unofficial agreement

[mikem12]

Big 3 Concessions Leak, More Big Cuts

— Jane Slaughter

 

Although nothing is official yet, word of the United Auto Workers’ planned concessions to the Big 3 leaked out yesterday. Any contract changes must be ratified by rank-and-file members. The union is silent on when workers will be told of the changes and asked to vote.

 

Reportedly, workers are asked to:

 

give up two lump-sum bonuses. These bonuses were negotiated in fall 2007 in lieu of wage increases. The four-year 2007 agreement included a wage freeze for the life of the contract, which will continue.

give up cost-of-living allowance. Although the formula was imperfect and the union had agreed to many “diversions” (subtractions) from COLA over the years, the COLA clause was designed to keep wages from falling behind inflation.

give up a $600 Christmas bonus (at Chrysler).

receive time-and-a-half pay only for work beyond 40 hours in a week, rather than work beyond 8 hours in a day.

reduce Supplemental Unemployment Benefits (SUB) pay. A special fund at each company had topped up laid-off workers’ pay. The funds are not bottomless and have run dry in the past. Unknown at this point is whether company contributions will be cut or eliminated. Under the proposal, those with more than 20 years of service may still collect SUB pay for 52 weeks at the traditional 72 percent of gross pay and another 52 weeks at half pay. Workers with less than 20 years will get 72 percent SUB pay for 39 weeks and half pay for an additional 39 weeks.

give up some work rules. This could mean anything, but is sure to make life on the job harsher.

accept reductions in skilled-trade jobs, also vague but a long-held management goal. Skilled workers are paid more and have far greater job control than production workers. Management has wanted to use “jacks of all trades” rather than highly skilled workers, and for a long time has been contracting out as much skilled work as possible.

Activists predicted that the overtime issue would generate the most anger among workers.

 

The concessions were demanded by the Obama administration as part of a “viability plan” the companies must present in exchange for loans. Although only Chrysler and GM have asked for loans, the UAW will make concessions to Ford as well, so as not to put Ford at a competitive disadvantage.

 

It was noticeable that most of the concessions eliminate benefits that most U.S. workers don’t enjoy: COLA, SUB pay, time-and-a-half after eight hours. Likewise, asking workers to give up something called a “bonus” doesn’t sound so bad—if you don’t know that it’s a substitute for a pay increase.

 

“Overprivileged” auto workers once again are getting a drubbing from their betters in the media and in Congress, all of whom see nothing outrageous in their own much higher salaries. It bears repeating: there are good reasons that auto jobs have been well-paid, relatively speaking, for over 50 years. First, before the 1980s, they belonged to a union that fought. Second, these jobs stink. You need to pay people a lot of money to be willing to spend 30 years, day after day, on an assembly line. Companies have been willing to shell out in order to get reliable workers who show up and take good care of their expensive equipment. If the pay’s no longer good, it’s not worth it.

 

It also bears repeating that the average hourly wage of auto workers is not the ridiculous $73 per hour figure floated in the press. The major cost difference between the Big 3 and its competitors is health care for hundreds of thousands of retirees that Mercedes-Benz and Toyota don’t have.

 

The concessions demanded by the Obama administration and the Big 3 would not be the first. Previously given up:

 

Pay for new-hires who work in “non-core” jobs, i.e., off the assembly line, at GM and Chrysler. At Ford, the cuts apply to all new-hires. Pay was slashed in half, to $14 an hour, in the 2007 contracts.

The Jobs Bank, which paid unused workers most of their pay and enabled the companies to send them out for work on community projects (though often companies didn’t bother and left them playing cards in the break room).

Full funding for retiree health care. In 2007 control of payouts for GM and Ford retiree health care were moved to a union-run trust (VEBA), but with inadequate funding from the companies—they paid about half of estimated future costs. Now the loan provisions for GM require the union to take company stock for half the money still owed to the VEBAs. This point is still under negotiation, and the union seems to be resisting taking stock, which would become just about worthless if GM goes bankrupt. GM stock dropped from $29 per share last year to $2.06 in mid-February.

According to Bloomberg News, GM CEO Rick Wagoner said more concessions were in the offing. “It doesn’t get us all the way there,” Wagoner said. “We’ve got some other ideas to close out the rest.”

