question about zones

[marcus]

Lets say in the future that KTP closes can those at KTP then bump LAP people with less senority or vice virsa?

[TonyV]

Short answer is - yes. However, the union will work with the company to keep "Workforce Churning" to a minimal amount. In our case, Scott Eskridge allowed us to sign up by seniority to come over. Otherwise, the people with middle seniority would have been out on the street testing contractual language for the first time.

[turbo350]

I think only if they are hiring Tony. I could be wrong. KTP needed people so that is why ours went over. There is no cross plant bumping unless they have RTBU rights.

[Ironman2301]

You are right turbo!

[ScottR@KTP]

If one plant closed, the most senior employees would be working regardless of the old language 'home plant'.

[kessinger]

Ok,

***Any RTBU people would have the right to go to LAP and bump the low sen. people.

***None of the rest of us would have the right to bump into LAP unless we were offered a strikable transfer to another plant. At that point KTP could exercise their sen. to bump the low person at LAP.

*** The low seniority LAP person would have to decide to goto the transfer they offered the seniority person from KTP or take the layoff and strike.

The only reason that was not done in reverese during the LAP layoff was a letter inserted about LAP due to them coming back up with a new preoduct at some point.

And congrats to LAP on the new product.

[ScottR@KTP]

what he said...

[marcus]

So then if one plant was closed and no transfers where available then nobody would bump any one except those with RTBU?

[kessinger]

Correct.

Now I need to read up on this next part.

IF.....LAP hires 2nd tier new hires I think we could bump them. But let me read up on that.

[kessinger]

OK, keep in mind I HAVE NOT just reread the whole contract. So I or someone else could find something to prove me wrong here. I hope they do.

But, after reading all the language I had previously marked as covering entry level employees, and seniority language. It appears we would not be able to bump entry level employees from a plant.

What worries me more is that I don't believe laying off a full rate employee would immediatley result in an entry level employee turning into a full rate employee. To me this could open up this type of scenerio:

Two plants both build, as an example, 150's. The company decides it needs to idle one. One of the two plants has 30% of its work force as entry level. Well if a layoff doesn't immediatly raise the wages of entry level employees then Ford would be smart to idle the plant with all full wage employees, since its production costs for an equal amount of people would be much lower at the plant with entry levels.

Think I will write a few contract proposals to try to cover this issue.

Again, I just now started researching this so I could turn out to be wrong, but from my reading so far what I have typed is correct.

[steelhorse]

That doesn't sound good

[Calvin@KTP]

Let's with Ford doing much better now, the International UAW will be able to get rid of this 20 percent language. It has disaster written all over it.

When I hired in it was 18 months at low pay scale. It was then changed to 3 years. Maybe we could go from a 20 percent rule to 5 years or something.

The have and have not classes in the plants will be a disaster.

[TonyV]

Kess, so this would not be covered in appendix N under preferential placement already? I am referring to section 17, page 214 for in-zone bumping.

[ScottR@KTP]

Dec 11, 2010 9:13:49 GMT -5 Calvin@KTP said:

Let's with Ford doing much better now, the International UAW will be able to get rid of this 20 percent language. It has disaster written all over it.

When I hired in it was 18 months at low pay scale. It was then changed to 3 years. Maybe we could go from a 20 percent rule to 5 years or something.

The have and have not classes in the plants will be a disaster.

Great idea Cal...the 20% low wage rule will be a nightmare for the union.

[badcat555]

Question, When they ask the LAP people if they want to come back to LAP and they say NO, will that make KTP their home plant? or would they have the right to go back to LAP if KTP ever closed?

[Calvin@KTP]

Good question badcat.

I know that the KTP workers that came from LAP years ago (I believe when LAP lost the Ranger) still have their RTBU.

Do you have an answer Kess?

[beenaround]

Contractually,I believe that if you turn down your option to return to your home plant,the plant you are employed at presently becomes your home plant. Though this local very rarely seems to adhere to contractual language. There always seems to be plenty of back room deals.

[TonyV]

I was told by Scott Eskridge that he would follow appendix O in the master agreement for RTBU. Page 221 in volume one.

"If an employee refused an offer to return, the employee shall be offered no other rights under this memorandum." - from section 6 They would have the right to go back if KTP closed.


Now, the ones that come to KTP in the late '90s are being offered the right to be surveyed again even though they turned it down before. Steve Stone told me that he would never stop asking for the return of those who transferred to KTP.

Both building chairs have been consistent in their answers. I personally feel that RTBU will be in the cross hairs during next years negotiations. Ford wants the two-tier workers and does not want additional costs for relocations.

[TonyV]

Dec 11, 2010 23:18:16 GMT -5 badcat555 said:

Question, When they ask the LAP people if they want to come back to LAP and they say NO, will that make KTP their home plant? or would they have the right to go back to LAP if KTP ever closed?

Volume 1 of the master agreement, article VIII, section 1,part b, sub section (ii), page 71 -

Yes, they would have the right to return if KTP closed - in order of seniority, of course.

[kessinger]

Tony V is correct. Turning down the offer to go back WOULD NOT take away their RTBU rights in case of a permenant layoff from KTP. But, it would prevent them from being asked again to return when LAP is in a hiring mode., or the RTBU signup windows we some times get with a new contract.


Tony, I don't think sec 17 would apply. I believe this section is to cover anyone that was skipped and wrote a grievance to remedy their situation. This language would prevent them from having to pay such a person backpay, and would also allow someone skipped to bump the junior person at the plant they should have had oppertunity to work at.

[TonyV]

Thank you very much.