|
Post by richktp1 on Aug 24, 2014 23:44:08 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by tiger66 on Aug 25, 2014 7:38:30 GMT -5
How long before we start?
|
|
|
Post by hayrakekid on Aug 25, 2014 22:02:38 GMT -5
The way to attack this is to get all people that passed test and file class action suit against Ford and UAW. That's the way firefighters in Chicago and New Jersey did it. Strength in numbers. Maybe that's why they don't want list out. On not posting it horse shit every bid job is posted to see who gets it. If it's private issue then why to they post bid jobs for everybody to see who gets it. This is 100% same thing no different. CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT Is what is needed
|
|
|
Post by ktpguy on Aug 26, 2014 5:15:07 GMT -5
I heard this morning that Sept of 94 was the cutoff date for the apprenticeship test. Wow!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 27, 2014 14:13:45 GMT -5
I would bet that the people with 97 seniority or whatever have outside qualifications. A journeymans card, education, notarized previous experience etc. that's the other way in. I've had notarized papers documenting my experience as a certified welder since I walked in the door in 99. I never have wanted to go back into that line of work tho. I actually came to work at ford to get away from that.
|
|
|
Post by tryingtomakeit on Aug 27, 2014 15:46:18 GMT -5
No outside qualifications, part of the BS suit
|
|
|
Post by brizzel on Aug 27, 2014 18:56:35 GMT -5
I am shocked of how many people thought that this would all be legit. No side deals or shadiness. This is KTP.
|
|
|
Post by richktp1 on Aug 28, 2014 3:26:22 GMT -5
Brizzel is right on this one. If you bid on a job, always double check who gets that bid job and make sure they have more seniority than you do. How can 2 people with 2011 and 2013 seniority get bid jobs that most people would give their eye teeth to have?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 28, 2014 10:26:32 GMT -5
Well I'll say this. There are some 2014 hires in some pretty damn nice places on nights. Mostly cuz they can't do anything else. Wtf? ? Unbelievable but true As far as the lawsuit goes. Y'all must have forgot ur diversity training we had some years back. Having the best most qualified people on the job isn't the way to go. Having diversity is. Remember? " diversity is strength " it all sounds so Orwellian to me.just imagine if management actually did their jobs and ford hadn't folded on these ridiculous lawsuits. And other things. We actually could make the $100 an hour the media is gonna say we make at contract time!!
|
|
ktpf
New Member
Posts: 5
|
Post by ktpf on Aug 28, 2014 13:22:16 GMT -5
Bobby Shabazz here. I just want to make sure accurate info is put out. 60 people made the waitlist. Cutoff was 9/12/94, after seniority ties. Yes, there was a lawsuit. The press release is on the EEOC website, dated 12/20/07. I'm not a lawyer, so you can read it and draw your own conclusions. I can say that the lawsuit had NO bearing on the 60 people that made it. A passing score and seniority is what put you on, or kept you off. The union, nor the company, put anyone on the list. The only involvement both have, is the size of the list. Which is based off potential manpower needs. The list is confidential. That is a National Apprentice Committee rule, not a Local 862 rule. Any questions, other than waitlist names, feel free to call me at 2668, or email me at rshabaz2@ford.com.
|
|
|
Post by tiger66 on Aug 28, 2014 17:32:47 GMT -5
A stand up guy who takes the bull by the horns!! I like that a lot. If all of ford was ran like this could you imagine how much better it would be.
|
|
bill
Amateur
Posts: 106
|
Post by bill on Aug 28, 2014 20:28:44 GMT -5
Those halfway down list are looking at a 3-5 yr. wait to get in the program.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 28, 2014 23:30:41 GMT -5
Ok so 94 was the cut off. 20 years in already . 5 year wait to start lets say. 5 year program right? Will they send ur journeyman card with ur first pension check Lmao
|
|
|
Post by ktp04532961 on Aug 29, 2014 4:45:06 GMT -5
Bobby Shabazz here. I just want to make sure accurate info is put out. 60 people made the waitlist. Cutoff was 9/12/94, after seniority ties. Yes, there was a lawsuit. The press release is on the EEOC website, dated 12/20/07. I'm not a lawyer, so you can read it and draw your own conclusions. I can say that the lawsuit had NO bearing on the 60 people that made it. A passing score and seniority is what put you on, or kept you off. The union, nor the company, put anyone on the list. The only involvement both have, is the size of the list. Which is based off potential manpower needs. The list is confidential. That is a National Apprentice Committee rule, not a Local 862 rule. Any questions, other than waitlist names, feel free to call me at 2668, or email me at rshabaz2@ford.com. Of course the lawsuit wouldn't have any bearing on the 60 who made it on the current list, because they actually made it in, but perhaps if Ford wasn't obliged to reserve positions for people based on race they may have taken 70 instead of 60. 80 even? The problem with the lawsuit is it shuts some people out if you're the "wrong" race. Is that not true? The company has to satisfy the terms of the settlement, which means some of the apprenticeships will in fact go to people because of their race, which lowers the number of apprenticeships available for everyone else correct?
