|
Post by ScottR@KTP on Feb 21, 2012 0:57:43 GMT -5
Are we just a pissed off workforce? What changes need to be made for you to vote yes? You bought into the scare tactics with the national agreement, but you are willing to stand up to the local? Everyone knows I'm a no vote, but I find it hard to believe you yes voters on the national would shoot down the local? You agree to no raises and all the other horse shit, but you stand strong now? I hope it is all over bidding the TL(s) and we get the 100+ new hires in here ASAP. I don't think they accounted for the senior employees wanting these higher paying jobs bid, while the less senior want an extra 100+ below them on the seniority list. I hope the local does what is right...
|
|
|
Post by readyandaimedatyou on Feb 21, 2012 1:25:04 GMT -5
Amen to that i guess after all the YES voters saw Ford give the salary a raise right after they voted yes,,,,they figured this would redeem them......NOPE. You cant fix stupid, I think the YES voters are still asleep..... this wont fail again....more will vote next time to be sure it passes.
S T U P I D
|
|
|
Post by cmt7000 on Feb 21, 2012 1:33:34 GMT -5
Ok first time poster long time reader. You both make good points but the biggest problem is with our union. People don't care what's in the contract they hate the reps and the job they suck at. It is all about how to please the company while screwing the members as much as possible. Until they realize they work for us and not the company it will never change. I'm all for getting rid of the bargaining committee altogether, they are horible. People weren't happy with Alan Hughes but I think they're quickly seeing they all suck. The good 'ol boy network is running the show straight into the ground.
|
|
|
Post by ScottR@KTP on Feb 21, 2012 1:59:08 GMT -5
Alright, let me attempt to create conversation...are you saying you voted it down because you are not happy with the performance of your union reps in general? Although I can relate to this, what are you looking to have in the local agreement that would better their job performance, I don't get it. There's nothing we can propose in the local that will make them do a better job of representing us is all I'm saying.
|
|
|
Post by cmt7000 on Feb 21, 2012 2:19:14 GMT -5
I understand that but they do need to bid the team leaders if it will add workers and decrease team size. You are probably right people voted no because of the international continuing to fuck us over. We had our chance to vote it down I voted no.
|
|
|
Post by brizzel on Feb 21, 2012 2:56:39 GMT -5
Our vote on the national contract did not matter by the time we voted. Of course we all voted no, yet it's hard to find anybody that actually admits that they did vote yes. There had to be sombody right? I am shocked that it took them that long to cross out old garbage with new garbage. I would of been a yes vote had they promised to remove the boogers from the bathroom not just "freshen them up". Lol
|
|
|
Post by kessinger on Feb 21, 2012 3:23:59 GMT -5
We will have to sit back down to see "what now". Though Bid team leaders was complaint we heard it was not from a lot of people. And since only around 26% of the membership voted, I'm not real sure if/when we change that it doesn't get voted down again. The majority of the plant didn't voice their opinion one way or the other.
I would rather it been a resounding 2000 against so the message was clear instead of an "i don't care". I know I will get flamed for this but if the plant wanted bid team leaders that badly they would have come out in numbers. But, what else can we do but fix that? And see how it goes, this is just my opinion there are 5 people bargaining.
The trades is a more identifiable fix.
And I am with Scott please post it.
|
|
|
Post by brizzel on Feb 21, 2012 7:32:53 GMT -5
Why wasn't B crew given the opportunity to vote after shift like the rest of the plant. Voter turnout is always heavy after shift. Seems like the voting window was a little small. When we elect our leadership is seems like we have days to vote.
|
|
|
Post by gocards on Feb 21, 2012 7:51:41 GMT -5
They just don't get it. As Kess said (The majority of the plant didn't voice their opinion one way or the other.) But the majority did it was voted down. Wake UP and see the light.
|
|
|
Post by tryingtomakeit on Feb 21, 2012 9:01:55 GMT -5
But I guess it would have been ok if it wasn't the majority of the plant voting if it was a yes vote right??? The majority of those that took the time, or in some cases HAD the time, voted no. I voted no. IMO I still would like to see the TL a bid job. I would also like to see a reinstatement of the 120 day letter on rebalancing jobs. It sucks bad enough in there, but then to add to your stress level your job can be rebalanced damn near every quarter. I know I'll hear that went away when the MOA came about. I could give a shit less about when it came about, I do know it needs to come back.
|
|
|
Post by remember1976 on Feb 21, 2012 9:22:41 GMT -5
We get uniforms, Gator-aid, and two free sodas on especially sweltering days.
