|
Post by kessinger on Oct 13, 2011 3:44:15 GMT -5
I was asked about this several times today. And not knowing the answer I researched it. And was actually suprised by what i found. DO NOT READ THIS IF YOU THINK I AM OUT TO SCARE YOU OR USE FEAR TACTICS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! That is not my intent. But now that I have read this, not sharing it, in my mind would be the same as lying about it. I DO NOT THINK WE WILL STRIKE!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Let me make that clear. But we all need to be educated on all sides of the issues that affect our lives, so I am posting this article. But again, IF YOU THINK I AM GOING TO USE SCARE TACTICS ON YOU STOP READING THIS POST NOW PLEASE!!!!!!!! I DO NOT WANT TO SEE A POST LATER THAT I AM TRYING TO SCARE YOU WHEN I JUST TOLD YOU TO NOT READ IT!!!!!!!!! All these flyers about striking have created a lot of questions about strikes and replacement workers so I felt this needed to be posted. Again, I DO NOT THINK WE WILL STRIKE, and I AM NOT TRYING TO SCARE YOU. And if you think I should not post this, well then you want people to stay uneducated for you own reasons I guess. Allbusiness article..... "Under federal labor law, employers are permitted to hire permanent replacements for striking employees. Strikers are entitled to reinstatement only as vacancies occur. However, if an unfair labor practice by an employer played a significant role in causing the strike, strikers are entitled to reinstatement and to back pay from the day they made an unconditional offer to return to work. Naturally, employers and unions are at odds over the right of employers to hire permanent replacement workers for strikers. "Nobody disputes their [employers'] right to conduct business during a work stoppage," says Joseph Uehlein, director of special projects for the AFL-CIO. "We do dispute their right to fire strikers which is exactly what they do." But Atlanta attorney Curtis Mack, a consultant to management in labor disputes, views the issue differently. He says, "Over the last 10 to 20 years, employers more and more have been saying, when a union strikes because of excessive demands, |We can't just roll over and play dead.'" Unions contend a new labor law is needed because current law gives employers a green light to break strikes. They say the current law gives employers the upper hand in collective bargaining, making it harder for workers to get better wages and benefits. Bruce Raynor, a regional director of the Amalgamated Clothing and Textile Workers Union, asserts, "They've taken away the American worker's right to strike. In most cases, the strike weapon is no longer usable unless employers won't resort to hiring replacement workers or if it's a highly skilled work force" that can't be easily or inexpensively replaced. Employers say the opposite. Any legislation banning the hiring of permanent replacement workers "would basically tilt the balance of the collective bargaining process" toward unions, says Monica Gliva, a spokesperson for the National Association of Manufacturers. She adds, "Striker replacement is often the only way employers can continue to operate." Currently, Congress is considering legislation that would amend the National Labor Relations Act to forbid employers from offering permanent employment to strike replacements. A bill passed by the House would prohibit employers from hiring permanent replacements for strikers, though they could hire temporary replacements while a strike is in progress and use them later to fill vacancies. Union strikers would have to get their jobs back once the contract dispute is settled. If the Senate also passes the bill, President Bush likely will veto it. Labor Secretary Lynn Martin says the bill would damage the economy and give unions too much power in contract disputes." The article is posted here www.allbusiness.com/human-resources/workplace-health-safety/273221-1.html And it is dated from 1991 but i read many articles about this subject and the proposed law change has not occured. This article was just the easiest to read. You can look up many on the subject. I knew they could hire replacement workers but I did not know that if the contract gets resolved the replacement workers keep OUR jobs.
|
|
|
Post by catfish on Oct 13, 2011 5:34:07 GMT -5
Thanks for the info kess but im still voteing no
|
|
|
Post by ScottR@KTP on Oct 13, 2011 5:43:32 GMT -5
Looks like the membership at many locals are as bitter as ours. Something has to be given back to the members...but I'm not sure the I-UAW can ever regain the respect of the membership. Settles puts out a dumbass post on fb, then removes it and says he was only joking. No, he was attempting his next bullying tactic. Our union leadership at the top could not get any worse...or can it? Chicago spoke loudly...
|
|
|
Post by ktpelec on Oct 13, 2011 6:07:36 GMT -5
Thanks for the facts Kess, everyone needs to be aware of them.
