brandonf
New Member
We Must STAND UNITED
Posts: 10
|
reality
Oct 13, 2011 8:30:39 GMT -5
Post by brandonf on Oct 13, 2011 8:30:39 GMT -5
Brothers and sisters I have been reading the language since it was posted. Of course I do not agree. job security should have never been an issue. Retired workers lost. Skilled trades lost. Production lost. The faith in iuaw has fallen dramatically. I grew up in a union family. I know what we have lost in my 15 years at ford. The world has changed. Global economy means cheap labor. I am a realist. We all need to be. I know that this will get bashed. I don't care. Scare tactics or not. If we strike we are finished! Be realistic. Think about our families. It sucks! I know! This contract has to pass!
|
|
|
reality
Oct 13, 2011 9:20:04 GMT -5
Post by ScottR@KTP on Oct 13, 2011 9:20:04 GMT -5
I respect that angle, it's gonna be a close vote IMO. I'm just tired of bending over; I'm ready to stand strong and see what that accomplishes.
|
|
|
reality
Oct 13, 2011 9:39:35 GMT -5
Post by thintwowin on Oct 13, 2011 9:39:35 GMT -5
If your scared buy a dog. I am tired of the lies . There is only so many lies and screwing people can take. They really screwed up when they filed that grievance IMO . If you dance you got to pay the fiddler.
|
|
|
reality
Oct 13, 2011 9:52:29 GMT -5
Post by lap65 on Oct 13, 2011 9:52:29 GMT -5
If anyone has read any of my posts they know I am totally against this contract, but I did not know they could legally hire permanent replacement workers, I do think its all scare tactics but I am starting to get nervous, is this Mulally's plan to bust the union? The big question is why would Settles & King strike if they knew it would bust the union, they would be cutting their own throats unless they have been promised a job by Ford. Lots of serious things to consider. When the ones before us fought to get what we have, was it legal to hire replacement workers? If not then this is a whole different ball of wax.
|
|
|
reality
Oct 13, 2011 10:01:22 GMT -5
Post by informer on Oct 13, 2011 10:01:22 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!!!!!
|
|
|
reality
Oct 13, 2011 10:11:32 GMT -5
Post by trinitus on Oct 13, 2011 10:11:32 GMT -5
Here is some reality, they replace us with scabs. The IUAW will lose (do the math) money from 41,000 worker's. The scabs will not have to pay union dues. OK Settles, are ya ready for that pay cut now?
|
|
|
reality
Oct 13, 2011 10:16:11 GMT -5
Post by grimbold on Oct 13, 2011 10:16:11 GMT -5
It seems from what I've read that most strikes occur directly from the negotiating table without any sort of agreement being presented to the membership. In our case it is very easy for Ford to say that they had tendered an offer in good faith, an offer which is clearly more lucrative than those of it's competitors.
So yes, they can make a case for permanent replacement workers.
|
|
ktpt
New Member
Posts: 11
|
reality
Oct 13, 2011 10:24:20 GMT -5
Post by ktpt on Oct 13, 2011 10:24:20 GMT -5
The truth is none of us know where this goes from here. Thats what happens when you have terrible leadership and bad representation. That's what this is all about in a nutshell. It seems the contract isn't really the issue, its Bob King, Jimmy Settles, and on down.
|
|
skimp
New Member
Posts: 44
|
reality
Oct 13, 2011 10:26:33 GMT -5
Post by skimp on Oct 13, 2011 10:26:33 GMT -5
And we can make a case under the terms of 2009 concessions agreement that all concessions were suspended for the term of the contract. The concessions should have been restored automatically without negotiating or fighting.
|
|
|
reality
Oct 13, 2011 10:32:53 GMT -5
Post by grimbold on Oct 13, 2011 10:32:53 GMT -5
And we can make a case under the terms of 2009 concessions agreement that all concessions were suspended for the term of the contract. The concessions should have been restored automatically without negotiating or fighting. No, they would have had to have been renegotiated under this new contract. Nothing would be automatically restored each contract unless there is a specific clause in the old one stating it would be (such as the no-strike clauses in the GM, Chrysler deals).
