Bob King Elected UAW President

[MichiganTruck_Mafia]

http://www.freep.com/article/20100616/BUSINESS01/100616023/1322/King-elected-UAW-president

 

:reading:

[FiredMotorCompany]

http://www.freep.com...d-UAW-president

 

:reading:

 

Just a technicality.

There was never any doubt King was going to be "crowned".

 

A month ago I read how delegates were assembling to elect Bob King.

 

From the article linked above:

 

At about 12:50 today, the UAW said Vice President Bob King had received a majority of votes from delegates during a roll call vote to become president at the union's constitutional convention.

King had been challenged by a UAW member who didn't have the endorsement of the 75-year-old union’s leadership in a long-shot bid.

 

The nomination of Gary Walkowicz, a UAW bargaining committeeman, is believed to be the first challenge to a candidate endorsed for president by the UAW's leadership since 1992.

 

King won with 2,115 votes cast in his favor compared with 74.5 for Walkowicz.

 

"Brothers and sisters," said outgoing UAW president Ron Gettelfinger. "Democracy in action."

 

Walkowicz was nominated by Cathy Abney, also a member of UAW Local 600 in Dearborn.

 

“Even when he was nearly alone among the elected and supported leadership, he never wavered on his stance against concessions,” Abney said.

 

 

What happened to the pretense that a vote would actually determine the outcome?

[lquidspine]

Just a technicality.

There was never any doubt King was going to be "crowned".

 

A month ago I read how delegates were assembling to elect Bob King.

 

From the article linked above:

 

At about 12:50 today, the UAW said Vice President Bob King had received a majority of votes from delegates during a roll call vote to become president at the union's constitutional convention.

King had been challenged by a UAW member who didn't have the endorsement of the 75-year-old union’s leadership in a long-shot bid.

 

The nomination of Gary Walkowicz, a UAW bargaining committeeman, is believed to be the first challenge to a candidate endorsed for president by the UAW's leadership since 1992.

 

King won with 2,115 votes cast in his favor compared with 74.5 for Walkowicz.

 

"Brothers and sisters," said outgoing UAW president Ron Gettelfinger. "Democracy in action."

 

Walkowicz was nominated by Cathy Abney, also a member of UAW Local 600 in Dearborn.

 

“Even when he was nearly alone among the elected and supported leadership, he never wavered on his stance against concessions,” Abney said.

 

 

What happened to the pretense that a vote would actually determine the outcome?

Gary ran knowing he was a long shot to win, considering he did not make it known he was going to seek nomination until a week or two ago. I would say that 74.5 votes with little campaigning time was a decent count.

He said it himself he knew he really had no chance to win the position, but he did accomplish what I think he set out to do. That was to bring to light how his membership feels about concessions.

 

On another note yesterday another pay raise got passed, shortly if not right after the decision to not replace or cut another VP spot as well as scaling pay over 6 years for entry level International reps.

 

On to your last sentence Fired , I do not see things changing until the members actually hold their elected delegates responsible for their choices at the convention. If that means that all locals make local motions at their membership meetings before the convention to set in stone how they want their delegates to vote, that would be the only way I can see things (votes ) really counting.

 

One man one vote (meaning all members vote for top leadership spots, instead of delegates) so far has not been put on the floor from the resolutions committee, guess we will find out tomorrow if this proposal will be blocked or not.

[2B Home]

In addition to some of Local 600's delegates -- from DTP, I presume -- what other Local Unions provided Gary the overwhelming support of the nearly 75 votes which fulfilled his message-sending mission on behalf of "The Membership" ?

[1993Stang]

Gary ran knowing he was a long shot to win, considering he did not make it known he was going to seek nomination until a week or two ago. I would say that 74.5 votes with little campaigning time was a decent count.

He said it himself he knew he really had no chance to win the position, but he did accomplish what I think he set out to do. That was to bring to light how his membership feels about concessions.

 

On another note yesterday another pay raise got passed, shortly if not right after the decision to not replace or cut another VP spot as well as scaling pay over 6 years for entry level International reps.

 

On to your last sentence Fired , I do not see things changing until the members actually hold their elected delegates responsible for their choices at the convention. If that means that all locals make local motions at their membership meetings before the convention to set in stone how they want their delegates to vote, that would be the only way I can see things (votes ) really counting.

