fordwindsor

Does OAC still have 104 production employees on layoff? With OAC's increasing sales, what is the short and long term staffing scenarios? What is the speculation on the new product awarded during the last contract ratification? I have heard that a third shift may come on stream early next year (February). Thanks to those that reply.

Trim, I want to hear whats going on from an intelligent poster, not a doomsday worshiper who obviously has no life outside his cushy job.

What is the news at OAC. Your locals website hasn't been updated for awhile. Just wondering whats going on up there. Trim not need reply.

We always had (and still do to this day with about 1000 on layoff) TPT's working while there are people on layoff. Those laidoff do not have to take a position as a TPT. TPT can only work to cover an employee who booked the day off and can not be used as supplemental labour.

I second that motion. All in favour(Canuk spelling). Opposed-None. Carried!

Ford gives CAW production pledge Two sides near deal that also signals end of line for St. Thomas, Ont., assembly plant Globe and Mail Update Published on Friday, Oct. 30, 2009 11:20AM EDT Last updated on Friday, Oct. 30, 2009 11:27AM EDT .The Canadian Auto Workers union is close to an agreement with Ford Motor Co. (F-N7.07-0.23-3.15%) that includes a commitment that the company's Canadian operations will manufacture 10 per cent of the vehicles Ford makes in North America, but also means the end of the line for its St. Thomas, Ont., assembly plant,. “We couldn't save St. Thomas … but we got good severance [packages] that take care of the majority of the people,” a source involved in the talks said Friday. That means the loss of about 1,600 jobs at the plant, which has been on the endangered list for several years because of waning demand for full-size, rear-wheel drive cars that go into taxi and police fleets. Ford has agreed, however to add a new vehicle to its Oakville, Ont., assembly plant, which is operating on two shifts and now manufactures Ford Edge and Flex and Lincoln MKX and MKT crossover utility vehicles. “Part of the investment in Oakville is a global platform, a significant investment which will drive another product,” said one source involved in the negotiations. The auto maker also agreed to build more vehicles than it sells in Canada, the sources said. In return, the CAW has agreed to give Ford the same concessions it gave Chrysler Canada Inc. and General Motors of Canada Ltd. earlier this year when those two auto makers were seeking a bailout by the federal and provincial governments. The terms of those deals include cuts in time off and other benefits and contributions of $1 for every hour worked by newly hired employees to the companies' pension plans, the first time CAW members will make a direct contribution to their own pensions. The deal comes after four days of intense bargaining that resumed on Monday. The two sides began talks in September, but broke off amid a union insistence that Ford agree to maintain a 13 per cent manufacturing footprint in Canada. That footprint represents about 7,000 jobs at the Oakville and St. Thomas assembly plants and two engine plants in Windsor, Ont. There is no new product for one of the engine plants in Windsor that is slated to run out of work early in the next decade. There are no new engines to put in the plant, the sources said, but the commitment to the 10 per cent footprint means Ford will almost certainly have to find new work for the plant. It was clear from the beginning of the talks that Ford would not agree to keep St. Thomas open, the sources added, even though it would not acknowledge that it planned to close the plant, saying merely that it had no new products beyond 2011. The CAW agreement comes amid growing unrest among the United Auto Workers in the United States about a tentative agreement that union has reached with Ford. Several locals have turned down the deal, in part because it eliminates workers' right to strike over economic issues when the current contract expires, calling instead for arbitration. Ford promised the UAW that new vehicles would be built at several U.S. assembly plants and also that the Transit Connect commercial van, which is now built in Europe, would be assembled at a UAW plant if demand rises enough to warrant North American production

