SOULJABOY Posted January 16, 2009 Share Posted January 16, 2009 In case you all didn't know it, there is a no strike clause in the current contract. Yes I do realize there is a clause already and I do not know if there are any stipulations to that or if it is no strike period. But now the "no strike" ball could be in Chrysler's court. Then Ford will be looking for similar concessions. If all of the Big 3 have no strike clauses then thats the end. Really I want to say it will never happen but I don't wan't to jinx us lol Correct me if I am wrong but I think the no strike clause is when the threat of a wildcat strike is close to hand. During legal negotiations, we can strike and we have struck before. Opening the contracts after they are ratified by the membership can bring a strike issue back on the table. The reason it can is because we will then be back in a legal negotiation. The no strike clause IF TRUE was put in by President Bush as a way to bust the UAW. Be it a rather small way that would be the only reason that he would put it there. In 2011, should we get that far. We will go into our next four year round of talks. Should that stipulation IF TRUE be in effect that would give the company the right to screw us even harder. They know this is our biggest tool in the arsenal that we have. Take that away from us and they could stall talks for a long time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve morris Posted January 16, 2009 Share Posted January 16, 2009 Mr. Morris both you and Jerzey make valid claims and statement today. It is not that profanity bother's me, it is I feel sometime's the Sailor talk needs to be left on the ship, if you understand what I mean. Like I said we will have to agree to disagree, I have no problems with that. I am sure you know things that I do not. Henceforth there is things I know that maybe you do not. It is called life's learning's, we both learn them as we go. Right now all of us are in the same ship. I hope the ship isn't sinking, so I am staying on for as long as I can without having to worry about drowning. I agree with you about people who do nothing but complain about this union. I myself have complaind in the past. To be honest I see myself complaining in the future as well. If we don't complain, then how else will the leadership know that they are doing the wrong thing. I guess we can vote them out but what if they do a lot of good as well. They need the membership to set them in the right direction. I believe you said before on another post that we are the union, therefore we need to stand together for the betterment of our families. If the ship sinks, I'll save you a life vest Brother. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ckr01 Posted January 16, 2009 Author Share Posted January 16, 2009 If the ship sinks, I'll save you a life vest Brother. Just remember 1 word my brothers "PATCO" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Makeastand Posted January 16, 2009 Share Posted January 16, 2009 (edited) Should that stipulation IF TRUE be in effect that would give the company the right to screw us even harder. They know this is our biggest tool in the arsenal that we have. Take that away from us and they could stall talks for a long time. I said on one of these threads that once I worked at a company that had a no strike clause in our union contract and we had 0 bargaining leverage. The only thing that changed in our contracts was what we lost. GM, Chrysler, and Ford could be facing the same music, and brother I hate that song. I have said in the past that I will not vote for any concessions. Well if it comes down to concessions or a no strike clause, I pick concessions. In 5 or 10 years when the company is making money hand over fist again (and it will) we will not see any of it if we have a no strike clause in our contract. That money will go from the customers pocket straight to the execs and politicians. In the mean time the public will still be saying that the high price of cars are our fault because the average hourly rate for blue collar Americans dropped back in 2009 when the UAW made wage and benefit cuts and put a no strike clause in their contract. I pray that it doesn't happen and it may not but it doesn't hurt to prepare for it mentally and financially. Edited January 16, 2009 by Makeastand Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fatso Posted January 16, 2009 Share Posted January 16, 2009 (edited) Why strike anyways?We just all show up and fuck off!Look the deal is gonna be this;X amount of dollars have to be saved.These are unprecedented times for the industry.All this 'tough talk' about no compromises,hands of my stack,just ain`t gonna cut it.Now we wait until March 31st to find out what happens.I would vote yes to reasonable concessions shared across the board.Here is one thing I can see happening.All the JSP people will be assigned to a plant and then there will be a layoff."AIN`T WE GOT FUN"These message boards are for everyone to have a say.That is also what a union is about.We all get a say.In the end after we all have a say,then we stick with the agreed upon plan."AIN`T WE GOT FUN" Edited January 16, 2009 by Fatso Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Makeastand Posted January 16, 2009 Share Posted January 16, 2009 We've been hearing that "these are unprecedented times" since Bush took office the first term. Coincidence? