hllywd

I don't think this is an apples-to-apples comparison. Back in the 90s I worked in the south for Fire/EMS. Wages there were less than what I earned in Michigan, but so was the cost of living. As an example, I could buy a 5 bedroom, 3 bathroom, 2 1/2 car garage house for $150k down south. That same house would sell for $450k+ in Michigan. I could accept the lower wages because everything else cost less. Likewise, I had a family member accept a transfer to a part of the country with significantly higher cost of living. The company increased her wages for this lateral transfer simply for that reason. The point that I'm trying to make is that it is an unfair and incomplete assessment to compare $30/hour non-union southern wages to $50-60/hour union midwestern wages without factoring in cost of living. With that being said, I am one of the union employees who is beyond fed up with the strategy and tactics. Every day I include in my prayers, a petition for a quick resolution that is fair to both the company and employees in this labor dispute.

Agreed fuzzy. The first offer was digestible. Admittedly, the offers have improved. But I would've voted yes on the last two offers. We haven't even heard where we're at or why we're holding out. I'm not saying that we need to bend over and accept whatever the company throws at us. But we've gotten back things like COLA when we heard that would never come back. Take the win. Seems like this would be a fair agreement for both sides. Doesn't do us any good to hold out for everything if it would kill the company or move our jobs elsewhere. Fain keeps saying our cause is righteous and the public is on our side. That's not what I'm reading through various social media outlets. At this point it's coming across as greed.

I'm Legacy so I'm still in the pension crowd. Frankly, I wouldn't mind converting from pension to 401k. I'd have more choices and more control over investments. And, as a divorced employee, I can't leave my pension to my kids. 401k can be passed on. And remember people like the Steel workers who showed up one day and the doors were chained shut. Company closed their doors forever and the pensions were gone. I'm not convinced my pension will still be there by the time I can retire.

While I admire his journalistic integrity for not revealing his source, the "I have heard..." line leaves me skeptical. At least MSM will quote "a high ranking UAW official who asked to remain anonymous because he was not authorized to speak on the record". Ford said over the weekend that we remain miles apart on wages and economic matters. Then with today's announcement regarding the Marshall (MI) battery plant being paused and Fain's reaction, color me skeptical (but hopeful) that an agreement is imminent.

Anybody see this? Have no clue with regards to its veracity. Was forwarded to me by a buddy at ISA in Wayne.

But...but... he said our cause was righteous ?

Just got done reading that myself. Seems my impressions of the theatrics and chest thumping was correct.

That seems to be the Ford Way. Rather than address lack of skills (and sometimes downright incompetence) we promote/transfer less qualified or lower performing employees and make them someone else's problem. Seen it numerous times throughout the years... both hourly and salary.

What they're actually doing is keeping them 89 days, letting them go and then rehiring them. Some have been through this cycle for years. I am not against hiring in at 70%, getting a raise every six months and eventually obtaining the top rate with experience. But I don't think it's fair to keep employees in an endless loop of hire/fire/rehire. I don't think the progression should be 90 days but I do think these people should become regular employees after 90 days. I think the language needs to be strengthened to indicate anyone with more than 90 days experience will transition to full time, regular employment. Current language says 90 consecutive days.

You aren't wrong. I think all the theatrics and chest-thumping is an effort to distance themselves from the corruption that led to prison terms. I don't personally like the tactics but the hardliners and the younger generation sure seem to love it.

Agreed. And with some striking while others work, the damage isn't merely between hourly and company; it's getting ugly between hourly and hourly.

As usual, I agree with Fuzzy. To me, the best contracts have been a result of less antagonistic, more mutual beneficiaries in a spirit of cooperation where both union and company benefit.

Dues were 2 hours per month until a few years back when it was raised to 2.5 hours per month. I've predicted after this current situation that within a few months we'll be notified that dues will be raised to 4 hours per month. Regarding benefits, we don't even get the newsletter on a regular basis anymore. When they do publish its online so we have to download and/or print it. We do get a union jacket every so often but that's about it.

That's a side effect of "equal pay for equal work" and its cousin "we're all equal merit and ability". No, we aren't all equal merit and ability. Perhaps that might've been true in our father's and grandfather's Big Three, where most (if not all) hourly new hires were 17/18 year old kids directly out of high school. Many nowadays (like myself) were in our 30s/40s when we hired in. Some ran their own businesses. Others had management experience and college degrees. Some had technical experience like CAD or machine shop experience. It's frustrating to lose out on a bid job to someone with poor reading, writing and communication skills and zero technical ability.