Meanwhile the Company increases the line speed over and over again and NOBODY requires them to conduct new time-studies on all jobs and rebalance the work where necessary.
Meanwhile Management continues to abuse the disciplinary process to intimidate.
Meanwhile Supervisors show their contempt and disrespect for hourly employees by spitting on the chassis dept. flattop where hourly employees must stand to work.
I could go on, but I think ya'll get the point. The irrelevancy of the tentative agreement to rank and file's concerns is the direct result of having a bargaining committee with a combined experience of working on the assembly line that is less than my Company seniority.
|
|
|
Post by jeter3000 on Feb 21, 2012 10:01:16 GMT -5
The only thing we SHOULD be voting on is 1) Representation, 2) Contracts ! That's it ! Unfortunately, we suck at both of them, so what the heck makes some of you think you can pick and choose who works where? This subject should never come to the surface if you had "REAL" leadership in your buildings. They shove everything down your throats and the one darn thing that matters (SENIORITY) they want to debate over! Really? Sounds like someone needs to hit the floor and instill in their fellowship that seniority does still prevail. If you dint have any, than get some! Sorry but this is just moronic when a so-called union debates for "YEARS" over whether to use seniority or not.
|
|
|
Post by remember1976 on Feb 21, 2012 10:23:24 GMT -5
this is just moronic when a so-called union debates... over whether to use seniority or not. It just goes to show how low the UAW has sunk at KTP Local 862.
|
|
|
Post by bo862 on Feb 21, 2012 10:46:31 GMT -5
Years ago, I was one of those that voted against bidding on team leaders. After experiencing lap and time to reconsider it, I would like to see these as bids.
Addressing the matter of the company not wanting to train that many people at one time, try to work it out so that as the month nears that the team is supposed to re-elect, just post the job a month ahead of time and make that the start time for that team leader position. Give it up to a year to have them all in place. This will cause problems with when/how to restructure teams though.
Also put in a clause if say 70% think they are doing a bad job, give them 1 warning next time they will be relocated to another team. 3 strikes from 3 different teams and they are disqualified. This may put some at ease that are concerned about being stuck with a bonehead.
|
|
|
Post by jeter3000 on Feb 21, 2012 11:01:51 GMT -5
Unbelievable! 20 yrs ago we would never have these discussions. Could you imagine the response you would have gotten if you stood up at a Union meeting with your 10yrs and asked that a job off-line with higher pay be given to those 'voted-in" by fellow employees and not by seniority! Unheard of! Personally, any union official who supports this is an embarrassment to the unions'. I certainly dint want to hear that crap " if that's what the majority wants" either.
|
|
|
Post by TonyV on Feb 21, 2012 11:05:15 GMT -5
Seniority should be protected by the union, period. It is the one thing that separates us from a non-union company. When the best areas of the plant are not protected - the senior people can get hung out to dry.
It was drilled into my head that seniority always took precedent when I hired in. Now, I see many senior people totally disenchanted because the union that pushed it - does not protect it.
Without adding new hires you also have many on the floor that have given good hard years still staring at the door in a reduction in force situation. They would like to have some increase in seniority also. Even 100 new hires would make the world of difference to them.
These are two points that I have heard a lot lately.
