Why September will be a momentous month for US industry

Published

2 years ago

September 5, 2023

admin

It is one of the great set-piece moments in the US industrial calendar.

At the start of pay negotiations, which take place every four years ahead of the expiry of existing contracts in September, the leaders of the big three US carmakers traditionally shake hands in front of the cameras with the leader of the United Auto Workers (UAW) union.

The tradition goes back almost a century: Wayne State University in Detroit, America’s car-making capital, has unearthed photographs dating back to the 1930s showing the UAW leaders of the time shaking hands with a leader from Ford, Chrysler or General Motors.

This was the precursor to another established tradition under which the UAW would select a lead company with which to negotiate. Then, once a deal had been struck, the other carmakers would follow the first company’s lead in a process known as ‘pattern bargaining’.

So it was a seismic moment when, in July this year, the UAW’s new president, Shawn Fain, declined to take part in the handshake.

Instead, he held what were described as a “member’s handshake”, during which he met with workers at the big three (Chrysler is now owned by Stellantis, also the parent company of European carmakers Peugeot and Fiat) as they came off their shifts.

It was intended to lay down a marker to the carmakers that this was a very different UAW leadership.

Mr Fain, 54, was narrowly elected president of the UAW in March this year on a platform of promising a tougher approach to pay negotiations.

His victory, over the existing president Ray Curry, was historic in that it was the first in which the president, and other leading officials, were chosen by a direct ballot of members rather than in a proverbial smoke-filled room in which delegates chose the leadership.

Mr Fain, in winning, toppled a faction of the union that had controlled it for decades.

On being elected, Mr Fain – who began his career as an electrician with Chrysler – immediately served notice on the carmakers that he did not intend this to be business as usual, declaring: “We’re here to come together to ready ourselves for the war against our one and only true enemy: multibillion corporations and employers that refuse to give our members their fair share. It’s a new day in the UAW.”

If that didn’t make the carmakers sit up and take note, Mr Fain’s refusal to take part in the traditional handshake did, as he told the union’s 389,000 members on his social media feed: “I’m not shaking hands with any CEOs until they do right by our members, and we fix the broken status quo with the big three. The members have to come first.”

For good measure, he very publicly threw a Stellantis pay offer in a bin.

Mr Fain’s approach is making waves on Wall Street.

There are real concerns that Mr Fain – who carries around with him one of his grandfather’s payslips from Chrysler in 1940 – will bring out his members at all three carmakers if a deal is not reached by the time the existing contracts expire on 14 September. Such action would be unprecedented.

Members at the three have voted for strike action in the event of negotiations breaking down, by an average of 97%.

Strikes would cause immense disruption at a time when the carmakers are having to invest billions in electrification while trying to cut their costs in response to inflation.

Yet, with Wall Street putting the odds of strike action at the big three as better than events, the two sides look set for collision.

The UAW is not only seeking to restore past benefits lost in previous pay negotiations, but also to cut the working week to 32 hours.

It is also seeking a significant pay rise, the extent of which it has not made public, but which has been reported by the Wall Street Journal as 46%.

That would severely hobble the big three’s competitiveness against foreign rivals, from Germany and Japan – which tend to have less union representation in their workforces, as well as the likes of non-unionised Tesla.

Some 150,000 of the UAW’s members work for Ford, GM and Stellantis but strikes at all three would be huge because the union has traditionally singled out an individual carmaker for strike action rather than attacking several targets at once. It would also be a risk.

The union has a strike fund of $900m (£716m) – half of which would be eaten by a six-week stoppage in which striking members at the big three were each paid $500 (£398) a week.

That is why it has been suggested that Mr Fain may adopt another tactic, bringing out its members at the car parts makers instead, in time depriving the big three of components and forcing them to temporarily close plants while still having to pay workers.

That, though, would also be a risk for the UAW, as it is not nearly as well represented among the parts makers.