Ford, CAW to end talks if no deal reached: union Last Updated: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 | 11:13 AM ET Comments64Recommend21CBC News Ford Canada and the Canadian Auto Workers union will break off talks if the two sides can't reach tentative agreement on a new contract, the head of the auto union said Tuesday. CAW president Ken Lewenza says not reaching a deal with Ford 'would be real troublesome for CAW.' (Chris Young/Canadian Press) "If we can't get the deal done this week, then it's not likely we would return to the table until 2011," CAW president Ken Lewenza told CBC News. At issue is what the CAW perceives as Ford's unwillingness to commit to a Canadian manufacturing footprint in exchange for concessions by the union, which represents 7,000 workers in Windsor, St. Thomas and Oakville, Ont. If Ford shows co-operation in the area of investment in the future, "security for the future, we should be able to get a deal," Lewenza said. Ford has already said it plans to stop manufacturing vehicles at its plant in St. Thomas in 2011. 'To ignore what's happening in the auto industry today would be difficult for CAW members.' — Ken Lewenza, CAW presidentIt has also said it needs the CAW to give it the same concessions it gave competitors General Motors and Chrysler earlier this year in order to stay competitive. Unlike GM and Chrysler, Ford's U.S. parent is expected to announce profitable third-quarter results on Nov. 2, a contradiction that irks Lewenza. If no deal is reached, "it will be a very, very bad message for Ford workers in Canada," he added. "To ignore what's happening in the auto industry today would be difficult for CAW members, not directly tomorrow, but long term," he said. The talks, which are being held in Toronto, have been "tough and slow moving" since they resumed Monday, Lewenza said. Talks adjourned in September after earlier rounds made no progress.

STFU CANDY CANE U CAN STICK IT We Canadians will be lucky to hold on to what we already have. We do not need a pot stiring troll like you posting trash.

this is an earlier post on topic 11-30-2009 that i posted Do not be threatened by the IUAW Leadership and their retoric just think for yourself:

Just saying, it is what it is.

I am the Eagle from Vandyke! We at VanDyke are not supporting this agreement! Your previous posts stated you support this agreement. Have you changed your mind?

How did he suck? Your posts here on this site are uninformed, baseless, uneducated,senseless, etc... . In your words, you suck!

STFU :slug: :blah:

Are there not moderators on this site. If so, they should start a locked thread with each plant named, their votes with cummulative vote totals at the bottom.

With the importance of this agreement and that many failing to vote. A stronger message to the IUAW and Ford would have been 100% of the membership voting with 92% voting NO. That said, well done KCAP.

I am a CAW member. No it is not true. It is a spoof press release done up by someone with too much time on his hands trying to stir the pot. I can not speak for our union as a whole as I am not an official of the union but let me say this: We stand with the ones in the UAW who say enough is enough. Too much outsourcing to other countries. Too many givebacks. Too many job losses destroying our middle class. NOW is the time to fight. Not in 2015. The fight is not only with the company but also with our governments, who signed trade treaties that do not benefit the majority of the middle class(except for cheaper consumer goods at China-Mart) and turned their backs on us for the upper class elite. Now is the time for fair compensation for what we do for our contribution to the company. It was the combination of gross mismanagement at the top and the forementioned trade policies that put us in the place we are now. I will submit that we have some blame as unions to accept as some of our contract language causes inefficiencies in the plants. Tell the UAW to go back to the table or tell the company that you will see them in 2011 when the contract runs out. Call their bluff as most of that work will stay in the US as most is tied to government funds for plant retooling. Our CAW restarts negotiations with the company tomorrow. The last offer from the company was we want the GM/Chrysler contract but we will not give you any new work. Ford is now the number three seller in Canada YTD but has the smallest manufacturing operations here of all the companies including Honda and it is only to get smaller with the closing of St. Thomas Assembly and Windsor Engine Plant by 2011. (We went from around 15,000 Union emplyees in 2000/1 to what will be about 3,500 in 2011-losing over 70% of our membership, even as Ford increases its market share in Canada to some analysts saying that Ford could become the largest seller in Canada by 2015 (but what about manufacturing here). We need to stand up to our governments to get them to realise that we require a North American Auto Trade Policy that requires manufacturers to produce in our countries as much as they sell here or pay steep tariffs. That should be a bigger fight than our contract because in the long run that is what we need as we can't ever compete with India, China or even Mexico (plus others). On a side note, I have been laid off from Ford in Windsor for just over three years, except for a three month transfer at Oakville Assembly(which fortunately reset my unemployment and SUB/IMP) and even in my situation, I would vote this agreement down. Good Luck to my American Brothers and Sisters(except for Eagle, Capt and Grim Reaper)

