|
Post by remember1976 on May 9, 2012 7:57:24 GMT -5
We are now going to have a second local contract ratification vote.
I voted "no" the first time. Why? Because, given the precedent set when LAP hourly employees were permitted (by a "gentleman's agreement') to temporarily transfer to KTP to avoid the inconvenience of a lay-off while LAP re-tooled for a new vehicle, I felt the one-time transfer letter was unfair in that it was too restrictive.
Several hundred LAP employees temporarily transferred to KTP and brought all their seniority. Some consequently won promotional bids for sweet jobs such as torque inspector. When the day came that LAP was ramping up for production, the LAP transfers were given the option to return to LAP or stay at KTP. A couple of hundred stayed.
Evidently what is good for the goose is not good for the gander. The one-time transfer letter placed an unreasonable maximum of 150 transfers and was based strictly upon a ridiculous one-for-one relationship (one KTP transfer for every one LAP transfer). No transfer would retain his plant seniority. And so I voted "no."
Now the KTP bargaining committee has seen fit to eliminate the transfer letter entirely. Guess how I will vote tomorrow?
The KTP bargaining committee and I agree on one thing: Evidently they also do not care if the KTP rank-and-file never again ratify a local contract. One thing that has been proven is that KTP does not miss a beat without a local union contract.
I've had enough. I'll vote "yes" on a local contract once KTP leaves UAW Local 862 and forms its own UAW Local and once KTP has an entirely new bargaining committee. The current set-up does not serve the best interests of the KTP hourly work force.
|
|
|
Post by ScottR@KTP on May 9, 2012 14:54:56 GMT -5
Obviously I feel different about the transfers from LAP...but I also believe the entire workforce at KTP should have been given the opportunity to transfer to LAP prior to the 1400 that did transfer from out of the state...only common sense to me. To remove the transfer language entirely is a big slap in the face to all those hoping to do so...but the one for one was a joke from the get go...not many at LAP would have came over anyway...should have been as many at KTP that chose to...and them replaced by transfers with their seniority. I don't have a beef with my brothers/sisters transferring in with their seniority. If the tables were reversed and we had to find a new home, we would hope for the same opportunity.
|
|
|
Post by marcus on May 9, 2012 14:57:06 GMT -5
What was changed in this contract vs the one we voted down
|
|
|
Post by brizzel on May 9, 2012 15:14:50 GMT -5
All I saw was they removed the letter of transfer. This is as big of a piece of garbage as the last one. What did we gain? Our union leaders should be embarrassed.
Anybody else not received their commemorative coin besides me?
|
|
|
Post by remember1976 on May 9, 2012 15:21:11 GMT -5
You had better believe removing the transfer letter is a slap in the face! And, yes, the original language in the transfer letter was a sick joke.
The fact is that the issue of transfers from KTP to LAP is not a dispute with the company but a dispute within UAW Local 862. It is a dispute between the bargaining committee at LAP vs the bargaining committee at KTP. The bargaining committee at KTP has caved.
Clearly the hourly workforce at KTP are the red-headed step-children of UAW 862. Why are these two assembly plants still being represented by the same UAW local?
|
|
|
Post by remember1976 on May 9, 2012 15:57:21 GMT -5
Do we feel differently? I don't think so.
I have no problem with the UAW 862 LAP brothers and sisters who transferred to KTP with their plant seniority intact.
What I have a problem with is the fact that UAW 862 KTP brothers and sisters are being denied the opportunity to do the same.
Why are these two assembly plants still being represented by the same UAW local? What is the point? What is the advantage? There is no benefit to KTP UAW 862 members that I can fathom. Obviously it has recently worked to the advantage of LAP UAW 862 employees....
|
|
|
Post by mulewrong on May 9, 2012 20:18:51 GMT -5
An easy decision... Agree, the only thing I see for trades is concession, bump rights changed from 25% total to 15% WTH ... This place is against seniority rights
|
|
|
Post by Ktp1989 on May 9, 2012 20:38:27 GMT -5
agreed on seniority and as far as us skilled trades...it appears they may have adjusted the stamping issue....but clearly an easy no for me.
|
|
|
Post by coconut on May 10, 2012 1:08:40 GMT -5
to remember, I totally agree with you on having our own local. Since LAP doesn't "play nice" with the transfer issue ,I say we should have our own Local so that when things go bad there, they can't come here like they have done repeatedly . When is the last time we had a big hiring ? All our people are going to be working the line till they retire or till they fall apart ,which ever comes first. Sad, lets get together and form our own union. They did it in Ohio, we can do it here.
|
|
|
Post by ScottR@KTP on May 10, 2012 2:48:38 GMT -5
Are you sure it was LAP that didn't play nice with the transfer issue?
|
|
|
Post by keithf on May 10, 2012 3:16:15 GMT -5
do people not understand that LAP was laying off, and thats why they were allowed to transfer to openings at KTP? and that if KTP was laying off, they would be allowed to do the same?
|
|
|
Post by tonyp on May 10, 2012 3:22:10 GMT -5
If I remember correctly before people transferred to KTP they made sure all bids were taken or filled so the LAP people had to go on the line w nothing to bid on for over 6 months. Yet LAP opened up all bids to people from all over the US before they even transferred. Am I wrong Scottrlap?
|
|
|
Post by Jr on May 10, 2012 3:56:46 GMT -5
I'm not scottr but you are right Tony P!!! And alot of people seem to forget Lap was laying off and Ktp was hiring at the time. If they didn't let the lap people transfer when they laid off than the gates would of opened for ALL the WHOLE world to come in when they needed to hire for the Exp/Navigator. That was an international call not a local one.
