new york times « Stephen, J. Cabot blog

August 28, 2009

Toyota’s One Unionized Factory to Close

If there was ever any doubt that unions are injurious to workers and management, one need only look at what will happen to Toyota’s one unionized factory in Fremont, California, where the company makes the popular Corolla.

Toyota’s management voted yesterday to close its Fremont facility, which employees 4,700 workers. Atsushi Nimi, Toyota’s VP for North America, reported that “it would not be economically viable” to keep the factory operating. In other words, during the current economic slump, which has had a devastating effect on the auto industry, Toyota finds it far more profitable to operate its numerous non-union facilities in Alabama, Indiana, Kentucky, Texas, and West Virginia, where the UAW has not been able to organize pro-management employees.

Toyota will import Corollas manufactured in Canada and Japan. Economists believe that the closing of the Fremont facility will ultimately cost 40,000 jobs in the state.

Gary N. Chaison, a professor at Clark University, where he teaches labor relations, stated that factory’s unionized status probably sealed its fate, according to a report in The New York Times.

Once again, unions are proving to be a major obstacle to our economic recovery, especially for manufacturers who operate in heavily unionized states.

Comments (0)

July 10, 2009

Environment Friendly Unions?

Filed under: Employee Free Choice Act — Tags: cabot institute for labor relations, california, congress, environment, labor, labor relations, management, negotiating, new york times, times, unions — Stephen J. Cabot @ 4:17 pm

Those who have negotiated with unions know they will often resort to bargaining tactics that, if used by management, would cause the unions to cry foul. They would go to union-friendly reporters, playing the lachrymose role of outraged victims, and plead for fairness.

Now, however, The New York Times, has reported that California Unions for Reliable Energy(CURE) have attempted to influence the awarding of contracts by playing both sides of an environmental issue.

When a large California solar power company, Ausra, sought approval to build a new power plant, CURE (an ironic acronym if there ever was one) demanded that a study be conducted to determine the effects of the power plant on the lives of the short-nosed kangaroo rat and the ferruginous hawk.

One might have admired CURE’s concern for those poor creatures; however, when Bright Source Energy, one of Ausra’s competitors, also filed plans for a solar facility that would be larger than Ausra’s, the union did not voice any concerns for the endangered desert tortoise, an animal that lives where the new plant would be built.

One may guess the reasons for such contradictory manifestations of concern. Asura, the Times reported, had rejected demands that it employ union workers to build its solar facility. Bright Source, by contrast, agreed to hire “labor-friendly contractors.”

The Times went on to report that “…some developers contend they are being pressured to sign agreements pledging to use union labor. If they refuse, they say, they can count on the union group to demand costly environmental studies and develop and deliver hostile testimony at public hearings.

“If they commit at the outset to use union labor, they say, the environmental objections never materialize.”

With a pro-union congress and administration in Washington, one can expect more such condoned behavior.

Comments (0)