VOTE NO ON THE UAW-FORD HEALTH CARE DEAL!

[TruckerMan2003]

And I'm predicting that you're on to something! So we've got 57% from yeehaw. I'm putting my bet in at 63%. Like I told Paul Quick today, our vote isn't going to matter - they've presented us with a fait accompli.

SO WE NEED TO GET THEM THE HELL OUT OF THERE - CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION - MOVE FOR A REFERENDUM VOTE ON THE INTERNATIONAL UNION! MAKE THEM ANSWERABLE TO THE HIGHEST AUTHORITY IN THE UNION - THE MEMBERSHIP!

 

Saying the UAW membership is the highest authority is just propaganda.

 

What a joke and some actually believe this highest authority crap that Ron Gettelfinger pushes.

[Glory_dayzd]

Allen Nielsen Post:

 

VOTE (NO) on UAW International / Ford Health Care Proposal because:

 

#1. It cuts retirees benefits that can ill afford it.

 

#2. Take money from the workers. It only costs us less, 60-70 cents on the dollar, because the rest goes to taxes. Someday we are going to be Retirees and I don’t want the younger workforce looking back and saying screw them.

 

#3. We are indeed a Company Union and our International is doing the Company’s bidding. This grew out of a Joint Funds relationship started in 1982.

 

#4. We are one of the few major unions that the company controls the pension fund. Unlike GM that can take money out of their pension fund to buy whatever, Ford’s pension fund is vested. They cannot borrow from it. They could do like the airlines and many other companies, default on their obligation and let the government take it over. Ford out of the Fortune 500 companies is the most deeply indebted pension fund at $11.5 Billion dollars.

 

Our UAW International Union needs to take control of all UAW Pension Funds, so companies cannot default on or rob the pension funds. This needs to be a resolution submitted to the upcoming UAW National Convention along with Referendum Vote to take our Union back from the Company and also a resolution for the UAW International to be reduced to the same corresponding levels of benefits we have.

 

#5. Our UAW International controlls their multi-million dollar pension funds, mater trusts, should be able to do the same for us. They are invested in Wal-Mart, Wells Fargo, (wonder if they got out of their Delphi stock before it trashed), Tate and Lyle, Nike, and many more non-union scab companies. International has 5 different pensions to draw from and most qualify to draw from all 5. (Was$183.33 per month of service). They have COLA on their pensions since 1976. 1/3 year extra credit for every year of service between 45-60. Full paid medical. Annual re-determination on their pensions and ON and ON. If our Retirees have to give it up, our International should have to give it up.

 

#6. Considering 1/3 and probably up to 1/2 of UAW Staff Council Reps are employed and paid including benefits, out of Joint Funds monies, funded in part by our overtime penalty, our International should have been able to stop the Company and Jac the Knife from putting us in the position we are today.

 

#7. Referendum vote would go a long ways towards getting our UAW International Company Union back to representing us. In a UAW Public Review Board decision, Case No. 787 II. “We cannot ignore the fact the the UAW is now and has been for over 20 years, a one-party institution not in all respects unlike that found in many national governments in which a single political party controls the government, and the officials who formally make and administer the laws pursuant to which the country is governed are selected whooly by the party.†At least while the Communists dictators while were still in power has one candidate-one vote. The UAW membership is still fighting for One person-One Vote. Referendum Vote at the upcoming convention would go a long ways toward taking our union back.

 

#8. The UAW International Union when they first entered into the Jointness back in the early 1980’s was to force the company to address quality and to be competitive in the global marketplace. Then the catch phrase became, the company has a right to run their business.

 

#9. Jac Nassar probably cost Ford 50 Billion dollars if he cost them a penny, with quickie lubes, junkyards, Jaguar (get rid of it, sell it back to Europe, write it off, this would go a long ways towards getting us/Ford back to profitability) and ON and ON. Have been trying to get a book value on Ford Land holdings. Company was 181 Billion in debt not counting the 11.5 Billion Dollar pension fund shortfall. Every time Greenspan raises the interest rate a 1/4 percent, what do you think this does to business. Creates inflation.