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fatso Posted January 16, 2009 Share Posted January 16, 2009 We've been hearing that "these are unprecedented times" since Bush took office the first term. Coincidence? The Military Industrial Establishment is doing very well.So is Big Oil.So are the investment firms who are getting bailed out.The rest of us just have to be thankful that we got Taco Bell {what kind of beef cost 89 cents?} and McDonald`s dollar menu!I never realized the delicious sandwich that could be made using the udder of an old dairy cow!MMMMMMMmmmmm,"AIN`T WE GOT FUN" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
simplesituations Posted January 16, 2009 Share Posted January 16, 2009 Most of ya need to see the bigger picture which I'm sure all of ya do. What ever concessions are made, which I'm against anyways but I'm one vote, it won't matter if the credit doesn't get loosened up. If it doesn't loosen up, then people can't buy cars and if people can't buy cars then someone folds. I don't want any concessions since we have made many already but it is up to this country to finally start buying from the 3 to end this mess Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MCM Posted January 16, 2009 Share Posted January 16, 2009 Yes I do realize there is a clause already and I do not know if there are any stipulations to that or if it is no strike period. But now the "no strike" ball could be in Chrysler's court. Then Ford will be looking for similar concessions. If all of the Big 3 have no strike clauses then thats the end. Really I want to say it will never happen but I don't wan't to jinx us lol. Yes there is a no strike clause in the contract, but Local levels can still put the Company in D1. Hence, strikeable issues, (work standards and safety). Some key plants could easily gain us leverage if needed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lquidspine Posted January 16, 2009 Share Posted January 16, 2009 (edited) I suggest more of you actually read the contract, the strike language has not changed one bit from the 2003 contract. In the 2003 contract Article V section 4 page 24 refers to any disputes first must be attempted to be resolved through the grievance procedure Article VII section 23. That references/provisions are the same given to the company as far as the Right to Lock Out workers. In the 2007 contract this Same language can be found first in Volume I; Article V section 4 pages 25 and 26, and the grievance procedure Article VII Section 23, pages 61 through 67. Please start actually reading the contract before posting what john the line committee man(not actually elected but acts like he knows everything) says during the shift. I'm bored so here is some of the actual language, from Article VII section 23(e) (e) Right to Strike Failing to reach agreement as herein provided, the Union shall have the right to strike over such disputes; provided such strike is properly authorized in accordance with the provisions of the International Union's Constitution and By-Laws. No strike shall commence subsequent to sixty(60) working days from the date of notice given under Subsection (d) (2) of this section, or any mutually agreed-to extension of such period. Edited January 16, 2009 by lquidspine Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jerzey Posted January 16, 2009 Share Posted January 16, 2009 Jerzey, you and every other person has the right to say what ever they want, but if you are going to accuse me of something, why don't you get your facts straight. I don't tell people to quit because i disagree with what they are saying. What i have said a few times is that i find people hypocritical to come on here and MF the Union and say it is a useless organization while gladly accepting the benefits that comes with being a union member. I have asked people who feel that why they don't stand up for what they believe in and go work at a non-union facility. I have also told people who said the union is useless to feel free to check the box that waives their rights to union representation when they do something that they get disciplined for if they truly feel that way. Now if that causes me to lose some votes if i run again, so be it. I won't change the way i feel for votes. "Quote" I don't tell people to quit because i disagree with what they are saying. Yes you do ! I always express how i feel and do it without bad mouthing the union. I am grateful for my job that the union protects and ford for giving it to me. VOTES ? VOTES? worried about VOTES, don't you get it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hvcpicker Posted January 16, 2009 Share Posted January 16, 2009 :reading: if i am reading this correctly jerze you have a problem