Monday, January 07, 2008
[IWS] CRS: MOTOR VEHICLE MANUFACTURING EMPLOYMENT: NATIONAL & STATE TRENDS & ISSUES [27 December 2007]
IWS Documented News Service
_______________________________
Institute for Workplace Studies----------------- Professor Samuel B. Bacharach
School of Industrial & Labor Relations-------- Director, Institute for Workplace Studies
Cornell University
16 East 34th Street, 4th floor---------------------- Stuart Basefsky
New York, NY 10016 -------------------------------Director, IWS News Bureau
________________________________________________________________________
Congressional Research Service (CRS)
Order Code RL34297
Motor Vehicle Manufacturing Employment: National and State Trends and Issues
December 27, 2007
Stephen Cooney, Specialist in Industrial Organization and Business, Resources, Science, and Industry Division
http://assets.opencrs.com/rpts/RL34297_20071227.pdf
[full-text, 40 pages]
Summary
The U.S. motor vehicle manufacturing industry employs about 1 million
workers, or about 7.5% of the entire U.S. manufacturing workforce, including those
who work in manufacturing parts and bodies, as well as those who assemble motor
vehicles. Since 2000, the industry has eliminated about 300,000 manufacturing jobs,
but the employment level is still almost as high as in 1990. By comparison,
manufacturing in general has suffered a much higher rate of job loss.
The Detroit-based U.S.-owned manufacturers (General Motors, Ford, and
Chrysler, collectively known as the "Big Three"), all of which are organized by the
United Auto Workers union (UAW), have cut back domestic production by 3 million
units since 2000, accounting for all the net employment losses. The shift in consumer
preferences from trucks and SUVs to smaller vehicles has accelerated a loss of
market share by the Big Three producers and gains for foreign-owned domestic
manufacturers and imports. Big Three employment losses were partially offset by
new investments by foreign-owned manufacturers in the United States. Today,
companies owned by foreign investors produce 28% of all U.S.-made light motor
vehicles, up from 11% in 1990.
The patterns of job loss and creation have not been evenly distributed around
the country. Forty-four percent of all persons in the industry work in a "heartland
auto belt" of three states, Michigan, Ohio, and Indiana, each of which has more than
100,000 persons in the industry. Michigan alone has accounted for more than a third
of the net job loss in the industry since 2000. Losses in Ohio and Indiana have been
less severe, offset somewhat by foreign investment. Alabama has been the big recent
job gainer, adding 15,000 jobs since 2000. Tennessee and Kentucky, now the fourth
and fifth largest producing states, have added the most jobs since 1990, and South
Carolina has also seen a big net gain. These jobs, mostly non-union, have stretched
the "auto belt" more to the South.
New fuel economy standards for automobiles and light trucks, as approved by
Congress and signed into law (P.L. 110-140), may encourage greater development
of small, fuel efficient cars, but the number of such U.S. plants, even for foreignowned
companies, has declined in recent years. S. 2191, approved at committee
level in the Senate in December 2007, would use funds from the auction of emission
allowances to support domestic manufacture of fuel-efficient vehicles and
components. Congress may also consider the proposed Korea-U.S. Free Trade
Agreement, which addresses the current imbalance in automotive trade. The
Employee Free Choice Act (H.R. 800), approved by the House, but on which a
cloture vote failed in the Senate, could help the UAW organize foreign-owned
companies.
In seeking to improve the competitiveness of Big Three assembly operations
against both non-union domestic producers and imports, the UAW and the Big Three
in 2007 negotiated new contract bargaining agreements. The deals addressed health
care costs, wage levels, and other issues.
