Factories and Manufacturing

More stories

  • 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

  • 88 Shares179 Views

    in Economy

    U.A.W. Expands Strikes at Ford and G.M.

    by

    The United Automobile Workers union said 7,000 more of its members would walk off the job two weeks after it began strikes at the Big Three automakers.The U.A.W.’s president, Shawn Fain, called on an additional 7,000 workers at Ford and General Motors to go on strike until progress is made at the negotiating table for higher pay and benefits.Bill Pugliano/Getty ImagesThe United Automobile Workers union increased the pressure on Ford Motor and General Motors by extending its strike to two more car assembly plants on Friday, saying the companies had not moved far enough to meet its demands for higher pay and benefits.The move is the second escalation of strikes that started on Sept. 15 at three plants, one each owned by G.M., Ford and Stellantis, the parent of Chrysler, Jeep and Ram. The union said it would not expand the strike against Stellantis this week because of progress in negotiations there.The U.A.W.’s president, Shawn Fain, said workers at a Ford plant in Chicago and a G.M. factory in Lansing, Mich., would walk off the job on Friday. G.M. makes the Buick Enclave and Chevrolet Traverse sport-utility vehicles at the Lansing plant. Ford makes the Explorer, the Police Interceptor Utility and Lincoln Aviator in Chicago.“Ford and G.M. have refused to make meaningful progress at the bargaining table,” Mr. Fain said in a live-streamed video.Ford’s Chicago plant employs about 4,600 U.A.W. members and G.M.’s Lansing plant has 2,300 union workers. Including the workers who walked off the job earlier, more than 25,000 U.A.W. members at the three companies have been called on to stop working. The three automakers together employ nearly 150,000 U.A.W. members.A week ago, workers walked out at 38 spare-parts distribution centers owned by G.M. and Stellantis. The U.A.W. did not expand its strike at Ford because, the union said at the time, it had made significant progress in contract negotiations with that company.The U.A.W. is seeking a substantial wage increase for workers and opened the talks by demanding a 40 percent raise, pointing to the substantial profits all three companies have generated over the last decade and to the size of the pay increases for their chief executives over the last four years.The companies have each offered roughly 20 percent over four years. Ford and the union have reached agreements on some other demands, including cost-of-living adjustments if inflation surges again, and the right to strike if the company closes plants.“Fain is out-negotiating the car companies, and he is having fun making them dance while he calls them names,” said Erik Gordon, a business professor at the University of Michigan who follows the auto industry. “One week he gets Ford to give more in the hope of not being targeted for another closure. The next week he tells Ford they haven’t given enough and closes one of their plants.”Picketing outside Ford’s Chicago Assembly Plant on Friday after the U.A.W. expanded its walkouts to new sites.Taylor Glascock for The New York TimesBut if the companies agree to most of the union’s demands, they could struggle to compete in the fast-growing market for electric vehicles, which is dominated by Tesla, a nonunion automaker, Professor Gordon said. “The union will enjoy big gains for a few years until the companies’ inability to compete causes job losses,” he said.The parties have met regularly, and on Thursday the union presented its latest counteroffer to Stellantis, the union said. Negotiating teams from the U.A.W. and G.M. met on Wednesday in a session attended by Mr. Fain.The union leader’s online remarks on Friday were delayed for nearly half an hour by what he called “a flurry of interest from the companies in addressing some serious bargaining issue.” He did not provide details.Ford’s chief executive, Jim Farley, said on Friday that the company and the U.A.W. were “very close” to a deal but remained apart on potential contract terms for workers at four electric vehicle battery factories the company is building. “If the U.A.W.’s goal is a record contract, they already have that,” he told reporters on a conference call.In the company’s view, discussions about the battery plants should not hold up the negotiations on a new four-year contract because they won’t be completed for two years or more.The U.A.W. sees things differently. Union leaders are concerned that automakers will use the transition to electric vehicles to lower wages and reduce the number of unionized workers they employ.The union wants to include the workers at battery factories owned partly or fully by automakers in their national contracts with the U.A.W. Mr. Fain has said the workers at battery factories are exposed to more dangerous working conditions yet are paid much less than union members at vehicle assembly plants.The automakers have said that they cannot include battery factory workers in their national contracts because most of the plants are set up as joint ventures with foreign companies like LG Energy Solution and SK On.Among the three automakers, only G.M. has started producing batteries, at a plant it jointly owns with LG Energy Solution in Lordstown, Ohio. Ford is building three battery plants in Kentucky and Tennessee with SK On.Ford said this week that it would halt work on another battery plant, wholly owned by the automaker, that it had planned to build in Marshall, Mich. because it was not certain that it could make products there at a competitive price. “We will decide how big or small Marshall will be,” Mr. Farley said, once Ford has a better idea of how much it will cost to make batteries there.Mr. Farley said the start of production at battery plants would not result in the loss of U.A.W. jobs elsewhere at Ford. The company employs 57,000 U.A.W. members, more than at G.M. and Stellantis.In a statement, Mr. Fain disputed Ford’s characterization of the talks. He said that the U.A.W. was waiting for a response from the company to a “comprehensive proposal” the union made on Monday. Mr. Fain said the two sides were still “far apart” on retirement benefits and workers’ job security in the transition to electric vehicles. “Name the time and the place you want to settle a fair contract for our members, and we’ll be there,” Mr. Fain said.G.M.’s chief executive, Mary T. Barra, criticized the union for “upping the rhetoric and the theatrics” and said that the U.A.W.’s leaders had “no real intent to get to an agreement.”“We need the U.A.W. leadership at the bargaining table with the clear intent of reaching an agreement now,” she said in a statement. “For them to do otherwise is putting our collective future at stake.”The U.A.W. president, Shawn Fain, greets union members at the General Motors plant in Lansing, Mich., where workers walked out on Friday.Bill Pugliano/Getty ImagesStellantis said that it had made progress in the talks but that “gaps remain.” The company said it “has been intensely working with the U.A.W. to find solutions to the issues that are of most concern to our employees while ensuring the company can remain competitive.”Tensions on the picket lines have flared this week. The union said five strikers on the picket line suffered minor injuries when they were hit by a car outside a G.M. plant in Flint, Mich. Other confrontations occurred at picket lines in California, Massachusetts and Michigan, the union said.“We will not be intimidated into backing down,” said Mr. Fain, who has frequently compared the strike to a “war on corporate greed.”In a statement on Thursday, Stellantis criticized Mr. Fain’s characterization of the negotiations, and blamed the union for violence, saying that some strikers had slashed tires on trucks and harassed nonstriking employees at parts warehouses.“The deliberate use of inflammatory and violent rhetoric is dangerous and needs to stop,” Stellantis said. “The companies are not ‘the enemy’ and we are not at ‘war.’ We respect our employees’ right to advocate for their position, including their right to peacefully picket. But the violence must stop.”The strategy of striking at only a limited number of locations, but spreading the walkouts to plants owned by all three automakers, is a break from U.A.W.’s traditional approach of idling most or all operations at one company. In 2019, union workers went on strike at G.M. for 40 days before a tentative agreement was reached.Mr. Fain has said the strategy is intended to keep the companies guessing about what parts of their operations would be hit next, in hopes of improving the union’s negotiating position. The first three plants hit by the strike make some of the automakers’ most profitable vehicles, including the Chevrolet Colorado, Ford Bronco and Jeep Wrangler.A limited strike also dents the companies’ profits while limiting damage to their suppliers, local businesses and the national economy.Expanding the strike also increases the financial cost to the union. It is paying striking workers $500 a week out of its $825 million strike fund.Santul Nerkar More

