STAP TURNS DOWN CONCESSIONS!

[Jaah]

We never had the chance to vote on the concession package negotiated with GM but my vote would have been NO without a written in product guarantee. Now our union bargaining team has stated they will offer Ford the same enhanced package of concessions won by Chrysler. Considering the epic cuts to our collective agreement contained in this new round of talks, I see no option but to cast a resounding NO vote for the package as it stands in front of Chrysler.

 

The auto companies came to us requesting we open our collective agreement to help them through these tough ecomomic times, I have no problem with that, you gave me a decent job when times were good I will help you when times are bad. However, I do take issue with the magnitude of the demands compared to the non-existent returns. Bargaining has historically meant give and take, what has happened lately has been a unilateral rewriting of our previously accepted contract by the auto companies and governments. The long standing tradition of give and take has been re-defined to we give and they take. Our original contract should not be changed, any concessions we agree to provide the companies should have had a 12 month expiry at which time we could detemine the validity of contiinuing or ending them. Our complete capitulation to the bullying of the companies, governments and the right wing press is an embarrassment and an affront to union principles.

 

Now STAP is in a unique position, having been told we are closing in 2011 we have no reason to support any kind of concession no matter how small. OAC turned down the last concessions, having just recieved new product, they had no reason to accept them but the package passed thanks to the vote at STAP. What the hell were we thinking? So now it appears we will be back to the ballots once more to offer up our benefits for the good of the company. I can only hope that OAC still has the backbone they have demonstrated in the past and I pray that STAP will finally stand up for their future, our time is up, living to fight another day is NOT an option.

 

So what would I accept and vote for. I would except some concessions if STAP recieved a product guarantee and I don't mean some vague promise based on market share or another year if sales stay good. I would support nothing less than then a public naming of a model and the year of the new product. If that does not happen then the CAW better negotiate a decent termination package for us because we are done, probably sooner than many expect.

[aloha]

We never had the chance to vote on the concession package negotiated with GM but my vote would have been NO without a written in product guarantee. Now our union bargaining team has stated they will offer Ford the same enhanced package of concessions won by Chrysler. Considering the epic cuts to our collective agreement contained in this new round of talks, I see no option but to cast a resounding NO vote for the package as it stands in front of Chrysler.

 

The auto companies came to us requesting we open our collective agreement to help them through these tough ecomomic times, I have no problem with that, you gave me a decent job when times were good I will help you when times are bad. However, I do take issue with the magnitude of the demands compared to the non-existent returns. Bargaining has historically meant give and take, what has happened lately has been a unilateral rewriting of our previously accepted contract by the auto companies and governments. The long standing tradition of give and take has been re-defined to we give and they take. Our original contract should not be changed, any concessions we agree to provide the companies should have had a 12 month expiry at which time we could detemine the validity of contiinuing or ending them. Our complete capitulation to the bullying of the companies, governments and the right wing press is an embarrassment and an affront to union principles.

 

Now STAP is in a unique position, having been told we are closing in 2011 we have no reason to support any kind of concession no matter how small. OAC turned down the last concessions, having just recieved new product, they had no reason to accept them but the package passed thanks to the vote at STAP. What the hell were we thinking? So now it appears we will be back to the ballots once more to offer up our benefits for the good of the company. I can only hope that OAC still has the backbone they have demonstrated in the past and I pray that STAP will finally stand up for their future, our time is up, living to fight another day is NOT an option.

 

So what would I accept and vote for. I would except some concessions if STAP recieved a product guarantee and I don't mean some vague promise based on market share or another year if sales stay good. I would support nothing less than then a public naming of a model and the year of the new product. If that does not happen then the CAW better negotiate a decent termination package for us because we are done, probably sooner than many expect.

hey jaah k ass

your talking out of both sides of your mouth or should i say out of your mouth and your ass. how can you say its ok for oac to turn down an agreement because they got new product and they wouldnt take concessions, then the air comes out of your ass and say you would give concessions if you got new product. make up your mind (oops a freudian slip) i mean squeeze your butt cheeks)

[kpc655]

We never had the chance to vote on the concession package negotiated with GM but my vote would have been NO without a written in product guarantee. Now our union bargaining team has stated they will offer Ford the same enhanced package of concessions won by Chrysler. Considering the epic cuts to our collective agreement contained in this new round of talks, I see no option but to cast a resounding NO vote for the package as it stands in front of Chrysler.