Contents
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Motor Vehicle Manufacturing Jobs: A National Crisis? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Sales and Production Trends in the U.S. Market . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
U.S. Demand for Domestically Made Vehicles Declines Trucks
Worst Affected . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Big Three UAW Plants Suffer Largest Production Cuts . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
The Impact of Sales and Production Trends on Employment . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
National Motor Vehicle Manufacturing Employment Data . . . . . . . . . . 9
Motor Vehicle Manufacturing Holds Up Better Than Other
Manufacturing Employment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Past Performance and Future Outlook for Motor Vehicle
Manufacturing Employment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Motor Vehicle Manufacturing Performance by State . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
The Heartland Auto Belt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
A "One-State Recession" in Michigan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Mixed Results in Ohio and Indiana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Employment Mostly Stable in Other Leading States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Other Motor Vehicle Manufacturing States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
U.S. Manufacturing of Small Motor Vehicles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Changing Detroit: The 2007 Collective Bargaining Agreements . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
The 2007 Contract Negotiation Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Summary of New Contract Bargaining Agreements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Transfer of Retiree Health Care to UAW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Two-Tier Pay and Benefits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Jobs Bank Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Detroit Big Three Cost Benefits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Labor Gains in Job Security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Reducing Detroit's Commitment to Canada? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
Conclusion: A Competitive Detroit Big Three? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
Outlook for U.S. Motor Vehicle Manufacturing Employment . . . . . . 33
Legislative Initiatives May Affect Automotive
Manufacturing Employment Outlook . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
List of Figures
Figure 1. Motor Vehicle Sales . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Figure 2. U.S. Motor Vehicle Production . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Figure 3. U.S. Motor Vehicle Industry Manufacturing Employment . . . . . . . . . 10
Figure 4. Employment Trends, Motor Vehicle and General Manufacturing . . . 11
Figure 5. U.S. Motor Vehicle Manufacturing Employment by State . . . . . . . . . 16
List of Tables
Table 1. Motor Vehicle Manufacturing States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Table 2. Four Decades of U.S. Small Car Manufacturing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Table 3. Identification of Small Cars by Manufacturer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Table 4. U.S. Small Car Manufacturing Assembly Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
______________________________
This information is provided to subscribers, friends, faculty, students and alumni of the School of Industrial & Labor Relations (ILR). It is a service of the Institute for Workplace Studies (IWS) in New York City. Stuart Basefsky is responsible for the selection of the contents which is intended to keep researchers, companies, workers, and governments aware of the latest information related to ILR disciplines as it becomes available for the purposes of research, understanding and debate. The content does not reflect the opinions or positions of Cornell University, the School of Industrial & Labor Relations, or that of Mr. Basefsky and should not be construed as such. The service is unique in that it provides the original source documentation, via links, behind the news and research of the day. Use of the information provided is unrestricted. However, it is requested that users acknowledge that the information was found via the IWS Documented News Service.
Stuart Basefsky
Director, IWS News Bureau
Institute for Workplace Studies
Cornell/ILR School
16 E. 34th Street, 4th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (607) 255-2703
Fax: (607) 255-9641
E-mail: smb6@cornell.edu
****************************************
_______________________________
Institute for Workplace Studies----------------- Professor Samuel B. Bacharach
School of Industrial & Labor Relations-------- Director, Institute for Workplace Studies
Cornell University
16 East 34th Street, 4th floor---------------------- Stuart Basefsky
New York, NY 10016 -------------------------------Director, IWS News Bureau
________________________________________________________________________
Congressional Research Service (CRS)
Order Code RL34297
Motor Vehicle Manufacturing Employment: National and State Trends and Issues
December 27, 2007
Stephen Cooney, Specialist in Industrial Organization and Business, Resources, Science, and Industry Division
http://assets.opencrs.com/rpts/RL34297_20071227.pdf
[full-text, 40 pages]
Summary
The U.S. motor vehicle manufacturing industry employs about 1 million
workers, or about 7.5% of the entire U.S. manufacturing workforce, including those
who work in manufacturing parts and bodies, as well as those who assemble motor
vehicles. Since 2000, the industry has eliminated about 300,000 manufacturing jobs,
but the employment level is still almost as high as in 1990. By comparison,
manufacturing in general has suffered a much higher rate of job loss.
The Detroit-based U.S.-owned manufacturers (General Motors, Ford, and
Chrysler, collectively known as the "Big Three"), all of which are organized by the
United Auto Workers union (UAW), have cut back domestic production by 3 million
units since 2000, accounting for all the net employment losses. The shift in consumer
preferences from trucks and SUVs to smaller vehicles has accelerated a loss of
market share by the Big Three producers and gains for foreign-owned domestic
manufacturers and imports. Big Three employment losses were partially offset by
new investments by foreign-owned manufacturers in the United States. Today,
companies owned by foreign investors produce 28% of all U.S.-made light motor
vehicles, up from 11% in 1990.
The patterns of job loss and creation have not been evenly distributed around
the country. Forty-four percent of all persons in the industry work in a "heartland
auto belt" of three states, Michigan, Ohio, and Indiana, each of which has more than
100,000 persons in the industry. Michigan alone has accounted for more than a third
of the net job loss in the industry since 2000. Losses in Ohio and Indiana have been
less severe, offset somewhat by foreign investment. Alabama has been the big recent
job gainer, adding 15,000 jobs since 2000. Tennessee and Kentucky, now the fourth
and fifth largest producing states, have added the most jobs since 1990, and South
Carolina has also seen a big net gain. These jobs, mostly non-union, have stretched
the "auto belt" more to the South.