Perhaps I could've stated more clearly. And perhaps my sample size isn't large enough. But I based my comments on people around me outside of the auto industry. These people are getting reviews and raises every year and, from what I've heard, their raises have outpaced inflation every year. Seems like assumptions are being made all around. I haven't been surrounded by union workers for most if not all of my life. I hired in later in life and had "real jobs" before hiring in. I disagree with quite a bit of what I see and hear on a daily basis. I don't believe in the strike or the strike tactics. With that being said, and everyone can agree or disagree but that's besides the point... The company asked us to suspend COLA with the provision that as soon as they returned to profitability COLA would be reinstated. Companies returned to profitability by 2010 and here we are 13 years later and it still has not been reinstated. So agree or disagree, that's why the fight. I won't pretend to know how people outside the auto companies would respond but I'd like to think that if their companies promised something and then reneged on the promises that they'd be upset too.

We don't have to agree, but then again you don't need to be a condescending douche either. How did you become a forum administrator?

I don't think Fain has done an adequate job educating the public (whose support the union must rely on) on why he's asking for certain things. For example, I don't think we've done an adequate job of explaining to the general public that we aren't randomly pulling 46% out of thin air. You can Google "inflation calculator" and enter $27 (the top pay when COLA ended) and 2007 (the year we lost COLA) and it shows that if we never lost COLA, the wage for production workers would be $39.38 today (+48%). If our wages merely would've kept pace with inflation, as our union forebears intended, we wouldn't be asking for 46% increase now. The general public thinks we're out of our minds asking for 46% "when nobody else gets those kinds of raises". But I'd be willing to bet the general public gets raises every year that pace with inflation. I think we'd be more successful showing the math rather than trying to tie it to CEO compensation.

Fuzzy, I'm with you brother. This strategy is puzzling. And it's creating discord between union brothers and sisters. There will be much to repair, not only between hourly and company but also between union members, once an agreement is reached. It's getting bad!

Exactly! I'm hearing many who say, "if we don't get everything then we walking!" To me, that's a symptom of what society in general has become; you either agree 100% with me or you become my enemy. No relationship can survive with that mentality. All relationships require compromise. In the case of contract negotiations, one side may "win" or get the lion's share but both sides generally walk away with something they were fighting for. Neither side gets "everything". Personally, the proposal I saw last week didn't seem far off...bump it from 15% to 20 or 25% and everything else I saw (with the exception of the revised profit share formula) seemed reasonable. I guess we'll see...was eerily quiet over Labor Day weekend.

I'm with you fuzzy. But the people around me are p!ssed. I'm not saying we need to bend over and take whatever the company is throwing at us. But I also was pleasantly surprised at the progress and also believe that means we're not as far apart as the theatrics on tv suggest.

I agree with your assessment of militant unionism. I'm all for militant unionism but I feel it needs to start with union leadership. All we ever hear is "be thankful you have a job" and "The company can run the business as they see fit". So, you're not even going to enforce terms that were already negotiated? And then we're expected to toe the line; "if one strikes, we all strike"? You're correct...we have gotten the shaft. But I don't think buffoonish behavior is going to win at the bargaining table either. There is a certain level of decorum expected. Negotiating in the press rarely succeeds either. And, to your point regarding, "buyer`s of labor will want and/or need something in return for what the seller want`s and/or needs to receive in the way of compensation/benefits for the labor sold", I'm constantly hearing if we don't get EVERYTHING we want then we walk. All relationships require give and take. Without compromise, no relationship can succeed. One side may get the better end of the deal, but both sides need walk away with something. We always see contract year BS, including the company's age-old "divide and conquer" tactics. Us legacy employees are indeed in the minority. The younguns don't realize that we never wanted two-tier either. They get angry at legacy employees because they get paid less to do the same job. The union's mantra has always been "equal pay for equal work". What was supposed to be a temporary concession to protect jobs during the Great Recession is still hanging around nearly 15 years later. This has been, by far, the most contentious contract year I've witnessed. I'm with you Decker; I hope the highlights are what we asked for. I hope it's resolved relatively quickly. And I hope that it brings all union brothers and sisters closer together. There's enough division going on in the country with politics, racial division, etc. We don't need to see that at work, especially when we spend more time with coworkers than loved ones.

Thanks for the updates Decker. Not on social media and haven't found info anywhere else...just (as my father in-law used to say), "$h!thouse rumors, lies and flies!"

Having been laid off three times from LTP and sent to Flat Rock and DTP (twice), I'm like a Vietnam Vet having flashbacks. This whole split reeks of Visteon. And "let the UAW get left behind on the ICE ghost ship to eventually sink on its own" is exactly my concern. I'm not certain whether I'd be better off hitching my wagon to ICE or E... but it looks like we won't even be given the option.

I don’t want that actually. Someone said we can’t do worse than UAW. My response was a “hold my beer” type of reaction.

Bring in the Teamsters!