25 Oct 2023

UAW appears to be moving toward a potential deal with Ford that could end strike

by | posted in: Society | 0

By TOM KRISHER (AP Auto Writer)

DETROIT (AP) — The United Auto Workers union appears to be edging closer to a tentative contract agreement with Ford that would be critical to ending the union’s 6-week-old strikes against the three major Detroit automakers, two people with knowledge of the talks said Wednesday.

The people said the union made a counter-offer to Ford that proposes a 25% general wage increase over the life of a new four-year contract and said that negotiations on Tuesday extended well into Wednesday morning. Previously Ford, Stellantis and General Motors had all offered 23% pay increases.

A Ford deal would include cost-of-living pay increases that could lift the total pay raises above 30%, said the people, who asked not to be identified because they are not authorized to speak publicly about the talks. In addition, workers would still receive annual profit-sharing checks.

It’s still possible that the negotiations, despite the meaningful progress being made, could unravel. But if the UAW can reach a tentative agreement with Ford, it would be used as a model to seek similar contract settlements with GM and Stellantis. Typically, during past auto strikes, a UAW deal with one automaker has led the other companies to match it with their own settlements.

One of the people said there also was progress in the union’s talks with GM. But it was unclear whether any of the automakers had accepted the UAW’s counter-offer of 25% pay increases over four years.

The progress in the negotiations came after the union this week walked out at three factories that produce highly profitable pickup trucks and SUVs, adding them to the list of plants already on strike in a strategy to intensify pressure on the companies.

On Tuesday, about 5,000 workers at GM’s assembly plant in Arlington, Texas, walked out, halting production of truck-based SUVs that are huge profit makers for the company. A day earlier, the UAW’s president, Shawn Fain, had added 6,800 employees at Stellantis’ Ram pickup plant in Sterling Heights, Michigan.

Two weeks ago the union struck Ford’s largest and most profitable factory, the Kentucky Truck Plant in Louisville, where 8,700 workers make heavy-duty F-Series pickups and two large SUVs.

In all, about 46,000 workers have walked out at factories owned by the three companies in a series of targeted strikes that began Sept. 15. About 32% of the union’s 146,000 members at the automakers are now on strike and getting by on $500 per week in strike pay. The automakers have been laying off workers at other plants as parts shortages have cascaded through their manufacturing systems.

Todd Dunn, president of the UAW local at Ford’s Kentucky Truck Plant, said he was told by people within the union’s leadership that the company is nearing an agreement.

“I’ve heard they are moving the needle as aggressively as possible,” Dunn said in an interview Wednesday. “It’s very positive.”

The prospect of a breakthrough, he said, has raised the spirits of workers who are willing to stay out on strike to reach a deal despite hardships for some.

Dunn said he thinks the strike at his plant had nudged Ford along in the talks and could help yield the best contract he’s seen in 29 years with the company.

Neither the companies nor the union would comment on the talks Wednesday. The union’s counter-offer of a 25% wage increase over four years was reported earlier by Bloomberg News and the trade publication Automotive News.

Marick Masters, a business professor at Wayne State University in Detroit who studies labor issues, said it was not surprising that the union would be close to an agreement at this point in the talks.

“I think that Shawn Fain struck these plants at this particular time over the past week because he thought they would be near a deal and this would be the extra nudge to get something cemented,” Masters said. “When you look at the movement and the concessions, they’re getting smaller but moving closer to what the union wanted.”

When contract talks began in July, the union sought 40% pay raises over four years as well as the restoration of cost-of-living raises. The union had given up the cost-of-living increases in 2009 to help the companies survive the aftermath of the Great Recession.

The UAW also wants traditional defined-benefit pension plans restored for workers who were hired after 2007, an end to varying tiers of wages for UAW workers, pension increases for retirees and other benefits.

One key issue is whether to extend the national UAW contract to 11 U.S. electric vehicle battery factories. This would essentially ensure that workers there would be represented by the union.

All but one of these plants are joint ventures with South Korean battery makers. GM has agreed to this, but the other companies have balked, saying their joint venture partners must also agree.

GM CEO Mary Barra said Tuesday that the offer to bring the battery plants into the master union agreement was still open but that they would have to meet what she called “benchmark economics and also operating flexibility.”

Having union representation at the battery factories is a vital issue for the union because these plants will house many of the jobs of the future as the industry transitions away from gasoline vehicles. Workers who now make engines and transmissions at all three companies will need places to work as their plants are phased out.

Progress in the contract talks follows statements from Ford executives in the past two weeks that their offers, which exceeded those of their competitors, are at the limit of how much the company is willing to pay to settle the strikes.

All three companies have said they don’t want to absorb labor costs that are so high that they would force price increases and make their vehicles more expensive than those made by nonunion companies such as Tesla and Toyota.

A study this month by Moody’s Investor Service found that annual labor costs could rise by $1.1 billion for Stellantis, $1.2 billion for GM and $1.4 billion for Ford in the fourth year of the contract. The study assumed a 20% increase in hourly labor costs.

Wayne State’s Masters said the companies will have to cut other expenses or raise vehicle prices to cover the costs of a new contract. Prices, though, will be constrained by a competitive auto market, he said.

