Effective September 25, 1990, the management of the General Motors (GM) Parma, Ohio, stamping plant finalized another three-year local agreement with the United Auto Workers' Union (UAW), Local 1005. It was the second local agreement they had negotiated together on time and without intervention from Detroit, since Parma's self-described revolutionary agreement seven years previously. It was revolutionary because Parma's management and union had abandoned their old hostilities and incorporated a team-based approach to work, setting Parma in a new direction. The 1990 agreement formally documented their joint priorities of team-based workgroups, extensive employee training, and a supportive working environment. The assistant personnel director for hourly employment, Bill Marsh, felt that, although this was another positive step in their ongoing relationship with Local 1005, the negotiating process seemed more "traditional" than the previous negotiation in 1987. Bob Lintz, the plant manager, agreed. Unexpectedly, the new Shop Committee chairman, who is Local 1005's prime negotiator, had introduced over 600 demands at the start of Parma's local contract negotiation. Even though management and the union were still able to finalize an agreement quickly, the tension created by the enormous list of demands still lingered. It could destroy the collaborative relationship that had been built over the past decade between management and the union leadership as well as the openness that Bob Lintz had managed to foster between himself and the hourly employees.
In the early 1980s, Parma's corporate parent, GM, conducted a capacity rationalization study that concluded that almost 75 percent of Parma's operations should be either eliminated or transferred to other GM facilities within three years. Despite a one-year lapse in formal relations, and with no contract in effect, Parma's management and Local 1005 responded to this threat to plant survival by conducting a joint effort to bring in new business. This joint effort led to a number of competitive assessments of Parma's operations that identified several noncompetitive work practices. To formally acknowledge this new collaborative relationship, a new labor agreement was drafted and ratified in 1983 by Parma's rank and file that resulted in fewer work classifications and emphasized a team-based approach to managing workgroups.
To implement this agreement, Parma's top management and Local 1005 created the Team Concept Implementation Group (TCIG) to introduce this new Team Concept and spent $40 million on extensive training of the entire workforce in problem solving, group dynamics, and effective communication skills. By 1990, the Team Concept had empowered hourly employees to assume more responsibility in their jobs and to focus on problem-solving and work-related matters and to move beyond status differences exemplified by position titles or neckties.
Despite attempting to predict the eventual outcome of the negotiation, I did not anticipate the confrontations between Local H-56 and the management of Hotel Zinnia. Although they initially agreed to engage in integrative bargaining, the union and management subsequently entered an intense negotiation. When Local H-56 presented its proposal of wage increases and health insurance, management immediately responded with a counterproposal that surprised the union. Both the union and management eventually behaved confrontationally, accusing each other of bargaining unreasonably and focusing on the trivial aspects of the negotiation. Moreover, as the union and management felt increasingly frustrated, they suffered from a lack of unity in their teams. The union could not fulfill its objectives because its lead negotiator prevented other team members from contributing to the negotiation. On the other hand, several team members of management struggled to assert their authority as the lead negotiator. After observing these issues, I ultimately believe that the union and management failed to achieve their individual objectives. Moreover, by approaching the negotiation with a zero-sum strategy, I assert that the union and management failed to reach a mutually beneficial contract. At the same time, both sides of the bargaining table lacked cohesive teams and therefore struggled under the pressure of the negotiation.
At the Homestead Steel Works outside Pittsburgh, which had been purchased by Carnegie in 1883, the chairman blamed the Amalgamated Association of Iron and Steel Workers for low production, and with the expiry of the collective bargaining agreement approaching, he saw an opportunity to reduce the union’s power. Carnegie, who was an open supporter of unions, nevertheless agreed with Frick in the case of Homestead, because he considered AA to be a corrupt organization that did not properly represent the workers. In fact, only about 800 of the 3,800 employees at Homestead were members of AA (Krass 277).
In times of heated business disputes, navigating negotiation strategies is paramount to a successful business venture. In addition, the need to understand the various aspects of emotional exchanges that shift from rights, powers, and interests on both sides in the integrative and distributive approaches is the core of the modern day negotiations in business disputes. In the negotiation case between the parties, the two opposing sides represent an actual negotiation that occurred between Hormel and Local P9 in the 1980s. In this case, P-9 symbolized democracy and a willingness to oppose different demands for consensus regardless of the agenda or strategies of the international union. The defeated strike is a classic example of how employers can utilize
The case study of GMFC provides an example of a company attempting to avoid unionization of its workers. GMFC is expanding by building a new U.S. plant which will manufacture motorized recreational equipment. The company plans to hire about 500 production workers to assemble mechanical components, fabricate fiberglass body parts, and assemble the final products. In order to avoid the expected union campaign by the United Automobile Workers (UAW) to organize its workers, GMFC must implement specific strategies to keep the new plant union-free. GMFC’s planning committee offers suggestions with regards to the plant’s size, location, staffing, wages and benefits, and other employee relations issues in order to defend the company against the negative effects of unionization and increase...
