UAW Backs Down

AN IMPORTANT VICTORY FOR FAIRNESS AND OPENNESS

By Dave Andrusko

The United Auto Workers (UAW), in the wake of a powerful, spontaneous grassroots rebellion, has publicly backed off of what was supposed to be a behind-the-scenes campaign to secure coverage of "voluntary" abortions in negotiations for a new national contract with automakers. By "voluntary," union officials meant elective.

According to the September 25 Detroit Free Press, this "potentially explosive request" came up in talks about health care coverage between the UAW and General Motors Corporation and Chrysler Group. (The current four-year contract between the union and the automakers was expiring in September.) At the time the news first leaked out about a month earlier, it was not known whether the same request was made to Ford Motor Company - - the third of the "Big Three" American automakers.

But once the Free Press broke the news, the reaction was swift and furious. The second paragraph in Sarah Webster's story put it this way: "Thursday, as UAW members continue voting on their new contract, the controversial proposal that shocked many union members into action - - health care coverage for abortions - - has been quashed."

UAW President Ron Gettelfinger was described as "furious" that the news had gotten out. Exactly why was not spelled out. Perhaps it was (as the next paragraph intimated) because abortion coverage was a "throwaway demand" never meant to be taken seriously.

But a close reading of all that was involved clearly suggests the UAW was dead serious, both about its request for coverage of elective abortion and for keeping the membership in the dark.

For example, as Webster writes, "The union had quietly asked for the coverage of elective abortions, which aren't medically necessary, in the past." Nothing in what the UAW officials said to the Free Press suggested there was a groundswell of demand for abortion coverage, now or previously.

Moreover, the leadership was given a chance to counter that news reports were inaccurate. According to the Free Press story, a number of protesters called the UAW president. They "hoped the union would deny the proposal was made or pacify them by saying it wasn't sincere. But that didn't happen, they say."

Adding weight to the conclusion the UAW officialdom was completely serious is the way they handled a previous controversial issue. Three or four years back there had not been a mass movement for union involvement in another hotly contentious social issue (outside our purview). But the leadership managed to get it enacted by bypassing a vote from its members, which is one reason UAW members knew they had to react quickly this time around.

The UAW leadership had two options. It could include coverage for elective abortions directly (as part of a negotiated contract) or through the back door (as it had with the prior controversy) by getting the auto companies to agree to "study" the issue. That would have the effect of preventing union members from voting up or down on the change when they voted to ratify or reject the contract, the Free Press reported.

Forewarned is forearmed. As Webster explained in her lead, "Moments after the news broke this summer, petitions started circulating in the plants, the phones started ringing at Solidarity House in Detroit, and abortion protestors sprang into action."

Workers were furious for any number of excellent reasons.

Why this foray into THE most controversial issue of our day "when core issues such as jobs, pensions and basic health benefits were at stake"?

Why not one word in advance that the subject was up for discussion? (One petition that circulated in a plant complained, "The union rank and file were not informed of this proposal or polled for their opinions on this volatile subject.")

No wonder many workers - - union and non-union - - were "shocked."

The Free Press story speculated, "The groundswell of negative reaction to the abortion proposal may dissuade the union or automakers from revisiting the issue in the future. Letters opposing the proposal were sent to top officials for GM, Ford, Chrysler and the UAW."

But this is highly unlikely. Abortion advocates are no less resolute in promoting death than pro-lifers are in promoting life. As this latest controversy clearly demonstrates, pro-lifers must be on the alert every second of every day.

The key to winning, as so often is the case, is in finding out what's going on and then alerting people. This works for the simple reason that whether we're talking about union members or anybody else, the overwhelming majority of Americans do not favor anything that smacks of promoting abortion.

"Abortion remains stigmatized - - and rightly so - - because of what it is and because of everything that pro-life citizens are doing to educate the American public," NRLC Executive Director David N. O'Steen, Ph.D., told NRL News. "Congratulations are in order to the folks who made the UAW back down."