t going away anytime soon,” said Kyle Jaros, a professor at the University of Notre Dame, who studies Chinese investment in the United States.The possibility that American taxpayers could subsidize Chinese firms has stoked anger in local communities and in Congress, where lawmakers are scrutinizing transactions involving companies with ties to China and urging the Biden administration to block them.Experts predict that Chinese companies will continue to pursue investments in the United States but concerns at the local level and in Washington are mounting.Cydni Elledge for The New York TimesSenator Marco Rubio of Florida, a Republican, has introduced legislation that would block subsidies to Chinese battery companies. A House committee has demanded answers about a licensing agreement between Ford and the Chinese battery company Contemporary Amperex Technology Co. Limited. Ford has defended the project and described it as an effort to strengthen domestic battery production.House Republicans have also urged Treasury Secretary Janet L. Yellen to withhold any federal subsidies for the Gotion facility and questioned why the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States did not block its investment.Gotion has said that it voluntarily submitted documents to the interagency panel, known as CFIUS, and the committee declined to block the transaction.The Inflation Reduction Act does restrict American consumers from getting tax credits if they buy electric cars that have parts that come from “foreign entities of concern,” such as China. However, the law does not allow the Treasury to block Chinese companies from securing tax credits if they build factories in the United States.“We know that the vast majority of investments made through the Inflation Reduction Act are being made by American companies,” said Wally Adeyemo, the deputy Treasury Secretary.The Treasury estimates that only 2 percent of the electric vehicle and battery investments that have been made during the Biden administration involve Chinese companies.Gotion already has operations in California and Ohio and plans to open a $2 billion lithium battery manufacturing plant in Illinois. The company chose Michigan last year after securing nearly $800 million in grants and tax exemptions from the state’s strategic fund, whose officials said the investment would bring jobs, customers and economic vitality to the region. At the time, Ms. Whitmer hailed the factory as a win for the state.Since then, a growing and vocal contingent has been working to halt the project.Much of that effort has been directed at Green Charter Township’s board of trustees, a group of local Republican officials who voted to allow Gotion to secure the state tax breaks. When residents realized that the company that was coming to town had ties to China, township meetings that usually drew a handful of people attracted hundreds of angry critics.Green Charter Township’s supervisor, Jim Chapman, sees the advantages of having a Gotion electric vehicle battery plant in the region.Cydni Elledge for The New York TimesJim Chapman, the township supervisor, has heard residents suggest that they would call in the Michigan militia or exercise their Second Amendment rights to stop Gotion from building the factory. Mr. Chapman, a lifelong Republican and former police officer, has found himself in the position of trying to convince his neighbors that allowing Gotion to bring more than 2,000 new jobs to the area will create a housing boom and bring other new businesses to the area.Yet residents have confronted Mr. Chapman with a host of conspiracy theories including that the plant is a “Trojan Horse” and that it will be used to spy on Americans. Some in town believe that the plant will employ cheap Chinese labor, instead of local workers, and erect cooling towers to conceal ballistic missiles.“No Gotion” groups active on Facebook and other social media platforms have seized on the company’s bylaws, which say the company operates in accordance with the Constitution of the Communist Party of China.Kelly Cushway, an organizer in the Gotion resistance movement, opposes the facility and is running for trustee of Green Charter Township.Cydni Elledge for The New York Times“I will go to my grave and people will curse me for this project,” Mr. Chapman said during an interview in his office inside the Green Charter Township building.After researching the company and the actions of other Chinese businesses that operate in the United States, Mr. Chapman concluded that Gotion was not a threat and that the opportunity to invigorate a relatively poor part of the state was worthwhile.“What are they going to spy on us for in Big Rapids? Are they going to steal Carlleen Rose’s fudge recipe?” Mr. Chapman asked, referring to the owner of a popular confectionery in Big Rapids.Opponents hope that a November recall election can replace the board and stop Gotion in its tracks. Residents are raising money to file lawsuits and petition against every permit that Gotion will need to construct a factory that is expected to span more than a million square feet.“I’m worried about environmental catastrophes — there’s going to be 200 to 300 truckloads of chemicals coming in every day,” said Kelly Cushway, who opposes Gotion and is running for a seat on the Green Charter Township board. “We know China has not worried too much about their environment.”Some community activists such as Ms. Brock are coordinating with counterparts in other states including North Dakota, where Fufeng USA tried and failed to construct a corn mill, to learn how to terminate a Chinese investment.Ms. Brock said she remained hopeful that the Gotion factory in her town could be halted.“We haven’t even started,” Ms. Brock said. “We haven’t even hit them with one lawsuit yet, and it’s coming.” More