 

#10. GM and Ford asked for a level playing field from Congress and were told no favors. I would like to remind Congress, they would not be their today, we would be speaking German if it was not for the assembly lines of Ford and GM during WW II. The Manhattan project would probably never seen completion if it had not been for Ford’s contribution to the Atomic Bomb. They can be voted out of office.

 

#11. UAW International needs to tell Ford they have to do several things before concessions. Get rid of Jaguar. Ford is trying to get rid of excess management, but is still running with ½ to 2/3â€rds more management than the foreign competition. Build cars people want, not what Ford design engineers think people want. And a lot more

Wow, that was a lot of information and one sweet pension... Another issue, and one that has become of concern to pension funds, is exhorbant executive pay levels.

[Jeff James]

I received a phone call last night telling me of some of the details. I was not aware of the hit the retirees were going to take. Can they even vote on this? It would only seem fair that if they're being affected that they should be able to vote as well. Personally, I don't mind giving back since I'm still actively employed if it's going to help protect the retirees. They're the ones that fought the battles to get us to where we are now in the terms of pay and benefits. It would be the very least we could do for them. Many of them are on fixed incomes and this is going to be a hardship to them. Furthermore, if I may be blunt, I'd like to know who the hell has their head up their ass on this one! Who in their right mind is going to take a retirement package when they're going to totally limit their income and have extra insurance expenses added in? Everything they did right with the technology portion of the deal and the education buyout package they totally eradicated with this boner. You had to know they'd find a way to really screw it up. At least the boys are consistent! You know whatever they propose that it's going to be something that's going to screw the membership - active or retired! Are THEIR pensions (the extra one they get for being the International) going to be affected adversely in any way? Somehow I doubt it! That is why I'm calling for a nationwide movement of the UAW to have a referendum vote on our International Executive Board. Then at least we have a say so in who's screwing us over! YEAH, MERRY FRIGGIN CHRISTMAS! Gettelfinger IS the Grinch!

 

With all due respect, (you have always been sympathetic toward me) You should have asked yourself these questions before you volunteered to sing the praises of this agreement in the Detroit Free Press. This agreement sucks, and there is no other way to describe it!!!!!!!!!!

[051071]

I'm voting NO!!! I can't see sticking the retirees with the added expense. Not with them being on a fixed income.

[Antro]

With all due respect, (you have always been sympathetic toward me) You should have asked yourself these questions before you volunteered to sing the praises of this agreement in the Detroit Free Press. This agreement sucks, and there is no other way to describe it!!!!!!!!!!

 

Was Spring s quoted in the Free Press praising this agreement?? I missed that one.

[06StangAwesomecar]

A Counter Proposal: St Louis Rank & File Meeting

 

St Louis rank-and-file autoworkers and retirees gathered Sunday Dec 11, 2005 to discuss the crisis in their industry and union. By consensus, it was decided that the giveback demands of the big auto companies have to be resisted at all costs. In particular, we agreed to push for a “NO†vote on Ford Motor Company’s announced contract re-opening deal with the UAW International Union. We don’t want these concessions. We saw that when General Motors workers voted for them, GM’s “thank you†was the plan for 30,000 new layoffs! We know that Daimler-Chrysler will be next. (And then GM round #2, etc, etc)

 

A counter-proposal was hammered out at the meeting, which finds other sources of revenue: we propose that the UAW membership as a whole take that portion of our dues-money that doesn’t go directly for bargaining, and devote it to the new “slush-fund†that is proposed by the International and the Company. Add to the slush-fund the money called “joint-funds†which come from the company, but are jointly spent by the union and the company on demoralizing projects, which corrupt the union, and pit one worker against the other. These secret joint-funds pay the “clipboarders†and appointees, and are estimated to be as big as our international strike fund, or one billion dollars.