|
|
|
Post by raws2ktp on Aug 30, 2014 0:04:15 GMT -5
I will make another observation that some may see as unfavorable. However, I have witnessed this with my own eyes and felt like weighing in. As one poster said a guy had 30 years, went on the apprenticeship, graduated 4 years later, and retired a year after that. The only reason he went on trades was to get a higher pension and the company loses all that time and money invested into him. Ever since the seniority has been used to determine who gets on the list the quality of the incoming apprentices has been drastically reduced. Before when the test score was all that was used, and some would even argue that, but nevertheless, the top scoring people were brought in regardless of their seniority. The "cream of the crop" were being chosen, if you please. Now a cut-off is determined and the lower seniority higher scoring people are not taken in order to grab the higher seniority lower scoring people. This is a generalization and not meant to offend.
|
|
ktpf
New Member
Posts: 5
|
Post by ktpf on Aug 30, 2014 8:31:09 GMT -5
I agree about the seniority issue, especially since there was a big time lapse between apprentices. I took the test in '94. If it was like that back then, I wouldn't be in the trades. To my knowledge, the lawsuit didn't displace anyone. People were added company-wide. It's not a simple this person is on, so that's why I didn't make it. There aren't any spots "reserved" for anyone. Believe what you will, just trying to keep the info straight.
|
|
|
Post by ktp04532961 on Aug 30, 2014 9:46:52 GMT -5
I agree about the seniority issue, especially since there was a big time lapse between apprentices. I took the test in '94. If it was like that back then, I wouldn't be in the trades. To my knowledge, the lawsuit didn't displace anyone. People were added company-wide. It's not a simple this person is on, so that's why I didn't make it. There aren't any spots "reserved" for anyone. Believe what you will, just trying to keep the info straight. www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/6-1-05.cfm www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/12-20-07.cfm eeoc.gov/eeoc/meetings/archive/5-16-07/stern.htmlAccording to the settlements over 330 apprenticeships were to be given to people nationwide based on their race. Are you saying that, in ADDITION to the number of apprenticeships that the company needed under normal circumstances, they put on 330 more on top of that to accommodate the requirements of the settlement? It would seem that reserving, yes reserving, 330+ positions for only African-Americans, which is a fact according to the eeoc's own summaries, would result in Ford requiring fewer apprentices from the normal selection process. So you're saying that the number of apprentices Ford accepted through the normal process wasn't reduced, even by one, by having to accommodate 330+ more people? I just think the process for selecting apprentices shouldn't have anything to do with what color somebody is. Its wrong. Read the above links to the EEOC yourselves. Race shouldn't be a factor at all. We're all supposed to be union brothers and sisters. We're all supposed to be equals. According to Mr. Stern (link above), the test he is referencing had 49 African-Americans fail, and 184 whites fail. Is it possible that maybe these people, the whites included, just shouldn't be in skilled trades? It can be dangerous work, and they could get somebody seriously hurt or worse, and how come no positions were saved for anyone except African-Americans when nearly 200 white folks flunked too? It all stinks of lawyers, to the detriment of our solidarity.
|
|
|
Post by thintwowin on Aug 31, 2014 11:01:38 GMT -5
I agree about the seniority issue, especially since there was a big time lapse between apprentices. I took the test in '94. If it was like that back then, I wouldn't be in the trades. To my knowledge, the lawsuit didn't displace anyone. People were added company-wide. It's not a simple this person is on, so that's why I didn't make it. There aren't any spots "reserved" for anyone. Believe what you will, just trying to keep the info straight. www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/6-1-05.cfm www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/12-20-07.cfm eeoc.gov/eeoc/meetings/archive/5-16-07/stern.htmlAccording to the settlements over 330 apprenticeships were to be given to people nationwide based on their race. Are you saying that, in ADDITION to the number of apprenticeships that the company needed under normal circumstances, they put on 330 more on top of that to accommodate the requirements of thWhere scissors?e settlement? It would seem that reserving, yes reserving, 330+ positions for only African-Americans, which is a fact according to the eeoc's own summaries, would result in Ford requiring fewer apprentices from the normal selection process. So you're saying that the number of apprentices Ford accepted through the normal process wasn't reduced, even by one, by having to accommodate 330+ more people? I just think the process for selecting apprentices shouldn't have anything to do with what color somebody is. Its wrong. Read the above links to the EEOC yourselves. Race shouldn't be a factor at all. We're all supposed to be union brothers and sisters. We're all supposed to be equals. According to Mr. Stern (link above), the test he is referencing had 49 African-Americans fail, and 184 whites fail. Is it possible that maybe these people, the whites included, just shouldn't be in skilled trades? It can be dangerous work, and they could get somebody seriously hurt or worse, and how come no positions were saved for anyone except African-Americans when nearly 200 white folks flunked too? It all stinks of lawyers, to the detriment of our solidarity. What he/she said Amen
|
|
|
Post by ktp04532961 on Sept 1, 2014 7:28:07 GMT -5
Bobby Shabazz here. I just want to make sure accurate info is put out. 60 people made the waitlist. Cutoff was 9/12/94, after seniority ties. Yes, there was a lawsuit. The press release is on the EEOC website, dated 12/20/07. I'm not a lawyer, so you can read it and draw your own conclusions. I can say that the lawsuit had NO bearing on the 60 people that made it. A passing score and seniority is what put you on, or kept you off. The union, nor the company, put anyone on the list. The only involvement both have, is the size of the list. Which is based off potential manpower needs. The list is confidential. That is a National Apprentice Committee rule, not a Local 862 rule. Any questions, other than waitlist names, feel free to call me at 2668, or email me at rshabaz2@ford.com. Just heard that someone with april or may of 1995 seniority got accepted on the list, even though the cut off was said to be sept 1994. Bobby, can you confirm or deny this?
