Regimes, Resistance and Reforms: Comparing Workers' Politics in the Automobile Industry in China and India

The automobile industry in China was shaken by an unprecedented upsurge of labour unrest in 2010, beginning with the much-discussed wildcat strike at the Nanhai Honda transmission plant in Guangdong province. While worker activism in auto plants in India was not as concentrated as in China’s 2010 strike wave, the period 2009–2017 witnessed twenty-seven strikes nationwide, indicating a significant uptick after the global recession. The optimism that regarded the escalation of labour unrest as indicative of a global labour movement emerging from the Global South has died down. This is an appropriate moment to ask the question: Why did these protests not materialise into something more? Existing explanations in China tend to focus on the regime characteristics. In this article, we undertake a much-needed comparative analysis to explore the failure of these protests. We argue that their failure to sustain their momentum, let alone become a global movement, must be understood in the context of the structures and temporality of capitalism. While we show that there were regime-based divergences and national characteristics in each case, we also show the striking global convergence both in the ways that the protests materialised and how the states responded. KEYWORDS: labour resistance; temporary work; democracy; neo-liberalism; China; India

Romanian auto industry must adapt to changing market

Subject Romania's auto industry. Significance Car production and sales in Romania have proved robust this year, despite concerns about weakening demand in Europe and global trade tensions. However, there is concern that fundamentals in the sector, especially low productivity, will delay an effective response to technological, climate and regulatory challenges. Moreover, a much stronger policy response is needed to accelerate the phasing out of old, polluting cars and the positioning of Romanian auto plants to compete in the future. Impacts The whole European vehicle sector is urgently grappling with climate change, technological change and regulatory pressures. The expected disruption from Brexit is daunting for both the EU-wide and Romanian auto sectors. Dacia is still Romania’s main producer, but not all models enjoy equal success.

Autoworkers and Their Unions

Since the introduction of “Fordism” in the early 1910s, which emphasized technological improvements and maximizing productive efficiency, US autoworkers have struggled with repetitive, exhausting, often dangerous jobs. Yet beginning with Ford’s Five Dollar Day, introduced in 1914, auto jobs have also provided higher pay than most other wage work, attracting hundreds of thousands of people, especially to Detroit, Michigan, through the 1920s, and again from World War II until the mid-1950s. Successful unionization campaigns by the United Auto Workers (UAW) in the 1930s and early 1940s resulted in contracts that guaranteed particular wage increases, reduced the power of foremen, and created a process for resolving workplace conflicts. In the late 1940s and early 1950s UAW president Walter Reuther negotiated generous medical benefits and pensions for autoworkers. The volatility of the auto industry, however, often brought layoffs that undermined economic security. By the 1950s overproduction and automation contributed heavily to instability for autoworkers. The UAW officially supported racial and gender equality, but realities in auto plants and the makeup of union leadership often belied those principles. Beginning in the 1970s US autoworkers faced disruptions caused by high oil prices, foreign competition, and outsourcing to Mexico. Contract concessions at unionized plants began in the late 1970s and continued into the 2000s. By the end of the 20th century, many American autoworkers did not belong to the UAW because they were employed by foreign automakers, who built factories in the United States and successfully opposed unionization. For good reason, autoworkers who survived the industry’s turbulence and were able to retire with guaranteed pensions and medical care look back fondly on all that they gained from working in the industry under UAW contracts. Countless others left auto work permanently and often reluctantly in periodic massive layoffs and the continuous loss of jobs from automation.

A Post–Korean War Boom, 1953

The upsurge in auto production near the end of the Korean War continued well into the New Year, which surpassed mid-1950 as the best approximation of a postwar boom. The end of government wartime controls on industrial materials created free market conditions that automakers had long coveted, and Detroit auto plants experienced an acute labor shortage in early 1953. Tens of thousands of migrants from outside Michigan headed to Detroit for auto jobs. Even during the boom, however, black men, all women, and middle-aged applicants experienced employment discrimination. By the end of 1953, autoworkers again found themselves in precarious circumstances as the auto market slackened and layoffs increased.

Shortages and Strikes, 1945–1948

After earning the nickname "The Arsenal of Democracy" during WWII, Detroit’s auto plants experienced production disruptions during postwar reconversion to civilian production. This meant significant layoffs, especially for women autoworkers. Shortages of crucial materials, often caused by steel strikes and coal strikes, made auto employment sporadic. Authorized strikes in the auto industry, including the 1946 GM strike called by Walter Reuther, and unauthorized "wildcat" strikes, all contributed to ongoing instability. Cold weather, hot weather, and federal credit regulations played roles as well. As a result, autoworkers experienced persistent layoffs even though auto companies managed to earn profits during the early postwar years. By late 1948, no one in the industry thought that the postwar boom had arrived.

“The Fifties” in One Year, 1955

The year 1955 is the template for claims that the decade was a golden age for autoworkers. It began with auto plants operating at or near capacity, with multiple shifts. Business leaders predicted that the good times would last indefinitely. Nevertheless, unemployment remained high, and UAW leaders feared that excessive production early in the year would mean layoffs by fall. While production hummed at record rates, automakers and the UAW engaged in contract negotiations, with union leaders demanding a Guaranteed Annual Wage. Instead, the two sides settled on Supplemental Unemployment Benefits. Compared with any other year in the decade, 1955 brought high production, low unemployment, substantial profits for automakers, and steady pay for autoworkers, who were called the new labor aristocracy.