UAW v. Detroit: They Wouldn’t, Would They?

I don’t think so, but they’re definitely making it dramatic in the Motor City.

The good news: As in 2003, the United Auto Workers union hasn’t chosen a strike target.

Not-so-good news: A roundup of stories (here, here, and an older one here) on the negotiations between the UAW and the Number 1, 3, and 4 automakers formerly known as the Big Three (that would be General Motors, Ford, Chrysler; union-free Toyota is Number 2) make it clear that the sides are far apart.

A September 14 contract expiration looms. There hasn’t been a major auto-industry strike since the mid-1970s. I see the two sides meandering along on a day-to-day basis for a while and coming to some kind of common ground at the end of the month. There are some pretty creative ideas on the table, so I have reason to hope I’m wrong, but I don’t see the companies solving their fundamental cost-structure problems.

I certainly don’t like the idea that company-gutter Bob Nardelli, who before he became Chrysler CEO did lots of damage at The Home Depot and then parachuted away with $210 million, is on the management side of the table. He’s the kind of testosterone-overcharged guy who might actually think that surviving a strike would in some twisted way restore his legacy.

Unlike 30 years ago, I don’t see a strike, even a protracted one, doing serious damage to the economy as a whole. But Michigan, Ohio, and Indiana, which would take the large majority of the hit of a major work stoppage, would suffer quite a bit.

The “problem” (for Detroit and the UAW, not for consumers) is that there are so many other perfectly acceptable vehicle brands and models out there. The shift from the formerly Big Three to other brands that has been occurring for decades would go into overdrive. Marysville, Georgetown, Smyrna, and other foreign transplant areas in Alabama, Mississippi, and Georgia would boom. People who said “the South will rise again” might end up having been right in a very different way.