Maislebandit
-
Posts
297 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Downloads
Store
Posts posted by Maislebandit
-
-
49 minutes ago, Rangers09 said:
I'm certainly not normally allied to the union side, but even I agree with you that 8-yrs is counter-productive. Personally, I believe it should be 4 or 5 tiers, depending on the training and experience levels required by the job.
Personally, I consider the tiers for a non-apprenticeship position is no different that the tiers for apprentices. Similar to apprentices, new employees are learning on the job and are often less productive. When I started as a Cadet (apprentice) I made peanuts, receiving a higher level each year. In my final year as a Cadet, I still only made 60% of what I made when qualified, but was basically doing the same job, just didn't have a certificate to potentially lose. Took me just over 3 years, so we had 4 tiers.
There is a fundamental difference between apprentices and in progression production and that’s the safety factor.
Apprentices are never to be used as manpower and only work independently in rare circumstances and even then it’s a judgement call by a journeyman who they are working under. -
11 hours ago, fuzzymoomoo said:
Im just starting the apprenticeship program right now (which is making this all that much more stressful) and I will say this, yes the skill set required today is completely different than what it was 25-30 years ago. PLCs in themselves is a specialty that takes a lot of time to navigate and master. At my building there’s technically a few different “classifications” if you can really call it that, it’s more just what department you’re in. That doesn’t make any difference in pay, we all make the same thing.
Votes is kind of irrelevant, Trades and production vote on the contracts separately. 2015 I believe it was FCA that had their trades vote down their contract but it was somehow overruled by UAW international. I’m not entirely sure how and why that happened.
Congratulations and good luck on your journey. These times certainly do add to the stress of your situation.
On the bright side however, if the contract results in any kind of layoffs they usually follow the 10:1 journeyman to apprentice ratio, so it may afford you some protection and seeing that you just came on that may allow you to weather the storm. -
4 hours ago, akirby said:
Wages skyrocketed. Do you really not understand that the big 3 had virtually no import competition in the 50s 60s and 70s or are you just trolling? The UAW demanded higher and higher wages by threatening to strike (and striking) and the big 3 gave in because as long as all 3 paid the same then nobody had an advantage. Then the imports come in paying market and higher wages but far below Detroit and in the 90s and 2000s the big 3 are caught in a huge cost disadvantage and 2 went bankrupt and Ford came really close.
You can’t compete with other companies if their costs are significantly lower than yours.
Post war everything was booming. An era of great prosperity where a blue collar worker could support a family well and have a spouse at home for the kids unlike today. Autoworkers should’ve been no exception, so forgive me if I fail to follow your logic there.
As far as the imports go, they stepped into the game with zero legacy costs and benefited from technology and an infrastructure that the big three had already developed.
Trolling? Idk how you figure anything I stated equates to that but ok? -
3 hours ago, silvrsvt said:
Well you could look at this way-if you can become skilled trades, you can always move on to another job that pays better after you finish your apprenticeship. I know there are alot of other things to weight also, but that is an option.
Absolutely. Not any reason to turn down any apprenticeship!
-
2 hours ago, silvrsvt said:
How much does a union journeyman electrician in Michigan make not working for an automaker?
I don’t know exact current scale numbers, but I can tell you that the big 3 trades were very close to being on par 20 some years ago and the gap has widened since with the big 3 lagging behind.
-
41 minutes ago, akirby said:
It was a closed market prior to the 80s when Detroit controlled almost 100% of the market. So as long as the big three all overpaid the same amount it was fair competition. That’s when compensation skyrocketed far above the rest of the market.
What happens in Detroit won’t affect what Tesla or Toyota or Kia or any others pay their people because those jobs are market based already.
The reason this is a pointless debate is you and most other union members believe workers are due more pay if the company makes more Money or the CEO gets a big raise. While I and most non union folks believe that it’s up to the company to decide how they compensate you and if you don’t like it you go find a different job. This naturally sets the market rates. And your pay is determined by your job and your skill and experience and has nothing whatsoever to do with company profits or CEO pay.