 

The auto companies came to us requesting we open our collective agreement to help them through these tough ecomomic times, I have no problem with that, you gave me a decent job when times were good I will help you when times are bad. However, I do take issue with the magnitude of the demands compared to the non-existent returns. Bargaining has historically meant give and take, what has happened lately has been a unilateral rewriting of our previously accepted contract by the auto companies and governments. The long standing tradition of give and take has been re-defined to we give and they take. Our original contract should not be changed, any concessions we agree to provide the companies should have had a 12 month expiry at which time we could detemine the validity of contiinuing or ending them. Our complete capitulation to the bullying of the companies, governments and the right wing press is an embarrassment and an affront to union principles.

 

Now STAP is in a unique position, having been told we are closing in 2011 we have no reason to support any kind of concession no matter how small. OAC turned down the last concessions, having just recieved new product, they had no reason to accept them but the package passed thanks to the vote at STAP. What the hell were we thinking? So now it appears we will be back to the ballots once more to offer up our benefits for the good of the company. I can only hope that OAC still has the backbone they have demonstrated in the past and I pray that STAP will finally stand up for their future, our time is up, living to fight another day is NOT an option.

 

So what would I accept and vote for. I would except some concessions if STAP recieved a product guarantee and I don't mean some vague promise based on market share or another year if sales stay good. I would support nothing less than then a public naming of a model and the year of the new product. If that does not happen then the CAW better negotiate a decent termination package for us because we are done, probably sooner than many expect.

 

 

product guarantee?

 

how can ford (or GM) guarantee that something will sell?

[Jaah]

hey jaah k ass

your talking out of both sides of your mouth or should i say out of your mouth and your ass. how can you say its ok for oac to turn down an agreement because they got new product and they wouldnt take concessions, then the air comes out of your ass and say you would give concessions if you got new product. make up your mind (oops a freudian slip) i mean squeeze your butt cheeks)

 

I am not sure if its your lack of comprehension or or inability to express your self. Try re-reading what I wrote and then ask someone for help in posting an inteligent response.

[Jaah]

product guarantee?

 

how can ford (or GM) guarantee that something will sell?

 

They can't and I did'nt ask for gaurantee a new product would sell.

[rt2525]

They can't and I did'nt ask for gaurantee a new product would sell.

I think we all know by now that STAP is toast so there's no point at all

in agreeing to more concessions.I'm hoping we at OAC turn them down

for a whole lot of other reasons.Not the least of which,send a strong message

to Ford and the CAW, we are not willing to follow pattern bargaining anymore.

[gocash]

I think we all know by now that STAP is toast so there's no point at all

in agreeing to more concessions.I'm hoping we at OAC turn them down

for a whole lot of other reasons.Not the least of which,send a strong message

to Ford and the CAW, we are not willing to follow pattern bargaining anymore.

I agree with you.

[Jaah]

I think we all know by now that STAP is toast so there's no point at all

in agreeing to more concessions.I'm hoping we at OAC turn them down

for a whole lot of other reasons.Not the least of which,send a strong message

to Ford and the CAW, we are not willing to follow pattern bargaining anymore.

 

Agreed. Strange how Ken said pattern bargaining was history (not a quote) when breaking the pattern set by GM and then states the Chrysler contact wil be offered to GM and Ford, a mixed message I think. Now don't everyone jump on me for bashing Ken, I admire him for the job he is doing under difficult circumstance but I don't have to agree with him.

Edited April 27, 2009 by Jaah

[Edsel]

I think we all know by now that STAP is toast so there's no point at all

in agreeing to more concessions.I'm hoping we at OAC turn them down

for a whole lot of other reasons.Not the least of which,send a strong message

to Ford and the CAW, we are not willing to follow pattern bargaining anymore.

 

 

Have you forgot about all the workers that have put in their time, BEFORE YOU that are worried about their pension's! Or how about some good severance packages for the members losing their jobs at STAP? Face it, your plant is toast. Vote NO and that's what you will get, NOTHING!

 

Ed.

