Harpo Posted November 1, 2009 Share Posted November 1, 2009 Voting no on the contract may have been a mistake for KCAP. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikem12 Posted November 1, 2009 Share Posted November 1, 2009 Voting no on the contract may have been a mistake for KCAP. well then i guess they will have lots of company by the looks of the vote tally. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harpo Posted November 1, 2009 Author Share Posted November 1, 2009 well then i guess they will have lots of company by the looks of the vote tally. Well, I'm not saying that every plant that voted no will be idled. But some, more than others, could have used product guarentees. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fordguy61mi Posted November 1, 2009 Share Posted November 1, 2009 If Ford is going to put product somewhere, they will. And if they're going to move it, they will. It will have nothing to do with this failed agreement. They do what's they think will be profitable for them, and for no other reason. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tompor1 Posted November 1, 2009 Share Posted November 1, 2009 Well, I'm not saying that every plant that voted no will be idled. But some, more than others, could have used product guarentees. Where did you read the word guarentee??????????? We had commitments before, they didn't deliver, now we believe they will deliver? I got this bridge I'd like to sell you...................... :shades: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MichiganTruck_Mafia Posted November 1, 2009 Share Posted November 1, 2009 Well, I'm not saying that every plant that voted no will be idled. But some, more than others, could have used product guarentees. The proposed contract modification did not contain the word "guarantee". Take your scare tactics elsewhere. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pioneer Posted November 1, 2009 Share Posted November 1, 2009 If Ford is going to put product somewhere, they will. And if they're going to move it, they will. It will have nothing to do with this failed agreement. They do what's they think will be profitable for them, and for no other reason. Very good post. You hit it right on the head. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain723 Posted November 1, 2009 Share Posted November 1, 2009 Voting no on the contract may have been a mistake for KCAP. Hey dumbass, get back under your desk..... Ford has always left capacity for 5 shifts of F150 volume. KC is not going anywhere so stop starting dumbass rumors! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheEagle Posted November 2, 2009 Share Posted November 2, 2009 Hey dumbass, get back under your desk..... Ford has always left capacity for 5 shifts of F150 volume. KC is not going anywhere so stop starting dumbass rumors! Yeah, I agree Capt. We don't need the rumors we have enough stress! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FiredMotorCompany Posted November 2, 2009 Share Posted November 2, 2009 I've been considering a few aspects of the OctoMod. Ford came to the UAW for these modifications. So they offered $3 Billion in investment guarantees to get us to limit our strike rights. Now that it failed, Bob King says he does not expect Ford to try again. WHAT???????????? Bob King suggested Alan Mullaly had painted himself into a corner with the Board of Directors by saying he would get the same concessions as GM and Chrysler. So Alan had to go through the motions. Could Ford and I-UAW have negotiated a modification they NEVER expected to pass? Could they have structured the language to stink so much, to tread sacred ground and yet not fundamentally give Ford anything concrete, no tangible financial advantages nor give us anything much beyond re-affirmations? If Ford needed more help from us, and this didn't give it to them, they would try again. Otherwise, does this give them Public Relations points to outsource work that they always intended to implement, but now they can claim it happened since the membership turned down their MODEST requests? Could the I-UAW have partnered with them to save face by agreeing to push this. Bob King himself described how Ford wasn't getting anything, yet we were getting new investments. Ford has never negotiated to get so little solid numerical advantages. Have you noticed the sloppy language used here? Go look at all previous contracts and those areas that really matter are spelled out very clearly. Does anybody else smell rotting fish? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pioneer Posted November 2, 2009 Share Posted November 2, 2009 Ford came to the UAW for these modifications. So they offered $3 Billion in investment guarantees to get us to limit our strike rights. I saw no product guarantees. I saw promises of thinking about looking at putting more product into Ford plants. The only guarantees were for ACH plants. I think if there were rock-solid guarantees of product for plants that the vote would have passed. With Ford having to hire 9,000+ people to make the wage freezes for new hires be effective, and the right for us to strike if they cut our wages, there would be no downside. At least in my view. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FiredMotorCompany Posted November 2, 2009 Share Posted November 2, 2009 I saw no product guarantees. I saw promises of thinking about looking at putting more product into Ford plants. The only guarantees were for ACH plants. I think if there were rock-solid guarantees of product for plants that the vote would have passed. With Ford having to hire 9,000+ people to make the wage freezes for new hires be effective, and the right for us to strike if they cut our wages, there would be no downside. At least in my view. Technically I stand corrected, they were more like ASSurances. They didn't want or expect it to pass. The point I wanted to make was, "Is this a cover for outsourcing and deny-ability for the UAW and Ford that they tried to avoid the action." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonka289 Posted November 2, 2009 Share Posted November 2, 2009 If Ford is going to put product somewhere, they will. And if they're going to move it, they will. It will have nothing to do with this failed agreement. They do what's they think will be profitable for them, and for no other reason. The one thing Ford Motor Company will always do, is what they want. He's right, Ford will always do what they want and when they want, so the best thing we can do as a Union, is Stand United. United we stand and divided we fall. I'm new to this Forum and one thing I see a lot in the postings is people bashing one another. But is sounds like their are a lot of people who would like to be company people and are not. One things for sure if we continue to keep giving in, the company is going to get what they want. And if we fight to very end and the company takes it all from us at least we can say we went down fighting. I know what it's like to have hardship, I've been dealing with it for 6 months now, my spouse lost her job after 22 yrs. and The Company told them they made the best product of all 4 facilities, but still closed it and sent it over seas to Belgium. No warning at all, it wasn't like the writing was on the wall. Just a big shock to everyone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CandyCane Posted November 2, 2009 Share Posted November 2, 2009 I saw no product guarantees. I saw promises of thinking about looking at putting more product into Ford plants. The only guarantees were for ACH plants. I think if there were rock-solid guarantees of product for plants that the vote would have passed. With Ford having to hire 9,000+ people to make the wage freezes for new hires be effective, and the right for us to strike if they cut our wages, there would be no downside. At least in my view. We could strike if they tried to CUT our wages,the NO Strike Claus was,you COULD NOT strike for wage improvements only.... No one seemed to understand that part.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pioneer Posted November 2, 2009 Share Posted November 2, 2009 We could strike if they tried to CUT our wages,the NO Strike Claus was,you COULD NOT strike for wage improvements only....No one seemed to understand that part.... I understood it. In fact, you quoted me saying it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UglyElmo Posted November 2, 2009 Share Posted November 2, 2009 (edited) Ford may not have gained much in the short-term with this renegotiation, but it would have set them up for a big savings (at our expense) come the 2015 contract. I believe this renegotiation was trying to set up a massive two-teared wage system. Why? 1. Ford stated it MAY bring several new products to North America. Our plant LAP, was promised a version of the Kuga in 2011. This would mean quite a few added shifts at several plants and a great number (well over the 20%) of new hires making $14.20 an hour. 2. Over the next 6 years, many other older, higher-waged workers would retire or possibly take another buyout (if it was offered). 3. Now you have more hiring of cheaper new hires, thus increasing the percentage of $14.20 an hour workers to an even higher % of the overall voting UAW force. 4. By the time 2015 rolled around, and with it new contract negotiations, we might possibly have a majority of UAW autoworkers making $14.20 an hour. I am sure after working 6 years at the same jobs as us higher-wage workers, working the harder less-senioritied jobs and shifts, and making 1/2 of what we do, these $14.20 an hour employees would be angry (not at Ford, but at us: It always happens that way for some reason. Rather than thinking they should be making as much as we do, people always seem to think we should make less. Odd way of thinking in my opinion). 5. So, even though Ford and our IUAW reps said the 20% rule would go back into effect for the 2015 contract, this was just smoke and mirrors to placate us into voting "yes" for this past contract. This 20% rule is not set in stone, it was negotiated in a previous contract and could just as easily be given away during the 2015 contract negotiations. More playing with words, using the same tactics our Congressional leaders use to make something sound "like a promise set in stone" when actually they already have figured out a political way of wiggling out of said "promises". 6. Now here we are at the 2015 contract negotiations: Our IUAW reps and Ford tell the majority $14.20 an hour workers (who are tired of working for less than the minority higher-waged workers), that IUAW/FORD feels their pain. They would then use the "Same pay for same work" mantra they abandoned the past 10 years, to convince the $14.20 an hour workers to accept a small pay increase (3% seems to be popular) if they allow Ford to lower the higher-waged employees wages to the new "standard". If this didn't pass then they would offer maybe the return of COLA, etc. . . etc . . until they were finally able to convince them to vote "yes". Now, Ford has a nice new standard of $14.20 an hour from which to hire, instead of the old standard. 