|
|
|
Post by dave7293 on Oct 13, 2011 6:56:20 GMT -5
I was asked about this several times today. And not knowing the answer I researched it. And was actually suprised by what i found. DO NOT READ THIS IF YOU THINK I AM OUT TO SCARE YOU OR USE FEAR TACTICS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! That is not my intent. But now that I have read this, not sharing it, in my mind would be the same as lying about it. I DO NOT THINK WE WILL STRIKE!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Let me make that clear. But we all need to be educated on all sides of the issues that affect our lives, so I am posting this article. But again, IF YOU THINK I AM GOING TO USE SCARE TACTICS ON YOU STOP READING THIS POST NOW PLEASE!!!!!!!! I DO NOT WANT TO SEE A POST LATER THAT I AM TRYING TO SCARE YOU WHEN I JUST TOLD YOU TO NOT READ IT!!!!!!!!! All these flyers about striking have created a lot of questions about strikes and replacement workers so I felt this needed to be posted. Again, I DO NOT THINK WE WILL STRIKE, and I AM NOT TRYING TO SCARE YOU. And if you think I should not post this, well then you want people to stay uneducated for you own reasons I guess. Allbusiness article..... "Under federal labor law, employers are permitted to hire permanent replacements for striking employees. Strikers are entitled to reinstatement only as vacancies occur. However, if an unfair labor practice by an employer played a significant role in causing the strike, strikers are entitled to reinstatement and to back pay from the day they made an unconditional offer to return to work. Naturally, employers and unions are at odds over the right of employers to hire permanent replacement workers for strikers. "Nobody disputes their [employers'] right to conduct business during a work stoppage," says Joseph Uehlein, director of special projects for the AFL-CIO. "We do dispute their right to fire strikers which is exactly what they do." But Atlanta attorney Curtis Mack, a consultant to management in labor disputes, views the issue differently. He says, "Over the last 10 to 20 years, employers more and more have been saying, when a union strikes because of excessive demands, |We can't just roll over and play dead.'" Unions contend a new labor law is needed because current law gives employers a green light to break strikes. They say the current law gives employers the upper hand in collective bargaining, making it harder for workers to get better wages and benefits. Bruce Raynor, a regional director of the Amalgamated Clothing and Textile Workers Union, asserts, "They've taken away the American worker's right to strike. In most cases, the strike weapon is no longer usable unless employers won't resort to hiring replacement workers or if it's a highly skilled work force" that can't be easily or inexpensively replaced. Employers say the opposite. Any legislation banning the hiring of permanent replacement workers "would basically tilt the balance of the collective bargaining process" toward unions, says Monica Gliva, a spokesperson for the National Association of Manufacturers. She adds, "Striker replacement is often the only way employers can continue to operate." Currently, Congress is considering legislation that would amend the National Labor Relations Act to forbid employers from offering permanent employment to strike replacements. A bill passed by the House would prohibit employers from hiring permanent replacements for strikers, though they could hire temporary replacements while a strike is in progress and use them later to fill vacancies. Union strikers would have to get their jobs back once the contract dispute is settled. If the Senate also passes the bill, President Bush likely will veto it. Labor Secretary Lynn Martin says the bill would damage the economy and give unions too much power in contract disputes." The article is posted here www.allbusiness.com/human-resources/workplace-health-safety/273221-1.html And it is dated from 1991 but i read many articles about this subject and the proposed law change has not occured. This article was just the easiest to read. You can look up many on the subject. I knew they could hire replacement workers but I did not know that if the contract gets resolved the replacement workers keep OUR jobs. I`d rather see FORD and the IUAW fall apart and burn down then vote yes for this worthless paper they call a contract.
|
|
|
Post by elmer on Oct 13, 2011 7:21:09 GMT -5
Some of those strikers back when this thing 1st started payed with their lives, So I'm not going to worry about replacement workers and if anybody does they can always cross the picket line.