|
|
|
reality
Oct 13, 2011 11:01:47 GMT -5
Post by simonsays on Oct 13, 2011 11:01:47 GMT -5
What if they really reject it? Ford has several options if workers reject the contract. One possible outcome is that Ford could attempt to impose the contract despite the rejection, but workers could respond in turn with a strike. That would hit both sides hard, but it could hit the UAW harder: Although the lost production would be expensive for Ford, the huge hit it would probably take in the court of public opinion could end up being a disaster for the UAW. The consequences of a failed contract vote are easy to imagine: a public-relations disaster for the UAW that ends their efforts to organize the "transplant" factories owned by foreign companies like Toyota (NYSE: TM ) and Honda (NYSE: HMC ) ; an effort by Ford to shift more production to places like Mexico and possibly even China; and a poisoned relationship that makes the success of future efforts to preserve U.S. jobs much less likely. Will workers think that through? Expect the UAW's leadership to make a major effort to ensure that they do. UAW Vice President Jimmy Settles has been visiting Ford plants in recent days to argue in favor of the agreement, but UAW leaders are likely to turn the heat way up in light of these early returns. Expect other union leaders, including possibly President Bob King himself, to make appearances in plants that have yet to vote -- and to argue forcefully for the ratification of this agreement. When all is said and done next week, I think the contract will ultimately pass. Unions are very good at getting the votes they want from their membership. But it'll be close, and I'll reiterate what I said the other day: If you're thinking of buying Ford stock, you might want to hold off until this thing is resolved -- one way or another. Read more: scottrlap.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=gossip&action=display&thread=11056#ixzz1ag6uwdX6
|
|
|
reality
Oct 13, 2011 11:11:03 GMT -5
Post by thintwowin on Oct 13, 2011 11:11:03 GMT -5
And we can make a case under the terms of 2009 concessions agreement that all concessions were suspended for the term of the contract. The concessions should have been restored automatically without negotiating or fighting. No, they would have had to have been renegotiated under this new contract. Nothing would be automatically restored each contract unless there is a specific clause in the old one stating it would be (such as the no-strike clauses in the GM, Chrysler deals). Wrong, It is all crossed out in the current negotiating agreement and sign my everyone.
|
|
|
reality
Oct 13, 2011 11:33:22 GMT -5
Post by grimbold on Oct 13, 2011 11:33:22 GMT -5
Wrong, It is all crossed out in the current negotiating agreement and sign my everyone. Wrong? Who? The fact that it is signed by all parties appears to confirm it was part of the negotiations. Give or take, it's all negotiated.
|
|
|
reality
Oct 13, 2011 11:34:51 GMT -5
Post by ktpsparky on Oct 13, 2011 11:34:51 GMT -5
I'm beginning to have more mixed emotions about this contract. After reviewing the offers that both GM and Chrysler got, our deal is beginning to look like it stands tall on it's own. Especially if one is able to separate the issues pertaining to the Equity of Sacrifice Grievance and actual contract terms.
Please understand I'm not at all happy about not getting a raise since 2005 and the prospect of no raise for the next four years. If someone had told me when I graduated from High School that I was going to choose to work my whole life for a company, thoroughly enjoy my job, but at some point I was going to go 10 years without a raise, I would have probably asked if I could reboot and try again. Man, I'm just having a lot of trouble accepting the fact that if I vote in favor of this agreement, I am accepting less than what my family deserves.
I do understand that the UAW was neutered in the negotiations with respect to both GM and Chrysler because of the "No Strike" clause. That being said, they did have the option to go to an arbitrator to seek better terms if they felt the deal wasn't reasonable. I think the strong support the GM deal received might have sealed our fate. After seeing to details of the Chrysler agreement, I can see why they wanted to settle Ford last. As much as I hate to say it, if one only compares the three agreements, ours is very strong.
Honestly, my beef is more with the UAW and their halve-truths and blatant withholding of important information. I feel violated for not being fully informed of the status of the Equity of Sacrifice Grievance before the contract highlight book was published.
After all, it was Bob King and Jimmy Settles who told us back in the spring of 2011 that there would be no contract until the grievance was settled. They are the ones who have their fingers on the pulse of social media, wanting to grasp the opportunity to move forward communicating honestly and transparently, yet they allowed the membership to ASSUME that the grievance was already in arbitration.
If they really wanted to be honest, they would settle this grievance before asking us to vote. Honesty might also require them to stop claiming 12000 jobs gained in these negotiations. The company had already announced more than 7000 of these jobs before the last contract expired. Don't get me wrong, I believe the company probably withheld information about product planning and investment to look good in the eyes of the media, but I heard rumblings of Kansas City getting the full sized Transit back in 2009. I do believe they secured future product and investment for Ohio Assembly and possibly AAI, but I also believe that most of the other announced investment was already in the pipe.
