GM, Union to Feel Fallout After Firing of UAW Officers
While General Motors might have been justified in punishing two key Van Nuys local union leaders, there are also justifiable suspicions about the motives of a company that actually fires union activists.
Last week, GM fired Peter Z. Beltran, shop chairman of the UAW’s Van Nuys Local 645, and Michael Velasquez, the local’s vice president. The two men were among the country’s harshest opponents of a valuable labor-management cooperation system developed by GM and the United Auto Workers.
Even if GM’s action against the two local officers was warranted, the severe penalty imposed by the company may not have been wise and could cause serious repercussions for both the company and the union.
The firings could add to the already-strong discord within the local union at the Van Nuys facility. And it could slow production in that strife-torn plant, where about half the workers are Latino, as are Beltran and Velasquez.
The firing could also intensify the feuding in the entire 1.1-million-member UAW, which has been hit hard in the past year by angry complaints from militant dissidents in several parts of the country.
Victor Reuther, a UAW founder, and other dissidents around the nation, including Beltran and Velasquez, have charged that the officers of the international union have been excessively friendly with management and have dealt undemocratically with their critics within the union.
Beltran, who has worked in the Van Nuys plant for 30 years, was fired for allegedly lying about his 38 days of unexcused absences last year.
Velasquez, a political ally of Beltran, worked at the plant for 31 years. He was fired for allegedly lying in a letter written to the company at Beltran’s behest claiming that Beltran was engaged in union business during the absences.
If the letter were accurate, it would have legitimized the absences because GM pays full-time local union officers when they are actually performing their union duties. But the company says it has strong evidence supporting the accusations.
Less clear, though, is whether the extreme punishment of discharge is fair, since the two men have worked for GM for more than three decades.
Politically, discharging them gives more ammunition to foes of labor-management cooperation who contend that GM is a ruthless company concerned only with profit, not workers’ welfare, and that the company, not union members, is getting help from top UAW leaders.
Beltran and Velasquez fought strenuously, but vainly, to prevent the introduction at the Van Nuys plant of the team concept of work that has already been a great success in several GM facilities. Not only is the Van Nuys local still torn by the bitter internal fight over the issue, but the two men have joined other foes of the team concept at GM to fight it nationwide.
Under the team concept, auto firm employees work in small groups on entire parts of the car instead of individuals performing single, repetitive tasks. And, most importantly, they are given a voice in many decisions normally reserved for management.
Those opposed to the concept and to labor-management cooperation generally denounce it as a plot to weaken unions and allow companies to force employees to work faster than ever.
But almost all the officers of the international union, most local leaders and an apparent majority of members disagree with the dissidents.
They agree more with those GM executives who have realized at last that the jobs of GM workers and the future of the giant company itself depend in part on ending the traditional adversarial relations between the company and the union and giving workers a meaningful voice in company management.
Unfortunately, executives of GM and other auto companies help the dissidents’ cause by rewarding themselves with enormous salaries and bonuses, thereby perpetuating the idea that the companies are unfair to workers.
UAW President Owen Bieber and Vice President Donald Ephlin said in a recent joint statement that the millions of dollars paid to GM executives “can’t be justified rationally and constitutes an insult to common sense and fairness.”
They pointed out the ridiculous contrast between the huge income the GM executives gave themselves in 1987 and the omission of any profit-sharing checks to workers because of “inadequate” company profits.
Bieber and other UAW leaders who believe in labor-management cooperation are incensed by the amounts paid to the auto industry executives. But those unionists are also aware that the contrast between the income of workers and executives is a strong talking point for the dissidents.
The dissidents’ attack on their own union gets more attention than the massive job losses and other serious economic problems that are frustrating both them and the UAW leaders in today’s hostile political climate created, at least in part, by the anti-union attitude and actions of President Reagan.
The dissidents shout slogans used by militant unionists in the early days of the labor movement and call for increased, open conflict with management now. But that tactic isn’t going to solve the complex problems plaguing workers in the auto and other industries.
UAW President Bieber and others correctly argue that now, more than ever, there is an urgent need for labor unity if workable solutions to the problems are to be found.
Even when the dissidents seem clearly in the wrong, proponents of labor-management cooperation are not always helped when action is taken against the rebels, as in the case of the firings of Beltran and Velasquez.
GM might ease this latest imbroglio by temporarily suspending the two men as punishment for their apparent misconduct rather than permanently firing them. The same result could come out of the company-union grievance procedure initiated when they protested their dismissals.
Nationally, top union leaders have not done enough to stop the internal feuding. And they often respond in kind to the ugly attacks on them.
But the dissidents must offer more than calls for war with management and furious denunciations of UAW leaders who believe in cooperation with GM. Such conduct is hardly a meaningful contribution to the search for solutions to problems facing workers today.
Tamper-Proof Social Security Cards Needed
The amnesty program for illegal aliens ended last week, but many problems associated with that unprecedented, sensible action by the United States are not over.
A tamper-resistant Social Security card could deal with several of the problems, particularly the difficult one of quickly and accurately identifying those who continue to come here illegally.
It would also help once-illegal aliens prove that they are here legally when they apply for jobs and would help employers reject job applicants they believe are not here legally without risking charges of discrimination if they are wrong.
Everyone, foreign-born or not, must now have a Social Security card to get work, but the trouble is that the cards are easily forged.
MasterCard, Visa, American Express and other credit cards are not fool-proof, but the companies issuing them say the number of times their cards are abused by forgery or theft is quite small relative to the total number of cards issued.
Similar tamper-resistant Social Security cards could easily be produced to help employers make sure they are not violating the revised immigration law prohibiting employment of illegal aliens.
Workers who are legally entitled to jobs could use the new Social Security cards to prevent discrimination against them by employers. The workers’ card number could be checked as easily as the validity of credit cards is checked.
Some civil rights’ advocates are concerned that the cards could somehow lead to government demands that people must often show the identification card, a common requirement in police states.
But the use of the tamper-resistant Social Security cards for anything other than normal identification for employment, as is now required, could not happen as long as the United States is a functioning democracy.
The new cards could not destroy democracy, and they could greatly enhance the effectiveness of the new immigration law that is designed to finally allow the United States to regain control of its borders.
