|
Post by cobra8 on Sept 9, 2011 15:17:39 GMT -5
www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-09-09/uaw-said-to-seek-record-10-000-signing-bonuses-in-talks-with-automakers.html?cmpid=msnmoneyA couple paragraphs The United Auto Workers, bargaining a new contract with U.S. automakers, is seeking a signing bonus of as much as $10,000, more than three times higher than the payment workers received for endorsing the current accord, according to four people familiar with the proposal. Michele Martin, a spokeswoman for the UAW, denied that the union is seeking such large bonuses. “It’s inaccurate and it creates false expectations,” she said. Marcey Evans, a Ford spokeswoman, declined to comment. GM and Chrysler, in e-mails, also declined to comment.
|
|
|
Post by cobra8 on Sept 9, 2011 15:39:31 GMT -5
This is a MSN Money article about the contract from 9/9/11 money.msn.com/business-news/article.aspx?feed=AP&date=20110909&id=14245424A few paragraphs: The union has proposed pay increases, but the companies, wary of increasing payrolls, have said costs must be cut in other areas to fund the raises, the three people said. They're looking at wellness programs to cut health care costs, and other measures. At Ford, little progress has been made as both sides keep sending new proposals to each other, another person said. All four asked not to be identified because the talks are private. Ford may be waiting to settle until after GM and Chrysler because it is making more money than the other two and may have to pay more to get workers to approve a deal.
|
|
|
Post by bo862 on Sept 9, 2011 18:38:17 GMT -5
A company earning billions and asking for concessions from workers is pathetic.
|
|
|
Post by ScottR@KTP on Sept 10, 2011 6:25:39 GMT -5
Amen bo862...amen!
|
|
|
Post by mazroth on Sept 10, 2011 11:36:50 GMT -5
The union has proposed pay increases, but the companies, wary of increasing payrolls, have said costs must be cut in other areas to fund the raises, the three people said. Cut in other areas, cut back out the salary raises and extra bonus and benefits they got back, and we can take it as a raise instead.
|
|
|
Post by JoePieper on Sept 10, 2011 12:46:33 GMT -5
Mulallys 54 million could pay for raises for at least a couple of years.
|
|
jkiel
Amateur
"Live better. Work union."
Posts: 69
|
Post by jkiel on Sept 10, 2011 14:32:29 GMT -5
At this point, we have to trust Michelle Martin. This happens every contract: media reports what some "insiders" are discussing. I s'pose a $10k signing bonus isn't impossible, but its a helluva jump from the $3k we got in '07. We won't know until we see the highlights ( or lowlights) in writing.
|
|
|
Post by Ktp1989 on Sept 10, 2011 16:17:22 GMT -5
At this point, we have to trust Michelle Martin. This happens every contract: media reports what some "insiders" are discussing. I s'pose a $10k signing bonus isn't impossible, but its a helluva jump from the $3k we got in '07. We won't know until we see the highlights ( or lowlights) in writing. Thats the problem...they throw alittle $$ around as a signing bonus and everyone jumps on it after taxes take half of it and we are stuck with a shitty contract for 4 more years and no raise since 03. bottom line it will take a guarenteed raise or c.o.l.a. and the grievance settled and a large signing bonus...or we should shove it right back up their asses.
|
|
|
Post by brenteskridge on Sept 11, 2011 1:46:21 GMT -5
No raises, no on getting back the things that we have sacrificed to help the company get back where they are is a NO vote. We all have given to help out and then they give their people money but want us to keep giving back. HELL WITH THAT.
|
|
|
Post by ScottR@KTP on Sept 11, 2011 8:04:15 GMT -5
That's what people have to focus on...if your hourly rate will be the same in 2015...please vote no.
|
|
|
Post by mazroth on Sept 11, 2011 12:16:56 GMT -5
We are gonna have to fight and struggle to get back what we gave up, what we gave up, and uaw workers fought so hard to get over time before most of us even thought of working at ford.
Now we are gonna have new hires, low tier workers coming in, and we better treat them the same as your current worker on the line, we need them, and we are gonna have to fight for our stuff back, we are gonna have to fight to get them more things as well, and to do this, we have to be together, not apart. I cannot stress this enough!
Does everyone know what low tier benefits are? I have heard of some, and they need more! Ask your benefit rep what the difference is, ask them what the difference is even if they get bumped up to our pay, there is a difference! We need to get things back for the workers, all workers need to be ONE!
|
|
|
Post by cobra8 on Sept 11, 2011 18:02:11 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by cobra8 on Sept 13, 2011 15:54:22 GMT -5
Article from MSN Business News today 9/13/11 money.msn.com/business-news/article.aspx?feed=AP&date=20110913&id=14259000A couple paragraphs: The United Auto Workers and Detroit's three car companies are likely to miss a Wednesday night deadline to agree on new contracts, three people briefed on the bargaining said Tuesday. Union employees at General Motors Co., Chrysler Group LLC and Ford Motor Co. are expected to keep working indefinitely under the old contracts, which is normal procedure in national contract talks with the UAW. In 2007, when the last contracts were signed, bargaining stretched into October and even November at Ford.
|
|
|
Post by cobra8 on Sept 13, 2011 16:00:22 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Jr on Sept 13, 2011 22:23:29 GMT -5
NO! NO! NO! how many times do I have to say it! Maybe I will think about 10,000 after taxes but not before!
|
|
|
Post by cobra8 on Sept 15, 2011 19:04:53 GMT -5
Article about Grievance and Contract from Reuters dated today 9/15/11 www.reuters.com/article/2011/09/15/uaw-ford-idUSS1E78E1Z020110915A few paragraphs: The Ford workers' grievance claims that the company broke an agreement for equal treatment of unionized workers and salaried employees by giving white-collar workers raises and reinstated 401(k) matches and not reinstating similar increases to unionized workers. Ford and the union have long known that the arbitration hearing was set for the day after the four-year contract for UAW workers was to expire. This led to speculation that a settlement of the grievance would be folded into a new contract. An outcome is not expected Thursday, a person familiar with the matter said.
|
|
|
Post by mazroth on Sept 15, 2011 19:26:39 GMT -5
Ford and the union have long known that the arbitration hearing was set for the day after the four-year contract for UAW workers was to expire. This led to speculation that a settlement of the grievance would be folded into a new contract. An outcome is not expected Thursday, a person familiar with the matter said. We know what that means then, they will try and give us a few thousand signing bonus, and maybe another 5-10k for the grievance, which isnt enough.
|
|
|
Post by cobra8 on Sept 15, 2011 20:41:24 GMT -5
Here is something to think about. A few months ago, while talking about the Grievance with a Brother in Body shop, he reminded me of something I heard several years ago from a good source that settlements from law suits are non taxed . The reason given was it would add to the settlement and cause extra burden on the loser (often a business) and it would be hard to know the exact tax liability till taxes were filed in April. I have done some research and I belive that law was changed in 1996 and the amount would be considered income and taxable. Maybe someone on here knows something about taxes and lawsuit/Grievance settlements.
|
|
|
Post by trinitus on Sept 15, 2011 22:32:34 GMT -5
OK best I can tell is this.
1. This would a Grievence type pay, therefore it would be considered somewhat as back pay which is taxable.
2. If and I mean IF you were injured on the job/car accident, then it wouldd be considered a lawsuit win WHICH IS NON-TAXABLE. No w don't misjudge the fact that if you draw money from Ford's insurance for a small work place injury, that would be taxable. By that I mean a day's pay or two. If it was something bigger and you had to go to court then that would be non-taxable.
|
|
|
Post by cobra8 on Sept 16, 2011 14:32:01 GMT -5
|
|