How can they control 100% of the market and skyrocket above the rest of it at the same time?
It’s my contention is that the big 3 is what suppliers and manufacturing in general have historically based their pay scale on and the transplants did the same when they arrived on scene.
I agree worker pay and CEO pay are nothing to do with each other directly but a bell weather that should be a constant ballpark X times the amount. When CEO pay outpaced a line workers pay by some %1000 in the past 4 decades, there an obvious imbalance.
I don’t know why you feel this is a pointless debate. It’s literally what the whole thread is about. You contribute to it then say you’re done and it’s not worth it.
Just because you, me and some others may be unmovable on the subject, it doesn’t mean that others including non contributors won’t be subject to differing viewpoints.
-
1
-
-
15 minutes ago, akirby said:
I want workers to be paid a fair market wage for their work, not some overinflated wage based on decades of extortion made possible by a closed market.You can call collective bargaining whatever you’d like, I think extortion is a bit extreme.
The lowest common denominator shouldn’t dictate what a fair wage is.
Is it really a closed market or is just that UAW are the ones that have blazed the trail? Foreign companies, suppliers and down the line set wages based on what the UAW garners for the membership.
If they accepted lower wages to match foreign autoworkers you can bet the foreign autoworkers drop their pay accordingly and so on down the food chain.-
2
-
-
21 hours ago, akirby said:
Are the older workers willing to give up some of their pay to help out the newer workers? They were created to help the company control labor costs without affecting the older workers.Lol. Having the lower tier since the late 2000s is the leverage and excuse that has been used to deny legacy workers any type of raise that even remotely would’ve kept up with inflation.
Older workers gave back a negotiated raise. They also agreed to suspend cola. I’d say the older workers have been greatly affected.
Decades later with the reaping of the benefits of these concessions, record profits, exorbitant raises, perks for upper management and you want older workers to give up already stagnated pay to help out newer workers. That’s rich. ? -
58 minutes ago, silvrsvt said:
You have to wonder how much of this is theatrics to show the membership that the UAW is playing hard ball.
He is the first president that is directly elected by the membership and has to regain trust as those that preceded him were less than honest and transparent.
I think it’s more about making a solid first impression that he is holding their interests above anything else.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, ice-capades said:
Much has been made about the new transparency within the UAW internally regarding communications with the membership and how the union will operate in representing its dues paying members in contract and other matters.
The new UAW President has set forth an aggressive stance for negotiations with Ford, General Motors and Stellantis that has now resulted in a strike against all three manufacturers at selected facilities. At least initially, these selected plants being struck will have a minor impact, which raises questions and simple curiosity about why these plants were selected in the first place.
The industry has changed dramatically over the years with the “Big 3” having lost substantial market share to foreign/import brands that operate with lower cost, non-union facilities, including those that have rejected UAW representation in recent years.
For all the information reported by the media over the past few months, it’s important to separate the public’s perception versus the reality of the current strike situation, including the current contract wages, bonuses, benefits, etc. versus the UAW demands for a new 4-year contract. Based on the current contract information available, I suspect that many Americans would love the opportunity to earn the current contract wages and enjoy the signing bonuses, profit sharing, health care and many other benefits included.
The UAW can lament its concessions in previous contracts, but those concessions were a reflection of the market and economic conditions at the time and those contracts were agreed to and ratified by its members. Years later, conditions and future expectations are much different and it’s unrealistic for the UAW to expect the target companies to make up for the UAW concessions made years ago.
The new UAW President has taken a hard-line negotiating position with a long list of demands. While it may seem that he’s trying to represent what’s in the best interest of the UAW membership, at the same time it appears that he has his own agenda in establishing himself as a legendary and historically significant union leader. That will depend on the results of the current contract and strike results.
Whatever the new contract terms include, there will be a profound impact on vehicle production costs that will impact customers in the terms of price increases. These price increases will further position the “Big 3” at a big disadvantage in competing with the numerous non-union facilities operated by the foreign/import brands.