[gocash]

Agreed. Strange how Ken said pattern bargaining was history (not a quote) when breaking the pattern set by GM and then states the Chrysler contact wil be offered to GM and Ford, a mixed message I think. Now don't everyone jump on me for bashing Ken, I admire him for the job he is doing under difficult circumstance but I don't have to agree with him.

Admire Ken for what?? Stanford's 7 year old daughter, who he reportedly took to the Brampton Chrysler ratification process (she apparently sat on stage with the bargaining committee) could have got that new deal with Chrysler completed by herself.I would speculate that she was used to allow "cooler heads to prevail" with the possibly angry Chrysler members.The CAW gave Chrysler the 19/hr worth of concessions that Chrysler was seeking. Now he states that Chrysler is the new pattern in the "on-again,off-again pattern bargaining process"and wants to use it as a basis with GM and Ford for future negotiations.I have no admiration for anyone who uses these kind of tactics,in a serious matter such as these negotiations.

[young buck 1520]

I agree 100%

No new product for STAP, we vote no.

Edited April 27, 2009 by young buck 1520

[kpc655]

They can't and I did'nt ask for gaurantee a new product would sell.

 

Then why would ford guarantee to build a product?

[Jaah]

Have you forgot about all the workers that have put in their time, BEFORE YOU that are worried about their pension's! Or how about some good severance packages for the members losing their jobs at STAP? Face it, your plant is toast. Vote NO and that's what you will get, NOTHING!

 

Ed.

 

Don't think any of us have forgot about the pensioners that paved the way for the benefits we have now and the last I heard Ford pensions were not at risk. Voting yes will would be a disservice to those same people and would reduce their benefits. As for severence voting yes would also greatly reduce the restructuring severence available. Please think and read the the highlights of the Chrysler contract before accusing someone of forgetting about others

Edited April 27, 2009 by Jaah

[Jaah]

Admire Ken for what?? Stanford's 7 year old daughter, who he reportedly took to the Brampton Chrysler ratification process (she apparently sat on stage with the bargaining committee) could have got that new deal with Chrysler completed by herself.I would speculate that she was used to allow "cooler heads to prevail" with the possibly angry Chrysler members.The CAW gave Chrysler the 19/hr worth of concessions that Chrysler was seeking. Now he states that Chrysler is the new pattern in the "on-again,off-again pattern bargaining process"and wants to use it as a basis with GM and Ford for future negotiations.I have no admiration for anyone who uses these kind of tactics,in a serious matter such as these negotiations.

 

 

LOL, tried to prevent this from turning into a anti Ken bashing thread and now I have riled the other side.

[Jaah]

Then why would ford guarantee to build a product?

 

Your not making a lot of sense to me but I will try to explain. I stated I did not expect that Ford could gaurantee that a product could sell in response to your misinterpetation of an earlier statement. Now you ask why then would they gaurantee too build a product? I assume you are asking this based on my response that they can't guarantee that it will sell? All I can say is if Henry insisted on a guarantee there would be no Ford. If this response is insufficent please clarify what it is exactly you are asking.

[99Pony]

Have you forgot about all the workers that have put in their time, BEFORE YOU that are worried about their pension's! Or how about some good severance packages for the members losing their jobs at STAP? Face it, your plant is toast. Vote NO and that's what you will get, NOTHING!

 

Ed.

So you think we should vote yes? Because we'll get something if we do? LOL. You're an idiot. The company has just as much to lose as we do. They still have orders to fulfill. Last I checked, they don't have a replacement for our car. Nice try Ken.. I mean Ed.

[kpc655]

Your not making a lot of sense to me but I will try to explain. I stated I did not expect that Ford could gaurantee that a product could sell in response to your misinterpetation of an earlier statement. Now you ask why then would they gaurantee too build a product? I assume you are asking this based on my response that they can't guarantee that it will sell? All I can say is if Henry insisted on a guarantee there would be no Ford. If this response is insufficent please clarify what it is exactly you are asking.

 

nor you..you wrote

"We never had the chance to vote on the concession package negotiated with GM but my vote would have been NO without a written in product guarantee."

why do you expect any guarantee?

[xstapr]

nor you..you wrote

"We never had the chance to vote on the concession package negotiated with GM but my vote would have been NO without a written in product guarantee."

why do you expect any guarantee?