7. Given the current value of the $, and an ever-increasing cost for gasoline, natural gas, and everything else in between, you will have an entire Ford workforce making close to poverty-level wages. So much for the blue-collar middle class. Lastly, if Ford managed to equal or do better than Toyota's wage/benefits packages, then Toyota would reduce their employees pay by even more. Then Ford would once again begin negotiating to reduce their labor costs to even lower levels. As stated before. I would rather make a stand now and find myself out of work, rather than find myself out of work at age 55 (what I will be in 2015), or making 1/2 the money and having no rights, with a union which now represents only the working poor. Though I am sure our IUAW leaders are "ok" with that since the increased number of working poor, would probably pay close to what the IUAW currently makes from us higher waged employees. Not a very bright future for 1,000's of us if we let this last contract pass. I would just hope everyone who labeled us as greedy and uneducated would be happy. Especially once they found out the price of auto's weren't reduced, but increased even more, and the local economies (where our plants are located) find themselves in dire need of tax monies to help pay for the increases in healthcare assistance, foodstamps, and other things which our higher salaries helped pay for in past years. I lot of people have forgotten what happens to us, eventually happens to them, unless they are among the top executives at a large corporation, a politician, or one of our elite corporate IUAW leaders. Edited November 2, 2009 by UglyElmo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheEagle Posted November 2, 2009 Share Posted November 2, 2009 I've been considering a few aspects of the OctoMod. Ford came to the UAW for these modifications. So they offered $3 Billion in investment guarantees to get us to limit our strike rights. Now that it failed, Bob King says he does not expect Ford to try again. WHAT???????????? Bob King suggested Alan Mullaly had painted himself into a corner with the Board of Directors by saying he would get the same concessions as GM and Chrysler. So Alan had to go through the motions. Could Ford and I-UAW have negotiated a modification they NEVER expected to pass? Could they have structured the language to stink so much, to tread sacred ground and yet not fundamentally give Ford anything concrete, no tangible financial advantages nor give us anything much beyond re-affirmations? If Ford needed more help from us, and this didn't give it to them, they would try again. Otherwise, does this give them Public Relations points to outsource work that they always intended to implement, but now they can claim it happened since the membership turned down their MODEST requests? Could the I-UAW have partnered with them to save face by agreeing to push this. Bob King himself described how Ford wasn't getting anything, yet we were getting new investments. Ford has never negotiated to get so little solid numerical advantages. Have you noticed the sloppy language used here? Go look at all previous contracts and those areas that really matter are spelled out very clearly. Does anybody else smell rotting fish? I sure do smell rotting fish....it's coming from in between your ears!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stephenhawkings Posted November 2, 2009 Share Posted November 2, 2009 Voting no on the contract may have been a mistake for KCAP. Kcap will probably lose the Fseries now Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kel25 Posted November 2, 2009 Share Posted November 2, 2009 Ford may not have gained much in the short-term with this renegotiation, but it would have set them up for a big savings (at our expense) come the 2015 contract. I believe this renegotiation was trying to set up a massive two-teared wage system. Why? 1. Ford stated it MAY bring several new products to North America. Our plant LAP, was promised a version of the Kuga in 2011. This would mean quite a few added shifts at several plants and a great number (well over the 20%) of new hires making $14.20 an hour. 2. Over the next 6 years, many other older, higher-waged workers would retire or possibly take another buyout (if it was offered). 3. Now you have more hiring of cheaper new hires, thus increasing the percentage of $14.20 an hour workers to an even higher % of the overall voting UAW force. 4. By the time 2015 rolled around, and with it new contract negotiations, we might possibly have a majority of UAW autoworkers making $14.20 an hour. I am sure after working 6 years at the same jobs as us higher-wage workers, working the harder less-senioritied jobs and shifts, and making 1/2 of what we do, these $14.20 an hour employees would be angry (not at Ford, but at us: It always happens that way for some reason. Rather than thinking they should be making as much as we do, people always seem to think we should make less. Odd way of thinking in my opinion). 