Ford has submitted 4 proposals to the UAW and disclosed the major terms publicly which the UAW has quickly rejected without any known counterproposals revealed to put the negotiations in perspective. If the UAW President is going to maintain the hard-line position of the companies having to meet the UAW demands, the situation could get ugly quickly.
- If the UAW is sticking to its demands and refusing to negotiate in good faith, the union could face NLRB (National Labor Relations Board) charges.
Ford and the other companies affected by the current strike situation could push back with actions that the UAW wouldn’t expect.
- UAW employees are just that and paid to do a job covered by contract conditions and terms.
- Employees, UAW or not, are not entitled to profit sharing. If they want to share in the company’s profits, let them invest their own money in the company.
- Contract signing bonuses are just another form of bonuses that should be eliminated. The UAW negotiates a contract and the membership approves the terms to ratify the agreement. The signing bonuses should be eliminated.
These are my observations and opinions based on years as a Business Agent for the IATSE (International Alliance of Theatrical Employees) Motion Picture Local in my area.
The argument isn’t so much about taking concessions when times got hard, or opening contracts midway to save the company. The gripe is that these things were not returned as promised when prosperity was realized and contracts secured thereafter were subject to a less than credible representation of the union’s membership. Not the company’s fault there, you give a dog meat it’s going to eat it. Just saying that’s the general consensus among the rank and file.
Profit sharing and other benefits are absolutely entitled to employees, it’s all whether it’s agreed upon in the contract.
I agree about having no signing bonus. Any contract worth accepting should stand on its own merits and a signing bonus is nothing more than dangling the carrot.
-
8 hours ago, Oacjay98 said:
I politely disagree and welcome a raise and you’re right no need for debate.
Any issue with differing viewpoints is worthy of debate. Isn’t that a fundamental function of this forum?
As long as it’s civil discussion, I don’t see the issue. Anyone should be free to engage, withdraw or just agree to disagree.
Suggesting otherwise has the hint of recommending silence and that’s a step towards censorship. -
4 hours ago, akirby said:
That was me wearing my moderator cap. We aren’t going to turn this into a back and forth debate that devolves into personal attacks.I enjoy a spirited debate and believe discourse is a healthy element to further different viewpoints.
I certainly have no desire to resort to personal attacks so I’m not sure why you believe that was the direction it was heading.
Again, have a good one. -
1 hour ago, akirby said:
I made my point. Not going to start a never ending debate.
As I said you are entitled to your opinion, I think I made my point as well. You are also free to reply or not reply.
There is no requirement for participation in discourse nor the need for an explanation to withdraw. Have a good one! -
1 hour ago, akirby said:
UAW wages were overly inflated for decades because it was a closed market, so as long as all 3 automakers paid the same it didn’t matter. That doesn’t work in today’s open market. So those give backs were just correcting past mistakes.If you strike because of unsafe working conditions or unfair business practices, that’s fine. When you strike because the company won’t give you more money when you’re already making above market wages and benefits, that’s extortion.
That’s your opinion and you’re certainly entitled to it. However, market wages are fluid, decided completely on what they will bear and traditionally patterned off government scale and UNION wages, so how it can be above that is an interesting question.
Pleas to open a contract and wrest concessions to keep the business alive with the promise of reinstating them when prosperity returns and then reneging on that promise passes the sniff test as unfair business practices to me.
Labeling that as extortion is dramatic, over the top sensationalism. You do know actual extortion is a crime, yes?-
2
-
-
15 minutes ago, Deanh said:
strictly from an outsiders point as Im quite sure theres valid points on both sides of the aisle...and Ill get absolutely crucified for this.... fair is fair but who actually works for who?.........
I don’t think it’s an outrageous question. Obviously they both have a cards in their hands but it’s company who has the ultimate trump card.