Same reason I expect a guarantee. That is the price of my Yes vote. If Ford doesn't want to pay my price then I vote NO. Regardless of what the CAW is flip flopping on.

[Jaah]

Same reason I expect a guarantee. That is the price of my Yes vote. If Ford doesn't want to pay my price then I vote NO. Regardless of what the CAW is flip flopping on.

 

Thank you xstapr, hope that clears it up for you kpc655.

[crownvicsparky]

Oakville... we at STAP need your support brothers and sisters!!! We were ready to back you up if Ford didn't make up for the truck plant... and they did.. you guys have got some new models in the past few years and thats great.. it only strengthens our memebership all the more.... but please help us this time... we are the ones that need a new product... its not our job to judge what product or whether it sells... The new Ford will make that call.. but lets face it every plant in this country and the USA has faced what we are at STAP and every will do there best to make it work.... that is what I see at STAP today we are going to fight to the end both in efficiency and political. We have to... its out future on the line.

[OAC_Paint]

Oakville... we at STAP need your support brothers and sisters!!! We were ready to back you up if Ford didn't make up for the truck plant... and they did.. you guys have got some new models in the past few years and thats great.. it only strengthens our memebership all the more.... but please help us this time... we are the ones that need a new product... its not our job to judge what product or whether it sells... The new Ford will make that call.. but lets face it every plant in this country and the USA has faced what we are at STAP and every will do there best to make it work.... that is what I see at STAP today we are going to fight to the end both in efficiency and political. We have to... its out future on the line.

 

 

OK,You need a product guarntee. We (or at least me) would like a 'trigger point'.

 

Ford may very well wind up on top after this clusterfuck. The bondholders and stock traders seem to think so. As offensive as it might be to STAP guys, We at OAC could be working 48+hrs a week this time next year. Pent up demand has a tipping point. We are looking at giving up 80-120 hours vaction over the past year (the latest company norm being the week layoff before Christmas). We need an out clause as well as a new product for STAP. Reinstatement of cola or the introduction of profit sharing or a sales/economic trigger where WE can re open the contract in 'good' times. Let's support each others interests.

 

Please speak up Windsor.

[kpc655]

Thank you xstapr, hope that clears it up for you kpc655.

 

I accept that some would demand something that is not possible to realistically guarantee thus putting ford (or any OEM) in the unenviable position of guaranteeing production without any guarantee of sale. That's a dangerous game.

Edited April 28, 2009 by kpc655

[Jaah]

OK,You need a product guarntee. We (or at least me) would like a 'trigger point'.

 

Ford may very well wind up on top after this clusterfuck. The bondholders and stock traders seem to think so. As offensive as it might be to STAP guys, We at OAC could be working 48+hrs a week this time next year. Pent up demand has a tipping point. We are looking at giving up 80-120 hours vaction over the past year (the latest company norm being the week layoff before Christmas). We need an out clause as well as a new product for STAP. Reinstatement of cola or the introduction of profit sharing or a sales/economic trigger where WE can re open the contract in 'good' times. Let's support each others interests.

 

Please speak up Windsor.

 

Totally agree, a trigger point, be it economic or time needs to be there.

[allford1]

STAP was told by its CAW leadership.....we live to fight another day. Well now as we watch the CAW leaders give up more ground to....live to fight another day, STAP are running out of bullets. Since the leadership is in full retreat STAP must hold its ground, if not for product then BIG severence. By the time they finish producing CVs etc. there will be VERY little left for a meaningful severence with all that is being given back. The time is NOW while there is still work in the building. National should have been all over this or was STAP the sacrificial lamb for the Oakville upgrade. STAND YOUR GROUND NOW! STAP needs OAKVILLE'S HELP

[Jaah]

I accept that some would demand something that is not possible to realistically guarantee thus putting ford (or any OEM) in the unenviable position of guaranteeing production without any guarantee of sale. That's a dangerous game.

 

Ummm what????

Last time I get on this merry-go-round.

1. I am not asking for Ford to guarantee sales.

2. I am not asking for Ford to Guarantee production.

3. I am asking that Ford guarantee a new product for STAP before I would CONSIDER any concessions.