 

St Louis Ford UAW 325 workers are faced with the plant closing, and the company is still not saying anything; we proceed by rumors, and we will be the last to be informed. Read your morning paper to see if you have a job today! No word from the International on exactly what retiree healthcare concessions are being asked for. Why the secrecy? Would it spoil the negotiations? Would it be unfair to members who don’t have a slick Concession-brochure to explain away the bad news? We say vote “NO†on concessions. Don’t get robbed on the way out! Everybody will have to live with diminished healthcare for the rest of our lives, whether we retire, move to another plant, or lose our right to a UAW job. And why would we wish this on future generations of UAW people or other locations?

 

Daimler-Chrysler UAW 110 workers, who had a great turnout at Sundays’ meeting, know that they will be next on the concession hit list, regardless of how healthy the company is right now.

 

The meeting also agreed to form a rank-n-file committee to continue the process of informing us, and to promote democratic decision-making. Please come if more meetings are called! Please get contact information of co-workers! Stay tuned to our website:

[Spring]

With all due respect, (you have always been sympathetic toward me) You should have asked yourself these questions before you volunteered to sing the praises of this agreement in the Detroit Free Press. This agreement sucks, and there is no other way to describe it!!!!!!!!!!

 

 

 

First of all, I was called and asked about the agreement. I said I hadn't read it yet and that didn't have all of the details. The reporter read the highlights and made it sound as if we were taking the hit so the retirees wouldn't be touched at all. I said "I think of it like the veterans fought for our freedom and the retirees fought for our advantages". When asked if I thought it would pass I told the reporter that if his details were correct that it probably would. When asked if I would vote for it I told him that I would if there were no hits to the retirees. I don't apologize for that in any way. I still think the idea of us investing in technology is an interesting one. My only fear is the UAW involvement in it. They're sure to screw it up.

[electr]

TO ALL YOU NO VOTERS WHO USE THE WORDS " WERE GETTING SCREWED". YOU DON'T NO WHAT THE WORD MEANS, BELEIVE ME. tO MANY FORD LIFERS WHO CAME TO FORD RIGHT OUT OF HIGH SCHOOL OR MCDONALDS BECAUSE THEIR DADDY GOT THEM THEIR FIRST FULL TIME JOB AT FORD MOTOR. YOU HAVE LIVED FAT ALL YOUR LIFE AND HAVE NO IDEA. SPEND SOME TIME IN THE "NEW WORLD" AND YOU WILL BE THANKFUL YOU HAVE THIS JOB, CUTS AND ALL. I'VE BEEN THERE, MY JOB AT FORD IS THE BEST DAMN JOB I'VE EVERY HAD AND HOPE TO EVER HAVE. BUT IF THIS COMPANY AND GM GOES DOWN WE WILL HAVE DESERVED ALL WE GET. THE PROBLEM IS TO MANY FORD WORKERS HAVE NEVER WORKED ANYWHERE ELSE AND JUST DON'T NO ANY BETTER.

[Ranger_980]

I'm voting NO because this is the jump off to a mass screwing. Like I said in my last post I'm lucky to have a good paying job, with good benefits, that came through the blood, sweat, and tears of my union brothers and sisters, we all know the auto industry is in trouble,but the contract isn't up yet, now is not the time to re-negotiate. I don't see any good reason to voluntarily screw the men and woman that got me my good paying job with good benefits. Oh and btw I believe Ford has already announced 30,000 of my brothers and sisters will be out in the world real soon, it could even be me or you! I just barely dodged that bullet 2 years ago, but placing 700 people from one plant is alot easier than 30,000 with ten less plants especially after most of what available openings there were got taken during flow-back. And believe me they'll be goin after GEN in 2007, cause what's the point in laying off 30,000 people with pay indefinately.

[Len_A]

I'm under the impression that the contract between the Big Three and the UAW calls for parity, and that impression was reinforced as soon as the GM & UAW deal was announced. Both Ford and Chrysler, though spoke persons, cited the parity provision of the contract, and said they would seek the same concessions. If that's the case, then I don't see much of a choice for the union. The parity provisions of the contract were the exact reason the union was forced in the early 1980's to reopen the contract with Ford & GM after granting concessions to Chrysler.

