mrballsonya Posted October 30, 2009 Share Posted October 30, 2009 (edited) I think one of the things that disappointed me the most about this contract revision, was the audacity of both Ford and The IUAW to present us with such ambiguous contractual language. I guess it shouldn't really surprise me, given the utter worthlessness of our previous "Contracts". But when reading the highlights, I'm given the distinct impression that the IUAW leadership must simply be pocketing all the "lawyer money" for themselves. Any first year law student would heartily laugh at the supposed product and job "guarantees" in this proposed amendment. How many times have you ever signed a contract with a bank, where you agreed to give them easily definable, fixed monthly payments and in return they only agreed to "discuss" the possibility of giving you a car or a home... maybe it'll be a Yugo maybe it'll be Ferrari.... maybe we'll give it to you... maybe we won't. This scenario has never happened because it's totally absurd. The word "discussions" should never be used in any contract highlights. The word "discussion" holds about as much contractual value as a product guarantee from the likes of your "cousin Larry", who's a cleaner that knows someone down at the glass house. If Ford really wants us to grant more concessions to the contract that they agreed upon just 2 years ago, the very same one that we already renegotiated once. They really need to stop treating us all like adversarial, 6th grade dropouts and respect the fact that we want actual product and job guarantees and not empty promises to "discuss things", and loophole riddled contract language. The line between Ford upper management and our IUAW leadership has now become as thin as our job security. It's becoming very difficult to justify paying Union dues to people that allow the Company to run roughshod over them. I realize we are in a global economy in which manufacturing companies are leaving the US as fast they can, and it is a daunting task for our IUAW officials to just keep the jobs we have, but at some point they need to take a stand and resolutely say "enough is enough". With regards to this proposed amendment, I'll use the same answer as Alan Mulally used at the Big 3 congressional hearings.... when asked if he'd take a pay cut if federal aid was given to Ford Motor Co.... Mulally eloquently stated "No thanks, I'm fine where I'm at". I think the IUAW and Ford both need to take a good hard look at why this deal failed in such spectacular fashion. Maybe after some serious soul searching, a hint of research and some actual feedback from their constituents, then maybe they'll come up with a real proposal. Edited October 31, 2009 by mrballsonya Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TBodette68 Posted October 30, 2009 Share Posted October 30, 2009 I think the IUAW and Ford both need to take a good hard look at why this deal failed in such spectacular fashion. Maybe after some serious soul searching, a hint of research and some actual feedback from their constituents, then maybe they'll come up with a real proposal. You hit the nail on the head...GREAT POST..Thanks Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skeptic Posted October 30, 2009 Share Posted October 30, 2009 (edited) I think one of the things that disappointed me the most about this contract revision, was the audacity of both Ford and The IUAW to present us with such ambiguous contractual language. I guess it shouldn't really surprise me, given the utter worthlessness of our previous "Contracts". But in reading the highlights, I'm given the distinct impression that the IUAW must simply be pocketing all the "lawyer money" for themselves. Any first year law student would heartily laugh at the supposed product and job "guarantees" in this proposed amendment. How many times have you ever signed a contract with a bank, where you agreed to give them easily definable, fixed monthly payments and in return they only agreed to "discuss" the possibility of giving you a car or a home... maybe it'll be a yugo maybe it'll be Ferrari.... maybe we'll give it to you... maybe we won't. This scenario has never happened because it's totally absurd. The word "discussions" should never be used in any contract highlights. The word "discussion" holds about as much contractual value as hearing rumors from the likes of your cousin Larry, who's a cleaner down at the glass house. If Ford really wants us to grant more concessions to the contract that they agreed upon just 2 years ago, the very same one that we already renegotiated once. They really need to stop treating us all like adversarial, 6th grade dropouts and respect the fact that we want actual product and job guarantees and not empty promises to "discuss things", and loophole riddled contract language. The line between Ford upper management and our IUAW leadership has now become as thin as our job security. It's becoming very difficult to justify paying Union dues to people that allow the Company to run roughshod over them. I realize we are in a global economy in which manufacturing companies are leaving the US as fast they can, and it is a daunting task for our IUAW officials to just keep the jobs we have, but at some point they need to take a stand and resolutely say "enough is enough". With regards to this proposed amendment, I'll use the same answer as Alan Mulally used at the Big 3 congressional hearings.... when asked if he'd take a pay cut if federal aid was given to Ford Motor Co.... Mulally eloquently stated "No thanks, I'm fine where I'm at". I think the IUAW and Ford both need to take a good hard look at why this deal failed in such spectacular fashion. Maybe after some serious soul searching, a hint of research and some actual feedback from their constituents, then maybe they'll come up with a real proposal. I beleive Mulally's eloquently stated words "No thanks, I'm fine where I'm at".were the rallying cry for defeating this absurd concession package.They will live on in history with these immortal battle cries Remember The River Raisin,Remember the Alamo,Remember the Maine.Remember Pearl Harbor and now No thanks I'm fine where I'm at.Thanks Allen your stirring words rallied the troops to victory. Edited October 30, 2009 by skeptic Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigredogre Posted October 31, 2009 Share Posted October 31, 2009 too true that language is so vague that you could not arbitrate it . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