[gary112]

Big 3 Concessions Leak, More Big Cuts

— Jane Slaughter

 

Although nothing is official yet, word of the United Auto Workers’ planned concessions to the Big 3 leaked out yesterday. Any contract changes must be ratified by rank-and-file members. The union is silent on when workers will be told of the changes and asked to vote.

 

Reportedly, workers are asked to:

 

give up two lump-sum bonuses. These bonuses were negotiated in fall 2007 in lieu of wage increases. The four-year 2007 agreement included a wage freeze for the life of the contract, which will continue.

give up cost-of-living allowance. Although the formula was imperfect and the union had agreed to many “diversions” (subtractions) from COLA over the years, the COLA clause was designed to keep wages from falling behind inflation.

give up a $600 Christmas bonus (at Chrysler).

receive time-and-a-half pay only for work beyond 40 hours in a week, rather than work beyond 8 hours in a day.

reduce Supplemental Unemployment Benefits (SUB) pay. A special fund at each company had topped up laid-off workers’ pay. The funds are not bottomless and have run dry in the past. Unknown at this point is whether company contributions will be cut or eliminated. Under the proposal, those with more than 20 years of service may still collect SUB pay for 52 weeks at the traditional 72 percent of gross pay and another 52 weeks at half pay. Workers with less than 20 years will get 72 percent SUB pay for 39 weeks and half pay for an additional 39 weeks.

give up some work rules. This could mean anything, but is sure to make life on the job harsher.

accept reductions in skilled-trade jobs, also vague but a long-held management goal. Skilled workers are paid more and have far greater job control than production workers. Management has wanted to use “jacks of all trades” rather than highly skilled workers, and for a long time has been contracting out as much skilled work as possible.

Activists predicted that the overtime issue would generate the most anger among workers.

 

The concessions were demanded by the Obama administration as part of a “viability plan” the companies must present in exchange for loans. Although only Chrysler and GM have asked for loans, the UAW will make concessions to Ford as well, so as not to put Ford at a competitive disadvantage.

 

It was noticeable that most of the concessions eliminate benefits that most U.S. workers don’t enjoy: COLA, SUB pay, time-and-a-half after eight hours. Likewise, asking workers to give up something called a “bonus” doesn’t sound so bad—if you don’t know that it’s a substitute for a pay increase.

 

“Overprivileged” auto workers once again are getting a drubbing from their betters in the media and in Congress, all of whom see nothing outrageous in their own much higher salaries. It bears repeating: there are good reasons that auto jobs have been well-paid, relatively speaking, for over 50 years. First, before the 1980s, they belonged to a union that fought. Second, these jobs stink. You need to pay people a lot of money to be willing to spend 30 years, day after day, on an assembly line. Companies have been willing to shell out in order to get reliable workers who show up and take good care of their expensive equipment. If the pay’s no longer good, it’s not worth it.

 

It also bears repeating that the average hourly wage of auto workers is not the ridiculous $73 per hour figure floated in the press. The major cost difference between the Big 3 and its competitors is health care for hundreds of thousands of retirees that Mercedes-Benz and Toyota don’t have.

 

The concessions demanded by the Obama administration and the Big 3 would not be the first. Previously given up:

 

Pay for new-hires who work in “non-core” jobs, i.e., off the assembly line, at GM and Chrysler. At Ford, the cuts apply to all new-hires. Pay was slashed in half, to $14 an hour, in the 2007 contracts.

The Jobs Bank, which paid unused workers most of their pay and enabled the companies to send them out for work on community projects (though often companies didn’t bother and left them playing cards in the break room).

Full funding for retiree health care. In 2007 control of payouts for GM and Ford retiree health care were moved to a union-run trust (VEBA), but with inadequate funding from the companies—they paid about half of estimated future costs. Now the loan provisions for GM require the union to take company stock for half the money still owed to the VEBAs. This point is still under negotiation, and the union seems to be resisting taking stock, which would become just about worthless if GM goes bankrupt. GM stock dropped from $29 per share last year to $2.06 in mid-February.

According to Bloomberg News, GM CEO Rick Wagoner said more concessions were in the offing. “It doesn’t get us all the way there,” Wagoner said. “We’ve got some other ideas to close out the rest.”

 

 

VOTE HELL NO!

[musicman]

Why would they give the OLD shoulda retired pricks better sub pay bennies, when they won't take the layoffs. You can't get them to stay home for a week. They don't even take vacations. The remaining coulda retired people are sick. VOTE, "FUCK NO!!!"