There may have been a time when the tail was wagging the dog, but I don’t believe that’s what’s happening currently. Just IMO. -
On 8/26/2023 at 4:30 PM, akirby said:
I respect unions that work with the company to get the best pay and benefits and job security possible but stay market competitive and don’t make outrageous demands and use extortion tactics. And don’t protect bad workers or stifle productivity in the process.My buddy was in the union before moving to management back in the 80s. He ran a printer that took 10 minutes to turn on in the morning. His shift started at 7:30 am. At 7:20 he would turn on the printer then go get coffee so it was ready to go at 7:30. His coworkers filed a grievance for doing work outside scheduled hours.
There certainly are some less than desirable qualities of the union and a small percentage of members that take advantage of liberal policies.
That said….As far as outrageous demands and extortion tactics go….
Take into account the raise given back decades ago that was never reinstated as promised when prosperity returned, along with the other concessions to keep Ford out of bankruptcy and then the concessionary contracts that followed. The tier system that pitted employees against one another and made possible
the prosperous executive pay and benefits over the same period of time.
When you account for these details, the demands become not so outrageous.
Exercising a legal and legitimately accepted act such as striking when negotiations breakdown is a far cry from extortion.
Again, where would the UAW membership need to be to just break even from concessions and inflation adjustments from 15 years ago? -
Isn’t it common practice to ask for the maximum and settle somewhere in the middle?
I would like to pose a simple question to those who think the demands are over the top.
Taking into account the raise that was “given back” and not repaid as promised when things got better and the elimination of COLA, where would the hourly wage need to be increased to today to just break even?
Take that number and subtract it from what is being demanded. Then ask yourself if the demands are really that outrageous. -
On 3/8/2019 at 5:06 PM, fuzzymoomoo said:
As much as it sucks, I would think that's more of a capacity issue rather than straight up being cheap.
Sterling had the capacity when it supplied all the axles for the previous ranger and bronco.
-
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/ford-ceo-mark-fields-sticks-up-for-muslims-224349618.html
I do not wish to discuss the main story here or do I intend to be political. My sole interest is in the generalized presumption that Ford leadership has taken about its employees.
It seems Mr Fields has received some "notes" about how much pride "our employees" have.
What employees is he referring to? The ones in Mexico? China? Because from what I've seen on the good ole USA, it is at an all time low.
Ford has divested in its US employees for quite some time, so it should be no surprise.
This is not my opinion, this is what I and many others have witnessed in the last couple decades.
Does anyone remember the "equity of sacrifice?"
Me Fields, I know thousands of "our employees". I have met not a one of them that you have ever spoke to. If you want to speak for us, maybe you should come to our run down facilities and have a chat.
If you honestly believe in the "notes" you are getting, I invite you to come see for yourself.
-
2
-
-
Are there any plants where they run 3 shifts that isn't on AWS?
Sterling
-
well i believe it when i see it! lets wait and see what happens then u will see that i'm right
whatever dude
Dude, I'm sort of agreeing with you here.
-
you all crack me up, ford will not do anything that is super expensive, like eye scanners or fingerprint scanners
they will do the cheapest way...ALWAYS
Right, it wouldn't make sense to go whole hog here. That kind of investment is reserved for places like China or Mexico.
-
Not true at all locationsWe got some things back and got the second tier a brighter future with a finite date for getting max pay.
-
1
-
-
It torques me off that our contract details are front page news. No one else has their business aired like this. On top of that they state that all members now have a path to top pay. This is just a flat out lie. So where's the accountability with the media? I think the IUAW has a direct link to the media and they LIE!Does any care that your UAW brothers and sisters at Sterling and Rawsonville are getting the shaft???The 2 tier aren't getting 8yrs of raises and the legacy people are now considered SURPLUS.Thats why I voted No because soon it will be coming to a parts plant near you.Transmissions and engines are just parts you know.
-
2
-
Ford Ranger 6x6
in Ford Motor Company Discussion Forum
Posted
Like many other models that never become available in the states, I think there would definitely be interest.
Additionally, this type of hybrid technology as a whole should be the next step instead of jumping right to fully electric. Beyond the obvious benefits, it would also allow customers to warm up to the transition instead of the flat reception it’s getting currently. Sadly, I believe it’s mostly politics that are driving this.