GM on Tuesday said it already is preparing for added labor expenses, taking out $2 billion in fixed costs by the end of 2024. It’s also looking at other ways to save.

The company said it lost $200 million in pretax earnings due to the strike in the third quarter, and it has lost another $600 million so far in the fourth quarter. After that it could lose as much as $200 million per week, not including the Texas plant closure or any further walkouts.

25 Oct 2023

Democrats rev up the opposition machine against Mike Johnson

by | posted in: Politics | 0

Mike Johnson might have been an obscure, four-term congressmember before Wednesday, but if Democrats have their way, he will soon be well-known by every American — as an election denier, an anti-abortion extremist and a slasher of Social Security and Medicare.

Johnson hadn’t officially been elected speaker before the Democratic opposition research machinery went full tilt. Democrats have spent the last few days sifting through old shows from Johnson’s time as a podcast host and previously authored editorials in his local newspaper.

They are determined to define Johnson in the public eye before he has a chance to define himself.

Democrats — and aligned research groups — said on Wednesday that they were hurriedly digging into Johnson’s record. There were, as of October 8, 69 episodes of his podcast on Spotify, which Johnson co-hosts with his wife, many of which touch on hot-button political topics. One Democratic operative was quick to spotlight one such episode as indicative of the gold mine they believe is about to be discovered: a June 5 show in which the Johnsons spotlighted an initiative to turn Pride Month into “Fidelity Month.”

“It’s not like there’s any shortage of material when you go looking,” said one official at a top liberal group who was granted anonymity to discuss strategy. “He’s not someone who’s broken through to have a national reputation, but there’s a lot there.”

House speakers are always fodder for the opposition party looking to flip seats. But few, if any, have come into office with a record as little-known as Johnson’s. The congressmember has been in the House since 2017. And rarely during that time period has he been in the spotlight.

Democrats began rolling out talking points minutes into his speakership, attacking him in hopes of retaking the House in 2024.

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee sent a memo on “messaging guidance” to House Democrats on Wednesday outlining their strategy.

“House Republicans may be breathing a short-sighted sigh of relief now that they’ve elected a new Speaker,” it read, “but their decision to elevate an anti-abortion extremist who has pushed to gut Social Security and Medicare and who was one of the main architects of the illegal attempt to overturn the 2020 election will lose them the majority in 2024.”

The DCCC added in its dispatch that it “is committed to ensuring that every battleground member of the Republican conference is tied to Speaker Johnson’s” record.

Johnson did not respond to a request for comment.

Still, even with this firepower aimed at the new speaker, Republicans are waving away claims that Johnson could be a liability in 2024. Rep. Dusty Johnson (R-S.D.) was skeptical that Democrats could effectively attack the new speaker as a way to hurt battleground Republican members next year.

“If Democrats think they’re going to beat swing-seat Republicans by tying them to Mike Johnson, good luck,” Dusty Johnson said in an interview. “Johnson is smart, decent and hard-working. He’s not going to be an easy guy to villainize.”

He earned the full-throated endorsement of National Republican Congressional Committee chair Richard Hudson. “I know Mike cares deeply about our conference, understands our majority is the last line of defense against the Democrats, and will work relentlessly with the NRCC to go on offense,” he said in a statement.

But Democrats are already feeling optimistic that Johnson will help them win back the House. Tommy Vietor, a Democratic strategist who worked as a spokesperson for former President Barack Obama, said Johnson will give them “an opportunity to win back some of those moderate seats that we lost in places like New York and California.”

And the messages from DCCC and others were already getting repeated by House Democrats as the speaker vote wrapped up.

“It is just yet another example of the so-called moderates voting for extremism,” Rep. Dan Goldman (D-N.Y.) said in an interview.

It’s not just House Democrats getting in on the act. President Joe Biden’s campaign is also planning to focus on his leading role in attempting to overturn the 2020 election, his support of an abortion ban, and his positions on Social Security and Medicare, according to a person familiar with the campaign’s thinking.

Johnson’s time as a private attorney is a rich target for opposition researchers. Before getting elected to Congress, he worked for the Alliance Defense Fund, a conservative Christian legal advocacy group now known as the Alliance Defending Freedom, and has opposed same-sex marriage and other LGBTQ rights.

Johnson once filed a 2003 lawsuit that argued gay city employees’ partners should be blocked from receiving health care benefits. He authored editorials in his local paper that argued LGBT people shouldn’t be included in the legal definition of employment discrimination, “We don’t give special protections for every person’s bizarre choices.”

But as opposition researchers dig through the archives, Democrats say they have more than enough to point to from his time in Congress. When Roe v. Wade was overturned, Johnson called it a “joyous occasion.” Johnson has also spoken in favor of entitlement reform, which Democrats argue is code for cutting programs like Social Security and Medicare.

Rep. Pete Aguilar called Johnson the “architect of Electoral College objections” in a floor speech on Wednesday. Johnson voted against certifying the 2020 election, and asked other Republican members to sign onto a legal brief in a case challenging the election results in multiple states.

