uawfactoryrat Posted September 20, 2011 Share Posted September 20, 2011 "The union also proposes that 10 percent of each employee's profit sharing go into the health care trust to meet obligations to retirees. King said the company is still exploring the legality, but the UAW wants the membership to ratify this move. " From The Detroit News: http://detnews.com/article/20110920/AUTO01/109200404/GM-contract-proposal--$2.5B-investment--6-400-jobs--bonuses#ixzz1YWYwa5rK Did anyonenotice that they want 10% of the profit sharing to go towards helping with reiree health care??? Didnt the IUAW get billions to take this over? Why would money from employee profit sharing go to the UAW ??? VEBA is betwwen the company and the IUAW, they wanted to take it over, they should deal with it! I smell BS, is this a fancy way of a kickback? This is why we should get the whole contract before voting. Why should I pay $1200.00 a year to help fund VEBA? 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lquidspine Posted September 20, 2011 Share Posted September 20, 2011 "The union also proposes that 10 percent of each employee's profit sharing go into the health care trust to meet obligations to retirees. King said the company is still exploring the legality, but the UAW wants the membership to ratify this move. " From The Detroit News: http://detnews.com/article/20110920/AUTO01/109200404/GM-contract-proposal--$2.5B-investment--6-400-jobs--bonuses#ixzz1YWYwa5rK Did anyonenotice that they want 10% of the profit sharing to go towards helping with reiree health care??? Didnt the IUAW get billions to take this over? Why would money from employee profit sharing go to the UAW ??? VEBA is betwwen the company and the IUAW, they wanted to take it over, they should deal with it! I smell BS, is this a fancy way of a kickback? This is why we should get the whole contract before voting. Why should I pay $1200.00 a year to help fund VEBA? To look out for those that got us what we have today ? Thats only one of many reasons I can support this move, the VEBA was funded only 60% to start with. The simple question should be be, would you like health care when you retire ? If yes and what you are saying is true ( i have only spent 10 minutes so far looking at the actual language) then this stipulation should be a no brainer, we are responsible to ensure our retirees are protected. We took on that task when we ratified the first VEBA in 2005 and reinforced that move with the ratification of the 2007 agreement which cemented the VEBA in place. 11 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uawfactoryrat Posted September 20, 2011 Author Share Posted September 20, 2011 To look out for those that got us what we have today ? Thats only one of many reasons I can support this move, the VEBA was funded only 60% to start with. The simple question should be be, would you like health care when you retire ? If yes and what you are saying is true ( i have only spent 10 minutes so far looking at the actual language) then this stipulation should be a no brainer, we are responsible to ensure our retirees are protected. We took on that task when we ratified the first VEBA in 2005 and reinforced that move with the ratification of the 2007 agreement which cemented the VEBA in place. Then the company should fund the rest, not me. They committed to fund it 100% and turn it over to IUAW. This isn't Social Security. Health care from the company is now a IUAW issue. They wanted to run it now they have to get the funding from the company not me. Dont retired IUAW staff have an extra pension funded from UAW dues , thats about 35,000 to every IUAW retiree. Get it from there !! 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wildosvt Posted September 20, 2011 Share Posted September 20, 2011 (edited) To look out for those that got us what we have today ? Thats only one of many reasons I can support this move, the VEBA was funded only 60% to start with. The simple question should be be, would you like health care when you retire ? If yes and what you are saying is true ( i have only spent 10 minutes so far looking at the actual language) then this stipulation should be a no brainer, we are responsible to ensure our retirees are protected. We took on that task when we ratified the first VEBA in 2005 and reinforced that move with the ratification of the 2007 agreement which cemented the VEBA in place. Great post! I Plan on retiring one day to. I hope that VEBA is alive and well when the time comes. I have no problem with being responsable for my future. :shades: Edited September 20, 2011 by wildosvt 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chucky Ray Posted September 20, 2011 Share Posted September 20, 2011 (edited) Thanks, yes it si good to fund the VEBA to support our retirement. Edited September 20, 2011 by Chucky Ray 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Die Wahrheit Posted September 20, 2011 Share Posted September 20, 2011 Great post! I Plan on retiring one day to. I hope that VEBA is alive and well when the time comes. I have no problem with being responsable for my future. :shades: Bullshit! If you would of planned on retiring 20 years ago you wouldn't have to worry about this. I am so sick of you guys who worked almost 30 years and now all of a sudden your retirement is important. And now you want someone to think about the guys who got them here. BULLSHIT! You blew your money now you are screwed.... Let These younger guys keep their money which they worked their ass off for(like you did). 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
el norte Posted September 20, 2011 Share Posted September 20, 2011 Bullshit! If you would of planned on retiring 20 years ago you wouldn't have to worry about this. I am so sick of you guys who worked almost 30 years and now all of a sudden your retirement is important. And now you want someone to think about the guys who got them here. BULLSHIT! You blew your money now you are screwed.... Let These younger guys keep their money which they worked their ass off for(like you did). You need to FUCK OFF! Who the the fuck made you Ford motor company's dad? Peoples personal finances is non of your fucking business!!!! I am sick of assholes on here that are so concerned about how people spend their money! I'm going on a fucking vacation with some of my money, and fuck you if you have a problem with that! DICKHEAD! 6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