  • 125 Shares179 Views

    in Economy

    Drivers and Dealers Could Soon Feel Impact of U.A.W. Strikes

    by

    Lengthy and expanding walkouts by the United Automobile Workers union against Ford, General Motors and Stellantis could strain a fragile supply chain.More than a week into its targeted strike at the three established U.S. car companies, the United Automobile Workers union has poked holes in a supply chain that has still not fully recovered from the pandemic.The companies and the union remain far apart in negotiations, and the U.A.W. could expand its strikes to more locations as soon as Friday. Depending on how long the strikes last, it could exact a heavy toll on autoworkers and the three companies — General Motors, Ford Motor and Stellantis, the parent of Chrysler and Jeep. But the work stoppages could also be painful to drivers, car dealers and auto-parts suppliers.A long and expanding strike will reduce the number of new cars on dealer lots, make it harder for people to repair their vehicles and reduce demand for parts needed to make new vehicles.So far, the economic damage has been limited because the U.A.W. has struck only a small number of plants and warehouses, but the pain could worsen if work stoppages grow to include many more locations and last weeks or months.“The economic spillovers from the U.A.W. strike remain contained as we near the two-week mark,” said Gabriel Ehrlich, an economic forecaster at the University of Michigan. “We are seeing some layoffs among automotive suppliers, ranging from seat makers to steelworkers. We would expect these impacts to accumulate as the strike persists and additional targets are announced.”When the union started walkouts at assembly plants, it appeared to target plants that make popular models, like the Ford Bronco, the Jeep Wrangler and the Chevrolet Colorado. It widened the strike on Sept. 22 to include parts distribution centers at G.M. and Stellantis.As those popular models become more scarce, dealers are likely to push up prices.“They took out the ones that are going to hurt the most,” said Jeff Rightmer, a professor at Wayne State University who specializes in supply chain management. “At this point, they’re not going to be able to get that production back.”New-car sales are expected to rise this month, despite the strike and high interest rates, according to Cox Automotive. And for now, overall inventories for the three companies remain stable, except for the most popular models, according to data from CoPilot, a firm that tracks dealer inventories.As of Sept. 24, G.M. had enough vehicles on dealer lots to meet demand for 40 to 70 days across its four brands. Ford had enough cars and trucks for 74 days. And Stellantis had more than 100 days across three of its four divisions; Jeep had less than 100 days.Jeep Wranglers at the Stellantis Toledo Assembly Complex in Toledo, Ohio, at the beginning of the strike.Evan Cobb for The New York TimesAmong the 10 models affected by the first set of U.A.W. strikes, supply for four models has dwindled to less than one month’s sales.“Once that dries up, they’re not building anything, so it’s important that the strike is as short as possible,” said Wes Lutz, a car dealer in Jackson, Mich., who sells Chrysler, Dodge, Jeep and Ram models.He has been getting cars from other plants, including large pickup trucks imported from Mexico. But he is worried that an expanding strike could reduce the supply of more models.An even bigger concern, Mr. Lutz said, is that the strikes at G.M. and Stellantis parts warehouses could soon make it hard to repair vehicles, leaving some drivers stranded. He said that he was working with other dealers to trade spare parts among themselves to keep their service departments going.Servicing and repairing vehicles is generally the most profitable part of car dealerships. Service departments bring in so much money that they can cover most or all of the costs of running dealerships, said Pat Ryan, chief executive of CoPilot.That’s why a parts shortage could deal a bigger blow to dealers than not having enough vehicles to sell. If parts are hard to come by for weeks or months, some dealers may suspend repairs and lay off mechanics.Another group of businesses exposed to the strikes are the companies that make parts and components like batteries and mufflers for new vehicles. Nearly 700 auto suppliers could be hurt by the strike, according to Resilinc, a supply chain monitoring company.CIE Newcor, an auto components maker, notified workers on Sept. 21 that it expected to lay off 300 employees at four Michigan plants starting Oct. 2. The extent of the layoffs will be “determined by the length of the potential U.A.W. — Detroit 3 strike,” the company said in a regulatory filing.Much of the auto industry practices “just in time” production, meaning materials are delivered and parts are built and sent to car factories as they are needed.If smaller suppliers go more than a few weeks without selling products to customers, some may have to seek bankruptcy protection, said Ann Marie Uetz, a Detroit-based partner at the law firm Foley & Lardner who represents auto suppliers. “There is definite strain in the supply chain, and you’re going to see some of them suffer as a result of the strike if it lingers for a month or more.” More