 

One other thing - the law is not cut-&-dry on retiree medical benefits, and the UAW's attorney's know this. GM wasn't blowing smoke when they threatened to take unilateral action without an agreement with the UAW. Out of four or five cases that made to a federal appeals court, only UAW vs. Troybuilt came down on the side of the union and the retirees, and that was a hollow victory. Troybuilt went into bankruptcy, and was bought out by MTD, and the retirees lost their medical benefits anyway. If this goes all the way to the Supreme Court, the odds are not good for the UAW and the hourly retirees. One other thing - the four or five cases of employer vs. retiree/union - all happened under Clinton, not Bush. That's how old the court precedent is in favor of the employer.

 

The case between the UAW & GM, seeking the courts approval of the UAW negotiating on the behalf of the retirees, is being brought by the union, because the unions own attorney's have told them that GM is on fairly solid legal ground is they want to cut the hourly retirees medical benefits without any input from the union. You guys can NOT go on strike over the retirees (flat out illegal, despite what the union officials have told you over the years about protecting the retirees), the union can't file an unfair labor practices grievance over the retirees, nothing. The "union protection" that every UAW retiree has thought they had (my parents included) has turned out to be a house of cards built on a foundation of sand.

 

The same law that says the union contract can't protect the retirees also says the retirees can't vote on the contract. Labor law only protects current workers.

 

If you guys succeed in voting this down, then union would be in violation of the contract, and will have to keep redoing the vote until it passes, or face legal remedies from Ford (and in the near future from Chrysler) for violating the parity provisions of the contract. And on top of that, if this doesn't pass, there may well be nothing the union can do to stop the companies from taking unilateral action. Like I already stated, a walkout over retiree benefits is already flat out illegal.

 

This is a crappy situation, and I don't see an easy way out.

Edited December 18, 2005 by Len_A

[Richard Smith]

I'm under the impression that the contract between the Big Three and the UAW calls for parity, and that impression was reinforced as soon as the GM & UAW deal was announced. Both Ford and Chrysler, though spoke persons, cited the parity provision of the contract, and said they would seek the same concessions. If that's the case, then I don't see much of a choice for the union. The parity provisions of the contract were the exact reason the union was forced in the early 1980's to reopen the contract with Ford & GM after granting concessions to Chrysler.

 

One other thing - the law is not cut-&-dry on retiree medical benefits, and the UAW's attorney's know this. GM wasn't blowing smoke when they threatened to take unilateral action without an agreement with the UAW. Out of four or five cases that made to a federal appeals court, only UAW vs. Troybuilt came down on the side of the union and the retirees, and that was a hollow victory. Troybuilt went into bankruptcy, and was bought out by MTD, and the retirees lost their medical benefits anyway. If this goes all the way to the Supreme Court, the odds are not good for the UAW and the hourly retirees. One other thing - the four or five cases of employer vs. retiree/union - all happened under Clinton, not Bush. That's how old the court precedent is in favor of the employer.

 

The case between the UAW & GM, seeking the courts approval of the UAW negotiating on the behalf of the retirees, is being brought by the union, because the unions own attorney's have told them that GM is on fairly solid legal ground is they want to cut the hourly retirees medical benefits without any input from the union. You guys can NOT go on strike over the retirees (flat out illegal, despite what the union officials have told you over the years about protecting the retirees), the union can't file an unfair labor practices grievance over the retirees, nothing. The "union protection" that every UAW retiree has thought they had (my parents included) has turned out to be a house of cards built on a foundation of sand.

 

The same law that says the union contract can't protect the retirees also says the retirees can't vote on the contract. Labor law only protects current workers.

 

If you guys succeed in voting this down, then union would be in violation of the contract, and will have to keep redoing the vote until it passes, or face legal remedies from Ford (and in the near future from Chrysler) for violating the parity provisions of the contract. And on top of that, if this doesn't pass, there may well be nothing the union can do to stop the companies from taking unilateral action. Like I already stated, a walkout over retiree benefits is already flat out illegal.

 

This is a crappy situation, and I don't see an easy way out.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Send a message Vote NO! Don't compromise your principles!