[descendents]

If we have to take same concessions as GM and Chrysler, then are CEO should take take same concessions as there CEO's!

[musicman]

When is Congress going to take some cuts, thier business aint doing so good either!!! As usual, people with kids, college bills get screwed by the union, and people that should have thier lives halfway in order, and be ready to retire, get what they want.

[chiefstang]

VOTE HELL NO!

 

 

YEAH!!! And then get laid off! And go on unemployment! COOL!!!! Way to dig in your feet!

[feegsit]

Why would they give the OLD shoulda retired pricks better sub pay bennies, when they won't take the layoffs. You can't get them to stay home for a week. They don't even take vacations. The remaining coulda retired people are sick. VOTE, "FUCK NO!!!"

A lot of the old timers I talk to are staying because they will have health care. If they retire...... Who knows. With whats going on with Delphi salary, it may not be likely. Not too far in the distant future hourly retirees are going to take the same hit. Once that happens we're going to see the domino effect with GM, Ford, Chrysler and everybody else and there brother . This is one deep, dark black hole we're falling into. VEBA is just a wet dream.

[lquidspine]

Why would they give the OLD shoulda retired pricks better sub pay bennies, when they won't take the layoffs. You can't get them to stay home for a week. They don't even take vacations. The remaining coulda retired people are sick. VOTE, "FUCK NO!!!"

Divide and conquerer seems to be working with you bro, we are all in this together there is no need for name calling.

[musicman]

A year ago I had worked my way up to the top 150 or so in our plant. Now with the placement of the seniors in our plant, people at that level haved moved down around 400 people. They keep surfing the nursing homes and bringing'em in even though were laying off. Plant seniority should be plant seniority. I would never expect to go to somebodys home plant that I have never been in and pass them in seniority, Ford yes, plant no. With all the stupid shit going on right now it's very frustrating, and don't think the geriatric groups invading other plants aren't coming in with a "take all the jobs" attitude. It's creating a very big wall between the elderly groups and the younger people that started in the plant. Now these people that never take layoffs, turn in thier vacation weeks at the end of the year in leu of cash, are being rewarded. We have old people in the plant that have seen thier own kids loose thier jobs, income and oppurtunities for thier families so the endofthierlifers can stay. With no overtime, thier all losing money. The zombies that are remaing are addicted to the place, can't leave, and will have to be carried out some day, thier never leaving. It would be nice since were all uaw members and work for the same company here, things were a little more evened out.

Edited February 23, 2009 by musicman

[mikem12]

Why would they give the OLD shoulda retired pricks better sub pay bennies, when they won't take the layoffs. You can't get them to stay home for a week. They don't even take vacations. The remaining coulda retired people are sick. VOTE, "FUCK NO!!!"

 

 

Heres the deal young'in, they have the right to decide as they feel necessary. They are old fucks stll working because they have put their time in. And last I heard have the freedom to decide what they do with their lives and jobs.

 

from another "old F**k"

 

28 years and counting.

[pointy]

A year ago I had worked my way up to the top 150 or so in our plant. Now with the placement of the seniors in our plant, people at that level haved moved down around 400 people. They keep surfing the nursing homes and bringing'em in even though were laying off. Plant seniority should be plant seniority. I would never expect to go to somebodys home plant that I have never been in and pass them in seniority, Ford yes, plant no. With all the stupid shit going on right now it's very frustrating, and don't think the geriatric groups invading other plants aren't coming in with a "take all the jobs" attitude. It's creating a very big wall between the elderly groups and the younger people that started in the plant. Now these people that never take layoffs, turn in thier vacation weeks at the end of the year in leu of cash, are being rewarded. We have old people in the plant that have seen thier own kids loose thier jobs, income and oppurtunities for thier families so the endofthierlifers can stay. With no overtime, thier all losing money. The zombies that are remaing are addicted to the place, can't leave, and will have to be carried out some day, thier never leaving. It would be nice since were all uaw members and work for the same company here, things were a little more evened out.

 

Those 'Zombies' of which you speak, if they have more than 25 years are the ones who walked the streets for you and your inconsiderate ass. Regardless of being a preferential or a 'home-boy' are just living a life just like you. The UNION and the company AGREED to the terms in which higher seniority can hold their seniority when transferring, so take your crying, whining ass to the International and tell them your grievence you ungrateful, self-centered piece! If they want to put in 50 years that's their business - none of yours!

