|
Post by Ktp1989 on Oct 10, 2011 18:55:44 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by ScottR@KTP on Oct 11, 2011 7:57:57 GMT -5
Text going around plant that Michigan Assembly voted it down by 56 votes. Using this link, they have 3180 eligible voters.
|
|
|
Post by ScottR@KTP on Oct 11, 2011 8:08:19 GMT -5
Link says Local 600 voted yesterday...I wanna see their numbers. They booed King off the stage when he attempted to give his concessions speech.
|
|
|
Post by lap65 on Oct 11, 2011 8:18:34 GMT -5
Didn't some vote Sunday, where are the numbers?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 11, 2011 8:20:22 GMT -5
Didn't some vote Sunday, where are the numbers? Guido is getting them in order.
|
|
|
Post by PUNISHER on Oct 11, 2011 8:31:15 GMT -5
if this list gets updated with actual vote counts, that will be great to see!!!
|
|
|
Post by ScottR@KTP on Oct 11, 2011 9:12:14 GMT -5
Michigan Assembly 50.3% no...49.7% yes assemblers 55% no, 45% yes skilled trades
|
|
|
Post by lap65 on Oct 11, 2011 9:14:22 GMT -5
Where can we find this Scott? Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by ScottR@KTP on Oct 11, 2011 9:16:25 GMT -5
I'm getting texts... but the UAW-Ford email subscriber deal just sent me this: with 7.3% of the Locals reporting: Production 50.1% yes Skilled 45.2% yes
|
|
|
Post by ScottR@KTP on Oct 11, 2011 9:17:09 GMT -5
uawfordinfo@gmail.com is the email I'm getting updates from...
|
|
|
Post by TonyV on Oct 11, 2011 10:29:59 GMT -5
It does not look to be "standing on it's own" very well Bob King.
|
|
|
Post by Ktp1989 on Oct 11, 2011 15:21:23 GMT -5
These early locals are the locals the IUAW though would pass this pile of shit to get the ball rolling...doesn't seem to be working out to well.
|
|
|
Post by bassmaster on Oct 11, 2011 17:20:43 GMT -5
This shows Chicago only has 1278 people that can vote, we have over 2000 people here working. Don't understand? ??
|
|
|
Post by ScottR@KTP on Oct 11, 2011 18:55:59 GMT -5
Read on down...shows about 700 in Chicago stamping.
|
|
|
Post by lap65 on Oct 11, 2011 23:15:47 GMT -5
Still no totals? whats up?
|
|
|
Post by bassmaster on Oct 12, 2011 2:37:18 GMT -5
Chicago assembly has over 2000 and Chicago stamping has around 700. I'm wondering if the LTS vote even counts. I would say that there is 1200+ seniority people here.
|
|
|
Post by ScottR@KTP on Oct 12, 2011 6:35:29 GMT -5
I don't assume LTS get to vote...
|
|
|
Post by beenaround on Oct 12, 2011 7:25:56 GMT -5
If LTS employees pay monthly union dues I think they would have the right to vote.
|
|
|
Post by ScottR@KTP on Oct 12, 2011 11:01:53 GMT -5
Yeah, but they are NOT full-time PERMANENT employees when they are LTS.
|
|
|
Post by Oliver Klosoff on Oct 12, 2011 12:16:42 GMT -5
Chicago assembly has over 2000 and Chicago stamping has around 700. I'm wondering if the LTS vote even counts. I would say that there is 1200+ seniority people here. The updated version of this list is now showing that there are 2537 eligible voters at Chicago Assembly (includes Stamping) and 38 at Chicago Parts, totaling 2575 eligible voters for the entire Local 551 in Chicago.
|
|
|
Post by ScottR@KTP on Oct 12, 2011 12:39:55 GMT -5
Will this list ever be updated with voting results?
|
|
|
Post by Oliver Klosoff on Oct 12, 2011 12:58:41 GMT -5
Will this list ever be updated with voting results? The link in the first post is a static file that does not update. To get to the updated versions, click the link, then click on the address bar and change the part of the address that is "October8.pdf" to today's date "October12.pdf" to get to today's version of the file. Of course, tomorrow it will be "October13.pdf" and so on.
|
|
|
Post by ScottR@KTP on Oct 12, 2011 13:08:55 GMT -5
much obliged...
|
|
|
Post by beenaround on Oct 12, 2011 14:21:12 GMT -5
Yeah, but they are NOT full-time PERMANENT employees when they are LTS. TPT employees have always had the right to vote even though they were not considered full time permanent employees. Isn't this kinda like one in the same?
|
|
|
Post by oh2ky on Oct 12, 2011 15:37:04 GMT -5
The link in the first post is a static file that does not update. To get to the updated versions, click the link, then click on the address bar and change the part of the address that is "October8.pdf" to today's date "October12.pdf" to get to today's version of the file. Of course, tomorrow it will be "October13.pdf" and so on. That works. Thanks!! Here's the updated link for today.... www.xpdnc.com/files/relatednewsandreports11/UAWFord2011-LocalVote-October12.pdf
|
|
|
Post by kessinger on Oct 13, 2011 1:42:14 GMT -5
KTP1989---"These early locals are the locals the IUAW though would pass this pile of shit to get the ball rolling...doesn't seem to be working out to well."
Actually the local presidents and chairman set up when you vote not the IUAW, they wanted ours over by now, but we wanted to have time for everyone to get thier questions answered.
MAP's chairman was campaigning against it, that is why he had his vote first. But with him actively going against I thought it would go down much harder than it did. They apparently like working OT and do not want another shift put on due to it cutting into their OT.
Sterlings vote is in: Trades 187 for 103 against Prod. 636 yes 322 no
passed 66%yes 34% no
If Chicago's totals come in soon I will post before I go home.
|
|
|
Post by kessinger on Oct 13, 2011 2:51:48 GMT -5
Chicago 2317 total votes
1778 No 539 Yes.
|
|
|
Post by ggcoop on Oct 13, 2011 3:26:23 GMT -5
Now that's how ya say " NO!" Maybe next time IUAW will have a real meeting to discuss the contract. Especially to those that have never been a part of a contract vote or understand it. Just tried to push it through quickly.
|
|
|
Post by ScottR@KTP on Oct 13, 2011 4:53:25 GMT -5
Damn, CAP slapped the shit out of this one.
|
|
|
Post by ggcoop on Oct 13, 2011 5:55:13 GMT -5
Imagine working consecutively two and a half years as a super TPT,getting released,coming back for half the pay, with no job security, 11 hrs a day,every 3rd sat. off, no paid personal time,under probation for a year, not the traditional 90 days like me and you. Being offered a raise,hiring,benefits,job security,rights,etc,etc. I have to say,I expected a little more yes's than no's from them. These people have had the courage to stand up not knowing if they will even have a job through this. I have to commend them for doing that. A lot of them do see the bigger picture,obviously.What really discourages me is that IUAW or the local didn't take the time to explain any of this the way they should have. If you are in true favor of this contract,wouldn't you think you would take the time to explain it to the people? To me,that was a slap in the face. I personally do not feel that they even tried to get the people to vote for it,like they have done in the past. Not here anyway.Almost like they wanted it to be turned down or just had expected it to pass. I am puzzled on this one.
|
|