|
|
|
Post by nvsked1 on Feb 21, 2012 11:12:57 GMT -5
Alright, let me attempt to create conversation...are you saying you voted it down because you are not happy with the performance of your union reps in general? Although I can relate to this, what are you looking to have in the local agreement that would better their job performance, I don't get it. There's nothing we can propose in the local that will make them do a better job of representing us is all I'm saying. R-E-S-P-E-C-T... And not just a little bit. Seniority is the foundation of the Union and this Union structure seems to want to dis-respect that, and go to a popular vote system with Team Leaders... Bids should be good for 6 months not 30 days, and seniority rules. Like someone else posted, the company has a bunch of bully supervisors, that has NO RESPECT for the people working the line or elsewhere for that matter.... spit in my work area and we're callin clean up right there! We will have to sit back down to see "what now". Though Bid team leaders was complaint we heard it was not from a lot of people. And since only around 26% of the membership voted, I'm not real sure if/when we change that it doesn't get voted down again. The majority of the plant didn't voice their opinion one way or the other. I would rather it been a resounding 2000 against so the message was clear instead of an "i don't care". I know I will get flamed for this but if the plant wanted bid team leaders that badly they would have come out in numbers. But, what else can we do but fix that? And see how it goes, this is just my opinion there are 5 people bargaining. The trades is a more identifiable fix. And I am with Scott please post it. Kess.... I question if your personal opinions cloud your judgement, on the team leader issue. Ever wonder how those exit polls predict elections with 1 percent of the voting reported. Surveys are all math, if you poll 1000 people and 66% say NO then its easy to predict the out come of an election. If 1000 people vote, and 600 say No... then if 3000 vote, 1800 will say no plus or minus 2 %... Its how life insurance is sold, elections predicted etc... Statistics and profitability. The vote is saying (as one poster pointed out) the problem with this plant is the the management staff treats people like shit. Our seniority must be respected, its about all we have. The management staff sticks together better than this membership, management bullies the membership and our big brother the equalizer the union says I'll write a grievance or show me the contract violation.... I appreciate you coming on here, looking for the issues.... The union needs to use all the tools that the contract provides to represent this membership, and it starts respect / seniority.... My comments on the contract, hope it helps
|
|
|
Post by jeter3000 on Feb 21, 2012 11:19:51 GMT -5
Come on Bo, 2 strikes...3 strikes...forget that stuff buddy. Don't fall into that trap about the team this ,the team that! Yes, teamwork is great blah,blah, blah, however, miss work or screw up your job what happens? "YOU PAY" I'm all for helping each other out and looking out for one another however, we as individuals at work are soley responsible for 1 person. Give the man who wants the job and has seniority the job. Let his record in labor support his worthiness and not by how much he can do for the company or other workers. Production is just production, if it needs adjusting let the company address it like they've been doing for the last 100 years.
|
|
|
Post by nvsked1 on Feb 21, 2012 11:22:24 GMT -5
Oh and one more thing... Training for all plant union reps, the phrase.... "they'll never go for that is banned!!!" bury that phrase never to be uttered again... All we have to fear is fear itself...scared money never wins Or substitute any other motivational speech may you need
|
|
bdboy
New Member
Posts: 4
|
Post by bdboy on Feb 21, 2012 11:25:53 GMT -5
why don't the bc and powers that be take a few days and go around and talk to the membership on a one on one basis. on all shifts and all departments. just to get an idea as to why it was voted down or why there was such a low turnout. i am sure that it was not just because of tl issue. i know that is why we have union meetings but alot cannot attend due to reasons beyond their control.
|
|
|
Post by trinitus on Feb 21, 2012 11:27:42 GMT -5
What would I like to see in the contract? OK here goes, I would like to see RTBU rights when/if we sign up to go to another plant unless we do the enhanced moved. Team Leader's to be bid, no Grandfathering in, I know some that have been Team Leader's for a long time do not want this but this is what most want. Let's face it, some jobs are easier to learn that others so training will not go as long as some predict. Also maybe the company can withhold some of the extra money until the new TL learns all of their jobs.
Reinstating the 120 day letter. A better time frain to vote off company property. This is just a start, anyone else care to add anything else please feel free. I don't think we need to vote on whether Seniority or respect, should be a Contract issue. that is what the UAW should have been all along. Those two thing's should go hand in hand with each other and that is something each of us as member's need to learn and understand.
|
|
|
Post by jeter3000 on Feb 21, 2012 11:31:56 GMT -5
Tony & NV ,exactly ! I agree with both of you guys 100% It is the unions responsibility to support Seniority regardless of anything else. Even if it means risking his job!
|
|
|
Post by ktpgrunt on Feb 21, 2012 11:54:53 GMT -5
I dont see why if a person wants to give up their bid job it has to be limited to 8 people every 6 months. if a person wants to give it up their would be no problem getting someone else to take it. so why limit it to 8 people.
|
|
|
Post by marcus on Feb 21, 2012 12:19:52 GMT -5
Now what is we want bid team leaders.People all around me want it maybe they need to ask day shift people to
|
|
|
Post by remember1976 on Feb 21, 2012 12:20:00 GMT -5
If I was Bob King or Jimmy Settles I would be on Scott Eskridge this morning like white on rice.