[Jeff James]

I'm under the impression that the contract between the Big Three and the UAW calls for parity, and that impression was reinforced as soon as the GM & UAW deal was announced. Both Ford and Chrysler, though spoke persons, cited the parity provision of the contract, and said they would seek the same concessions. If that's the case, then I don't see much of a choice for the union. The parity provisions of the contract were the exact reason the union was forced in the early 1980's to reopen the contract with Ford & GM after granting concessions to Chrysler.

 

One other thing - the law is not cut-&-dry on retiree medical benefits, and the UAW's attorney's know this. GM wasn't blowing smoke when they threatened to take unilateral action without an agreement with the UAW. Out of four or five cases that made to a federal appeals court, only UAW vs. Troybuilt came down on the side of the union and the retirees, and that was a hollow victory. Troybuilt went into bankruptcy, and was bought out by MTD, and the retirees lost their medical benefits anyway. If this goes all the way to the Supreme Court, the odds are not good for the UAW and the hourly retirees. One other thing - the four or five cases of employer vs. retiree/union - all happened under Clinton, not Bush. That's how old the court precedent is in favor of the employer.

 

The case between the UAW & GM, seeking the courts approval of the UAW negotiating on the behalf of the retirees, is being brought by the union, because the unions own attorney's have told them that GM is on fairly solid legal ground is they want to cut the hourly retirees medical benefits without any input from the union. You guys can NOT go on strike over the retirees (flat out illegal, despite what the union officials have told you over the years about protecting the retirees), the union can't file an unfair labor practices grievance over the retirees, nothing. The "union protection" that every UAW retiree has thought they had (my parents included) has turned out to be a house of cards built on a foundation of sand.

 

The same law that says the union contract can't protect the retirees also says the retirees can't vote on the contract. Labor law only protects current workers.

 

If you guys succeed in voting this down, then union would be in violation of the contract, and will have to keep redoing the vote until it passes, or face legal remedies from Ford (and in the near future from Chrysler) for violating the parity provisions of the contract. And on top of that, if this doesn't pass, there may well be nothing the union can do to stop the companies from taking unilateral action. Like I already stated, a walkout over retiree benefits is already flat out illegal.

 

This is a crappy situation, and I don't see an easy way out.

 

Just out of curiosity, what parity provisions are you talking about. There is nothing in the National Agreement that I have seen that requires UAW members at Ford to accept an agreement based on parity with GM. Pattern Bargaining was a negotiational strategy that was employed to help take labor out of competition. While there have always been similarities, pattern bargaining went out the window 25 years ago. I see no reason why we would be in any legal difficult related to "parity" if we vote this thing down.

[Raws41900]

Just out of curiosity, what parity provisions are you talking about. There is nothing in the National Agreement that I have seen that requires UAW members at Ford to accept an agreement based on parity with GM. Pattern Bargaining was a negotiational strategy that was employed to help take labor out of competition. While there have always been similarities, pattern bargaining went out the window 25 years ago. I see no reason why we would be in any legal difficult related to "parity" if we vote this thing down.

 

 

this all reminds me of that scene in Monty Pythons Quest for the Holy Grail, with the knight that just keeps putting up a fight that he cant win and just keeps losing his parts :P

[Jeff James]

this all reminds me of that scene in Monty Pythons Quest for the Holy Grail, with the knight that just keeps putting up a fight that he cant win and just keeps losing his parts :P

Never saw the movie. Did not get the connection...sorry

[Spring]

Raws, It's just a flesh wound! ROFLMAO!!!!!!!! The Black Knight! Too funny!

The Knights who say Ni!

 

 

 

Watch out for the killer rabbits!

[Len_A]

Just out of curiosity, what parity provisions are you talking about. There is nothing in the National Agreement that I have seen that requires UAW members at Ford to accept an agreement based on parity with GM. Pattern Bargaining was a negotiational strategy that was employed to help take labor out of competition. While there have always been similarities, pattern bargaining went out the window 25 years ago. I see no reason why we would be in any legal difficult related to "parity" if we vote this thing down.