[udontkno]

I have made this suggestion before and hope more people will begin to talk about it at other plants.

Once a worker gets 30 years seniority, he/she should have maxed out their lifetime retirement benefit. Currently they get X $'s per year of service. I suggest the lifetime benefit be raised by 10% and the supplement be lowered to equal the current 30 and out pension. This would do a couple of things. 30 and out was negoitiated so younger workers could keep a job in hard times and in good times the company would hire, so this would prod more workers with 30 yrs seniority to retire. This would in turn allow the company to hire new workers at 1/2 the wage and a big reduction in benefits then the current workers have. This would put the big 3 at the same wage rate as the transplants and prevent current workers from taking more pay or benefit cuts. This would also protect the retirees pension and health care.

[rn4]

I have made this suggestion before and hope more people will begin to talk about it at other plants.

Once a worker gets 30 years seniority, he/she should have maxed out their lifetime retirement benefit. Currently they get X $'s per year of service. I suggest the lifetime benefit be raised by 10% and the supplement be lowered to equal the current 30 and out pension. This would do a couple of things. 30 and out was negoitiated so younger workers could keep a job in hard times and in good times the company would hire, so this would prod more workers with 30 yrs seniority to retire. This would in turn allow the company to hire new workers at 1/2 the wage and a big reduction in benefits then the current workers have. This would put the big 3 at the same wage rate as the transplants and prevent current workers from taking more pay or benefit cuts. This would also protect the retirees pension and health care.

30 and out was negotiated to let people retire early as an option, because of the wear and tear on their body. When you get a little more seniority your whole attitude will change.

[Bigcountry]

If we have to take same concessions as GM and Chrysler, then are CEO should take take same concessions as there CEO's!

 

 

Who gives a shit what the CEO's make! They all could work free for the rest of their lives and still die rich!

 

VOTE NO!!!!!

Edited February 23, 2009 by Bigcountry

[RockofCashel]

It's creating a very big wall between the elderly groups and the younger people that started in the plant.

 

You created the wall. Basically, you don't care about the higher seniority people who have been displaced FROM THEIR ENTIRE PLANT. I'm sorry that you with you 10 years isn't as protected as some person with 30 years. Grow up asshole, it always has been and always will be about seniority. It's about protecting your members based on the years they have paid dues. If you don't like it, take the next buyout. Everyone has seen this coming, yet still the whining continues.

[udontkno]

30 and out was negotiated to let people retire early as an option, because of the wear and tear on their body. When you get a little more seniority your whole attitude will change.

 

I only have a couple of years before I get 30 years seniority. I am not saying anyone has to retire with 30 years, I am saying increase the lifetime benefit and freeze it at 30 years, this is done at many companies. By increasing the lifetime benefit, if the company goes into bankruptcy the PBGC will pay more to those retirees. If those with 30 yrs want more retirement then the lifetime benefit, a supplement could be invested in. So if you pay X$ per week between your 30-35 yr. you would be entitled to your pension plus X$ per month, based on what plan you invested in. I consider this a much better solution then giving back COLA, bonus ect...

[RockofCashel]

30 and out was negotiated to let people retire early as an option, because of the wear and tear on their body. When you get a little more seniority your whole attitude will change.

 

What? A 48 year old raising a family should easily be able to afford to live off of retirement (about 40% less than 40 hours) and the continual threat of losing benefits.

 

People really need to look at the bigger picture. It's selfishness that got us into this position, now it's time to stick together.

[udontkno]

Big 3 Concessions Leak, More Big Cuts

— Jane Slaughter

 

Although nothing is official yet, word of the United Auto Workers’ planned concessions to the Big 3 leaked out yesterday. Any contract changes must be ratified by rank-and-file members. The union is silent on when workers will be told of the changes and asked to vote.

