905 Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 I'm just curious how others read this article. The title seems to imply that buyouts might be offered at each company. Yet when reading the article it focuses the discussion of buyouts on GM. And since the normal approach of pattern bargaining isn't in play this go-round I wonder if Ford is included. Does anyone read this as including Ford in the likely buyouts? Thanks. http://www.freep.com/article/20110901/BUSINESS01/110901020/UAW-talks-progress-more-buyouts-likely-way?odyssey=mod|newswell|text|FRONTPAGE|p Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duanesz Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 I cant see why the company would not want to buyout employees. If they continue the two tier system it would pay for itself in no time. I think its the union than don't want buyouts. Two hours a month at 28 bucks an hour or two hours at 14 bucks and hour. The union is getting chopped at the knees with an ax. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FiredMotorCompany Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 I cant see why the company would not want to buyout employees. If they continue the two tier system it would pay for itself in no time. I think its the union than don't want buyouts. Two hours a month at 28 bucks an hour or two hours at 14 bucks and hour. The union is getting chopped at the knees with an ax. Things that make you go, "Hmmmmm". 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
905 Posted September 1, 2011 Author Share Posted September 1, 2011 I cant see why the company would not want to buyout employees. If they continue the two tier system it would pay for itself in no time. I think its the union than don't want buyouts. Two hours a month at 28 bucks an hour or two hours at 14 bucks and hour. The union is getting chopped at the knees with an ax. You know, I think you might've just answered The General's question: FORD has only hired a handful of 2nd Tier employees but the main Topic of contract talks is getting them a wage increase!!! Why isn't the union making us employees who gave up all the concessions the main topic of the contract talks and trying to get us something...... After all we are the ones who saved FORD billions!!! No wonder a wage increase for tier-two employees is a primary focus of the negotiations. But on the other hand I can't imagine there'll be too many takers for buyouts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FiredMotorCompany Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 You know, I think you might've just answered The General's question: No wonder a wage increase for tier-two employees is a primary focus of the negotiations. But on the other hand I can't imagine there'll be too many takers for buyouts. If $30,000 didn't get enough, even with growing into a package, they won't get enough especially with the economy, stocks and outside job market the way it is. They'll hunker down for the duration. It'll take $20,000 more than they have offered anyone before to get more than a handful of bites. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leroy Kelly Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 I'm just curious how others read this article. The title seems to imply that buyouts might be offered at each company. Yet when reading the article it focuses the discussion of buyouts on GM. And since the normal approach of pattern bargaining isn't in play this go-round I wonder if Ford is included. Does anyone read this as including Ford in the likely buyouts? Thanks. http://www.freep.com/article/20110901/BUSINESS01/110901020/UAW-talks-progress-more-buyouts-likely-way?odyssey=mod|newswell|text|FRONTPAGE|p Great way of starting an unfounded rumor. There was nothing in the article with quotes attributed to a source within the UAW or GM or any other company for that matter. Just Brent Snavely promoting shit and you guys stirring it. 7 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
905 Posted September 2, 2011 Author Share Posted September 2, 2011 (edited) Great way of starting an unfounded rumor. There was nothing in the article with quotes attributed to a source within the UAW or GM or any other company for that matter. Just Brent Snavely promoting shit and you guys stirring it. I’m sorry if you feel that way. Starting unfounded rumors is certainly not my intention. However, if you understand journalism, you know that sources are frequently not revealed. Remember Judith Miller? The article does reference a “person familiar with its negotiations.” Be that as it may, how can you highlight the very portion of my post that illustrates I am not putting forth an unfounded claim as being the case; yet claim otherwise? I wrote that it “seems to imply”... I sure hope you don’t understand that to mean that I’m saying buyouts are a given. If all reporting required attributable quotes, then journalism would’ve died a long time ago. Edited September 2, 2011 by 905 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leroy Kelly Posted September 2, 2011 Share Posted September 2, 2011 I’m sorry if you feel that way. Starting unfounded rumors is certainly not my intention. However, if you understand journalism, you know that sources are frequently not revealed. Remember Judith Miller? The article does reference a “person familiar with its negotiations.” Be that as it may, how can you highlight the very portion of my post that illustrates I am not putting forth an unfounded claim as being the case; yet claim otherwise? I wrote that it “seems to imply”... I sure hope you don’t understand that to mean that I’m saying buyouts are a given. If all reporting required attributable quotes, then journalism would’ve died a long time ago. Bullshit. Newspapers job is to sell papers, not to tell us the truth. Yes, Judith Miller lied about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. She basically told us what the Bush Administration wanted and it was all lies. SO, you are promoting unfounded rumors. Judith Miller from wikipedia--please note her deceptions on the American people: 'Judith Miller (born January 2, 1948) is a Pulitzer Prize-winning American journalist, formerly of the New York Times Washington bureau. Her coverage of Iraq's alleged Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) program both before and after the 2003 invasion generated much controversy.