Mr Fain’s election is not just rattling Wall Street – but also in Washington. Mr Fain has refused to say whether the union will endorse and provide support to Joe Biden as he seeks re-election to the White House next year.

He told the Boston Globe at the weekend: “I’ve tried to be clear with people: The days of us just freely giving endorsements are over. Our endorsements have to be earned.”

Those comments speak to his unease that, as the Biden administration offers huge subsidies to businesses involved in the transition to net zero, it is not doing so with sufficient protection for carmakers.

He was particularly unhappy at a $9.2bn (£7.3bn) loan awarded by the Biden administration in June to a joint venture between Ford and a South Korean company to build three battery factories in Kentucky and Tennessee.

Mr Fain felt the loan should have come with strings attached on wages and working conditions.

He told the Globe: “We support a green economy. We have to have clean air, clean water, but this transition has to be a just transition. Workers can’t be left behind.”

Mr Fain’s election must also be seen in the context of changing circumstances in America’s unions.

The powerful Teamsters union, like the UAW, has also jettisoned the ruling faction that has run it for decades in favour of more radical leadership. Its aggressive stance is credited with having won it a pay deal with United Parcel Services reckoned to be the most generous in the company’s history.

Part-time workers at UPS were awarded a reported 50% pay rise while other concessions agreed by the company included a promise to instal air conditioning in all of its trucks.

Mr Fain is clearly optimistic that he has the wind to his back and can secure similar wins for his members. If he succeeds, other union leaders will be taking note.

It is why the month of September promises to be a momentous one for US industry.

Business

Post Office Capture scandal: Sir Alan Bates calls for those responsible for wrongful convictions to be ‘brought to account’

Published

2 hours ago

June 20, 2025

admin

Post Office Capture scandal: Sir Alan Bates calls for those responsible for wrongful convictions to be 'brought to account'

Sir Alan Bates has called for those responsible for the wrongful convictions of sub postmasters in the Capture IT scandal to be “brought to account”.

It comes after Sky News unearthed a report showing Post Office lawyers knew of faults in the software nearly three decades ago.

The documents, found in a garage by a retired computer expert, describe the Capture system as “an accident waiting to happen”.

Sir Alan said the Sky News investigation showed “yet another failure of government oversight; another failure of the Post Office board to ensure [the] Post Office recruited senior people competent of bringing in IT systems” and management that was “out of touch with what was going on within its organisation”.

The unearthed Capture report was commissioned by the defence team for sub postmistress Patricia Owen and served on the Post Office in 1998 at her trial.

It described the software as “quite capable of producing absurd gibberish” and concluded “reasonable doubt” existed as to “whether any criminal offence” had taken place.

Ms Owen was found guilty of stealing from her branch and given a suspended prison sentence.

She died in 2003 and her family had always believed the computer expert, who was due to give evidence on the report, “never turned up”.

Adrian Montagu reached out after seeing a Sky News report earlier this year and said he was actually stood down by the defending barrister with “no reason given”.

The barrister said he had no recollection of the case.

Victims and their lawyers hope the newly found “damning” expert report, which may never have been seen by a jury, could help overturn Capture convictions.

‘These people have to be brought to account’

Sir Alan, the leading campaigner for victims of the Horizon Post Office scandal, said while “no programme is bug free, why [was the] Post Office allowed to transfer the financial risk from these bugs on to a third party ie the sub postmaster, and why did its lawyers continue with prosecutions seemingly knowing of these system bugs?”

He continued: “Whether it was incompetence or corporate malice, these people have to be brought to account for their actions, be it for Capture or Horizon.”

More than 100 victims have come forward

More than 100 victims, including those who were not convicted but who were affected by the faulty software, have so far come forward.

Capture was used in 2,500 branches between 1992 and 1999, just before Horizon was introduced – which saw hundreds wrongfully convicted.

The Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC), the body responsible for investigating potential miscarriages of justice, is currently looking at a number of Capture convictions.