New fuel economy standards for automobiles and light trucks, as approved by
Congress and signed into law (P.L. 110-140), may encourage greater development
of small, fuel efficient cars, but the number of such U.S. plants, even for foreignowned
companies, has declined in recent years. S. 2191, approved at committee
level in the Senate in December 2007, would use funds from the auction of emission
allowances to support domestic manufacture of fuel-efficient vehicles and
components. Congress may also consider the proposed Korea-U.S. Free Trade
Agreement, which addresses the current imbalance in automotive trade. The
Employee Free Choice Act (H.R. 800), approved by the House, but on which a
cloture vote failed in the Senate, could help the UAW organize foreign-owned
companies.
In seeking to improve the competitiveness of Big Three assembly operations
against both non-union domestic producers and imports, the UAW and the Big Three
in 2007 negotiated new contract bargaining agreements. The deals addressed health
care costs, wage levels, and other issues.
Contents
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Motor Vehicle Manufacturing Jobs: A National Crisis? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Sales and Production Trends in the U.S. Market . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
U.S. Demand for Domestically Made Vehicles Declines Trucks
Worst Affected . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Big Three UAW Plants Suffer Largest Production Cuts . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
The Impact of Sales and Production Trends on Employment . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
National Motor Vehicle Manufacturing Employment Data . . . . . . . . . . 9
Motor Vehicle Manufacturing Holds Up Better Than Other
Manufacturing Employment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Past Performance and Future Outlook for Motor Vehicle
Manufacturing Employment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Motor Vehicle Manufacturing Performance by State . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
The Heartland Auto Belt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
A "One-State Recession" in Michigan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Mixed Results in Ohio and Indiana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Employment Mostly Stable in Other Leading States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Other Motor Vehicle Manufacturing States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
U.S. Manufacturing of Small Motor Vehicles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Changing Detroit: The 2007 Collective Bargaining Agreements . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
The 2007 Contract Negotiation Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Summary of New Contract Bargaining Agreements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Transfer of Retiree Health Care to UAW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Two-Tier Pay and Benefits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Jobs Bank Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Detroit Big Three Cost Benefits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Labor Gains in Job Security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Reducing Detroit's Commitment to Canada? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
Conclusion: A Competitive Detroit Big Three? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
Outlook for U.S. Motor Vehicle Manufacturing Employment . . . . . . 33
Legislative Initiatives May Affect Automotive
Manufacturing Employment Outlook . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
List of Figures
Figure 1. Motor Vehicle Sales . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Figure 2. U.S. Motor Vehicle Production . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Figure 3. U.S. Motor Vehicle Industry Manufacturing Employment . . . . . . . . . 10
Figure 4. Employment Trends, Motor Vehicle and General Manufacturing . . . 11
Figure 5. U.S. Motor Vehicle Manufacturing Employment by State . . . . . . . . . 16
List of Tables
Table 1. Motor Vehicle Manufacturing States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Table 2. Four Decades of U.S. Small Car Manufacturing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Table 3. Identification of Small Cars by Manufacturer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Table 4. U.S. Small Car Manufacturing Assembly Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
______________________________
This information is provided to subscribers, friends, faculty, students and alumni of the School of Industrial & Labor Relations (ILR). It is a service of the Institute for Workplace Studies (IWS) in New York City. Stuart Basefsky is responsible for the selection of the contents which is intended to keep researchers, companies, workers, and governments aware of the latest information related to ILR disciplines as it becomes available for the purposes of research, understanding and debate. The content does not reflect the opinions or positions of Cornell University, the School of Industrial & Labor Relations, or that of Mr. Basefsky and should not be construed as such. The service is unique in that it provides the original source documentation, via links, behind the news and research of the day. Use of the information provided is unrestricted. However, it is requested that users acknowledge that the information was found via the IWS Documented News Service.
Stuart Basefsky
Director, IWS News Bureau
Institute for Workplace Studies
Cornell/ILR School
16 E. 34th Street, 4th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (607) 255-2703
Fax: (607) 255-9641
E-mail: smb6@cornell.edu
****************************************
# posted by SBasefsky : 1:33 PM