First of all, I said "I was under the impression" - I didn't state that I knew it to be an absolute fact, so spare me the attitude. Second, it was spoke persons for Ford and Chrysler that reinforced the impression that both pattern bargaining and parity were still in place, and that they expected the same consideration as GM. Apparently on that, I'm not too far off the mark, becasue the UAW is done with negotiating with Ford, hence this forum thread, and they are now in talks with Chrysler. Third, I've been around more than a few attorneys for the better part of the last thirty years - I guess I see things from a different point of view because of that experience.

[Jeff James]

First of all, I said "I was under the impression" - I didn't state that I knew it to be an absolute fact, so spare me the attitude. Second, it was spoke persons for Ford and Chrysler that reinforced the impression that both pattern bargaining and parity were still in place, and that they expected the same consideration as GM. Apparently on that, I'm not too far off the mark, becasue the UAW is done with negotiating with Ford, hence this forum thread, and they are now in talks with Chrysler. Third, I've been around more than a few attorneys for the better part of the last thirty years - I guess I see things from a different point of view because of that experience.

 

No attitude,man, I was just asking.

[Len_A]

No attitude,man, I was just asking.

That's cool. I'm just having one of those bleeping Mondays.....

[cal50]

Consult the book of armaments and use the holy hand grenade-

Monty Python thank you.

[Spring]

Consult the book of armaments and use the holy hand grenade-

Monty Python thank you.

 

 

Time for the spankings!

 

My daughter is coming home from university this weekend. We'll have to have a movie marathon! Holy Grail, Life of Brian and the Princess Bride. Might even throw in Men in Tights.....

[Harley Lover]

And don't forget Swamp Castle! :D

[rockford]

Look at page 8 of the info packet that was sent out. Look at all the "N/A"s beside the ACTIVE row. If you think these are going to remain through 2011, you are sadly mistaken. The only thing that will stay is the wage contributions. If we agree to make the concessions now, in 2007 they will be foaming at the mouth to go after the active workers healthcare contribution. And if you think the retirees are being asked to pay a lot on their fixed income, wait and see what they ask us to pay!

[Brian502]

Look at page 8 of the info packet that was sent out. Look at all the "N/A"s beside the ACTIVE row. If you think these are going to remain through 2011, you are sadly mistaken. The only thing that will stay is the wage contributions. If we agree to make the concessions now, in 2007 they will be foaming at the mouth to go after the active workers healthcare contribution. And if you think the retirees are being asked to pay a lot on their fixed income, wait and see what they ask us to pay!

If this isn't ratified then yes the Retiree's will have to pay a lot more.But if we vote yes we also know that it will cost active workers very little.And these are the things that we know for sure.We don't know what tomorrow will bring.So in my opinion anybody that votes no( LAP,KTP voted Sunday)or has already voted no is nothing but a greedy,selfish son of a Bitch!!!And I have read the agreement.I voted Sunday and I voted YES!

[TwinCityAssembly]

If this isn't ratified then yes the Retiree's will have to pay a lot more.But if we vote yes we also know that it will cost active workers very little.And these are the things that we know for sure.We don't know what tomorrow will bring.So in my opinion anybody that votes no( LAP,KTP voted Sunday)or has already voted no is nothing but a greedy,selfish son of a Bitch!!!And I have read the agreement.I voted Sunday and I voted YES!

 

You are the selfish one! You don't have a right to say what the retiree's should pay. You just voted to make retiree's pay almost $1,000 a year more for health care.

 

Nice job JACKASS!!! :angry:

[dark270]

If this isn't ratified then yes the Retiree's will have to pay a lot more.But if we vote yes we also know that it will cost active workers very little.And these are the things that we know for sure.We don't know what tomorrow will bring.So in my opinion anybody that votes no( LAP,KTP voted Sunday)or has already voted no is nothing but a greedy,selfish son of a Bitch!!!And I have read the agreement.I voted Sunday and I voted YES!

 

 

you really know for SURE...anything?????

i mean come on..you can tell me with no doubt , this is okay....NOPE i voted NO you dumbass FAG!