with morris. Let it go brother , what morris says is absolutely true and you know that. People take advantage of the union constantly. IF your personal situation is not exactly to the word what morris says that is rare and you know that too. Union work is tireless , thankless , ruthless and most times with a management team that will screw them in an instant to get what they need. That is the reality and you are sheilded from this by those souls who aggravate themselves to TRY and get you and the union as a whole what they need! So unless you are willing to stand in the line of fire dude ease up on the critisim. Your entitled to speak your mind , just try and remember what is really going on behind the doors you cant see through! especially with a committeeman like snailboy at the helm!!! :shades: Just kidding! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SOULJABOY Posted January 16, 2009 Share Posted January 16, 2009 People, just get your contract books out and read them. Liquidspine has even been so gracious to put the page number's, Article number's and the section number's down for you. Now do yourself a favor and read this information you might actually learn something. I said it yesterday, we can strike but it has to be a legal strike when we do. Going on strike because your favorite Chairpman got into trouble for example, is not a legal strike. IF BUSH DID ADD A NO STRIKE CLAUSE IN THIS BRIDGE LOAN DEAL THAT IS HIS AND HIS PARTIES WAY OF TRYING TO BUST THIS UNION. A strike is our best weapon. You wouldn't want the USA to give up all of our nuclear weapon's do you. Then don't be so fast to give away the strike issue. We need to keep our ability to strike during negotiation's. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Makeastand Posted January 16, 2009 Share Posted January 16, 2009 I suggest more of you actually read the contract, the strike language has not changed one bit from the 2003 contract. In the 2003 contract Article V section 4 page 24 refers to any disputes first must be attempted to be resolved through the grievance procedure Article VII section 23. That references/provisions are the same given to the company as far as the Right to Lock Out workers. In the 2007 contract this Same language can be found first in Volume I; Article V section 4 pages 25 and 26, and the grievance procedure Article VII Section 23, pages 61 through 67. Please start actually reading the contract before posting what john the line committee man(not actually elected but acts like he knows everything) says during the shift. I'm bored so here is some of the actual language, from Article VII section 23(e) (e) Right to Strike Failing to reach agreement as herein provided, the Union shall have the right to strike over such disputes; provided such strike is properly authorized in accordance with the provisions of the International Union's Constitution and By-Laws. No strike shall commence subsequent to sixty(60) working days from the date of notice given under Subsection (d) (2) of this section, or any mutually agreed-to extension of such period. We are not talking about Fords contract we are talking about GM. I don't have a GM contract. Sorry Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Makeastand Posted January 16, 2009 Share Posted January 16, 2009 Most of ya need to see the bigger picture which I'm sure all of ya do. What ever concessions are made, which I'm against anyways but I'm one vote, it won't matter if the credit doesn't get loosened up. If it doesn't loosen up, then people can't buy cars and if people can't buy cars then someone folds. I don't want any concessions since we have made many already but it is up to this country to finally start buying from the 3 to end this mess I believe you are right. If the public is worried about keeping their job, pay cuts, don't have a job, or lenders not lending, the auto industry as a whole will never sell enough vehicles to stay afloat. I believe that this is our own governments fault. Too much so called "free trade", other countries lie and under value their monies and no one does anything about it, no regulations on sub-prime "rip-off" loans, immigration not being dealt with properly, and the Bush administration cut taxes and spends $10 BILLION a month killing off our soldiers in a war that will never benefit the American people or Iraq. On top of all that they are still giving U.S. companies huge incentives to move our jobs over seas to China where they can pay an 8 year old child to work for .40 cents a day. Then we go to Wal-mart and buy our products back while American children are dying from lead poisoning. I could go on for hours Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jewbilly Posted January 16, 2009 Share Posted January 16, 2009 If the ship sinks, I'll save you a life vest Brother. Steve, do you sit in the committee room and type messages all day or do you actually go out and help the highbay folks? How's chubby buddy doing? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MCM Posted January 16, 2009 Share Posted January 16, 2009 (edited) I suggest more of you actually read the contract, the strike language has not changed one bit from the 2003 contract. In the 2003 contract Article V section 4 page 24 refers to any disputes first must be attempted to be resolved through the grievance procedure Article VII section 23. That references/provisions are the same given to the company as far as the Right to Lock Out workers. In the 2007 contract this Same language can be found first in Volume I; Article V section 4 pages 25 and 26, and the grievance procedure Article VII Section 23, pages 61 through 67. Please start actually reading the contract before posting what john the line committee man(not actually elected but acts like he knows everything) says during the shift. I'm bored so here is some of the actual language, from Article VII section 23(e) (e) Right to Strike Failing to reach agreement as herein provided, the Union shall have the right to strike over such disputes; provided such strike is properly authorized in accordance with the provisions of the International Union's Constitution and By-Laws. No strike shall commence subsequent to sixty(60) working days from the date of notice given under Subsection (d) (2) of this section, or any mutually agreed-to extension of such period. Yes this language has not changed but it must be initiated at the Local level as I sad in a previous post. 7/23 is work standards and outsourcing and H&S grievances. These are D1 status. Strikeable grievances if not resolved. Edited January 16, 2009 by MCM Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve morris Posted January 16, 2009 Share Posted January 16, 2009 Steve, do you sit in the committee room and type messages all day or do you actually go out and help the highbay folks? How's chubby buddy doing? I have yet to respond to this site while at work. As far as helping the guys in hi-bay, ask the guys out there if i handle the issues they have. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve morris Posted January 16, 2009 Share Posted January 16, 2009 "Quote" I don't tell people to quit because i disagree with what they are saying. Yes you do ! I always express how i feel and do it without bad mouthing the union. I am grateful for my job that the union protects and ford for giving it to me. VOTES ? VOTES? worried about VOTES, don't you get it? I see how this works. Because you say i do, then it must be true. Pull up the quote. As far as the rest of your statement, if that's your imitation of me, you're full of shit. I do my job the best i can and if the people on the floor don't think i do a good enough job, they will vote for the person they feel will do it better. (I know i would) Everyday that i go to work, i make my own bed. I have no problem sleeping in the bed that i made. Now maybe that bothers you. maybe you expect your committeeman to agree with everything you say, tell you things that will make you feel better, and kiss your ass. WRONG GUY! Now does that sound like i am concerned about votes? If the people i represent feel i do my job well enough, the votes will be there. If they don't, i will go back to the floor. It's that simple. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jewbilly Posted January 16, 2009 Share Posted January 16, 2009 I see how this works. Because you say i do, then it must be true. Pull up the quote. As far as the rest of your statement, if that's your imitation of me, you're full of shit. I do my job the best i can and if the people on the floor don't think i do a good enough job, they will vote for the person they feel will do it better. (I know i would) Everyday that i go to work, i make my own bed. I have no problem sleeping in the bed that i made. Now maybe that bothers you. maybe you expect your committeeman to agree with everything you say, tell you things that will make you feel better, and kiss your ass. WRONG GUY! Now does that sound like i am concerned about votes? If the people i represent feel i do my job well enough, the votes will be there. If they don't, i will go back to the floor. It's that simple. I think that I was right the first go around with helping to get chubby buddy elected and keeping you the alternate.(haha) Does stanchin still have that gay fantasy league making up his own rules as he goes along? Locking people out as he sees fit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve morris Posted January 16, 2009 Share Posted January 16, 2009 I think that I was right the first go around with helping to get chubby buddy elected and keeping you the alternate.(haha) Does stanchin still have that gay fantasy league making up his own rules as he goes along? Locking people out as he sees fit. I'm sure if you try hard enough, you can talk chubby buddy into running for something again. Don't be upset about the fantasy League, maybe if you had a little bit of football knowledge, you wouldn't have made moronic moves and got locked out. No, Stanek became a big sissy and asked Neumann to take over for him. He couldn't handle the stress. Lol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.