 

Reportedly, workers are asked to:

 

give up two lump-sum bonuses. These bonuses were negotiated in fall 2007 in lieu of wage increases. The four-year 2007 agreement included a wage freeze for the life of the contract, which will continue.

give up cost-of-living allowance. Although the formula was imperfect and the union had agreed to many “diversions” (subtractions) from COLA over the years, the COLA clause was designed to keep wages from falling behind inflation.

give up a $600 Christmas bonus (at Chrysler).

receive time-and-a-half pay only for work beyond 40 hours in a week, rather than work beyond 8 hours in a day.

reduce Supplemental Unemployment Benefits (SUB) pay. A special fund at each company had topped up laid-off workers’ pay. The funds are not bottomless and have run dry in the past. Unknown at this point is whether company contributions will be cut or eliminated. Under the proposal, those with more than 20 years of service may still collect SUB pay for 52 weeks at the traditional 72 percent of gross pay and another 52 weeks at half pay. Workers with less than 20 years will get 72 percent SUB pay for 39 weeks and half pay for an additional 39 weeks.

give up some work rules. This could mean anything, but is sure to make life on the job harsher.

accept reductions in skilled-trade jobs, also vague but a long-held management goal. Skilled workers are paid more and have far greater job control than production workers. Management has wanted to use “jacks of all trades” rather than highly skilled workers, and for a long time has been contracting out as much skilled work as possible.

Activists predicted that the overtime issue would generate the most anger among workers.

 

The concessions were demanded by the Obama administration as part of a “viability plan” the companies must present in exchange for loans. Although only Chrysler and GM have asked for loans, the UAW will make concessions to Ford as well, so as not to put Ford at a competitive disadvantage.

 

It was noticeable that most of the concessions eliminate benefits that most U.S. workers don’t enjoy: COLA, SUB pay, time-and-a-half after eight hours. Likewise, asking workers to give up something called a “bonus” doesn’t sound so bad—if you don’t know that it’s a substitute for a pay increase.

 

“Overprivileged” auto workers once again are getting a drubbing from their betters in the media and in Congress, all of whom see nothing outrageous in their own much higher salaries. It bears repeating: there are good reasons that auto jobs have been well-paid, relatively speaking, for over 50 years. First, before the 1980s, they belonged to a union that fought. Second, these jobs stink. You need to pay people a lot of money to be willing to spend 30 years, day after day, on an assembly line. Companies have been willing to shell out in order to get reliable workers who show up and take good care of their expensive equipment. If the pay’s no longer good, it’s not worth it.

 

It also bears repeating that the average hourly wage of auto workers is not the ridiculous $73 per hour figure floated in the press. The major cost difference between the Big 3 and its competitors is health care for hundreds of thousands of retirees that Mercedes-Benz and Toyota don’t have.

 

The concessions demanded by the Obama administration and the Big 3 would not be the first. Previously given up:

 

Pay for new-hires who work in “non-core” jobs, i.e., off the assembly line, at GM and Chrysler. At Ford, the cuts apply to all new-hires. Pay was slashed in half, to $14 an hour, in the 2007 contracts.

The Jobs Bank, which paid unused workers most of their pay and enabled the companies to send them out for work on community projects (though often companies didn’t bother and left them playing cards in the break room).

Full funding for retiree health care. In 2007 control of payouts for GM and Ford retiree health care were moved to a union-run trust (VEBA), but with inadequate funding from the companies—they paid about half of estimated future costs. Now the loan provisions for GM require the union to take company stock for half the money still owed to the VEBAs. This point is still under negotiation, and the union seems to be resisting taking stock, which would become just about worthless if GM goes bankrupt. GM stock dropped from $29 per share last year to $2.06 in mid-February.

According to Bloomberg News, GM CEO Rick Wagoner said more concessions were in the offing. “It doesn’t get us all the way there,” Wagoner said. “We’ve got some other ideas to close out the rest.”

If these are the terms, I will vote no. The only way I will vote yes is if there is a clause that gives us COLA back when the company returns to profitability and shares of Ford stock equal to the bonus based on the price of the stock on the day that the bonus was to be paid. The stock could be put in a seperate account that could be given to the workers when the company post its first full year profit. Finally, I will also need to see the concessions given by the bond holders, dealers and Alan M. and the rest of the executives will have to accept the same wage and benefits as GM and Chrysler is getting from their executives. This is fair because if Ford does start making money, Alan and the rest of the exec's will make millions in their stock options.

[Skilled1]

Who gives a shit what the CEO's make! They all could work free for the rest of their lives and still die rich!

 

VOTE NO!!!!!

 

 

I will need to see the real agreement.

 

If retirees are untouched.

