Commentary: Union auto plants beat non-union competitors

There are two different auto industries in the United States and Canada: The unionized industry is at Chrysler, Ford, General Motors, NUMMI and Mitsubishi. The non-union industry consists of Toyota, Nissan, Honda and several more recent entries.

Many people assume that because of a union contract, non-union plants are more efficient than organized facilities. But the relevant data reveal the exact opposite pattern: In most cases – 11 out of 12, to be exact – union auto assembly plants are more productive than their non-union counterparts.

This is not United Auto Workers spin. Those are the facts contained in the Harbour Report, the most closely watched study of auto plant productivity.

In 2006, the Harbour Report measured precisely 12 vehicle categories in which union assembly plants went head-to-head against nonunion plants: a Chrysler plant making minivans vs. a Honda plant making a similar product. A GM plant producing pickups vs. a Toyota plant in the exact same vehicle category. A Ford plant making sedans against Honda and Toyota sedan factories.

In 11 of those 12 categories, UAW members and Canadian Auto Workers members won the top ranking and outperformed the competition.

Page 1 of the Harbour Report states that "Toyota leads the six largest competitors in total manufacturing productivity," which is similar to the headline in past Harbour Reports. This is an instance where the headline is not supported by the facts in the body of the story.

Why? Because "total manufacturing productivity" does not take into account the size and complexity of the vehicles produced. It takes more hours, for example, to produce a Chrysler minivan than it does to produce a Toyota Camry. A minivan, among other things, has three rows of seats, while a Camry has just two. So it takes more installation, more fitting and more wiring to put together a minivan.

Because of management decisions driven by consumer preferences, Chrysler, Ford and GM produce more large vehicles – such as minivans, pickups and sport utility vehicles – than Honda, Nissan and Toyota. That doesn't mean unionized companies are less efficient. It just means they are choosing to manufacture vehicles that take more time to produce.

Think of it this way: If Toyota were selling more Tundras but fewer Camrys, it would produce more of the former and fewer of the latter.

Harbour data indicate that it takes more than 26 hours to produce a Tundra, and just over 19 hours to produce a Camry, so this shift would add more hours to Toyota's overall manufacturing schedule. But that would not mean that Toyota had suddenly become a less efficient company; it would just show the result of a choice to produce a different mix of vehicles.

The only real way to measure the relative efficiency of factories run by different companies is to see what happens when they make the same kind of vehicle. When Harbour does that analysis, union plants come out on top.

The top productivity rankings won by UAW and CAW plants is a tribute to the hard work our members do every day. It's also a tribute to the power of democracy in action.

Certainly there are provisions in collective bargaining agreements that take time to implement. But it's time well spent. When workers have a real say in the decisions that affect their lives, they win real ownership of their work and their work processes.

That translates into measurable efficiency and world-class performance in one of the most competitive manufacturing environments in the world.

Obviously, the men and women who work in assembly plants put in a full day of grueling work building a quality product in a productive, safe manner. The Harbour Report results give them reason to take pride. But they also know that this year's report is history, and what they do today will be reflected in the next year's report.

Ron Gettelfinger is president of the UAW. This article appeared on August 3, 2007, in the Detroit News’ Labor Voices.