Republicans said efforts by speaker candidates to decertify the 2020 election came up in caucus meetings, but they weren’t disqualifying — much of the Republican conference voted the same way.

“I think it’s really important we get a speaker and move forward,” said Rep. Ken Buck (R-Colo.), who has been critical of the right flank of the GOP throughout the multi-week process to choose a new speaker. “I’m not electing someone I’m going to marry, I’m not electing someone I’m going to raise children with. I’m electing someone who’s going to lead the conference.”

25 Oct 2023

What is going on with Toucher and Rich? Social media accounts get new handles, dropping a host’s name

by | posted in: News | 0

Boston sports talk radio listeners were digging for answers on Wednesday after the social media accounts for the top morning show dropped one of the host’s names.

But it has been radio silence from Toucher & Rich so far following the drastic change to the social media accounts for the 98.5 The Sports Hub show.

Around midday on Wednesday, the speculation about the show’s future took off when the Toucher & Rich accounts on Twitter (now X), Facebook and Instagram removed host Fred Toucher’s name.

The social media accounts with hundreds of thousands of followers are now only showing host Rich Shertenlieb’s name. The X account is now @heyrichhey.

After the bombshell change to the socials, there was no immediate explanation from the radio station or the hosts. The Herald reached out to Toucher, Rich, 98.5 The Sports Hub, and Beasley Media Group — but they did not immediately respond.

Loyal listeners to the top rated sports morning show in the region were pleading for answers on Wednesday.

“What’s going on Rich Shertenlieb??? The fans need to know!!!” a person wrote on Facebook.

“You think Rich would comment on this to dispel these rumors,” another Facebook user wrote on Shertenlieb’s new account.

Related Articles

Local News |


‘Nut slap’ parody about Patriots QB Mac Jones gets Felger and Mazz in hot water at 98.5 The Sports Hub

On Wednesday morning’s show, Toucher went on a bit of a rant about the station and social media.

“This station makes more money than any other station by far in the company, and I get nothing for free, which I’m not complaining about,” Toucher said. “I’m just interested that everyone else is running around free with everything — and it’s such a problem that they’re getting so much free stuff that they can’t manage a social media account without getting in trouble.”

25 Oct 2023

Other voices: Why are governments still subsidizing fossil fuels?

by | posted in: News | 0

The fight against climate change commands the support of governments across much of the world. Targets for carbon abatement have gotten more ambitious and policies to address the challenge are proliferating. Yet one measure of progress shows how badly these efforts still fall short. Last year, global fossil-fuel subsidies expanded to a new record — $7 trillion, roughly 7% of global gross domestic output.

This remarkable number comes from a recently updated assessment by the International Monetary Fund, drawing on detailed disaggregated data for 170 countries. Rightly, it uses a comprehensive definition of subsidy, combining outright support (spending that offsets production costs) and implicit support (underpricing for environmental harms and forgone tax revenue).

Explicit subsidies have more than doubled since the previous assessment for 2020, to more than $1 trillion, thanks partly to efforts to soften the blow of higher energy prices after Russia attacked Ukraine. Implicit subsidies, some 80% of the total, surged as well — and unlike the explicit kind, they’re on track to rise further, both in dollar terms and as a share of global output, by the end of the decade.

One result of these enormous supports is that policies are often at cross-purposes. Keeping fossil fuels cheap offsets the other taxes, subsidies, and regulations governments use to reduce emissions and promote clean energy. In effect, with some of their policies, governments push fossil-fuel demand in the right direction; then, with generous subsidies for pollution and climate change, they push it back.

The gap between efficient prices and actual prices is especially egregious in the case of coal — which is both a potent driver of global climate change and in many countries a main cause of local air pollution. According to one authoritative estimate, outdoor air pollution resulted in 4.5 million premature deaths in 2019. The IMF finds that 80% of global coal consumption was priced at less than half its true cost in 2022.

Insisting that people pay full price for fuel would not only reduce consumption and slash emissions. It would also align that purpose with greater economic efficiency. First, it would make plain that some fossil fuels are worse than others, differences that can and should be priced accordingly. It would also provide a transparent basis for more effective international cooperation. Because air pollution and climate change both count in the calculations, efficient fossil-fuel prices vary from country to country according to local circumstances — but the gap between true costs and actual prices provides a consistent yardstick. Finally, cutting subsidies raises revenue, which allows for higher spending on worthwhile goals, lower government borrowing and/or cuts in other taxes.

No doubt governments will blame politics for the current dysfunction: Making fossil fuels more expensive is unpopular. This excuse is hardly compelling, since the existing subsidies could be put to better and more popular use. Still, if politics is indeed the obstacle, the rise in fossil-fuel prices since 2020 provides an opportunity. Instead of letting prices subside in due course all the way back to the pre-Ukraine norm, governments could withdraw or offset their existing subsidies at the same time, narrowing the gap with true costs without forcing prices higher.

The new assessment shows that the numbers involved aren’t rounding errors. They’re enormous — and enormously counter-productive. Working to reduce and then eliminate fossil-fuel subsidies should be an overriding priority for governments everywhere.

— Bloomberg Opinion