|
|
ktpf
New Member
Posts: 5
|
Post by ktpf on Sept 1, 2014 10:00:36 GMT -5
Of the 60 people that made the waitlist, 9/94 was the cutoff. No one has been added.
|
|
|
Post by ktp04532961 on Sept 2, 2014 9:21:12 GMT -5
Thanks for the reply, although, I never got an answer to my other question:
According to the settlements over 330 apprenticeships were to be given to people nationwide based on their race. Are you saying that, in ADDITION to the number of apprenticeships that the company needed under normal circumstances, they put on 330 more on top of that to accommodate the requirements of the settlement? It would seem that reserving, yes reserving, 330+ positions for only African-Americans, which is a fact according to the eeoc's own summaries, would result in Ford requiring fewer apprentices from the normal selection process. So you're saying that the number of apprentices Ford accepted through the normal process wasn't reduced, even by one, by having to accommodate 330+ more people (nationwide)?
You see, if the number of apprenticeships AVAILABLE to participants in the normal testing process was reduced, even by one, by having to allocate/reserve/hold (whatever you want to call it) apprenticeships for people of only ONE particular ethnicity, then the settlement resulted in people being effectively blocked from having an opportunity for advancement based SOLELY on their NOT belonging to the ethnicity which the settlement was in favor of. The only way for this scenario to have been avoided is if the company increased the number of apprenticeships that would have normally become available (by tradesmen retiring, plants expanding operations, etc, etc.) by over 330 people nationwide.
Put another way, did Ford increase the number of apprenticeships it made available, since the settlement, by over 330 than it actually required? This seems to be the only way to have accommodated the requirement of the settlement without disenfranchising people who would have otherwise had an opportunity. See what I mean?
For reference: From the 6-1-05 EEOC Press release: "Non-monetary relief will include placing 280 African American test takers on apprentice lists and developing new selection methods for Ford's apprenticeship program by a jointly selected expert with detailed reporting and monitoring provisions. "
From the 12-20-07 EEOC Press release: "Non-monetary relief includes placing 55 African American test takers on the apprentice lists and the development, by a jointly selected expert, of a new selection method for the apprenticeship program together with detailed reporting and monitoring provisions. "
From Attorney Jeffrey Sterns statement (Meeting of May 16, 2007 - Employment Testing and Screening): "The ATSS had a statistically significant adverse impact against black applicants for the apprentice training program, with only two of the 51 black test takers passing, compared with 108 of 292 white test takers passing the January, 1998 Sharonville test. Nationwide, about 13,000 employees took the ATSS at 41 Ford facilities from February, 2000 to June, 2003; about 25% of those test takers were African-American...............The settlement also rapidly and substantially expanded skilled trades opportunities for African-American employees at Ford. Ford agreed to place 279 of its qualified African-American employees on the apprenticeship eligibility list to redress the shortfall which EEOC identified as resulting from the ATSS. This was an unprecedented achievement in settlement of an apprentice selection case. Ford also agreed to invest substantial training over a 4-year apprentice period for each of the 279 class members it selected for the apprenticeship program. Finally, the settlement provided more than $8 million of monetary relief to the nationwide class of African-American test-takers who were not selected for the apprentice program. "
So this was all somehow achieved without disenfranchising any worker of any other ethnicity? People say we need to start being honest and open with one another about issues that divide us in our society, and not be afraid to have these conversations, so that maybe we can learn to treat each other better, and one day solve the many problems we have and come together. So, does this look fair and equal to you?
|
|
ktpf
New Member
Posts: 5
|
Post by ktpf on Sept 2, 2014 12:58:59 GMT -5
To the question of fair and equal or not. In my position, the settlement is the only answer. My personal feelings are of no consequence. The list is what it is. I know that's not what you want to hear. I can only tell you what I have to go on. I fully support treating each other better though.
|
|
|
Post by william on Sept 4, 2014 6:49:41 GMT -5
The lawsuit was BS and keep the best from getting the jobs. Why dont we apply affirmative action to the NBA or NFL or Hockey? Because you want the best not someone because of there race or gender.
Crap people even sued to get forman jobs because of there race.
|
|
|
Post by tryingtomakeit on Sept 4, 2014 7:37:06 GMT -5
Let's get down to the facts, if you dont agree with the lawsuits results, youre a racist. End of story.
|
|
|
Post by william on Sept 4, 2014 8:18:56 GMT -5
If your not smart enough to pass the test you shouldnt get the job period.
|
|