400member Posted October 31, 2009 Share Posted October 31, 2009 too true that language is so vague that you could not arbitrate it . Ahh..but your wrong. There was still the article discussing the compnay runs the business...that was not modified and would be huge reason for an arbitrator to rule against many union actions. we have to take the entire contract into account as we look at any modifications. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigredogre Posted October 31, 2009 Share Posted October 31, 2009 (edited) oopps sorry missed that line, my bad Edited October 31, 2009 by bigredogre Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jerrymaker Posted October 31, 2009 Share Posted October 31, 2009 OK Ford, you want screw us again. why don't you (ford) just fire all of us take your company out of our beloved country and go to china and try to sell your crap over here.... good luck. you screw us your screwed Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrballsonya Posted October 31, 2009 Author Share Posted October 31, 2009 I'm still trying to figure out some way to blame all of this on Wal Mart. Luckily, even if I can't find a link between this debacle and Wal Mart, there are still 100 other reasons to never shop there. B) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maislebandit Posted November 1, 2009 Share Posted November 1, 2009 I think one of the things that disappointed me the most about this contract revision, was the audacity of both Ford and The IUAW to present us with such ambiguous contractual language. I guess it shouldn't really surprise me, given the utter worthlessness of our previous "Contracts". But when reading the highlights, I'm given the distinct impression that the IUAW leadership must simply be pocketing all the "lawyer money" for themselves. Any first year law student would heartily laugh at the supposed product and job "guarantees" in this proposed amendment. How many times have you ever signed a contract with a bank, where you agreed to give them easily definable, fixed monthly payments and in return they only agreed to "discuss" the possibility of giving you a car or a home... maybe it'll be a Yugo maybe it'll be Ferrari.... maybe we'll give it to you... maybe we won't. This scenario has never happened because it's totally absurd. The word "discussions" should never be used in any contract highlights. The word "discussion" holds about as much contractual value as a product guarantee from the likes of your "cousin Larry", who's a cleaner that knows someone down at the glass house. If Ford really wants us to grant more concessions to the contract that they agreed upon just 2 years ago, the very same one that we already renegotiated once. They really need to stop treating us all like adversarial, 6th grade dropouts and respect the fact that we want actual product and job guarantees and not empty promises to "discuss things", and loophole riddled contract language. The line between Ford upper management and our IUAW leadership has now become as thin as our job security. It's becoming very difficult to justify paying Union dues to people that allow the Company to run roughshod over them. I realize we are in a global economy in which manufacturing companies are leaving the US as fast they can, and it is a daunting task for our IUAW officials to just keep the jobs we have, but at some point they need to take a stand and resolutely say "enough is enough". With regards to this proposed amendment, I'll use the same answer as Alan Mulally used at the Big 3 congressional hearings.... when asked if he'd take a pay cut if federal aid was given to Ford Motor Co.... Mulally eloquently stated "No thanks, I'm fine where I'm at". I think the IUAW and Ford both need to take a good hard look at why this deal failed in such spectacular fashion. Maybe after some serious soul searching, a hint of research and some actual feedback from their constituents, then maybe they'll come up with a real proposal. Great post mrballsonya. This thing should never had even been put to a vote to begin with. IUAW had to know this thing would not fly. Perhaps the company wanted to really push the envelope and keep asking to see how far they could go. From their point of view, if we are willing to keep giving, why not keep asking, right? Problem is, if they do feel the need to come back before contract, they will have to come up with something substantial. Because this last one not only left a bad taste in our mouths, it has also brought about a sense of some solidarity and perhaps some hope that we can continue to stick together. Plant to plant and trades to production alike. And one more thing- your first name wouldn't happen to be "hairy", would it? :lol: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain723 Posted November 1, 2009 Share Posted November 1, 2009 I think the IUAW and Ford both need to take a good hard look at why this deal failed in such spectacular fashion. Maybe after some serious soul searching, a hint of research and some actual feedback from their constituents, then maybe they'll come up with a real proposal. You hit the nail on the head...GREAT POST..Thanks Hey tbodette, not going to happen, no other deals. Seen an opportunity to grab something on the move. No new proposals coming! Gone! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain723 Posted November 1, 2009 Share Posted November 1, 2009 I think the IUAW and Ford both need to take a good hard look at why this deal failed in such spectacular fashion. Maybe after some serious soul searching, a hint of research and some actual feedback from their constituents, then maybe they'll come up with a real proposal. You hit the nail on the head...GREAT POST..Thanks Hey tbodette, not going to happen, no other deals. Seen an opportunity to grab something on the move. No new proposals coming! Gone! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrballsonya Posted November 1, 2009 Author Share Posted November 1, 2009 And one more thing- your first name wouldn't happen to be "hairy", would it? :lol: Yes... how'd you guess? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CourtJester Posted November 1, 2009 Share Posted November 1, 2009 I'm still trying to figure out some way to blame all of this on Wal Mart. Luckily, even if I can't find a link between this debacle and Wal Mart, there are still 100 other reasons to never shop there. B) They set the mantra for importing cheap products- there's a link. We need a new "Buy American" campaign, I don't shop at Walmart unless I have to- which is rare/ 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.