17togo Posted November 5, 2009 Share Posted November 5, 2009 http://scottrlap.proboards.com/index.cgi?b...amp;thread=6851 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FiredMotorCompany Posted November 5, 2009 Share Posted November 5, 2009 (edited) Here's a direct link. Ford meeting informally with UAW on costs Edited November 5, 2009 by FiredMotorCompany Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SU-FI Posted November 5, 2009 Share Posted November 5, 2009 Fields said the UAW agreement would have provided a "relatively small economic benefit" compared to concessions the UAW workers approved in February. love that quote, yet they made the new concessions sound like they were going to save the company. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spring Posted November 5, 2009 Share Posted November 5, 2009 (edited) "Local union officials said a "no strike" clause on wages and benefits rankled workers. UAW President Ron Gettelfinger told the summit on Tuesday that the agreement would have saved Ford about $30 million annually." How did they arrive at this amount? I distinctly recall Bob King stating at our informational meeting on Saturday that these "were not concessions but merely modifications and would not take a single penny out of anyone's pocket". That being the case, how does he think that it's going to save the company this amount of money? And if it HAD saved them this money, what were they going to do? Move it off shore by opening up another foreign plant? Send more product to Mexico, India or China? Would it have saved them more money by putting more of the seniority members out of work thereby allowing the company to hire employees at a lower rate of pay? We've quite a few International reps that come on this site, explain this to me. Or better yet, have Bob give me a call or set up a meeting because I've got a feeling that no matter what the IUAW says, it's just going to raise even more questions! Edited November 5, 2009 by Spring Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony James Posted November 5, 2009 Share Posted November 5, 2009 "Local union officials said a "no strike" clause on wages and benefits rankled workers. UAW President Ron Gettelfinger told the summit on Tuesday that the agreement would have saved Ford about $30 million annually." How did they arrive at this amount? I distinctly recall Bob King stating at our informational meeting on Saturday that these "were not concessions but merely modifications and would not take a single penny out of anyone's pocket". That being the case, how does he think that it's going to save the company this amount of money? And if it HAD saved them this money, what were they going to do? Move it off shore by opening up another foreign plant? Send more product to Mexico, India or China? Would it have saved them more money by putting more of the seniority members out of work thereby allowing the company to hire employees at a lower rate of pay? We've quite a few International reps that come on this site, explain this to me. Or better yet, have Bob give me a call or set up a meeting because I've got a feeling that no matter what the IUAW says, it's just going to raise even more questions! King's inconsistances illustrate why the workers on the floor need to band together and support proven candidates who will go to the Constitution Convention in order to place motions on the floor for One-Member, One Vote. Then we can get rid of people like King and put in IUAW reps who will be social unionists rather than dealing with the company unionists we have to put up with now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1993Stang Posted November 7, 2009 Share Posted November 7, 2009 "Local union officials said a "no strike" clause on wages and benefits rankled workers. UAW President Ron Gettelfinger told the summit on Tuesday that the agreement would have saved Ford about $30 million annually." How did they arrive at this amount? I distinctly recall Bob King stating at our informational meeting on Saturday that these "were not concessions but merely modifications and would not take a single penny out of anyone's pocket". That being the case, how does he think that it's going to save the company this amount of money? And if it HAD saved them this money, what were they going to do? Move it off shore by opening up another foreign plant? Send more product to Mexico, India or China? Would it have saved them more money by putting more of the seniority members out of work thereby allowing the company to hire employees at a lower rate of pay? We've quite a few International reps that come on this site, explain this to me. Or better yet, have Bob give me a call or set up a meeting because I've got a feeling that no matter what the IUAW says, it's just going to raise even more questions! No I love the quote Mark said in the earlier post on how these concessions were not going to be like last time, making reference to the fact that these concessions by the union were not going to make that much of a dent. Now King on the other hand said it would save the company about 30 million a year. Hmmm, I wondering who was really getting the bonuses in this concession.. if Mark Fields eluded that it was no big deal more or less, but the IUAW seemed to want to go back to the drawing board? If these concessions were not going to affect the membership at all, how are you saving 30 million a year. Consolidations, new people for $14/hr, attrition alone, possible buyouts AGAIN, and all the added savings of the last concession might add up to about 30 million. Sorry no bonuses for you!