 

One man one vote (meaning all members vote for top leadership spots, instead of delegates) so far has not been put on the floor from the resolutions committee, guess we will find out tomorrow if this proposal will be blocked or not.

 

Congrats to Gary for the challenge, he kept with his no concessions stance til the end! Unfortunately, the membership does not have a democratic voting right to be allowed to go to the polls to vote for their international reps.

[Pioneer]

"Brothers and sisters," said outgoing UAW president Ron Gettelfinger. "Democracy in action."

 

If it was a true democracy as he says, the general membership should have had a vote.

[1993Stang]

If it was a true democracy as he says, the general membership should have had a vote.

 

So true Pioneer, so true.

[skeptic]

If it was a true democracy as he says, the general membership should have had a vote.

If the the general membership had a vote it would have been a NO vote against King just as the membership voted No against his endorsement of more concessions.This is not a democratic union.

[uawxlt]

If the the general membership had a vote it would have been a NO vote against King just as the membership voted No against his endorsement of more concessions.This is not a democratic union.

you elect your deligates and there suppossed to do what the local membership wants

of course they do what the 100 or so that go to the union meeting want

and uaw does nothing different than the electorial college popular vote does not mean a win

bush lost the vote of the people won the electorial so get involved or stfu

You have Bob now like it or not he needs our support he also needs to hear our voices loud and clear as well as our do nothing local elected officials

get ready for 2011 the free ride of blaming international is over

Bob get ready let The UAW Members Roar

And Thanks Gary :happy feet: keep the revolution going

[1993Stang]

If the the general membership had a vote it would have been a NO vote against King just as the membership voted No against his endorsement of more concessions.This is not a democratic union.

 

Seriously, a quote in the paper of Ron after the vote for Bob King "Democracy in Action" hmmm that is funny, real funny. The paper said Gary was roundly booed. Since when do we boo for a guy who has the membership in his best interest? Why would delegates boo? Because someone tried to come to the plate and give voice to change?? Did you all forget that you voted "No" on the same concessions that the leadership wanted you to swallow just months ago? I'm sorry all of the delegates booing voted "Yes" to concessions because that is exactly what you sheep were told to do.

 

Even if Bob King is the better candidate with education, experience, etc., booing an opponent simply because he wanted to challenge what he felt was right for the membership is just shameful period. Maybe all those who are willing to give up holidays, performance bonuses, tuition reimbursement, strike clauses, wage concessions, retirement benefits, hourly overtime past an 8 hour day, and what Bob King himself said amounted up to $30,000 yearly compensation are o.k. with it. Maybe the full time earners are o.k. with the lower seniority people making half the money. Maybe it is alright to you to have things cut to the hourly retirement people because "hey they are not here anyway', right? Even though retired people worked there a##es of to have what you have today. Your challenger has a "No" to concession stance. Your winner has a "Yes" this is what the company needs stance, and we will work it out and try to get it back later. I'm not sure this was the right way to do things, only time will tell. But I would bet on that most of the stuff that were givebacks are not coming back. Tuition reimbursement is a start but that is only because salaried got it back and people bitched.

[feegsit]

Seriously, a quote in the paper of Ron after the vote for Bob King "Democracy in Action" hmmm that is funny, real funny. The paper said Gary was roundly booed. Since when do we boo for a guy who has the membership in his best interest? Why would delegates boo? Because someone tried to come to the plate and give voice to change?? Did you all forget that you voted "No" on the same concessions that the leadership wanted you to swallow just months ago? I'm sorry all of the delegates booing voted "Yes" to concessions because that is exactly what you sheep were told to do.

 

Even if Bob King is the better candidate with education, experience, etc., booing an opponent simply because he wanted to challenge what he felt was right for the membership is just shameful period. Maybe all those who are willing to give up holidays, performance bonuses, tuition reimbursement, strike clauses, wage concessions, retirement benefits, hourly overtime past an 8 hour day, and what Bob King himself said amounted up to $30,000 yearly compensation are o.k. with it. Maybe the full time earners are o.k. with the lower seniority people making half the money. Maybe it is alright to you to have things cut to the hourly retirement people because "hey they are not here anyway', right? Even though retired people worked there a##es of to have what you have today. Your challenger has a "No" to concession stance. Your winner has a "Yes" this is what the company needs stance, and we will work it out and try to get it back later. I'm not sure this was the right way to do things, only time will tell. But I would bet on that most of the stuff that were givebacks are not coming back. Tuition reimbursement is a start but that is only because salaried got it back and people bitched.