I can see it now the IUAW encouraging its member to cross the picket line.
|
|
|
Post by Ex-metalman on Oct 13, 2011 7:35:38 GMT -5
Well said strike,let them hire replacements and see how that fuckin works out !!!1Im voting no period and this fuckin shit about facebook ???We should throw him out on his big fatass!!!I want my 56.00 dollars a month back for the last 16 fuckin years!!!Fuck a raise!
|
|
|
Post by informer on Oct 13, 2011 10:00:05 GMT -5
Ford will replace striking workers with scabs (lower waged employees without benefits) and they won't call you back. All current UAW members should accept the contract but then enforce the mandatory safety and equipment requirements in the plant, and follow the job procedures and regulations exactly, and work only on Ford's time (not your own) NO MORE HOT TIME the company is using this against you! This would make it more difficult for the company to cut jobs, they would also have to provide you with the equipment you need to do your job safely and correctly. This would strengthen the Union membership, increase jobs and force the company to invest some money into the plant! They have our money, make them use it for us!!!!!
|
|
|
Post by TonyV on Oct 13, 2011 10:31:02 GMT -5
If the IUAW was indeed that worried they would not have tried to bring such a concessionary contract to a work force that has lined the pockets of Ford with BILLIONS.
After the modification was shot down like a lame duck, the IUAW should have realized the overall frustration and anger of the membership.
Now, they try to intimidate the work force and paint them into a corner with FB posts going out to the general public? Looking at the vote from Chicago - it looks like they just threw gas on a fire.
They only lost more credibility with the work force nationally by using tactics they work with from management on the floor every day. If you beat down a man every day of his working career - he will eventually stand up for himself irregardless of his union.
|
|
|
Post by ScottR@KTP on Oct 13, 2011 11:31:06 GMT -5
And these same people want the transplants to organize? LMAO
|
|
|
Post by fender on Oct 13, 2011 11:35:08 GMT -5
To the guy who said he would rather see the UAW and FORD burn down and fall apart rather than to pass this contract...two words.
We respect your opinions but name calling won't be one of them. Expecially from a just created account!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 13, 2011 11:49:38 GMT -5
To the guy who said he would rather see the UAW and FORD burn down and fall apart rather than to pass this contract...two words. YOU ROCK!! I agree!
|
|
|
Post by Jr on Oct 13, 2011 11:55:40 GMT -5
To the guy who said he would rather see the UAW and FORD burn down and fall apart rather than to pass this contract...two words. YOU ROCK!! I agree! Lol... thought about putting that but I didn't
|
|
|
Post by ScottR@KTP on Oct 13, 2011 12:51:12 GMT -5
LOL...job well done Jr...thanks.
|
|
jc
New Member
Posts: 30
|
Post by jc on Oct 13, 2011 15:16:15 GMT -5
DO YOU THINK KING AND SETTLES LOOK LIKE STANLEY AND OLLEY THOSE OLD COMEDIANS
|
|
|
Post by informer on Oct 13, 2011 15:28:13 GMT -5
The IUAW and the Company know that they are in a win win situation...that the UAW members who strike will be the only losers. DON"T LET THEM WIN! You will still have your voice, and your vote..this is your chance to start to turn things around...you cannot do it overnight! You must stay and fight..build your solidarity back up..it will take a few years but you can do it! Stay and get rid of the traitors!
|
|
jagr2
New Member
Posts: 48
|
Post by jagr2 on Oct 13, 2011 15:43:11 GMT -5
Last repost from another thread.
At Eastern Airlines, we voted down 3 contracts. In each one I never saw much of a change between the 1 we voted down and the new one that was passed.
Our Union and its members got a reputation for being militant. It came down to a showdown. The economy was as bad as it is now, with the wealthy flaunting themselves and all.
It was finally a contract that proposed 50% wage cuts. Thats what we finally struck for (or was led to). When you strike you may never know what comes next. In Eastern case it was a 2 year strike.
It wasn't a good environment then as now. As a result there were thousands of people devastated. Many never recoverred. There were many suicides.
Its possible to find something better. It will take some skill and as much luck to start over again. Start over with vacations, seniority, job classification, etc.. and just an overall pain of being in the bottom again. But it is possible to get something else. You won't really recover.
I've been there and just thought it my duty to make this knowledge available to you. I know how most of you must feel, especially the young ones, (I was young at Eastern) and know the militant mentality. Just wanted you to know how real this can get. I've learned when the union and company are happy, its about as good as its gonna get. Thats how you feel when you begin to get older. The fight in you tempers down, I guess.