A CCRC spokesperson told Sky News: “We have received applications regarding 29 convictions which pre-date Horizon.
25 of these applications are being actively investigated by case review managers, and two more recent applications are in the preparatory stage and will be assigned to case review managers before the end of June.

“We have issued notices under s.17 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1995 to Post Office Ltd requiring them to produce all material relating to the applications received.

“To date, POL have provided some material in relation to 17 of the cases and confirmed that they hold no material in relation to another 5. The CCRC is awaiting a response from POL in relation to 6 cases.”

A spokesperson for the Department for Business and Trade said: “Postmasters negatively affected by Capture endured immeasurable suffering. We continue to listen to those who have been sharing their stories on the Capture system, and have taken their thoughts on board when designing the Capture Redress Scheme.”

Business

Government considering measure to slash industrial energy prices

Published

14 hours ago

June 19, 2025

admin

Government considering measure to slash industrial energy prices

Ministers are considering a commitment to cut soaring industrial energy prices for British companies to the same level enjoyed by competitors in France and Germany as part of its industrial strategy.

Sky News understands proposals to make energy prices more competitive are at the heart of final discussions between the Department for Business and Trade and the Treasury ahead of the publication of its industrial strategy on Monday.

Industrial electricity prices in the UK are the highest in the G7 and 46% above the median for the 32 member states of the International Energy Agency, which account for 75% of global demand.

In 2023, British businesses paid £258 per megawatt-hour for electricity compared to £178 in France and £177 in Germany, according to IEA data. Matching those prices will require a reduction of around 27% at a cost of several billion pounds.

Money blog: Interest rate held – but Bank of England gave ‘small surprise’

Earlier this month, automotive giant Nissan said UK energy prices make its Sunderland plant its most expensive in the world.

Business secretary Jonathan Reynolds is understood to be sympathetic to business concerns, and chancellor Rachel Reeves told the CBI’s annual dinner the issue of energy prices “is a question we know we need to answer”.

Extending relief

While around 350 companies in energy-intensive industries, including steel, ceramics and cement, enjoy some relief from prices through the energy supercharger scheme, which refunds 60% of network charges and is expected to rise to 90%, there is currently no support for manufacturers.

Sky News understands ministers are considering introducing a similar scheme to support the 200,000 manufacturing businesses in the UK.

Cutting network costs entirely could save more than 20% from electricity prices.

Explainer: Why are UK industrial electricity prices so high?

The mechanism for delivering support is expected to require consultation before being introduced to ensure only businesses for whom energy is a central cost would benefit. This could be based on the proportion of outgoings spent on energy bills.

It is not clear how the scheme would be funded, but the existing industrial supercharger is paid for by a levy on energy suppliers that is ultimately passed on to customers.

A central demand

Bringing down prices, particularly for electricity, has been the central demand of business and industry groups, with Make UK warning high prices are rendering businesses uncompetitive and risk “deindustrialising” the UK.

The primary driver of high electricity costs in the UK is wholesale gas, which both underpins the grid and sets the price in the market, even in periods when renewables provide the majority of supply.

Why are costs so high?

Wholesale prices account for around 39% of bills, with operating costs and network charges – the cost of using and maintaining the grid – making up another 25%, and VAT 20%.

Business groups, including the manufacturers group Make UK, have called for a reduction in those additional charges, as well as the so-called policy costs that make up the final 16% of bills.

These are made up of levies and charges introduced by successive governments to encourage and underwrite the construction of renewable sources of power.

Make UK estimate that shifting policy costs into general taxation would cost around £3.8bn, but pay for itself over time in increased growth.

Government sources confirmed that energy prices are a central issue that the industrial strategy will address, but said no final policy decisions have been agreed.

The industrial strategy, which is delayed from its scheduled publication earlier this month, will set out the government’s plans to support eight sectors identified as having high-growth potential, including advanced manufacturing, life sciences, defence and creative industries.

Business

Why are UK industrial electricity prices so high – and what can be done about it?

