|
|
Post by kessinger on May 21, 2010 20:46:33 GMT -5
In case you don't know. Whipsawing is when one local gives back things to make their plant a more desirable place to put a new vehicle, or keep an old one. It leads to other plants having to give up even more to attract a vehicle. It is how we got team concept. Canada shot it down, Ford came to KTP and said go MOA and you get the truck so they did it. Now we all build trucks
I think this is a nobrainer, it sucks. But let me put the question to you guys. Should the IUAW allow whipsawing or should we all follow the exact same contract?
IS this a terrible thing or just good business?
|
|
|
|
Post by marcus on May 21, 2010 21:45:44 GMT -5
Should be the same contract period! We should not fight among plants.Id like to see us all vote on this and not leave it up to our IUAW.
|
|
|
|
Post by bo862 on May 22, 2010 2:08:57 GMT -5
This is a great tool for the company to manipulate contracts. The company can promise just enough to get the votes to convince the membership to give away important issues like retirees, raises, and cola. In return we are promised short term/temporary items like new products, which can be moved at any time for economic reasons. On top of that we have to turn around and give more at the next contract or the product will be moved or discontinued. The IUAW should never allow the company to split the membership up into voting blocks, be it by plant, seniority or anything else.
If the best answer for the membership on this is one contract then I'm all for it.
Corporations have billions to spend on lobbyists and professional union busters. The only thing the membership has is to stand united.
|
|
|
|
Post by ScottR@KTP on May 22, 2010 12:15:27 GMT -5
All I care about is one contract for all...having the international negotiate our contract, but not having to live under it is ridiculous. For them to not give up holidays, raises, COLA, bonuses...but in turn, they received raises while we kept taking cuts...I would love to punch each one of them in the mouth.  |
|
|
|
Post by bo862 on May 25, 2010 0:17:25 GMT -5
I can't believe this is the extent of interest in this subject.
|
|
|
|
Post by kessinger on May 28, 2010 7:56:42 GMT -5
Some may have smelled a rat Bo. My follow up question was for guy like polar. If you are against whip sawing, how can you be FOR "states rights". Aren't these two issues basicly the same things. Aren't "states rights" just a way to whipsaw state against state in order to lower a workers quality of life?
|
|
|
|
Post by jobs1stb4polarbear on May 28, 2010 9:49:23 GMT -5
Mr. Kessinger.... its good business for all...some get fucked, but thats how the world ecomomy works....we are not only in compitition with each state but with other countries as well....unless you want want ford to close shop and move all its plants overseas..... what you forgot to add to your definition is that Whipsawing is also reeferred to as "leapfrogging. Whipsawing may consist of a practice in which one in a group of several unions dealing with the same employer refuses to settle until it receives better wages or benefits than have been settled on with the other unions.[/u][/size]
|
|