Not here to tell anyone what to do or how to feel. Just wanted you to here of 1 fight and how it ended.
|
|
|
Post by Dr. Death on Oct 13, 2011 20:24:46 GMT -5
Thanks for the article Kess. I'm just glad to see someone from the Union back on the site. I guess the rest that use to post on here are in hiding.
|
|
|
Post by unchained on Oct 13, 2011 21:20:37 GMT -5
If you dont trust the IUAW to bargain a contract, how much faith do have them handling a strike for us? Look what happened at Caterpillar. the-spark.net/csart115.html
|
|
|
Post by coconut on Oct 14, 2011 0:32:17 GMT -5
I vote no !!! No one is going to scare me.
|
|
|
Post by bo862 on Oct 14, 2011 1:07:09 GMT -5
If we don't trust, or accept Iuaw leadership (according to these boards no one does) why would we allow them to force us out of our jobs on a strike when we do not feel they have negotiated in good faith on our behalf.
Where would we stand legally if we voted this down yet refused to go out on strike for this proposal?
Btw, if we are locked out ford can not bring in permanent workers to replace us.
|
|
|
Post by bo862 on Oct 14, 2011 1:10:24 GMT -5
If the answer is to continue working under the current contract that would be better than accepting more concessions.
|
|
|
Post by marcus on Oct 14, 2011 2:41:38 GMT -5
We only have one or two union reps on here now because its NOT ELECTION TIME.
|
|
|
Post by elmer on Oct 14, 2011 4:59:18 GMT -5
We only have one or two union reps on here now because its NOT ELECTION TIME. You got that right and they don't want to answer any questions until this is over.
|
|
jagr2
New Member
Posts: 48
|
Post by jagr2 on Oct 14, 2011 8:40:10 GMT -5
Union reps are not obligated to represent us on these message boards. There job was to negotiate us a contract. If WE vote to go on strike there job is to walk us out the door if the issues cannot be resolved.
Then its in the hands of the company, the Congress, and the courts. The Company can and will use the courts and Congress to get what they need. The media will oblige them every step of the way. They can and will get approval to replace us irregardless if we are locked out or not.
Know your enemy. They will come after you with everything they have.
|
|
|
Post by Dr. Death on Oct 14, 2011 8:45:14 GMT -5
Your right unchained. We are in a very sorry position.
But just remember that King and Settles has our backs. We will not go on strike. They don't want to have a strike vote because they know when the negotiations start that we will get a fair contract that can sell its self. They have nothing but our best interests in mind.
Oh, sorry just woke up did I miss anything?
|
|
|
Post by nvsked1 on Oct 14, 2011 9:07:13 GMT -5
Union reps are not obligated to represent us on these message boards. There job was to negotiate us a contract. If WE vote to go on strike there job is to walk us out the door if the issues cannot be resolved. Then its in the hands of the company, the Congress, and the courts. The Company can and will use the courts and Congress to get what they need. The media will oblige them every step of the way. They can and will get approval to replace us irregardless if we are locked out or not. Know your enemy. They will come after you with everything they have. What if the local agreement makes the national agreement look better...or worse?
|
|
|
Post by Dr. Death on Oct 14, 2011 22:41:49 GMT -5
Do you have that much faith in any of our Union reps. Be it International or local? I don't.
|
|
|
Post by kyjoe1 on Oct 15, 2011 13:40:32 GMT -5
If it were not for the unions or unions, we would all be making the 2nd tier wage if that much. Why do you think we make more than twice the going wage for an UNSKILLED laborer? Wake up!! There is roughly 25% of the american workforce that is unemplyed or underemployed. The economic situation does not allow us to continue to make what we are making, right or wrong. I don't like it as much as everyone else, but that is the truth. Facts are facts. We pay $50-$60 a month to gain $10's of thousands of dollars in yearly income. We have the best healthcare benefits of any person I know. Go ask your non-Ford friends about their healthcare. We pay $300 deductible a family per year. Most of my friends in good jobs pay $2000 per family. That does not include the $100 copay for doctors visits and the amount that is taken out each week for insurance. We have a fully company paid pension. Who has that anymore? I am grateful that the union is trying to let us 1st tier workers hopefully get out with the deal we signed on for. I hate that the 2nd tier workers have what they have, but they have a chance to get where we are and they are signing up in full knowledge of what they are getting themselves into. Even with this "pathetic" contract, we are still in the top 20% of wage earners in the US and we are probably in the top 5% of people globally. Sure, we are taking a couple hits, but look around you. We are getting tapped while others are getting slammed!!!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 15, 2011 13:48:13 GMT -5
we voted in the strike vote to authorize the bargaining commitee to call a strike. if they call it that means we walk,period.
working under the old contract is a huge concession. aint no mo holidays, personal time,etc in that contract for us.
right kess?
|
|