5. So, even though Ford and our IUAW reps said the 20% rule would go back into effect for the 2015 contract, this was just smoke and mirrors to placate us into voting "yes" for this past contract. This 20% rule is not set in stone, it was negotiated in a previous contract and could just as easily be given away during the 2015 contract negotiations. More playing with words, using the same tactics our Congressional leaders use to make something sound "like a promise set in stone" when actually they already have figured out a political way of wiggling out of said "promises". 6. Now here we are at the 2015 contract negotiations: Our IUAW reps and Ford tell the majority $14.20 an hour workers (who are tired of working for less than the minority higher-waged workers), that IUAW/FORD feels their pain. They would then use the "Same pay for same work" mantra they abandoned the past 10 years, to convince the $14.20 an hour workers to accept a small pay increase (3% seems to be popular) if they allow Ford to lower the higher-waged employees wages to the new "standard". If this didn't pass then they would offer maybe the return of COLA, etc. . . etc . . until they were finally able to convince them to vote "yes". Now, Ford has a nice new standard of $14.20 an hour from which to hire, instead of the old standard. 7. Given the current value of the $, and an ever-increasing cost for gasoline, natural gas, and everything else in between, you will have an entire Ford workforce making close to poverty-level wages. So much for the blue-collar middle class. Lastly, if Ford managed to equal or do better than Toyota's wage/benefits packages, then Toyota would reduce their employees pay by even more. Then Ford would once again begin negotiating to reduce their labor costs to even lower levels. As stated before. I would rather make a stand now and find myself out of work, rather than find myself out of work at age 55 (what I will be in 2015), or making 1/2 the money and having no rights, with a union which now represents only the working poor. Though I am sure our IUAW leaders are "ok" with that since the increased number of working poor, would probably pay close to what the IUAW currently makes from us higher waged employees. Not a very bright future for 1,000's of us if we let this last contract pass. I would just hope everyone who labeled us as greedy and uneducated would be happy. Especially once they found out the price of auto's weren't reduced, but increased even more, and the local economies (where our plants are located) find themselves in dire need of tax monies to help pay for the increases in healthcare assistance, foodstamps, and other things which our higher salaries helped pay for in past years. I lot of people have forgotten what happens to us, eventually happens to them, unless they are among the top executives at a large corporation, a politician, or one of our elite corporate IUAW leaders. That is exactly the reason I voted NO cause that is exactly what would have happened. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lapsergio Posted November 2, 2009 Share Posted November 2, 2009 Rumor has it KCAP will be getting a new product while their current products move to LAP (Escape/Mariner) and KTP (F-Series). Ranger maybe? Rumor I heard from an engineer... I see them gettting something with the Ranger...they can't stop selling the small truck. Hopefully, they will finally redesign it once profitability becomes the norm again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FiredMotorCompany Posted November 2, 2009 Share Posted November 2, 2009 I sure do smell rotting fish....it's coming from in between your ears!! ??? I am willing to discuss anything I've said. If you disagree with me, point it out and present your viewpoint. I don't learn anything from comments like the reply you posted. I truly want to dig into the topic and examine the nuances. I don't need to discuss my opinion with those who echo my mindset. There's nothing to learn from them. It's the opposing views that help me make smarter decisions. I may not change my position, but I welcome a civil discourse and give you the opportunity to sway me to your view. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trufflebuns Posted November 2, 2009 Share Posted November 2, 2009 Enough with the hand wringing and buyers remorse about this defeated measure, people. The company isn't in the business of hand slapping. It is in the business to make money. If KCAP, closes or any other location for that matter, it was in the works long before this came up. All this fear mongering will accomplish is a yes vote from the masses when they come at us again with another bullshit concession plan. Stand Your Ground! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Twincam Harley Posted November 2, 2009 Share Posted November 2, 2009 (edited) The 2007 National Agreement had the company committing to new product at KCAP along with a flexible body shop during this agreement. Nothing has changed...and won't. Edited November 2, 2009 by Twincam Harley Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stephenhawkings Posted November 3, 2009 Share Posted November 3, 2009 The 2007 National Agreement had the company committing to new product at KCAP along with a flexible body shop during this agreement. Nothing has changed...and won't. did they build the flexible body shop yet? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Twincam Harley Posted November 3, 2009 Share Posted November 3, 2009 did they build the flexible body shop yet? No. Two years left to do it based on contract. 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.