NOT because of the outcome, but because of such a humiliatingly low turnout. If I was Bob King or Jimmy Settles I would want to know why. Clearly something is rotten in KTP. And I wouldn't trust the KTP bargaining committee's explanations, either. I would send international representatives into KTP with instructions to walk the assembly line on all shifts and get the explanation directly from the rank-and-file.
|
|
|
Post by bluelu on Feb 21, 2012 14:07:39 GMT -5
1- I want Seniority to count. 2- I want team leaders jobs up for bid. 3- I want teams down to 10 members per team. 4- I want ktp and lap to have one seniority list for both plants. If there is a layoff at one plant you should be able to bump the lowest seniority at the other plant. 5- One ear bud in and the other out to listen to your ipod. Just like lap. 6- Gatoraid bottles when above 90 degrees. 7- A better ratio of committeepeople. 8- Lower the management team. A big waste of money.
|
|
|
Post by Ktp1989 on Feb 21, 2012 14:54:45 GMT -5
Unbelievable! 20 yrs ago we would never have these discussions. Could you imagine the response you would have gotten if you stood up at a Union meeting with your 10yrs and asked that a job off-line with higher pay be given to those 'voted-in" by fellow employees and not by seniority! Unheard of! Personally, any union official who supports this is an embarrassment to the unions'. I certainly dint want to hear that crap " if that's what the majority wants" either. The BC is playing to the membership...to make sure they stay in the good graces come election time....but now that the membership has spoken they will do a 180 and say they wanted the seniority to matter and wanted these bid jobs all along...and it will be done. I guess they should have brought King and Settles down to threaten the membership that if they didn't vote for this so called contract we would go on strike and they would replace us...worked on the national!
|
|
|
Post by Ktp1989 on Feb 21, 2012 14:57:33 GMT -5
Alright, let me attempt to create conversation...are you saying you voted it down because you are not happy with the performance of your union reps in general? Although I can relate to this, what are you looking to have in the local agreement that would better their job performance, I don't get it. There's nothing we can propose in the local that will make them do a better job of representing us is all I'm saying. R-E-S-P-E-C-T... And not just a little bit. Seniority is the foundation of the Union and this Union structure seems to want to dis-respect that, and go to a popular vote system with Team Leaders... Bids should be good for 6 months not 30 days, and seniority rules. Like someone else posted, the company has a bunch of bully supervisors, that has NO RESPECT for the people working the line or elsewhere for that matter.... spit in my work area and we're callin clean up right there! We will have to sit back down to see "what now". Though Bid team leaders was complaint we heard it was not from a lot of people. And since only around 26% of the membership voted, I'm not real sure if/when we change that it doesn't get voted down again. The majority of the plant didn't voice their opinion one way or the other. I would rather it been a resounding 2000 against so the message was clear instead of an "i don't care". I know I will get flamed for this but if the plant wanted bid team leaders that badly they would have come out in numbers. But, what else can we do but fix that? And see how it goes, this is just my opinion there are 5 people bargaining. The trades is a more identifiable fix. And I am with Scott please post it. Kess.... I question if your personal opinions cloud your judgement, on the team leader issue. Ever wonder how those exit polls predict elections with 1 percent of the voting reported. Surveys are all math, if you poll 1000 people and 66% say NO then its easy to predict the out come of an election. If 1000 people vote, and 600 say No... then if 3000 vote, 1800 will say no plus or minus 2 %... Its how life insurance is sold, elections predicted etc... Statistics and profitability. The vote is saying (as one poster pointed out) the problem with this plant is the the management staff treats people like shit. Our seniority must be respected, its about all we have. The management staff sticks together better than this membership, management bullies the membership and our big brother the equalizer the union says I'll write a grievance or show me the contract violation.... I appreciate you coming on here, looking for the issues.... The union needs to use all the tools that the contract provides to represent this membership, and it starts respect / seniority.... My comments on the contract, hope it helps Maybe Scott and Steve Stone should have made house calls to all the members tell them they supported this pile of shit and it might have gone thru...we vote for almost 3 days for elected positions but not even a day for the local?
|
|
|
Post by Jr on Feb 21, 2012 15:12:44 GMT -5
No Offence to anyone but sitting on the outside Now seeing all of this I have a comment to make.
Everybody is talking about seniority, and bidding team leaders now without grandfathering them in.
Why wasn't you doing this 10+ yrs ago when you made the teams leaders a popular vote with the MOA??? just wondering. That was one of My biggest problems I had when I was over there.
|
|
|
Post by grimbold on Feb 21, 2012 15:45:49 GMT -5
4- I want ktp and lap to have one seniority list for both plants. If there is a layoff at one plant you should be able to bump the lowest seniority at the other plant. Call me crazy but I'm pretty sure language that would affect another plant like that isn't likely to be included in your local contract. Course, this is the UAW...
|
|