Herman Rosenfeld The Canadian Auto Workers (CAW) and the Ford Motor Company have been engaged in contract talks, scheduled to resume formally on October 26th. Ford is demanding that the union give up the same package of concessions that workers at GM and Chrysler gave up last spring, as part of the conditions of those companies receiving government aid. The union is demanding that Ford commit to maintain a specific proportion of investment in Canada as a condition of agreeing to concessions. At that time, workers at GM and Chrysler agreed to reductions in time off the job, job intensity protections, rights for new hires, as well as adding new monthly co-payments for drug and benefit plans. That was on top of a previous set of early bargained concessions – said to be worth $300-million by the CAW leadership at the time – given up in 2008 before the current crisis even began. At that time workers at Ford Oakville voted to reject these concessions, but were forced to accept by large majorities at other Ford units. Ford hasn’t asked for or received bailout money from the U.S. and Canadian governments (although it has had access to a range of auto sector subsidies over the last few years). The company borrowed from private sources and engaged in a process of restructuring before the near failure of the other two. Since then, it has been more than able to hold its own in the face of the ongoing crisis. The company has so far refused any commitment to maintain investment or jobs here After being pressured into giving up concessions a number of times, workers at Ford in auto plants in both the U.S. and Canada are tired of the threats and broken promises. There is no need to match the takeaways bargained and imposed at Ford’s U.S.-based competitors. Instead, Ford’s collective agreement can become the basis of a new pattern in the industry. Canadian autoworkers can take the lead in making it happen. It’s time to put an end to the era of concessions. Concessions Fatigue Ford UAW representatives meeting in late August told the American union’s leaders that the workers there were tired of being asked to give up past gains in exchange for false promises of jobs and investment. They reported that workers are suffering from what they called ‘concessions fatigue.’ Taking back white collar staff concessions at GM last month only reinforced this. The UAW leaders were forced to back off – at least for the time being – from accepting company demands for concessions. Unfortunately, last week the UAW leadership bargained a new tentative agreement with $500-million in new concessions. It remains to be seen how the membership responds. Impossible Trade Off Ford will not guarantee investment levels or jobs, so the trade-off of concession for jobs is not credible. Ford’s shareholders are opposed and want the company to take a hard line. Ford’s overall investment levels are being reduced, although the U.S. agreement reportedly includes future product commitments at five assembly plants there. In any case, there is no way to force the company to live up to commitments it might make through collective bargaining, as seen in the recent past at the GM truck plant and at Chrysler. Given this situation, demands that Ford guarantee a specific level of Canadian investment in exchange for concessions either won’t work or can only result in vague promises that have little real meaning. In the latter case, workers would be left with more concessions in exchange for nothing. Workers are increasingly realizing this, making it difficult to get ratification votes for a new round of takeaways. This puts pressure on the current CAW leadership that seems committed to applying the latest round of concessions to Ford. Challenging Ford’s Claims Ford’s arguments don’t hold water and need to be challenged. While globalization gives corporations power, comparing Canadian labour costs with those in India, Mexico and China is irrelevant. Canadian workers can never compete with those costs and no amount of concessions would change that. Claims that Canadian labour costs are the highest in the world are also not credible. German hourly costs remain higher, particularly considering productivity levels. Comparisons with American costs are also problematic: even the CAW has argued that workers have yet to be hired at the lower wage rates promised in the 2008 agreements; productivity levels remain higher in Canadian plants and the rise of the loonie is a temporary factor that can be addressed politically and affects all of the companies. Finally, labour costs are less than 10% of the cost of vehicles. Ford has fared the best among the U.S.-based auto companies during the current crisis. Sales have been higher. Its losses have been smaller. Industry analysts and Ford executives have predicted market share increases and greater prospects for success for the company as the crisis period ends and the auto market picks up. It is true that Ford’s American competitors have had their debt loads eliminated by the bankruptcy procedure while Ford’s have not. Ford’s debt obligations cannot be addressed through labour cost adjustments or collective bargaining. Workers at Ford do not need to cut their incomes, benefits, reduce their break times or increase their workloads – as workers at other companies have been forced to do – in order to allow the company to survive. Like GM and Chrysler, longer term survival has nothing to do with labour costs, but is based on more fundamental factors that need to be addressed through a program of economic and political demands. The CAW needs to develop a new approach to the sector, one that takes into account the requirements of the environmental crisis, and seeks to cut the dependency on the competitive success of individual corporations. Options The current situation is a difficult one for a union leadership that seems committed to concessions: it can’t count on real guarantees from Ford for new investment and workers have become increasingly wary about ratifying new concessions even with them. The unprecedented rejection by the Oakville Local 707 of the last concessionary agreement in 2008, and the close vote at CAMI last month, where only 60% of the production workers ratified similar contract modifications and there was a mood of anger and impatience, have to be weighing on their minds. There is an option for the union that would have to be driven from below. Workers at Ford-Canada should refuse any new concessions and demand that the current agreement (itself containing concessions bargaining in 2008) should remain in place until it expires in 2011, renegotiate it or extend it for an extra year at that time and use it as a new pattern for GM and Chrysler to match. They should be supported by workers at GM and Chrysler. All have an interest in maintaining the gains of Ford workers and an end to the concessions strategy. When the next round of bargaining begins, they should demand that GM and Chrysler match Ford. That might also inspire American workers and begin a process of moving