 

Everyone from Mulaly down gets their pay cut drastically.

 

And we get more investments in our plants.

 

My base wage is not cut.

 

And my benefits stay where they are right now

 

 

I will be voting yes

 

Ive said it before do it now there is no second chance..... Thje next step will be a bankruptcy judge making us work for $12 dollars per hour.

 

Sorry, I 'm not willing to take that chance

 

My job is precious to me.

Edited February 24, 2009 by Skilled1

[musicman]

Wow, I guess old people can use a computer. :stats:

[gary112]

I will need to see the real agreement.

 

If retirees are untouched.

 

Everyone from Mulaly down gets their pay cut drastically.

 

And we get more investments in our plants.

 

My base wage is not cut.

 

And my benefits stay where they are right now

 

 

I will be voting yes

 

Ive said it before do it now there is no second chance..... Thje next step will be a bankruptcy judge making us work for $12 dollars per hour.

 

Sorry, I 'm not willing to take that chance

 

My job is precious to me.

 

By voting yes, you are opening the door to future concessions. Once they get it they want more and more. How are your benefits staying the same? They are taking away your lump sum bonus which by the way is your raise negotiated a year and a half ago, and they are cutting your SUB pay and we don't even know all the other details yet. It looks like your precious job will pay $12 per hour in the future with your yes vote.

[Hard Driver]

and people that should have thier lives halfway in order, and be ready to retire, get what they want.

 

Do you actually believe that you know everyones circumstances? Do you ever stop to think that people that have 30 years or more would like to retire but maybe they have been faced with some unexpected life situations like suddenly taking care of a parent who doesn't have a good income and medical coverage but is extremely ill, or they recently adopted a child who's parents died or were messed up on drugs, or the employee themselves experienced unplanned livechanging difficulties that interfered with their plans to retire when they planned to. You know, these are all things that could happen to any of us and no one has the AUTHORITY to tell anyone else when they should retire! You are not more important than anyone else.

 

A tragedy could happen in your family today that could devistate you financially for a very log time. The news flash is it could be something your Ford benefits do not cover. Yes, it can and does happen to people!

 

30 and out is an option, not a requirement.

 

Here's a thought...if you have enough seniority to work days and are able to spend more time with family etc would you be willing to give it up and work afternoons so that someone else could work days and spend more time with their family? Probably not. I'll bet you will do what's best for you and your family. It doesn't mean that you hate the other guy but instaed are doing what is best for your situation.

 

I don't think you are so important to anyone at the plant that they would work an extra 5 years just to screw you over!

Edited February 24, 2009 by Hard Driver

[udontkno]

I will need to see the real agreement.

 

If retirees are untouched.

 

Everyone from Mulaly down gets their pay cut drastically.

 

And we get more investments in our plants.

 

My base wage is not cut.

 

And my benefits stay where they are right now

 

 

I will be voting yes

 

Ive said it before do it now there is no second chance..... Thje next step will be a bankruptcy judge making us work for $12 dollars per hour.

 

Sorry, I 'm not willing to take that chance

 

My job is precious to me.

I guess you will be a NO vote then because our benefits are being cut! Sub is a benefit, bonuses were in lieu of pay raises and COLA is to keep us even. Make no bones about it this is a cut. As far as a bankruptcy judge making me work for $12 per hour, give me a break we are not obligated to work for the company or a judge for an amount that we do not agree to. Yes a judge can throw out our contract but we can strike and if the company wants to break me then I am not going down without a fight. Lets try and keep our post real so we can help more people make a realistic decision.

[Grandmaster B]

Big 3 Concessions Leak, More Big Cuts

— Jane Slaughter

 

Although nothing is official yet, word of the United Auto Workers’ planned concessions to the Big 3 leaked out yesterday. Any contract changes must be ratified by rank-and-file members. The union is silent on when workers will be told of the changes and asked to vote.