Instead of "LIVING to FIGHT" another day, we should have been FIGHTING to LIVE another day! Lets face it, life as we once knew it, will never be what it once was. All our union forefathers fought for, was all in vain. For this I am truly sorry!

[The_Angry_Millwright]

Seriously, a quote in the paper of Ron after the vote for Bob King "Democracy in Action" hmmm that is funny, real funny. The paper said Gary was roundly booed. Since when do we boo for a guy who has the membership in his best interest? Why would delegates boo? Because someone tried to come to the plate and give voice to change?? Did you all forget that you voted "No" on the same concessions that the leadership wanted you to swallow just months ago? I'm sorry all of the delegates booing voted "Yes" to concessions because that is exactly what you sheep were told to do.

 

Even if Bob King is the better candidate with education, experience, etc., booing an opponent simply because he wanted to challenge what he felt was right for the membership is just shameful period. Maybe all those who are willing to give up holidays, performance bonuses, tuition reimbursement, strike clauses, wage concessions, retirement benefits, hourly overtime past an 8 hour day, and what Bob King himself said amounted up to $30,000 yearly compensation are o.k. with it. Maybe the full time earners are o.k. with the lower seniority people making half the money. Maybe it is alright to you to have things cut to the hourly retirement people because "hey they are not here anyway', right? Even though retired people worked there a##es of to have what you have today. Your challenger has a "No" to concession stance. Your winner has a "Yes" this is what the company needs stance, and we will work it out and try to get it back later. I'm not sure this was the right way to do things, only time will tell. But I would bet on that most of the stuff that were givebacks are not coming back. Tuition reimbursement is a start but that is only because salaried got it back and people bitched.

 

I couldn't agree more.

[uawxlt]

I couldn't agree more.

I Agree but you new we was going to be pregnant with Bob King so get over it and do something Gary did and got booed well its time to show them the membership runs this Union

Bob and the rest better understand that the buck stops here "membership" So many will talk a big game and not follow thru with the shit they talk

Gary was not the right man for the job of President but I thank him for having big enough balls to stand up and say enough maybe it will wake a few up

Ford is making a profit without 14 dollar an hour workers ? new hires will never have a retirement plan Ron and the membership gave that up remember you voted for it 401 K is all they will ever get new international union appointees only get a 401 k

we can get there wages back in par with the regular hourly employees

healthcare didn't change that much for new hires sub is gone for new hires which needs to be reinstated and the temp worker needs to go away full time

well with this i will stop talking shit and i hope all you big talking pussies out there will go to a union meeting or even tell you union reps hey fuck this lets do something

we are uaw :happy feet: lazy illiterate amercans with a big punch

[buster6969]

Gary ran knowing he was a long shot to win, considering he did not make it known he was going to seek nomination until a week or two ago. I would say that 74.5 votes with little campaigning time was a decent count.

He said it himself he knew he really had no chance to win the position, but he did accomplish what I think he set out to do. That was to bring to light how his membership feels about concessions.

 

On another note yesterday another pay raise got passed, shortly if not right after the decision to not replace or cut another VP spot as well as scaling pay over 6 years for entry level International reps.

 

On to your last sentence Fired , I do not see things changing until the members actually hold their elected delegates responsible for their choices at the convention. If that means that all locals make local motions at their membership meetings before the convention to set in stone how they want their delegates to vote, that would be the only way I can see things (votes ) really counting.

 

One man one vote (meaning all members vote for top leadership spots, instead of delegates) so far has not been put on the floor from the resolutions committee, guess we will find out tomorrow if this proposal will be blocked or not.

It wasn't 75 votes, 14 delegates supported him who carried 74.33 votes!

[buster6969]

I couldn't agree more.