forward. This challenges those who argue that pattern bargaining requires Ford workers to fall into line with the other companies. Pattern bargaining was instituted in order to force all competitors to maintain the highest negotiated standards of wages, benefits and working conditions – not the lowest. Assuming that the auto market will be in healthier shape at that time, it provides an opportunity to move away from the U.S. government-imposed set of concessions, which, after all, were tied to the cost structure of the non-union Japanese-owned transplants. If the goal is to organize them, it would only make sense to show workers there that the union stands for something better than they already have. If not, why would they want to join a union? If Canadian CAW autoworkers want to win a new pattern, they will have to organize for it. The time between now and the next round of bargaining must be filled by creating the conditions for challenging the companies. There needs to be a campaign which argues that the era of concessions is over and educates and mobilizes across the entire auto sector – including at the suppliers – to collectively engage activists, their co-workers and people in the communities. The lack of any real campaign to challenge the corporate-driven propaganda about labour costs which preceded the bankruptcy crisis contributed to the isolation of autoworkers and the defeat. There is an amazing diversity and potential among the union’s activists, staff and elected representatives. The CAW has the capacity to pull off a campaign of reframing, organizing and building a movement plant-by-plant, member-by-member, instead of retreating and trying to defend smaller and smaller pieces of what remains. Ford, Chrysler, GM and the auto parts plants need to organize across their locals. Simply allowing the contract to expire in 2011 without building an anti-concessions campaign will only postpone the problem – even if the market picks up dramatically. It would make it harder to respond to the companies when they argue that they need new concessions in order to be able to respond to the competition of the transplants. If the market doesn’t pick up, not building resistance now would make it easier for the leadership to take advantage of the fear and insecurity of the members. • Herman Rosenfeld is a retired CAW National Representative. How Local 707 Oakville Activists Led a Movement Against Concessions Euan Gibb The present demand for more concessions from the UAW and CAW, and the 'concession fatigue' of workers, needs to be understood in context. This is the story of what can be accomplished if we work together to defeat concessions. There were two plants in Oakville, just west of Toronto on Lake Ontario, until a few years ago. The truck plant that had been there since the sixties was closed in June 2004 and there was no new product for the (then) van plant. In this context of job fear, the company used the now familiar strategy of blackmail in 2006. Workers at the plant were told to vote yes for a package of concessions or Ford units in Hermosillo, Mexico or Atlanta, Georgia would get the new product. Local union leaders effectively delivered the message of the company and told workers that now was not the time to fight. Some of the reps made the case that workers would be able to turn things around once the new product was in the plant. Concessions included a reduction in the number of in-plant union reps, reduction of inter-departmental bidding rights reduced break time and outsourcing of cleaner jobs (high seniority jobs off the line). Despite the fact that this Oakville plant eventually got the investment (that many suspected would have occurred anyway) things did not turn around. Oakville was converted to a modern 'flex' plant where multiple vehicles are produced from the same assembly line. Then they came for more concessions in 2008. Workers were being told that we should vote yes in solidarity with workers in Windsor and St. Thomas. This argument anticipated the 'manufacturing footprint' argument that the CAW is now putting forward. But there were no guarantees then either. The media was going crazy with details of what would be given back this time. It included less time off the line, outsourcing some of the shipping/driver jobs, less holidays and a one-time bonus offered in place of the holiday time. The ratification vote was a week away when workers found out about the details of the upcoming demands. Several workers got together to write and distribute a leaflet in the plant independent of the local union. The central demand articulated in the leaflet was the need for more time – time to discuss what concessions would be accepted if any. A 'NO' vote was called for in order to take some time. The entire process had been rushed. The day of the ratification vote there were a few presentations from the National union before a clear confirmation about what concessions were going to be demanded and the case for acceptance. One of the presentations showed several 'storm clouds' appearing over the auto industry including an exceptionally high Canadian dollar, an auto industry going through structural changes and an approaching economic crisis. The case for concessions was restated by outgoing CAW President Buzz Hargrove. The main problem was that the case on offer contrasted starkly with workers' known and lived experience in the cyclical auto industry. Mandatory overtime had been in place for months at the plant and the cars that were being made in Oakville were selling like crazy. The presentation did not go well. Workers were angry and felt like they were being patronized. People clearly understood the location of their plant in the broader restructuring of the North American auto sector. Consequently, they didn't hesitate to articulate their anger during and after the presentations. Speaker after speaker at the microphones argued for a rejection. A few of the elected reps and bargaining team members called for ratification using arguments about loyalty and deference to authority. People were not convinced. By early evening the results were in – the first rejection of a recommended contract at a major auto plant in the union's history! The numbers were not overwhelming, but they certainly were unambiguous. This should have provoked the reconvening of the bargaining teams but this never happened. Workers at the other Ford locations in St. Thomas, Windsor and the Bramalea parts depot all voted to accept the offer. The case was made that these workers 'swamped' the Oakville workers' vote and so the concessions were accepted. However, the collective agreement between the national union and the company clearly stated that workers at 'each' location must ratify the contract in order for it to come into force. To workers in Oakville this point seemed like a technicality and not worth trying to engage in a high-stakes internal gamble with uncertain external outcomes. It seemed like the point had been made. • Euan Gibb is a former Ford Oakville worker.