  • 150 Shares189 Views

    in Economy

    How West Africa Can Reap More Profit From the Global Chocolate Market

    by

    Resource-rich countries like Ghana are often cut out of lucrative parts of the business like manufacturing. The “fairchain movement” wants to change that.The first leg of the 35-mile journey from Ghana’s capital city, Accra, to the Fairafric chocolate factory in Amanase on the N6 highway is a quick ride. But after about 30 minutes, the smoothly paved road devolves into a dirt expanse without lanes. Lumbering trucks, packed commuter minivans, cars and motorcycles crawl along craggy, rutted stretches bordered by concrete dividers, muddy patches and heaps of rock.The stopgap roadway infrastructure is one of the challenges Fairafric has had to navigate to build a factory in this West African country. The area had no fiber-optic connection to Ghana’s telecommunications network. No local banks were interested in lending the company money. And it required the personal intervention of Ghana’s president before construction could even begin in 2020.The global chocolate industry is a multibillion-dollar confection, and Africa grows 70 percent of the world’s raw cocoa beans. But it produces only 1 percent of the chocolate — missing out on a part of the business that generates the biggest returns and is dominated by American and European multinationals.The Fairafric chocolate factory powered by solar energy in Amanase, Ghana. The company aims to create stable, well-paying jobs.Francis Kokoroko for The New York TimesCapturing a bigger share of the profits generated by chocolate sales and keeping them in Ghana — the second-largest cocoa exporter behind Ivory Coast — is the animating vision behind Fairafric. The aim is to manufacture the chocolate and create stable, well-paying jobs in the place where farmers grow the cocoa.Many developing countries are lucky to have large reserves of natural resources. In Ghana, it’s cocoa. In Botswana, it’s diamonds. In Nigeria and Azerbaijan, it’s oil. But the commodity blessing can become a curse when the sector sucks up an outsize share of labor and capital, which in turn hampers the economy from diversifying and stunts long-term growth.“Look at the structure of the economy,” Aurelien Kruse, the lead country economist in the Accra office of the World Bank, said of Ghana. “It’s not an economy that has diversified fully.”The dependency on commodities can lead to boom-and-bust cycles because their prices swing with changes in supply and demand. And without other sectors to rely on during a downturn — like manufacturing or tech services — these economies can crash.“Prices are very volatile,” said Joseph E. Stiglitz, a former chief economist at the World Bank. In developing nations dependent on commodities, economic instability is built into the system.Workers making the chocolate products. By keeping manufacturing in Ghana, Fairafric supports other local businesses.Francis Kokoroko for The New York TimesA batch of chocolate bars being inspected . . .Francis Kokoroko for The New York Times. . . and packaged at the Fairafric chocolate factory.Francis Kokoroko for The New York TimesBut creating industrial capacity is exceedingly difficult in a place like Ghana. Outside large cities, reliable electricity, water and sanitation systems may need to be set up. The suppliers, skilled workers, and necessary technology and equipment may not be readily available. And start-ups may not initially produce enough volume for export to pay for expensive shipping costs.Fairafric might not have succeeded if its founder and chief executive — a German social-minded entrepreneur named Hendrik Reimers — had not upended the status quo.The pattern of exporting cheap raw materials to richer countries that use them to manufacture valuable finished goods is a hangover from colonial days. Growing and harvesting cocoa is the lowest-paid link in the chocolate value chain. The result is that farmers receive a mere 5 or 6 percent of what a chocolate bar sells for in Paris, Chicago or Tokyo.Mr. Reimers’s goal is aligned with the “fairchain movement,” which argues that the entire production process should be in the country that produces the raw materials.The idea is to create a profitable company and distribute the gains more equitably — among farmers, factory workers and small investors in Ghana. By keeping manufacturing at home, Fairafric supports other local businesses, like the paper company that supplies the chocolate wrappers. It also helps to build infrastructure. Now that Fairafric has installed the fiber optic connections in this rural area, other start-up businesses can plug in.Cocoa pods harvested in a cocoa farm in Ghana.Francis Kokoroko/ReutersA worker from Fairafric chocolate factory visiting a cocoa farm in the Budu community.Francis Kokoroko for The New York TimesThe last few years have severely tested the strategy. Ghana’s economy was punched by the coronavirus pandemic. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine fueled a rapid increase in food, energy and fertilizer prices. Rising inflation prompted the Federal Reserve and other central banks to raise interest rates.In Ghana, the global headwinds exacerbated problems that stemmed from years of excessive government spending and borrowing.As inflation climbed, reaching a peak of 54 percent, Ghana’s central bank raised interest rates. They are now at 30 percent. Meanwhile, the value of the currency, the cedi, tumbled against the dollar, more than halving the purchasing power of consumers and businesses.At the end of last year, Ghana defaulted on its foreign loans and turned to the International Monetary Fund for emergency relief.“The economic situation of the country has not made it easy,” said Frederick Affum, Fairafric’s accounting manager. “Every kind of funding that we have had has been outside the country.”Even before the national default, Ghana’s local banks were drawn to the high interest rates the government was offering to attract investors wary of its outsize debt. As a result, the banks were reluctant to invest in local businesses. They “didn’t take the risk of investing in the real economy,” said Mavis Owusu-Gyamfi, the executive vice president of the African Center for Economic Transformation in Accra.“The economic situation of the country has not made it easy,” said Frederick Affum, accounting manager at Fairafric.Francis Kokoroko for The New York TimesFairafric started with a crowdsourced fund-raising campaign in 2015. A family-owned chocolate company in Germany bought a stake in 2019 and turned Fairafric into a subsidiary.In 2020, a low-interest loan of 2 million euros from a German development bank that supports investments in Africa by European companies was crucial to getting the venture off the ground.Then the pandemic hit, and President Nana Akufo-Addo closed Ghana’s borders and suspended international commercial flights. The shutdown meant that a team of German and Swiss engineers who had been overseeing construction of a solar-powered Fairafric factory in Amanase could not enter the country.So Michael Marmon-Halm, Fairafric’s managing director, wrote a letter to the president appealing for help.“He opened the airport,” Mr. Marmon-Halm said. “This company received the most critical assistance at the most critical moment.”Both Ghana and Ivory Coast, which account for 60 percent of the world cocoa market, have moved to raise the minimum price of cocoa and expand processing inside their borders.In Ghana, the government created a free zone that gives factories a tax break if they export most of their product. And this month, Mr. Akufo-Addo announced an increase in the minimum price that buyers must pay farmers next season.Cocoa pods at a cocoa farm in the Budu community . . .Francis Kokoroko for The New York Times. . . which reveal a pulpy white bean when cracked open.Francis Kokoroko for The New York TimesFairafric, which buys beans from roughly 70 small farmers in the eastern region of Ghana, goes further, paying a premium for its organically grown beans — an additional $600 per ton above the global market price.Farmers harvest the ripe yellow pods by hand, and then crack them open with a cutlass, or thick stick. The pulpy white beans are stacked under plantain leaves to ferment for a week before they are dried in the sun.On the edge of a cocoa farm in Budu, a few minutes from the factory, a bare-bones, open-sided concrete shed with wooden benches and rectangular blackboards houses the school. Attendance is down, the principal said, because the school has not been included in the government’s free school feeding program.The factory employs 95 people. They have health insurance and are paid above the minimum wage. Salaries are pegged to the dollar to protect against currency fluctuations. Because of spotty transportation networks, the company set up a free commuter van for workers. Fairafric also installed a free canteen so all the factory shifts can eat breakfast, lunch or dinner on site.Mr. Marmon-Halm said the company was looking to raise an additional $1 million to expand. He noted that the chocolate industry generated an enormous amount of wealth.But “if you want to get the full benefit,” he said, “you have to go beyond just selling beans.”Students by a stream in the Budu community, a cocoa farming village.Francis Kokoroko for The New York Times More