Published

14 hours ago

June 19, 2025

admin

Why are UK industrial electricity prices so high - and what can be done about it?

Britain has the highest industrial electricity prices in the G7, a cost businesses say makes it impossible to compete internationally and risks “deindustrialising” the UK.

Electricity prices are driven by wholesale fuel prices, particularly natural gas, but include taxes and “policy costs” that business groups, including Make UK and the CBI, want the government to cut.

Sky News understands the issue is a “live discussion” within government as ministers finalise the government’s industrial strategy, due to be published next week.

Money blog: Interest rate held – but Bank of England gave ‘small surprise’

So what are the options, and why are prices so high in the first place?

How much does UK business pay for electricity?

Industrial electricity prices in 2023 were 46% higher than the average of the 32 members of the International Energy Agency, a group that includes EU and G7 nations that, between them, account for 75% of global demand.

UK businesses paid an average of £258 per megawatt-hour, according to IEA data – higher than Italy (£218), France (£178) and Germany (£177), and more than four times the £65 paid on average in the USA.

While wholesale prices have been driven up in the last five years by external factors including post-pandemic demand and the Ukraine war, this is not a blip – UK prices have been consistently above the IEA average for decades.

Why are prices so high?

The main determinant is exposure to wholesale gas markets. Gas underpins the UK grid, reliably filling the gaps renewables and nuclear sources cannot fill. Crucially, gas also sets the price in the electricity market even when it is not the primary source of energy.

The UK market uses a “marginal pricing system”, in which the price is set by the last, and thus most expensive, unit of power required to meet demand at any one time.

That means that while renewable sources, initially offered at a cheaper price, may provide the majority of power in a given period, the price for all sources is set by gas-fired power stations providing the balance of supply.

Industrial electricity bills are lower in markets that are less exposed to gas. In France, gas sets the price less than 10% of the time because its fleet of nuclear power stations underpin supply.

What makes up electricity bills?

The biggest single element of electricity prices is wholesale gas costs, which make up 39% of the bill, according to industrial supplier SEFE.

The next largest element is “network costs”, charges imposed for using, maintaining and expanding the grid, which account for 23%. Operating costs are 2%, with VAT adding a further 20%.

The remaining 16% of electricity bills is made up of “policy costs”, levies and payments introduced over the last two decades to subsidise the construction of renewable power capacity, primarily wind power.

Increasing renewable supply and storage to reduce exposure has been the long-term solution favoured by successive governments. Sir Keir Starmer‘s administration has a target of shifting to a “clean power” grid by 2030 and achieving net-zero carbon emissions by 2050, a target Kemi Badenoch describes as “impossible”.

Some energy-intensive industries (EII), such as chemicals, steel, and cement, already receive support, with a 60% relief on network charges and a reduction of around 10% from the British Industry Supercharger fund, which the government is considering increasing.

What does business want?

Business groups are calling for these policy costs to be lifted and shifted into general taxation, calculating that a 15% reduction in prices would give them a chance of competing more equitably.

Make UK say cutting policy costs would cut 15% from bills, and is also proposing a “contract for difference” for manufacturers’ electricity, a model borrowed from the renewables market.

Under the plan, the government would guarantee a “strike price” for electricity 10% lower than the wholesale price. When prices are higher, the taxpayer would refund business, and when they are lower, industry would pay back the difference.

Make UK estimate the cost to the exchequer of £3.8bn. They believe it will be cost-neutral courtesy of increased growth. The alternative, they say, is an uncompetitive manufacturing sector doomed to decline.

“We need to see the government remove those costs in the industrial strategy,” says Make UK chief executive Stephen Phipson.

“We believe it will be cost-neutral because of the benefit to the economy of retaining manufacturing in this country. If we don’t see it happen, we will risk deindustrialising the United Kingdom.”

A government spokesperson said: “Through our sprint to clean power, we will get off the rollercoaster of fossil fuel markets – protecting business and household finances with clean, homegrown energy that we control.”