All Gary comes to the table with is Vote "no" on concessions and Nick swinging from his nuts. I hope Gary don't buy Nicks shit and runs for Chair, that way he can run DTP with the no concession mentallity, but he better have alternatives and suggestions, not just vote "NO". Welcome to the real world, prove you can run the ship instead of sitting in the passengers seat with a blind driver (nick)!

[lquidspine]

All Gary comes to the table with is Vote "no" on concessions and Nick swinging from his nuts. I hope Gary don't buy Nicks shit and runs for Chair, that way he can run DTP with the no concession mentallity, but he better have alternatives and suggestions, not just vote "NO". Welcome to the real world, prove you can run the ship instead of sitting in the passengers seat with a blind driver (nick)!

Actually if you where there when they where proposing a pay increase after announcing dropping one VP, Gary actually said to tie the leadership raises with rank and file raises. If Our leadership is able to bargain a raise for us then they too would receive a raise, if you think about it it would kind of give more incentive not to always be so willing to cut from rank and file.

 

Oh ya entry level International reps will start at 70% their salary, and scale into their full rate after 6 years. Again not a good example of leading by example in my eyes.

 

It wasn't 75 votes, 14 delegates supported him who carried 74.33 votes!

Ok so round down 74 votes you are so swift Buster you caught me exaggerating, off by two thirds of a vote.

 

Congratulations you win.

[Grim Reaper]

Actually if you where there when they where proposing a pay increase after announcing dropping one VP, Gary actually said to tie the leadership raises with rank and file raises. If Our leadership is able to bargain a raise for us then they too would receive a raise, if you think about it it would kind of give more incentive not to always be so willing to cut from rank and file.

 

Oh ya entry level International reps will start at 70% their salary, and scale into their full rate after 6 years. Again not a good example of leading by example in my eyes.

 

 

 

I was so pissed when I heard about the raises I called the International today. I told the operator I needed to talk to a Rep available and I didnt care who. I got patched thru and asked why they got raises and we got the shaft. I screamed and yelled for 5 minutes before I let him speak. He didnt hang up and he let me vent. Only after I let him talk I didnt realize they took more cuts last year like we did.

 

I cant remember all of the cuts but I do remember 10 unpaid furlough days which equaled a loss of like $ 10,000 per year, loss of yearly performance bonus like we gave up which I believe he said $4,000 per year, cloa gone, loss of Monday after Easter, no Christmas bonus, no profit sharing among a few other cuts I cant recall. In total a yearly pay cut of $16,000. So from what I remember they got a $8,000 pay raise from the convention.

 

 

Even though they got a raise in reality they are still stiffed out of $8,000 per year.

 

So the way I see it they lead by example on cuts beyond what we gave up. They are leading by example to restore wages.

 

I didnt remember the reps name but in the end of the conversation I apoligized for berating him before I had the facts.

Edited June 19, 2010 by Grim Reaper

[Grim Reaper]

 

Ok so round down 74 votes you are so swift Buster you caught me exaggerating, off by two thirds of a vote.

 

Congratulations you win.

 

Spine,

I think what he is saying is that there were 1,300 delegates voting.

 

Only 14 delegates voted for Gary.

 

I commend him for running against great odds but he should have secured more than 14 delegates vote before running.

[lquidspine]

Spine,

I think what he is saying is that there were 1,300 delegates voting.

 

Only 14 delegates voted for Gary.

 

I commend him for running against great odds but he should have secured more than 14 delegates vote before running.

He announced he was running a week before the convention, as a symbolic gesture so it should not be a shocker he received so few votes. what is surprising are the balls the other 11 delegates (those that where not in Gary's plant) have for going against the caucus hell going against the whole convention for the most part.

 

On the pay raise issue IUAW rep can sugar coat it how he wants its a raise period, my last raise was in 2004 so i guess i really do not have much compassion for that argument.

[2B Home]

I asked previously, but got no reply: What Local Unions were represented by the delegates who voted for Gary? Were the delegates exclusively from Ford Locals?

 

Some here wonder why Gary would not be popular among the other delegates at the Convention -- delegates who are not from Ford Locals and delegates who are not from within the Detroit 3?

 

Gary's presidential candidacy demonstrated UAW disunity throughout the mass media -- there is no Solidarity to be found here in the Ford Department.

