wixom22 Posted October 14, 2009 Share Posted October 14, 2009 Capt. I guess I'll just have to say I read it differently then you. Got to go for now Good night all my union brothers and sisters. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain723 Posted October 14, 2009 Share Posted October 14, 2009 Here.. Let me quote you again.You are correct on the comparable wages to imports, but that only means there will not be any improvements unless our competitors have something more than we got. We also have mulally saying that our agreement makes us competitive. Either way the language clearly states improvements will be arbitrated, not our entire wage and benefits. read it as it is written, not how some shithouse lawyer is giving his expert explanation to it. So we can't ask for a raise unless our foreign competitors get one? That is what you wrote right? So our contract terms are based on Toyota, Honda etc and their wages. That is what YOU are saying shithouse lawyer. I am saying that is BullS*hit!! Why should our competitors have anything to do with our contract? Why would the UAW agree to that? It F'd up! If Ford is doing great and we are kicking ass in quality etc then we should have every right in the world to demand getting back what we have given up and if not we STRIKE. There is some kind of underhanded deal that has taken place with this agreement. You must not have got the memo from Ron and Bob. brilliant, you got it right, if we are doing some much better and we say we deserve a raise and the company agrees with us, then we get one. If they do not agree with that then we arbitrate it. That is exactly correct. You are exactly correct on that assuption. I will not debate that! Just to be clear though we will not be taking wage cuts as a result of this language as some others are refering too!! I appreciate you taking the time to think that out. You got it dead on. Whether you feel it is right, wrong or indifferent your explanation is correct. I am out gotta feed the animals! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wanderinglost Posted October 14, 2009 Share Posted October 14, 2009 The language is very clear on what would be arbitrated.....ONLY IMPROVEMENTS TO EXISTING WAGES AND BENEFITS! This does not mean we do not have the right to strike over other terms of the agreement. So the right to strike is still there over everything else. the last time the UAW struck over wage and benefits was in 1976! So even if there was the slight chance Ford would take this too far the contract is clear on what would be arbitrated and we still have other means to stike them. This is where I start wondering about the unpublished letters, or whatever they are called. It says clearly that we can't strike for "improvements", that seems spelled out well, but what about them taking away from us, can we strike then? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theunionisforever Posted October 14, 2009 Share Posted October 14, 2009 brilliant, you got it right, if we are doing some much better and we say we deserve a raise and the company agrees with us, then we get one. If they do not agree with that then we arbitrate it. That is exactly correct. You are exactly correct on that assuption. I will not debate that! Just to be clear though we will not be taking wage cuts as a result of this language as some others are refering too!! I appreciate you taking the time to think that out. You got it dead on. Whether you feel it is right, wrong or indifferent your explanation is correct. I am out gotta feed the animals! THANK YOU! If anyone had any question or doubt about if they should vote no on this agreement you have cleared it up for us. Thanks again! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crombie00 Posted October 14, 2009 Share Posted October 14, 2009 Question: Has the UAW ever surrendered the right to strike, especially on Wage and Benefit issues? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cecilmeyer Posted October 14, 2009 Share Posted October 14, 2009 To be fair, we were going to lose all $.99 of COLA anyway because the cost of living went down. The cost of living is going down?Where?And lastly how do you believe such stupid bullshit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Furious1Auto Posted October 14, 2009 Share Posted October 14, 2009 (edited) This is where I start wondering about the unpublished letters, or whatever they are called. It says clearly that we can't strike for "improvements", that seems spelled out well, but what about them taking away from us, can we strike then? Wouldn't it be an "improvement" to the company if they proposed to reduce your wages? So then you go to arbitration, and then you are forced to accept the decision of the arbitrator. Would the arbitrator not see that you already make more then, not only the domestics, the transplants, and even the 2nd tier within the same company? The arbitrators authority will be limited solely to what the language says. No matter what change their is in compensation whether it goes up or down, it is an improvement to one of the parties negotiating. The language is not specific enough, and you all are under no obligation to negotiate further until the expiration date of the current agreement in 2011! Edited October 14, 2009 by Furious1Auto Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheEagle Posted October 14, 2009 Share Posted October 14, 2009 What was taken from them (retirees), how much more out of pocket cost can they expect? Why is this happening right before UAW takes over with VEBA? Is it because maybe, just maybe UAW wants Ford to be the bad guy, and not have to make cuts themselves next year? Nothing was taken from retirees. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheEagle Posted October 14, 2009 Share Posted October 14, 2009 The cost of living is going down?Where?And lastly how do you believe such stupid bullshit. That isn't bullshit our cola went to zero before they took it away. That is the truth. If you don't like the agreement vote no. But don't lie. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doggday Posted October 14, 2009 Share Posted October 14, 2009 Look the uaw has lawyers read this and make sure we are not signing up to something or misinterpret what is reads. There are many eyes that read this language before signing!! At the table the discussion was never how we would rate to transplants, but how our wage structure would relate to GM/Chrysler. Again Ford didn't want to have a disadvantage of us forcing them into wage and benefit improvements that would put them at a disadvantage going forward. This way if we get Ford to agree to something in 2011 that GM/Chrysler can't and they have to arbitrate, we have the same language and it is fine for us so it will have to be fine for them. Again this is all about patern bargaining. Then answer me this,why over the years did the union have to take so many grievances to arbitration if we had all these lawyers reading our contracts?Maybe we need improvements in the vision program. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain723 Posted October 14, 2009 Share Posted October 14, 2009 Wouldn't it be an "improvement" to the company if they proposed to reduce your wages? So then you go to arbitration, and then you are forced to accept the decision of the arbitrator. Would the arbitrator not see that you already make more then, not only the domestics, the transplants, and even the 2nd tier within the same company? The arbitrators authority will be limited solely to what the language says. No matter what change their is in compensation whether it goes up or down, it is an improvement to one of the parties negotiating. The language is not specific enough, and you all are under no obligation to negotiate further until the expiration date of the current agreement in 2011! Wow, nice spin Furious, but the intent of the language is based on the discussions at the table and all the notes are brought to arbitration!! You are correct on their obligation, but decisions are being made today that effect tomorrow. With Ford owning 31Billion in debt the interest payment alone could pay for 2 new programs. Without money programs are put off and instead of introducing new programs they refresh the old shitty ones. You have to admit the new product coming out looks good. It is better to get it out first instead of last. If they have no money to invest and launch, the program will slip into later time frame or be introduced in a market, not of our liking. If product slips then we lose market share and the company starts to spiral again. We are on track to keep gaining market share, market share means true job security. Nice to hear from you! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheEagle Posted October 14, 2009 Share Posted October 14, 2009 This is where I start wondering about the unpublished letters, or whatever they are called. It says clearly that we can't strike for "improvements", that seems spelled out well, but what about them taking away from us, can we strike then? Yes. :happy feet: I don't care about getting more in the short term anyway.. I just want to keep what I have. If they bring anything back it should be cola first. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MichiganTruck_Mafia Posted October 14, 2009 Author Share Posted October 14, 2009 That isn't bullshit our cola went to zero before they took it away. That is the truth. If you don't like the agreement vote no. But don't lie. He was talking about the cost of living in general, not the extra pay on our paycheck. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain723 Posted October 14, 2009 Share Posted October 14, 2009 Then answer me this,why over the years did the union have to take so many grievances to arbitration if we had all these lawyers reading our contracts?Maybe we need improvements in the vision program. There will always be disagreements, and that is why both sides like wiggle words in the language. We currently have Vision, I hope the transplants have it also .....just kidding!! Tired and fingers hurt...been gone a while! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spring Posted October 14, 2009 Share Posted October 14, 2009 Then answer me this,why over the years did the union have to take so many grievances to arbitration if we had all these lawyers reading our contracts?Maybe we need improvements in the vision program. Good point! In so far as we lose a large percentage of these arbitration cases, what kind of lawyers are we employing? From the legal services? That would explain a lot! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bowie Posted October 14, 2009 Share Posted October 14, 2009 Dude, you are correct, but read the entire thing, the whole letter is based on improvements, if we do not get a raise or better benefits or more bonuses then there would not be any wage or benefit increases. INCREASES are the only thing they can arbitrate! WOW, pay $50 and take it to a lawyer and see what he has to say. Again the UAW has a labor lawyer on staff that reads all language. If those UAW labor lawyers are so great how did Ford get away with screwing LAP so bad?Hell,in this concession Ford admits they screwed LAP.They are offering to give them additional sub pay as a peace offering.Ford and most of the UAW will tell us whatever is necessary to get this passed.Ask the people that are on ILO at LAP! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Furious1Auto Posted October 14, 2009 Share Posted October 14, 2009 Wow, nice spin Furious, but the intent of the language is based on the discussions at the table and all the notes are brought to arbitration!!You are correct on their obligation, but decisions are being made today that effect tomorrow. With Ford owning 31Billion in debt the interest payment alone could pay for 2 new programs. Without money programs are put off and instead of introducing new programs they refresh the old shitty ones. You have to admit the new product coming out looks good. It is better to get it out first instead of last. If they have no money to invest and launch, the program will slip into later time frame or be introduced in a market, not of our liking. If product slips then we lose market share and the company starts to spiral again. We are on track to keep gaining market share, market share means true job security. Nice to hear from you! Problems Cap, problems, you should know if I have any bias at this point it is in favor of the little guy, the hourly worker. The language can be interpreted in favor of either party, but the question is who will an arbitrator side with. They would have to look at the intent within the same provision, which in my mind the word competitive means that they would conclude with the entity bearing the lowest cost base making the company competitive within it's industry. Not allowing higher wages within the same scope to the hourly employees. So what will your notes mean to the arbitrator? Will they even look at them, will they even be obligated too. Knowing how other companies use arbitration, and through past practice of all of the cases I know to be arbitrated, they draw the intent of the language from the provisions their selves, and not side notes from either party. Not saying you would, but what is to keep either party from fabricating notes if the arbitrator was to admit them into their decisions? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain723 Posted October 14, 2009 Share Posted October 14, 2009 If those UAW labor lawyers are so great how did Ford get away with screwing LAP so bad?Hell,in this concession Ford admits they screwed LAP.They are offering to give them additional sub pay as a peace offering.Ford and most of the UAW will tell us whatever is necessary to get this passed.Ask the people that are on ILO at LAP! As a fking peace offering...are you kidding me, they just gave it to you out of the kindness of their hearts. There will always be disagreements and there is one of them here. There are alot of people getting ready to use up their Sub weeks and Tap, so how is it they just give you peace offererings? You won't get shit if this doesn't pass, as a matter of fact if this program gets delayed you will know exactly how those getting ready to use up SUB and TAP feel. Sorry, I am a little passionate about this because I know of others who are not getting that opportunity! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheEagle Posted October 14, 2009 Share Posted October 14, 2009 He was talking about the cost of living in general, not the extra pay on our paycheck. oh sorry. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain723 Posted October 15, 2009 Share Posted October 15, 2009 Problems Cap, problems, you should know if I have any bias at this point it is in favor of the little guy, the hourly worker. The language can be interpreted in favor of either party, but the question is who will an arbitrator side with. They would have to look at the intent within the same provision, which in my mind the word competitive means that they would conclude with the entity bearing the lowest cost base making the company competitive within it's industry. Not allowing higher wages within the same scope to the hourly employees. So what will your notes mean to the arbitrator? Will they even look at them, will they even be obligated too. Knowing how other companies use arbitration, and through past practice of all of the cases I know to be arbitrated, they draw the intent of the language from the provisions their selves, and not side notes from either party. Not saying you would, but what is to keep either party from fabricating notes if the arbitrator was to admit them into their decisions? LOL....you are staarting to get me wondering about you.....even if your scenario would play out (strongly do not agree) we can still strike them. So in the event that they are finally making money, we have all the great products the economy is turning the corner, they will be in no position to get struck. We still maintain the right to strike over all other issues. So indirectly we could strike them over another issue...either way they could not afford it. Again the discussion around this language was getting out of control to GM/Chrylser. Ford knows there is a chance they will be in a better position than the other 2 companies and if we go first the company fears we could ask for wage and benefit improvements that would be uncompetitive with GM/Chrysler. I know no other way to convince you of this except telling you. Be assured we did not give up the right to strike over other issues. So if there is a concern we still have the right to strike!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stugots Posted October 15, 2009 Share Posted October 15, 2009 Then why does it say we won't use a strike over issues not related to wages and benefits while arbitration is ongoing? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain723 Posted October 15, 2009 Share Posted October 15, 2009 Then why does it say we won't use a strike over issues not related to wages and benefits while arbitration is ongoing? Dude, even if we get all the other issues resolved any plant in the system can file a Art7 Sec 23 (favorite article)Health and Safety, a strikable issue. That would not be related to anything other than Health and Safety! :shades: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stugots Posted October 15, 2009 Share Posted October 15, 2009 And Ford will ensure no such strike is possible with a new enthusiasm for our health and safety. It clearly states in the mod that we can't strike period if arbitration is ongoing. So Ford cries poor and sends us to arbitration. During which time Ford decides it is taking some other things from us. We will not be able to strike over ANY issue while arbitration is ongoing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lquidspine Posted October 15, 2009 Share Posted October 15, 2009 brilliant, you got it right, if we are doing some much better and we say we deserve a raise and the company agrees with us, then we get one. If they do not agree with that then we arbitrate it. That is exactly correct. You are exactly correct on that assuption. I will not debate that! Just to be clear though we will not be taking wage cuts as a result of this language as some others are refering too!! I appreciate you taking the time to think that out. You got it dead on. Whether you feel it is right, wrong or indifferent your explanation is correct. I am out gotta feed the animals! This works with with trying to gain back any concessions that we have already given up. Example if Ford is doing better in 2011 and making good profits again we have no option to try and win back things like performance bonuses that where in lieu of pay raises, COLA, Christmas bonuses. Anything above what has been modified and we go to arbitration...no thanks fine where I am at. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lquidspine Posted October 15, 2009 Share Posted October 15, 2009 Wow, nice spin Furious, but the intent of the language is based on the discussions at the table and all the notes are brought to arbitration!!You are correct on their obligation, but decisions are being made today that effect tomorrow. With Ford owning 31Billion in debt the interest payment alone could pay for 2 new programs. Without money programs are put off and instead of introducing new programs they refresh the old shitty ones. You have to admit the new product coming out looks good. It is better to get it out first instead of last. If they have no money to invest and launch, the program will slip into later time frame or be introduced in a market, not of our liking. If product slips then we lose market share and the company starts to spiral again. We are on track to keep gaining market share, market share means true job security. Nice to hear from you! NONE of the language reduces immediate cost besides the entry level language, unless they are opening a few new plants no one is aware of how will this directly reduce Ford's debt....besides I would have sworn it was listed at 26 billion in outstanding debt, at least from the town-hall meetings anyway. 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.