My apologies. The report in this morning article was inaccurate. It was updated later in the day top reflect 61% yes and 39% no. I still say that the voting process should be that all plants should vote at the same time and no results be broadcast or tabulated until the voting is completed. The process as it is now can sway later voting plants vote. The voting process as it is now does not merit integrity. The UAW and CAW are in the same fight. It is our governments that allow unfair trade practices and and the oxymoron FREE TRADE to rob the middle class of both the USA and Canada of decent paying jobs. The CAW restart negotiations with Ford on Monday , October 26. The companies last position with the CAW was that they want excactly what GM and Chrysler settled for with the CAW but with no new work commitments (it should be guarantees) as GM or Chrysler gave (18% and 20% of North American production respectively). Actually we will be losing approxiametly 38% of the remaining Canadian workforce by 2011 with no new production allocation (down to about 3500 from around 15,000 in 2000). Ford of Canada is doing very well with increasing market share it may become the largest seller in Canada if it continues to as its been doing. So in that respect, if they want to sell here, they need to produce here.

Any employee that is in the union regardless of work status (ie. laid off, medical, comp) is allowed to vote

Very interesting! You may have a point !

You are an idiot! About 61% of the 1,265 workers who voted were in favor of the contract while 29% were opposed, said Mark Payne, first vice president of the local. It is obvious that something is wrong when 61+21=90. What happened to the other 10% of the vote It is also wrong that the voting process is being dragged out with results being published in the interm that could sway members who vote later.

WTF, what kind of a union do you have down there? (1) All plants should be voting at the same time (2) all ballot boxes should be sealed until all voting is done and (3) all ballots should be counted at the same time. Where did the UAW get advice on how to run a vote ? Afganistan?

Yeah! Like Ford needs more excess capacity.

The UAW may not have striked Ford for over 33 years, but the union still needs ammunition just in case. A retired cop may have never used his revolver during his career but it was always loaded. Would you have had him do his job unarmed?

Two weeks for a ratification to take place! If this agreement is turned down by a vast majority, you need to examine the leadership at your locals who voted to bring this to the membership and vote them out at the next election..