|
|
|
Post by ScottR@KTP on May 10, 2012 4:43:37 GMT -5
They bid many fork jobs prior to us coming...but many have had many opportunities to bid in the last 3 years...I'm on my 3rd or 4th bid...lost track. We had bid rights from day one...we received a good deal...I have no problem with them bidding all the fork jobs prior to our arrival...they had to get them trained before we arrived.
|
|
|
Post by TonyV on May 10, 2012 8:36:17 GMT -5
"I voted "no" the first time. Why? Because, given the precedent set when LAP hourly employees were permitted (by a "gentleman's agreement') to temporarily transfer to KTP to avoid the inconvenience of a lay-off while LAP re-tooled for a new vehicle, "
I agree with a lot of your post. But, LAP had NO formal product announced to be built when they laid off a shift. Your choices were to transfer to KTP or stay - risking Ford eliminating LAP. It was the national contract that let us transfer 414 because KTP was hiring for the installment of the Expedition/Navigator.
Scott Eskridge helped LAP by allowing transfers to sign up by seniority instead of just taking the lowest seniority. If just the lowest seniority were taken at that time, mid-senior people would have been on ILO for years while the lowest senior worked. Most of us went to u-trim during the process including myself.
I'm just surprised the favor was not returned to Scott Eskridge during the process of reopening LAP after he helped them out. The question should be - was the decision local 862, IUAW, or Ford now that the national contract changed with voluntary in-zone transfers?(Appendix O)
|
|
|
Post by badcat555 on May 10, 2012 9:23:02 GMT -5
I think all KTP people should get the chance to go to LAP if they want to. If they are going to hire a 3rd shift at LAP, why not let as many people that want to go from KTP go and bring the new hires here??? Why can't our local do whats right?
|
|
|
Post by remember1976 on May 10, 2012 9:33:02 GMT -5
The LAP layoff occurred so that Ford could completely gut and retool the plant for a new product. There was no reduction of force. The plant was not closed. The transfers were not covered under the National agreement. They were covered under an extra-contractual "gentleman's agreement" between the two bargaining committees with the cooperation of Ford Motor Company.
|
|
|
Post by TonyV on May 10, 2012 11:28:51 GMT -5
One shift was erased after the modification agreement went through. Reduction in supply/ reduction in force. The modification made it cheaper to lay off one shift instead of rotating.
Per the 2007 Contract Appendix N:
2. Eligible employees who, on or after the Effective Date of the Agreement, are in Protected Status or on indefinite Layoff will be placed automatically on the in-zone preferential placement list for placement at a plant within the same zone as their home plant. In-zone employees who are on Indefinite Layoff or in Protected Status will be advised of available in-zone opportunities via posting for voluntary transfer. Prior to inzone placement, the Local Hourly Personnel Offices APPENDIX N MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING PREFERENTIAL PLACEMENT ARRANGEMENTS 210 at those in-zone locations with employees on Indefinite Layoff or in Protected Status will post a notice of such job opportunities for volunteers from Indefinite Layoff and Protected Status, and for volunteers from the active working employee population. If the number of in-zone volunteers is insufficient to fill the available job openings, these openings then will be filled through mandatory transfer of in-zone employees who are on Indefinite Layoff or in Protected Status. Mandatory placement of these employees will be accomplished according to lowest-to-highest seniority order.
|
|
|
Post by TonyV on May 10, 2012 11:34:53 GMT -5
The gentlemen's agreement you refer to was Scott Eskridge allowing a sign up by seniority to come to KTP instead of the lowest seniority being pulled in first because of the job posting for KTP at the time.
That is why it's a crock that KTP does not have the same option with the LAP posting this time. I would have assumed the local would return the favor to Scott Eskridge for him working with LAP in the past.
I agree with you that it is wrong not to have a sign up to go to LAP for those that wish to for this reason.
|
|
|
Post by TonyV on May 10, 2012 11:48:16 GMT -5
414 people came to KTP. Many other ILO's went to CAP,etc., out of zone. And if memory serves correctly, 262 were on ILO for years with benefits expired.
Some of those people I refer to are my friends. They went through hell for 3 years plus without work because of the loss of one shift. The UAW coerced them to pass the modification - then the shift was lost. No future product was announced for LAP at that time. That is why I signed up to come to KTP. Others were not so fortunate.
One shift then remained working before the announcement of product and announcement of shut down to retool. LAP ran only one shift since before U-trim started up at KTP until this year. Some of my friends have just lately gone back to work.
|
|
|
Post by lap65 on May 10, 2012 18:20:42 GMT -5
Actually there was a huge reduction in work force, we lost a whole shift. That's why we need 1000 people from everywhere else to run 2 shifts now.
|
|
|
Post by lapfinal79 on May 11, 2012 1:10:34 GMT -5
KTP needs to form its on local ! LAP can't keep listening to you guys whine about coming here when if tables were turned you guys would not want us over there.
|
|
|
Post by remember1976 on May 11, 2012 8:00:53 GMT -5
Thanks for the correction, TonyV.
See my new thread.
|
|
|
Post by trinitus on May 11, 2012 12:16:45 GMT -5
I voted no last time and I voted no this time. I also didn't see many people voting either.
|
|
|
Post by remember1976 on May 11, 2012 14:56:32 GMT -5
Just over 1000 voted the first time. Just over 1100 had voted this time as of 11:30 am.
|
|