 

A bargaining committeeman from Bob King's home Local challenging Bob King for all The World to see.

 

Oh, sorry, that's right, Gary did this not for The World, Gary did this for The Membership. Gary did the media interviews for The Membership. Gary got his photo printed in the newspapers and posted on the web sites for The Membership.

 

Well, The Membership's delegates voted -- and they booed.

 

The Membership spans far beyond this Ford section of the UAW. Perhaps The Membership's delegates didn't appreciate that a bargaining committee person from Bob King's Local Union should be the self-avowed no-chance-to-win interrupter of what should have been a Solidarity moment for The Membership.

 

Gary's candidacy cast a stain upon our Ford section of the UAW. Rather than being congratulated, Gary should be shamed. It wasn't courage -- it was harmful stupidity.

 

Think you have problems now? What if Gary had won?

[dividedwebeg]

I asked previously, but got no reply: What Local Unions were represented by the delegates who voted for Gary? Were the delegates exclusively from Ford Locals?

 

Some here wonder why Gary would not be popular among the other delegates at the Convention -- delegates who are not from Ford Locals and delegates who are not from within the Detroit 3?

 

Gary's presidential candidacy demonstrated UAW disunity throughout the mass media -- there is no Solidarity to be found here in the Ford Department.

 

A bargaining committeeman from Bob King's home Local challenging Bob King for all The World to see.

 

Oh, sorry, that's right, Gary did this not for The World, Gary did this for The Membership. Gary did the media interviews for The Membership. Gary got his photo printed in the newspapers and posted on the web sites for The Membership.

 

Well, The Membership's delegates voted -- and they booed.

 

The Membership spans far beyond this Ford section of the UAW. Perhaps The Membership's delegates didn't appreciate that a bargaining committee person from Bob King's Local Union should be the self-avowed no-chance-to-win interrupter of what should have been a Solidarity moment for The Membership.

 

Gary's candidacy cast a stain upon our Ford section of the UAW. Rather than being congratulated, Gary should be shamed. It wasn't courage -- it was harmful stupidity.

 

Think you have problems now? What if Gary had won?

 

 

 

Gary never would have won.

 

He has no resolution to problems that need to be addressed by educated leaders.

 

Even if Gary could personally talk to every Delegate he would have never had a chance.

 

These Delegates themselves are all leaders. They know bullshit when they see it.

 

Gary’s only position was “No Concessions”, which leaves him far short of being a problem solver.

 

The entire membership knows this is what we need. Problem solvers

 

None of us want concessions, not even our leaders.

 

Maybe in four years Gary can put a platform together that deals with problems and not just say no.

 

Then and only then will he be a threat to take the Presidency.

[1993Stang]

He announced he was running a week before the convention, as a symbolic gesture so it should not be a shocker he received so few votes. what is surprising are the balls the other 11 delegates (those that where not in Gary's plant) have for going against the caucus hell going against the whole convention for the most part.

 

On the pay raise issue IUAW rep can sugar coat it how he wants its a raise period, my last raise was in 2004 so i guess i really do not have much compassion for that argument.

 

Spine, you are so right about the raises. No raise since 2004, givebacks gallore. Did Grim forget that every minute past 8 hours was overtime. So now when there is 10 hours 4 days a week it is just 40 hours. Before it was time 1/2 for the 2 extra hours on a day schedule. If you only worked 4 days that is still 8 hours at time and 1/2. Do the math on that and times that by the hourly rate and see how much money the hourly worker is out for the year, plus day after easter, less break-time, X-mas bonus, performance bonus, etc. Also unpaid furlough days. I'd love to know if that was just Fridays off after they all got their 40 hours in Monday-Thursday? You mean having Friday off and not paying OT for the furlough days?

 

2BHome, the delegates booed at Gary and the membership booed at King when he wanted all of you to sign that re-modification to the re-modification (open contract twice) concessions. Again, if you still want to help the company out 2B Home why does the caucus just hand over what the concessions were calling for and call it the day. Disunity, I believe that was already happening when the membership let out a big fat "No" to the last re-modification. What is your bitch now my friend? His name has been spoken in my house as if he is a true union leader. My father worships him. But to boo a guy because he wants no concessions for the membership is just crazy. He has a job to do. Like a lawyer has a job in defending a client who may be guilty or not. His job is in the best interest of who he is representing period. There are recent statements that suggest the U.A.W lead by Bob King now want to fight to represent Toyota Dealerships as a way to recruit new members. O.k., but lets make sure the membership that you have is now represented fully and giveback the givebacks!! New membership looks as though again the I.U.A.W is looking out for themselves and not the current membership, sorry but you don't agree?

