I don’t know that one should trust The Wall Street Journal’s take on the vibe inside any union. I’m not familiar with the reporter who wrote today’s story describing stronger dissent inside the UAW to the negotiated deal with Chrysler, as well as a relatively strong minority "no" vote on the GM deal. But, why should we be surprised that people are concerned?

    The Journal story says that UAW leaders in Detroit are making a more concerted effort to get approval for the deal with Chrysler:

The lobbying efforts indicate the final vote at Chrysler may be closer than the recent balloting that approved a similar contract with General Motors Corp. The GM pact was approved by about 65% of the vote, a solid majority but less than the 80% or more initiatives backed by union leadership typically receive.

    And…

The Chrysler contract has drawn criticism from a faction within the UAW, in particular at a heated meeting of local presidents in Detroit on Monday led by UAW President Ron Gettelfinger. About two-thirds of those at the meeting eventually voted to recommend the rank and file ratify the contract. But some key leaders, including one top negotiator, openly opposed the deal.

"A significant minority voted no on our council," said Bill Parker, a representative of UAW Local 1700 in Sterling Heights, Mich., who worked closely with Mr. Holiefield during the talks. "It was certainly not a unanimous vote."

Mr. Parker and others have raised concerns about the Chrysler deal because of a new two-tier wage system that will pay new hires in certain jobs lower wages than current workers. A two-tier system is already in place at Chrysler’s Belvidere, Ill., plant, and workers complained the wage differences has caused conflict among the workers.

Mr. Parker is also concerned because Chrysler gave the union few firm guarantees that it will keep most of its eight U.S. assembly plants open beyond the four years covered by its contract. The new contract with GM, which the union ratified with little opposition, outlines plans by the company to produce specific vehicles in its U.S. plants as far out as 2013, potentially preserving thousands of UAW jobs beyond the four-year term of the contract.

    Okay, yes, there are parts of this deal that certainly don’t match with the long history of collective bargaining progress upwards–principally, a two-tier wage system. On the other hand, there is some security built in, some promise of retention of jobs and a possibility that retiree health care will have a chance to be preserved if the Voluntary Employee Benefits Association (VEBA) works well.

    But, what was the alternative? A long strike? It’s not clear to me that with the unionized auto industry teetering under mountains of debt, with a crippled health care system that still saddles such companies with tens of billions of dollars in health care costs, with a labor law that prevents organizing of new workers–with all those factors that the UAW could mount a long strike that, on the back end, would have resulted in a better deal. Could be wrong.