The Pullman Porters were able to finally come to collective bargaining with their employer. Before this class I was not sure what this meant but as I heard in the video at the museum of this accomplishment, I was able to understand that the Pullman Porters representatives and their employers' representatives had to negotiate terms and conditions of their employment and dictate them in a contract with respect to wages, hours, and working
Tensions between union supporters and management began mounting in the years preceding the strike. In April of 1994, the International Union led a three-week strike against major tracking companies in the freight hauling industry in attempts to stop management from creating $9 per hour part-time positions. This would only foreshadow battles to come between management and union. Later, in 1995, teamsters mounted an unprecedented national union campaign in attempts to defeat the labor-management “cooperation” scheme that UPS management tried to establish in order to weaken the union before contract talks (Witt, Wilson). This strike was distinguished from other strikes of recent years in that it was an offensive strike, not a defensive one. It was a struggle in which the union was prepared, fought over issues which it defined, and one which relied overwhelmingly on the efforts of the members themselves (http://www.igc.org/dbacon/Strikes/07ups.htm).
In 1975, December 5, particularly, it arranged for a meeting with the company workers in attempts to acquire official cards for the company janitors. As result, 6 out of 11 workers benefitted from the program. Three days later, the organizer of the union, Schimmel Orval, reminded the wealth manager of the employer, Hall Thomas, to recognize the union as an advocate of the rights to bargain (Ivancevich, 2009).
Entering the 1950s, no corporation even came close to General Motors in its size, or it's profits. GM was twice as big as the second biggest company in the world, Standard Oil of New Jersey (father of today's ExxonMobil), and had a vast diversity of businesses ranging from home appliances to providing insurance and building Buicks, Cadillacs, Chevys, GMCs, Oldsmobiles, Pontiacs and trains. It was so big that it made more than half the cars sold in the United States and the U.S. Department of Justice's antitrust division was threatening to break it up(to prevent Monopolies, Like how Standard oil was broken up). In the 21st century, it's almost hard to imagine how powerful GM was in the 50s and 60s.Sports cars from Europe were getting popular, because of servicemen coming back from WWII, and wanted sports cars, but American Automakers didn't make sports cars, so they would either buy foreign, or go without. A man named McLean would still try to make a low priced sports car. But it didn't work. The idea of a car coming from GM that could compete with Jaguar, MG or Triumph was pretty much considered stupid and insane. C1:Generation: Bad but valuable. Just 300 Corvettes were made in 1953. Each of these first-year Corvettes was a white roadster with red interior. The Corvette was made of fiberglass for light weight, but the first cars were made with a really weak, (and kind of pathetic for a “sports car”) 150 horsepower 6-cylinder engine and an automatic transmission. The result was more of a look at me, I’m rich car than a race car. The first generation of the Corvette was introduced late in 1953. It was originally designed as a show car for GM's traveling car show, Motorama, the Corvette was a Show Car for the 1953 Motorama display at...
From personal experience the word team is best described as a group of colleagues focused together to solve a challenge and effectively reaching an outcome that goes beyond the team’s original expectations as well as those of the client/customer and...
To conclude this analysis on the basis of the labor’s extensive history, Sloane & Witney (2010) propose, “it is entirely possible that labor’s remarkable staying power has been because of the simple fact that to many workers, from the nineteenth century to the present, there really has been no acceptable substitute for collective bargaining as a means of maintaining and improving employment conditions” (p.80). In the end, it is important to anticipate unions and employers presently work together to find solutions that will enhance collective bargaining strategies and practices to serve the interest of both parties.
BMW having high market share in European and U.S luxury car markets, started facing issues with launch product qualities and also facing a fierce competition from Japanese producers. Currently the market share was still stable but the rigorous growth of Japanese producers would affect BMW in future. These Japanese competitors had set higher standards of conformance.
There is an emphasis on supplier diversity at GM. GM hopes having a diverse supply base will promote competition and good business practices that will allow many suppliers a chance to work together with GM to design and build parts for vehicles. The formal Supplier Diversity Program was established in 1968. Since then, the program has received numerous rewards. The program has created a Supplier Diversity Council which allows GM information and supplier concerns to be shared.
Larson, C. and LaFasto, F. (1989), Teamwork: What Must Go Right/What Can Go Wrong. Newberry Park, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
OPPORTUNITIES: McDonalds has many opportunities to change its look, menu, and customer service. McDonald’s started building newer building incorporating the arch, along with more modern furnishings. The menu has changed by adding more breakfast items and introducing the McCafe in certain areas.
... A. Mitsubishi settles Workers? Disputes under pressure from NOW. NOW. (Fall 1998) Internet: http://www.now.org/nnt/fall-98/wfw.html