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spring Posted November 7, 2009 Share Posted November 7, 2009 No I love the quote Mark said in the earlier post on how these concessions were not going to be like last time, making reference to the fact that these concessions by the union were not going to make that much of a dent. Now King on the other hand said it would save the company about 30 million a year. Hmmm, I wondering who was really getting the bonuses in this concession.. if Mark Fields eluded that it was no big deal more or less, but the IUAW seemed to want to go back to the drawing board? If these concessions were not going to affect the membership at all, how are you saving 30 million a year. Consolidations, new people for $14/hr, attrition alone, possible buyouts AGAIN, and all the added savings of the last concession might add up to about 30 million. Sorry no bonuses for you!! Did you read where Bloomberg was reporting that the company would take the arbitration clause off the table and do more to sweeten the pot? I'm telling you, they want that consolidation of the trades and want rid of that 20% cap! Just like my letter in the plant said, the IUAW brought the arbitration clause to the table! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
400member Posted November 7, 2009 Share Posted November 7, 2009 Did you read where Bloomberg was reporting that the company would take the arbitration clause off the table and do more to sweeten the pot? I'm telling you, they want that consolidation of the trades and want rid of that 20% cap! Just like my letter in the plant said, the IUAW brought the arbitration clause to the table! Not wtihout across the board benchmarking!!! From the top down, otherwise Ford isn't taking the same deal as GM and Chrysler. After all, isn't that what they wanted?? The Same Deal!!! If they want the bankruptcy deal, then the deal is all the way to the top. In fact, isn't there a gov't auto czar involved somewhere in the GM and Chrysler deals?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nvsked Posted November 7, 2009 Share Posted November 7, 2009 Did you read where Bloomberg was reporting that the company would take the arbitration clause off the table and do more to sweeten the pot? I'm telling you, they want that consolidation of the trades and want rid of that 20% cap! Just like my letter in the plant said, the IUAW brought the arbitration clause to the table! Bingo! Yahtzee! And, in matters of the skilled trades ONLY skilled trades will decide.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FiredMotorCompany Posted November 7, 2009 Share Posted November 7, 2009 Bingo! Yahtzee! And, in matters of the skilled trades ONLY skilled trades will decide.... But will skilled trades placed on production get to vote as skilled tradesmen, or could the working tradesmen decide to prevent those working production from returning if it was proposed? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tompor1 Posted November 7, 2009 Share Posted November 7, 2009 But will skilled trades placed on production get to vote as skilled tradesmen, or could the working tradesmen decide to prevent those working production from returning if it was proposed? Unlike most on this site skilled people stand together! When we had a skilled worker on production we bugged management constantly for him to be returned to the skilled work force. We would not abandon those that are forced to work production......... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FiredMotorCompany Posted November 7, 2009 Share Posted November 7, 2009 Unlike most on this site skilled people stand together! When we had a skilled worker on production we bugged management constantly for him to be returned to the skilled work force. We would not abandon those that are forced to work production......... During the most recent modification voting, those skilled tradesmen working production could vote as production only. Would/could they be allowed to vote as skilled trades since they hold that classification but are working in production on ballots affecting Skilled Trades? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Atlas Posted November 9, 2009 Share Posted November 9, 2009 During the most recent modification voting, those skilled tradesmen working production could vote as production only. Would/could they be allowed to vote as skilled trades since they hold that classification but are working in production on ballots affecting Skilled Trades? If during the last vote you had to vote with production it would make sence that you would vote with production on all other matters until you rejoin the trades. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CommonSenseAlwaysWorks Posted November 9, 2009 Share Posted November 9, 2009 (edited) Edited November 24, 2009 by CommonSenseAlwaysWorks Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FiredMotorCompany Posted November 9, 2009 Share Posted November 9, 2009 If during the last vote you had to vote with production it would make sence that you would vote with production on all other matters until you rejoin the trades. So those tradesmen working production could not vote on any proposal affecting them or their trades, despite the classification the hold but are not being utilized as that classification? 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.