Fatso Posted October 20, 2009 Share Posted October 20, 2009 nnnnnnnnngggghhhhhh,nnnnnnggggghhhhhh,,,,,nnnnnnngggghhhhh Now aint that a MOTHER-FUCKER! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uaw007 Posted October 21, 2009 Share Posted October 21, 2009 (edited) nnnnnnnnngggghhhhhh,nnnnnnggggghhhhhh,,,,,nnnnnnngggghhhhh Now aint that a MOTHER-FUCKER! What exactly are you trying to say? Edited October 21, 2009 by uaw007 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FiredMotorCompany Posted October 21, 2009 Share Posted October 21, 2009 nnnnnnnnngggghhhhhh,nnnnnnggggghhhhhh,,,,,nnnnnnngggghhhhh Now aint that a MOTHER-FUCKER! What exactly are you trying to say? Sounds like a "Brother or Sister" relishing the pain and misery of a skilled tradesman placed into production and having their pay cut, not for failure to perform their job, but simply because they don't hold sufficient seniority. Funny, I've never heard a tradesman wish for anyone to have their pay cut, let's say, back to Entry Wages! That's standing up for each other (NOT)! I wonder if Fatso had to provide 8 years of work experience to qualify for his pay rate. Or does he have to perform hundreds of different tasks where death or serious injury is too frequently the outcome if even ONE small mistake is made? Or is it sour grapes because he could not pass the Apprenticeship Testing when it was offered? I hope I am mistaken and have simply misread his intent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
allin Posted October 21, 2009 Share Posted October 21, 2009 I thought he was trying to say he dropped his baby bottle and was to fat to pick it up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
takeme back 2blue Posted October 21, 2009 Share Posted October 21, 2009 (edited) What exactly are you trying to say? Sounds like a "Brother or Sister" relishing the pain and misery of a skilled tradesman placed into production and having their pay cut, not for failure to perform their job, but simply because they don't hold sufficient seniority. Funny, I've never heard a tradesman wish for anyone to have their pay cut, let's say, back to Entry Wages! That's standing up for each other (NOT)! I wonder if Fatso had to provide 8 years of work experience to qualify for his pay rate. Or does he have to perform hundreds of different tasks where death or serious injury is too frequently the outcome if even ONE small mistake is made? Or is it sour grapes because he could not pass the Apprenticeship Testing when it was offered? I hope I am mistaken and have simply misread his intent. No pay cut! Skilled trades won't lose their wage rate if busted back to line. Actually they will make more with OT. Edited October 21, 2009 by takeme back 2blue Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SU-FI Posted October 21, 2009 Share Posted October 21, 2009 Or does he have to perform hundreds of different tasks where death or serious injury is too frequently the outcome if even ONE small mistake is made? I didn't know reading the newspaper or drinking a coffee could result in serious injury or death Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fatso Posted October 21, 2009 Author Share Posted October 21, 2009 I was hoping maybe somebody could enlighten me as to the reason the company has for asking for this concession. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fatso Posted October 21, 2009 Author Share Posted October 21, 2009 (edited) Placing Skilled trades on the line has the potential to eliminate jobs.A production job is much different from a skilled trades job and I think the two should remain seperate.Whats your take? Edited October 21, 2009 by Fatso Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fatso Posted October 21, 2009 Author Share Posted October 21, 2009 (edited) What exactly are you trying to say? Sounds like a "Brother or Sister" relishing the pain and misery of a skilled tradesman placed into production and having their pay cut, not for failure to perform their job, but simply because they don't hold sufficient seniority. Funny, I've never heard a tradesman wish for anyone to have their pay cut, let's say, back to Entry Wages! That's standing up for each other (NOT)! I wonder if Fatso had to provide 8 years of work experience to qualify for his pay rate. Or does he have to perform hundreds of different tasks where death or serious injury is too frequently the outcome if even ONE small mistake is made? Or is it sour grapes because he could not pass the Apprenticeship Testing when it was offered? I hope I am mistaken and have simply misread his intent. Yes you did but I was not very clear either.I was going for a laugh.Honestly I wonder how unfair it would be all the way around,,,for the production worker being displaced by the tradesman,,for the tradesman who is not use to working production.Lets face it,,a production job is by and large more difficult duty.I wonder if lower level management will use this loophole to fish for even better kiss-asses,,in other words,,,will it be a punitive assignment?Right off the bat I can see this as a way of eliminating people. Edited October 21, 2009 by Fatso Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meuaw Posted October 21, 2009 Share Posted October 21, 2009 Yes you did but I was not very clear either.I was going for a laugh.Honestly I wonder how unfair it would be all the way around,,,for the production worker being displaced by the tradesman,,for the tradesman who is not use to working production.Lets face it,,a production job is by and large more difficult duty.I wonder if lower level management will use this loophole to fish for even better kiss-asses,,in other words,,,will it be a punitive assignment?Right off the bat I can see this as a way of eliminating people. I just got a laugh. If you think a production job is a more difficult duty, you are a dumb ass. Lets see they allow you about 3 days to learn your job. It takes 8 years to even be considered for mine. Its good to know that now if i get layed off i can have your job. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FiredMotorCompany Posted October 21, 2009 Share Posted October 21, 2009 I didn't know reading the newspaper or drinking a coffee could result in serious injury or death If they are reading the paper it is because the line is running. They have done their job and MAINTAINED the equipment so the product is produced. When these few are not busy, the plant is running and making money. When it is not running the plant is losing money. Now here is a situation I have personally observed. Tradesmen apply their best skill and are so successful that the equipment becomes so reliable the company places tradesmen on the line or ILO because they see the equipment running. The longer it runs, the more convinced they are that they can get away with fewer tradesmen. Imagine the production worker next to you that tries to help you out. He does a few small things to help you. Well, he's shown he can do more work in the time allowed and there is less need for you to be on the line. Eventually, a job is cut. Will it be you or some other lower seniority worker who is doing just what they are supposed to do? Innocent victims of another's actions. Not so funny! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain723 Posted October 21, 2009 Share Posted October 21, 2009 I just got a laugh. If you think a production job is a more difficult duty, you are a dumb ass. Lets see they allow you about 3 days to learn your job. It takes 8 years to even be considered for mine. Its good to know that now if i get layed off i can have your job. I am not sure if he meant more difficult, but it is more labor intensive. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain723 Posted October 21, 2009 Share Posted October 21, 2009 Yes you did but I was not very clear either.I was going for a laugh.Honestly I wonder how unfair it would be all the way around,,,for the production worker being displaced by the tradesman,,for the tradesman who is not use to working production.Lets face it,,a production job is by and large more difficult duty.I wonder if lower level management will use this loophole to fish for even better kiss-asses,,in other words,,,will it be a punitive assignment?Right off the bat I can see this as a way of eliminating people. A tradesperson displacing a production worker would only happen if the tradesperson had production time. So I don't understand how they would be displacing them, they have higher seniority. As far a skilled trades doing production work, I was told the reason why the UAW asked for their rate of pay was because it doesn't give the company any advantage to keeping them in production and hopefully they will utilize our trades on project work instead of production. They can not do Skilled trades work while reduced to production, so the feeling is they will keep them in their trade and keep a production person off the street. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FiredMotorCompany Posted October 21, 2009 Share Posted October 21, 2009 (edited) A tradesperson displacing a production worker would only happen if the tradesperson had production time. So I don't understand how they would be displacing them, they have higher seniority. As far a skilled trades doing production work, I was told the reason why the UAW asked for their rate of pay was because it doesn't give the company any advantage to keeping them in production and hopefully they will utilize our trades on project work instead of production. They can not do Skilled trades work while reduced to production, so the feeling is they will keep them in their trade and keep a production person off the street. When was the last time you read the contract. The March 2009 modifications allows tradesmen to be placed on the line regardless of whether or not they have line time. Do I need to get my book out? You may be referring to the proposed modifications, but this was not changed in the October 2009 proposed modifications so the language from March applies. And it is not a foregone conclusion that any skilled tradesman would hold more seniority than a production worker. Skilled wages for tradesmen working on the line is the ONLY solid wording of any advantage to this latest proposal that I have identified. Edited October 21, 2009 by FiredMotorCompany Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fordguy61mi Posted October 21, 2009 Share Posted October 21, 2009 When was the last time you read the contract. The March 2009 modifications allows tradesmen to be placed on the line regardless of whether or not they have line time. Do I need to get my book out? You may be referring to the proposed modifications, but this was not changed in the October 2009 proposed modifications so the language from March applies. And it is not a foregone conclusion that any skilled tradesman would hold more seniority than a production worker. Skilled wages for tradesmen working on the line is the ONLY solid wording of any advantage to this latest proposal that I have identified. Yeah and I think the only reason the company agreed to that was to make it easier for those trades that get reduced to the line due to "efficiencies" from the proposed mechanical teams to swallow that bitter pill. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maislebandit Posted October 21, 2009 Share Posted October 21, 2009 The skilled trades "mechanical work teams" modifications that Ford desires states that - "Skilled trades efficiencies achieved as a direct result of implementation of mechanical teams will not result in an indefinite layoff (ILO)". I don't think a tradesman going to the line will displace another. If it does happen I feel there is a legitimate bitch. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain723 Posted October 21, 2009 Share Posted October 21, 2009 When was the last time you read the contract. The March 2009 modifications allows tradesmen to be placed on the line regardless of whether or not they have line time. Do I need to get my book out? You may be referring to the proposed modifications, but this was not changed in the October 2009 proposed modifications so the language from March applies. And it is not a foregone conclusion that any skilled tradesman would hold more seniority than a production worker. Skilled wages for tradesmen working on the line is the ONLY solid wording of any advantage to this latest proposal that I have identified. I actually did read a contract once, and those trades who didn't have production will not be bumping any production workers of a job. They will have to take day one seniority into production. That is all I was saying. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fordxer Posted October 21, 2009 Share Posted October 21, 2009 A tradesperson displacing a production worker would only happen if the tradesperson had production time. So I don't understand how they would be displacing them, they have higher seniority. As far a skilled trades doing production work, I was told the reason why the UAW asked for their rate of pay was because it doesn't give the company any advantage to keeping them in production and hopefully they will utilize our trades on project work instead of production. They can not do Skilled trades work while reduced to production, so the feeling is they will keep them in their trade and keep a production person off the street. Maybe I am wrong, but doesn't there have to be an opening for the Trades to go to the line? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whereswaldo Posted October 21, 2009 Share Posted October 21, 2009 The skilled trades "mechanical work teams" modifications that Ford desires states that - "Skilled trades efficiencies achieved as a direct result of implementation of mechanical teams will not result in an indefinite layoff (ILO)". I don't think a tradesman going to the line will displace another. If it does happen I feel there is a legitimate bitch. This is not necessarily true. If a trade gets reduced to the line, they will argue that he/she is not ILO...they have a job(with trade pay). It may be splitting hairs but dont be too confident it wont happen. Page 25 of the letters also addresses trades staffing levels and says Fords' are not at competitive levels presently and if actions do not address this , the issue will be revisited in 2011. Ex: if before implementing work groups, Ford decides to RIF trades due to being over on the RTO(required to operate) #'s , then whether trades are on the street or on the line....the reduction was not a "direct result of implementation of mech.teams...." and therefore their (UAW/Ford) asses are covered. In the letters it also mentions that IF Ford does lay off trades,locals will discuss ways to keep it to a minimum. Hmmmmmmmmmmm....................... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maislebandit Posted October 21, 2009 Share Posted October 21, 2009 This is not necessarily true. If a trade gets reduced to the line, they will argue that he/she is not ILO...they have a job(with trade pay). It may be splitting hairs but dont be too confident it wont happen. Page 25 of the letters also addresses trades staffing levels and says Fords' are not at competitive levels presently and if actions do not address this , the issue will be revisited in 2011. Ex: if before implementing work groups, Ford decides to RIF trades due to being over on the RTO(required to operate) #'s , then whether trades are on the street or on the line....the reduction was not a "direct result of implementation of mech.teams...." and therefore their (UAW/Ford) asses are covered. In the letters it also mentions that IF Ford does lay off trades,locals will discuss ways to keep it to a minimum. Hmmmmmmmmmmm....................... I do see your point. The language you are referencing to however, is already in place. They could do what you described right now. If the teams are implemented any time soon, it could give the union some ammo to fight ILO, maybe? Seems a bit conflicting if you ask me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheEagle Posted October 21, 2009 Share Posted October 21, 2009 I do see your point. The language you are referencing to however, is already in place. They could do what you described right now. If the teams are implemented any time soon, it could give the union some ammo to fight ILO, maybe? Seems a bit conflicting if you ask me. That is what I understand also. For all the fuss, I just don't see what the big giveback is. Other than what we already gave up! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whereswaldo Posted October 21, 2009 Share Posted October 21, 2009 I do see your point. The language you are referencing to however, is already in place. They could do what you described right now. If the teams are implemented any time soon, it could give the union some ammo to fight ILO, maybe? Seems a bit conflicting if you ask me. Even if the language is in place now there is one big item standing in their way... Lines of Demarcation. These work groups will have absolutely none. And if a plants RTO's are over the limit, these groups without demarcation will allow the laying off of trades from their tools. Now every plants' trade mix is different. At SRP we are "reportedly" running pretty thin. I've been told by our trade rep today that we may be over RTO by one and thats an Electrician. However 3 MW must be missing on dayshift b-4 only one is covered (We only have 6 MW on days). That being said at SRP I can see those 2-3 MW being on the line at some point with the Mech. Work Groups. The EL is a temp. As far as following seniority, at SRP we have only 2 welders. (3rd one is our Trade Rep). Looking at all the trade seniority, its possible for all 2(or 3) to be reduced to the line. Personally I dont see that happening as I'm pretty sure the powers that be will keep 1 or both to maintain that core skill but at the expense of sending a 10 or 15 yr PF,MW,MR, etc. to the line. Anyway if this passes I just hope we are the group that implements this last. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wixom22 Posted October 21, 2009 Share Posted October 21, 2009 That is what I understand also. For all the fuss, I just don't see what the big giveback is. Other than what we already gave up! That's funny you didn't think it was a big deal last time either. Well I guess maybe the next time you will get it . And don't dream of every getting off the line to a better job, they wern't that big of a deal when you gave them away. No strike clause is a union busting move wake up! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MichiganTruck_Mafia Posted October 21, 2009 Share Posted October 21, 2009 That is what I understand also. For all the fuss, I just don't see what the big giveback is. Other than what we already gave up! If we're not being asked to give anything more up, why is the company asking for yet another modification? Oh yeah, because we didn't give up the right to strike last time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FiredMotorCompany Posted October 21, 2009 Share Posted October 21, 2009 (edited) I actually did read a contract once, and those trades who didn't have production will not be bumping any production workers of a job. They will have to take day one seniority into production. That is all I was saying. Could you point me to the language stating a tradesman hired off the street on 2/1/1990 for example, will have day one seniority on the line? Or does he/she have 2/1/1990 production seniority even though he/she is on a production job? Edited October 22, 2009 by FiredMotorCompany 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.