[Grim Reaper]

Did Grim forget that every minute past 8 hours was overtime. So now when there is 10 hours 4 days a week it is just 40 hours. Before it was time 1/2 for the 2 extra hours on a day schedule. If you only worked 4 days that is still 8 hours at time and 1/2. Do the math on that and times that by the hourly rate and see how much money the hourly worker is out for the year, plus day after easter (international lost last yearr), less break-time, X-mas bonus (international lost last year), performance bonus (international lost last year), etc. Also unpaid furlough days( international lost 10 days pay last year est loss of $10,000 per year pay cut).

 

 

 

When I called and bitched at this guy I brought up all of these concessions we took. I was looking to straighten this guy out on my displeasure. I threw all of these same questions to him and he responded to each one. He stated that they are paid their salary agreed in the constitution. No overtime. He claimed that he can’t go home until his work is complete most times 12 and 13 hours a day. They have had retirements and did not replace 1 for 1 so they are doing the work of 2 or 3 people. No overtime. They are expected to phone bank on weekends, give strike assistance to unions on strike, attend strikes and strike rallies, and travel on personal time. Work on election committees that support Union labor, no overtime. He claimed the furlough days are at the discretion of the boss. They don’t get to choose furlough days off. These days are taken each month out of their pay.

 

I can’t remember much more about our conversation. I would suggest calling and posting what you find out.

I do remember level posting something about pay. I will search and see if I can find it.

 

Again I think this is a good sign, the international took $16,000 a year concessions last year and got a $8,000 raise. They led by example on concessions and they got a raise from the delegates. 2011 bargaining is next year. Can we expect to get back half of what we gave up?

Edited June 19, 2010 by Grim Reaper

[Grim Reaper]

Gary never would have won.

 

He has no resolution to problems that need to be addressed by educated leaders.

 

Even if Gary could personally talk to every Delegate he would have never had a chance.

 

These Delegates themselves are all leaders. They know bullshit when they see it.

 

Gary’s only position was “No Concessions”, which leaves him far short of being a problem solver.

 

The entire membership knows this is what we need. Problem solvers

 

None of us want concessions, not even our leaders.

 

Maybe in four years Gary can put a platform together that deals with problems and not just say no.

 

Then and only then will he be a threat to take the Presidency.

 

 

Yes, agree

 

Can you imagine having anything less that Gettlefinger or King to get us through the bankruptcies. They saved GM and Chrysler active and retiree pensions as well as healthcare. Problem solvers.... you are absolutely correct. Spot on.

[lquidspine]

Yes, agree

 

Can you imagine having anything less that Gettlefinger or King to get us through the bankruptcies. They saved GM and Chrysler active and retiree pensions as well as healthcare. Problem solvers.... you are absolutely correct. Spot on.

I kind of feel the same Grim, they did solve the problems that past leadership allow to build (retiree health care), they did keep pensions intact through 2 of 3 bankruptcy's.

 

I personally would not want Gary as president even though I agree with him on many issues, however if as a delegate if the majority of the people I went to represent wanted him that is how my vote would have gone.

 

The same should be said to any delegate that voted yes on raises, as a delegate they are elected to voice the opinion of the rank and file. How many delegates do you think will go back to the plants next week and voluntarily tell those they where to represent that that voted yes for a raise at the Con Con ?

 

My guess is very few if any at all , regardless what has been given up I would find it a hard sell to tell the members the leaders got a raise,when less than 9 months ago the leadership was asking for us to give away our right to strike and freezing entry level wages up until 2014.

 

 

I am by no means saying our leaders do not deserve their pay, they do. What they do is a thankless job. But its a job they choose because they cared about something, unfortunately sometimes it seem they care more about self preservation than they care about what the membership wants or what is in their best interest.