[1] A number of stories she wrote while working for the New York Times later turned out to be inaccurate or completely false.[2][3][4][5] Miller was later involved in disclosing Valerie Plame's identity as CIA personnel. She spent three months in jail for claiming reporter's privilege and refusing to reveal her sources in the CIA leak. Miller retired from her job at the New York Times in November 2005. Later she was a contributor to the Fox News Channel and a fellow at the conservative Manhattan Institute think-tank. On December 29, 2010, numerous media outlets reported that she had signed on as a contributing writer to the conservative magazine Newsmax.[6][4]' So, she hid the identity of the person who leaked an undercover American spies identity. That is treason, isn't it? She lied about WMD and then went to work for two rightwing media outlets in Fox and Newsmax. A real winner you picked out. I think you did a great job of proving my point. 6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd2 Posted September 2, 2011 Share Posted September 2, 2011 (edited) The way I read it, was that Ford hasn't gotten to the economical issues yet as opposed to GM which has been discussing wages & retirement all a long. Until we get the final contract to vote on, it's all speculation on our part. :fan: I'm just curious how others read this article. The title seems to imply that buyouts might be offered at each company. Yet when reading the article it focuses the discussion of buyouts on GM. And since the normal approach of pattern bargaining isn't in play this go-round I wonder if Ford is included. Does anyone read this as including Ford in the likely buyouts? Thanks. http://www.freep.com...ext|FRONTPAGE|p Edited September 2, 2011 by jpd2 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ktp1989 Posted September 2, 2011 Share Posted September 2, 2011 The way I read it, was that Ford hasn't gotten to the economical issues yet as opposed to GM which has been discussing wages & retirement all a long. Until we get the final contract to vote on, it's all speculation on our part. :fan: In my opinion as long as we have two levels of pay buyouts will be a staple in every contract from now on!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Empire Posted September 2, 2011 Share Posted September 2, 2011 (edited) IUAW just wants to keep getting rich off the wage increases and no protect jobs!.. Shame on the king boys.. This is a change to prove yourself IUAW, do what's right for the members or just walk away and let our lawyers take care of it. The IUAW is the only entity that protects us. Their number 1 priority is to save, create and secure products, investments, keep our great pay and benefits and ultimately our job security to support us and our families. The public, media and most Republicans want to see us fail, tear down our well earned and deserved wages and benefits and dismantle our union and solidarity. You are no better than the media, public and Republicans that try to discredit us, our union and our dignity. Shame on you Chuck!!! The IUAW will continue to protect all 40,000 of us with product, investments and job security. Thanks to the UAW............. Solidarity,,,, FOREVER Edited September 2, 2011 by Empire 6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnny 99 Posted September 2, 2011 Share Posted September 2, 2011 (edited) Great way of starting an unfounded rumor. There was nothing in the article with quotes attributed to a source within the UAW or GM or any other company for that matter. Just Brent Snavely promoting shit and you guys stirring it. Yes, can we stop with promoting rumors? What is the point in spreading rumors in this forum or in your plant? Let's wait until we get a tentative agreement so we know what has actually been negotiated and have a discussion on the merits of it. Edited September 2, 2011 by johnny 99 8 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
louie Posted September 5, 2011 Share Posted September 5, 2011 I saw Cindy Estrada on television this weekend. She did discuss growing and admitted that the union needs numbers. But lets not just sit here and pretend that is for dues alone. As our union has gotten smaller so has our ability to bargain and we all know this. SHE WAS VERY SPECIFIC ABOUT NOT LIKING TWO-TIER WAGES AND THAT SHE(THEY) GET AGGRESSIVE WITH COMPANIES FOR SUGGESTING IT, but that a balance needs to take place. I thought she sounded real and not just using the typical talking points. I seen her on auto line yesterday. (Probably see it online now) She understands the importance of organizing the transplants. Unbelievable the transplants are now using 50% of their workforce as temps. If we dont organize them we are doomed!!! She did seem genuine. She did a good job 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FiredMotorCompany Posted September 9, 2011 Share Posted September 9, 2011 Nothing really new to say. Just bumping the topic for those who were feeling the site was not about Ford any more. Anybody wanna start a new rumor? $100,000 for 35+ years to retire? 1 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.