  • 113 Shares129 Views

    in Economy

    U.A.W. Says It Could Expand Auto Strikes on Friday

    by

    The United Automobile Workers union said the strikes against General Motors, Ford and Stellantis could grow on Friday if negotiators don’t make enough progress.The United Automobile Workers union said on Wednesday that it planned to expand its strike against the big three Michigan automakers on Friday if negotiators failed to make substantial progress on new contracts.The union ordered workers to walk off the job nearly two weeks ago at three vehicle assembly plants — each owned by one of the companies, General Motors, Ford Motor and Stellantis, the parent of Chrysler and Jeep. Last Friday the union broadened the strike to include spare parts-distribution centers owned by G.M. and Stellantis, saying it had made progress in its talks with Ford.The U.A.W. president, Shawn Fain, is scheduled to update members in a video streamed live on Facebook on Friday morning.The union is seeking a substantial wage increase to make up for much smaller raises over the last decade. Each of the companies has offered to lift wages by roughly 20 percent over four years, about half of what the U.A.W. is seeking. The union has demanded other measures including cost-of-living adjustments, the right to strike to protest plant closures, pensions for more workers and company-paid health care for retirees.The three plants that have been shut down by the strike include a G.M. factory in Wentzville, Mo., a Ford plant in Wayne, Mich., and a Stellantis complex in Toledo, Ohio. They make some of the manufacturers’ most profitable models, including the GMC Canyon pickup truck, the Ford Bronco sport-utility vehicle, and the Jeep Wrangler.The second wave of the strike idled 20 Stellantis parts-distribution centers and 18 owned by G.M. More than 18,000 U.A.W. workers are now on strike. The union represents about 150,000 workers employed by G.M., Ford and Stellantis.The union and the companies started negotiating new collective bargaining agreements in July, but made little progress until this month. Their contracts expired on Sept. 14 and Mr. Fain called on the first round of work stoppages the following day. More