If they really wanted to be transparent, they would have informed the membership on September 15 that the hearing did not occur. More over, they would communicate to us WHY the hearing did not occur. Considering the history of this issue, I would rather it be settled fairly before a ratification vote, therefore I do not have to worry about being misled or lied to again. Being transparent would also require them to not tell me I might be able to receive a $12000 profit sharing bonus, when in reality they want to shave 10% off the top for VEBA. Although not as transparent, I guess $12000 sounds better than $10800.
I personally would have liked for the UAW to demand language limiting the total compensation packages of all executives of the company. The UAW and the company seem to be in agreement that our total compensation packages should be competitive with that of the rest of the auto industry, so why not require language that applies the same logic to our executives. If our profit sharing bonus is capped, why not ask the same of our executives? Any language of this type would only strengthen the morale and confidence of the entire workforce by eliminating the possibility of any more "MORALLY & ETHICALLY WRONG" compensation. After all, limiting executive compensation would only strengthen the balance sheets of the company and indirectly prop up VEBA by enabling the company to pay off more debt and eventually distribute a stock dividend.
|
|
|
reality
Oct 13, 2011 12:04:20 GMT -5
Post by grimbold on Oct 13, 2011 12:04:20 GMT -5
Sparky, limiting executive compensation would be more for the political arena rather than a union contract. That's something that would have to be addressed across the board.
Speaking for myself, though, while I do believe that executive compensation in this country is nothing short of outrageous (especially given the push to depress wages everywhere else), I'm not very comfortable with government limiting compensation in the private sector. That's a double-edged sword.
|
|
|
reality
Oct 13, 2011 12:14:16 GMT -5
Post by ktpsparky on Oct 13, 2011 12:14:16 GMT -5
I hear you grimbold, but I object.
Limiting executive compensation has to start somewhere...why not in a UAW contract? We secured "Equity Of Sacrifice" language in the Fall 2008 concessions, why not follow it up with "Competitive Total Compensation for Company Executives"? King and Settles would have more support right now if they did.
I still contend that our UAW leadership halve-truths and withholding information has led to the rapid degradation of the morale of the rank-and-file UAW membership. Honesty and transparency would go far.
|
|
|
reality
Oct 13, 2011 12:15:09 GMT -5
Post by Ex-metalman on Oct 13, 2011 12:15:09 GMT -5
Theres no way in hell they would or could replace all of us(and make a profit)and like the guy said our fucked up UAW will lose a shit load of money if they hire lower paid workers!I still think this is a scare tactic if push comes to shove they will go back and give us SOME of what we want.And besides people on here act like FORD is their whole fuckin life???I have responsibilities just like everybody else on here but how could you act like (What would I do if I didnt work at FORD)Thats disgusting, fuck this place they fuckin OWE us Stand your Ground!!!!Vote NO
|
|
|
reality
Oct 13, 2011 12:17:11 GMT -5
Post by elmer on Oct 13, 2011 12:17:11 GMT -5
Before some of you start pissing yourself remember Ford and the UAW haven’t had a strike in like 30 years. There’s been allot of fear mongering by Ford and the UAW to get you to vote yes, it’s seems to be working on some of you.
1st Ford and the UAW will go back to table if we reject this proposal 2 Ford and other companies have always had the right to replace striking workers. 3 Down the road if the company says take it or leave it and we just can’t accept it then yes the UAW could call a strike, or Ford could chose to lock us out. 4 For Ford to have a strike it could send it into bankruptcy now I say that because what happens if Ford ever does enter bankruptcy? The Ford family will lose control of Ford and that’s a FACT lot to lose for them.
5 Don’t panic where in the 1st step of this process…
|
|
|
reality
Oct 13, 2011 12:26:59 GMT -5
Post by Jr on Oct 13, 2011 12:26:59 GMT -5
4 For Ford to have a strike it could send it into bankruptcy now I say that because what happens if Ford ever does enter bankruptcy? The Ford family will lose control of Ford and that’s a FACT lot to lose for them. That's a big one there. They have done everything they could to avoid this.
|
|
|
reality
Oct 13, 2011 12:32:53 GMT -5
Post by ihatemyjob on Oct 13, 2011 12:32:53 GMT -5
4 For Ford to have a strike it could send it into bankruptcy now I say that because what happens if Ford ever does enter bankruptcy? The Ford family will lose control of Ford and that’s a FACT lot to lose for them. That's a big one there. They have done everything they could to avoid this. Thats exactly what I keep saying. Mullaly isnt part of the Ford family. He's a hired gun. Bill Ford gave him the job because he didnt have the heart to put people out of work so he brought in a guy to do it for him. The Ford family isnt going to lose the family business so Mullaly can win this game of chicken.
|
|
|
reality
Oct 13, 2011 12:36:50 GMT -5
Post by ktpsparky on Oct 13, 2011 12:36:50 GMT -5
No pissing here. No panic either. I'm still voting NO.