 

Reportedly, workers are asked to:

 

give up two lump-sum bonuses. These bonuses were negotiated in fall 2007 in lieu of wage increases. The four-year 2007 agreement included a wage freeze for the life of the contract, which will continue.

give up cost-of-living allowance. Although the formula was imperfect and the union had agreed to many “diversions” (subtractions) from COLA over the years, the COLA clause was designed to keep wages from falling behind inflation.

give up a $600 Christmas bonus (at Chrysler).

receive time-and-a-half pay only for work beyond 40 hours in a week, rather than work beyond 8 hours in a day.

reduce Supplemental Unemployment Benefits (SUB) pay. A special fund at each company had topped up laid-off workers’ pay. The funds are not bottomless and have run dry in the past. Unknown at this point is whether company contributions will be cut or eliminated. Under the proposal, those with more than 20 years of service may still collect SUB pay for 52 weeks at the traditional 72 percent of gross pay and another 52 weeks at half pay. Workers with less than 20 years will get 72 percent SUB pay for 39 weeks and half pay for an additional 39 weeks.

give up some work rules. This could mean anything, but is sure to make life on the job harsher.

accept reductions in skilled-trade jobs, also vague but a long-held management goal. Skilled workers are paid more and have far greater job control than production workers. Management has wanted to use “jacks of all trades” rather than highly skilled workers, and for a long time has been contracting out as much skilled work as possible.

Activists predicted that the overtime issue would generate the most anger among workers.

 

The concessions were demanded by the Obama administration as part of a “viability plan” the companies must present in exchange for loans. Although only Chrysler and GM have asked for loans, the UAW will make concessions to Ford as well, so as not to put Ford at a competitive disadvantage.

 

It was noticeable that most of the concessions eliminate benefits that most U.S. workers don’t enjoy: COLA, SUB pay, time-and-a-half after eight hours. Likewise, asking workers to give up something called a “bonus” doesn’t sound so bad—if you don’t know that it’s a substitute for a pay increase.

 

“Overprivileged” auto workers once again are getting a drubbing from their betters in the media and in Congress, all of whom see nothing outrageous in their own much higher salaries. It bears repeating: there are good reasons that auto jobs have been well-paid, relatively speaking, for over 50 years. First, before the 1980s, they belonged to a union that fought. Second, these jobs stink. You need to pay people a lot of money to be willing to spend 30 years, day after day, on an assembly line. Companies have been willing to shell out in order to get reliable workers who show up and take good care of their expensive equipment. If the pay’s no longer good, it’s not worth it.

 

It also bears repeating that the average hourly wage of auto workers is not the ridiculous $73 per hour figure floated in the press. The major cost difference between the Big 3 and its competitors is health care for hundreds of thousands of retirees that Mercedes-Benz and Toyota don’t have.

 

The concessions demanded by the Obama administration and the Big 3 would not be the first. Previously given up:

 

Pay for new-hires who work in “non-core” jobs, i.e., off the assembly line, at GM and Chrysler. At Ford, the cuts apply to all new-hires. Pay was slashed in half, to $14 an hour, in the 2007 contracts.

The Jobs Bank, which paid unused workers most of their pay and enabled the companies to send them out for work on community projects (though often companies didn’t bother and left them playing cards in the break room).

Full funding for retiree health care. In 2007 control of payouts for GM and Ford retiree health care were moved to a union-run trust (VEBA), but with inadequate funding from the companies—they paid about half of estimated future costs. Now the loan provisions for GM require the union to take company stock for half the money still owed to the VEBAs. This point is still under negotiation, and the union seems to be resisting taking stock, which would become just about worthless if GM goes bankrupt. GM stock dropped from $29 per share last year to $2.06 in mid-February.

According to Bloomberg News, GM CEO Rick Wagoner said more concessions were in the offing. “It doesn’t get us all the way there,” Wagoner said. “We’ve got some other ideas to close out the rest.”

Question#1: Does COLA get rolled in to our pay, or do we lose the .99 cents?

Question#2: We have to give up our lump sum pay increases in the year that Ford anticipates making a profit???

Reduction in Trades???

As a Tradesman I have no choice but to vote no!

Edited February 24, 2009 by Grandmaster B

[fordworker]

I guess you will be a NO vote then because our benefits are being cut! Sub is a benefit, bonuses were in lieu of pay raises and COLA is to keep us even. Make no bones about it this is a cut. As far as a bankruptcy judge making me work for $12 per hour, give me a break we are not obligated to work for the company or a judge for an amount that we do not agree to. Yes a judge can throw out our contract but we can strike and if the company wants to break me then I am not going down without a fight. Lets try and keep our post real so we can help more people make a realistic decision.

Going on strike will mean Ford/GM will cease to exist. They will be sold to a chinese company and we will all be fired.