Just saying, if one removes the issue of "Equity of Sacrifice" from the equation, then this is a relatively strong contract compared to GM and Chrysler. It appears that we got more than "going rate".
The UAW f*ed up when they didn't settle the Equity of Sacrifice grievance first. If it was settled, then it would be easy to say, "that was then, this is now."
1. Are you mad that it's not settled? 2. Are you mad that they didn't tell you the hearing still hasn't happened? 3. Does knowing that the UAW knowingly withheld information from you about the "Equity of Sacrifice" grievance hearing make you trust them less?
Many things I'm reading on the message boards pertain to frustrations with the unsettled grievance and the trustworthiness of our UAW leadership.
|
|
|
reality
Oct 13, 2011 12:46:46 GMT -5
Post by itsallgreektome on Oct 13, 2011 12:46:46 GMT -5
I agree with brandonf. We lose,they lose, everybody looses. Do you think that are CEO cares whether you go out on strike or not? He has absolutely nothing to lose. He is set for life and his generations to come are set. They will not be worring about paying their electric bills or wondering about 'their next meal. He can hold out indifinitely. Think about it before you vote. He will be laughing all the way to the bank. Do you really want to say no because you are not getting everything that we lost back? These times are hard and getting harder. I am one of the ones that are thankful for Ford. Without my job where would I be.
|
|
skimp
New Member
Posts: 44
|
reality
Oct 13, 2011 12:49:54 GMT -5
Post by skimp on Oct 13, 2011 12:49:54 GMT -5
Working somewhere else getting fucked.
|
|
|
Post by ktpelec on Oct 13, 2011 12:56:35 GMT -5
I agree Sparky, I believe the grievance was filed to put pressure on Ford before contract talks, yet I don't think it had any chance to begin with, now that strategy has backfired.
|
|
|
reality
Oct 13, 2011 12:59:13 GMT -5
Post by unchained on Oct 13, 2011 12:59:13 GMT -5
Federal law isn't on our side for a strike, they can hire replacement workers. And doesn't LAP have 17,000 applications from a couple months ago? A strike will not end well for us. Don't you think Ford would love to get rid of the $28 employees? They will have no problem finding workers and they have management to train them. It may take a little while but it can be done. "What would I do If I didn't work at Ford" you would be lucky to find a job making $14.00 an hour with no benefits at a job that really sucks. Then you will be wishing you were still back at Ford everyday. It was only a couple years ago that Ford was losing money, they are making money now but they still have 14 billion in debt. Probably because they didn't take the bailout and a lot of people are buying Ford because of that. Let them get a better foot hold before we start demanding anything back. Also the public perception of the UAW is that we are all over paid greedy asses, by voting this down we will fuel that. Something to think about.
|
|
skimp
New Member
Posts: 44
|
reality
Oct 13, 2011 13:09:20 GMT -5
Post by skimp on Oct 13, 2011 13:09:20 GMT -5
If they can afford to pay exorbitant salaries and bonuses to executives then they can afford to give pay raises and restore COLA to us,instead of securing pay raises for people who aren't working for the company yet.
|
|
skimp
New Member
Posts: 44
|
reality
Oct 13, 2011 13:12:06 GMT -5
Post by skimp on Oct 13, 2011 13:12:06 GMT -5
Fuck what the public think,they aren't the ones working hurt everyday enabling the company to earn Billions only to reward themselves and spit on us.
|
|
|
reality
Oct 13, 2011 13:22:05 GMT -5
Post by unchained on Oct 13, 2011 13:22:05 GMT -5
The public are the ones who buy the cars and trucks. Who now are buying more Fords than before.
|
|
|
reality
Oct 13, 2011 14:35:25 GMT -5
Post by ihatemyjob on Oct 13, 2011 14:35:25 GMT -5
OK so if the public stops buying Fords then thats going to affect Ford as well. Its not in Fords best interest to lose business either.
|
|
|
reality
Oct 13, 2011 14:43:33 GMT -5
Post by dragnasty on Oct 13, 2011 14:43:33 GMT -5
Unbelievable!!!!!! Please tell me we are smarter than this. I cant believe that some of you are allowing this latest scare tactic to do exactly what "they" want it to do, scare you into voting yes!! VOTE NO! AND LETS STOP LETTING OUR OWN UNION WALK ALL OVER US! WE ALL HAVE WORKED OUR ASSES OFF FOR THIS COMPANY, WE DESERVE MORE.
|
|