longball Posted September 20, 2011 Share Posted September 20, 2011 Bullshit! If you would of planned on retiring 20 years ago you wouldn't have to worry about this. I am so sick of you guys who worked almost 30 years and now all of a sudden your retirement is important. And now you want someone to think about the guys who got them here. BULLSHIT! You blew your money now you are screwed.... Let These younger guys keep their money which they worked their ass off for(like you did). Die....I planned on retiring from the day I hired in.....My retirement was supposed to have health benefits equal to what i had when i was working for 32 years....after I and about 60000 others retired, the UNION ( you and I ) decided that the benefit level would be decreased significantly....maybe if we have this provision in our new contract, the UNION ( you and I ) could provide the benefit level that was promised us when we retired....don't you want to help your UNION? How much would you be making without our union? You must be on the low end of the totem pole if you can't see the value of this provision. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lquidspine Posted September 20, 2011 Share Posted September 20, 2011 Then the company should fund the rest, not me. They committed to fund it 100% and turn it over to IUAW. This isn't Social Security. Health care from the company is now a IUAW issue. They wanted to run it now they have to get the funding from the company not me. Dont retired IUAW staff have an extra pension funded from UAW dues , thats about 35,000 to every IUAW retiree. Get it from there !! The companies are done with their obligations to VEBA it is now up to us to ensure our retirment health care stays solvent, and for the record they did not commit to fund it 100%. We ratified two agreements with it underfunded by about 30% or more to start with. Die you are once again proving how short sighted you are, and frankly sounding like a republican too a tea. We did not blow the money we agreed to take over our retirement health care to relieve the companies of that legacy cost, now take responsibility to maintain the level of benefits we and our retirees are deserve and more importantly we all agreed to take on that burden. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
longball Posted September 20, 2011 Share Posted September 20, 2011 You deserve your reputation 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don't Tread on Me Posted September 20, 2011 Share Posted September 20, 2011 To look out for those that got us what we have today ? Thats only one of many reasons I can support this move, the VEBA was funded only 60% to start with. The simple question should be be, would you like health care when you retire ? If yes and what you are saying is true ( i have only spent 10 minutes so far looking at the actual language) then this stipulation should be a no brainer, we are responsible to ensure our retirees are protected. We took on that task when we ratified the first VEBA in 2005 and reinforced that move with the ratification of the 2007 agreement which cemented the VEBA in place. I agree with you. What is also interesting is no one is talking about all the work that is coming to GM plants. That is great! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MTP'er Posted September 20, 2011 Share Posted September 20, 2011 The companies are done with their obligations to VEBA it is now up to us to ensure our retirment health care stays solvent, and for the record they did not commit to fund it 100%. We ratified two agreements with it underfunded by about 30% or more to start with. Die you are once again proving how short sighted you are, and frankly sounding like a republican too a tea. We did not blow the money we agreed to take over our retirement health care to relieve the companies of that legacy cost, now take responsibility to maintain the level of benefits we and our retirees are deserve and more importantly we all agreed to take on that burden. Bob king is the republican in democrats clothing, trying to put the veba burden on the backs of the membership, that's something a republican would do, tax the hell out of the working class. And whats this crap that he wants to give the new hires a wage increase, isn't that what the big 3 are bitching about is labor cost??? Oh I also like the $200 bonus around december, sounds to me he tried to get the christmas bonus back but fell short. And again all these promises on jobs & product everybody knows if the economy tanks none of this will happen. So shame on youy Bob King for bring the GM membership such a piece of garbage to vote on. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wildosvt Posted September 20, 2011 Share Posted September 20, 2011 Bullshit! If you would of planned on retiring 20 years ago you wouldn't have to worry about this. I am so sick of you guys who worked almost 30 years and now all of a sudden your retirement is important. And now you want someone to think about the guys who got them here. BULLSHIT! You blew your money now you are screwed.... Let These younger guys keep their money which they worked their ass off for(like you did). 30 years? Im far from 30 years of service. Consider me "the younger guy" who is thankful for all of the fights that the highest of seniority and retired members had fought before me! 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lquidspine Posted September 20, 2011 Share Posted September 20, 2011 Bob king is the republican in democrats clothing, trying to put the veba burden on the backs of the membership, that's something a republican would do, tax the hell out of the working class. And whats this crap that he wants to give the new hires a wage increase, isn't that what the big 3 are bitching about is labor cost??? Oh I also like the $200 bonus around december, sounds to me he tried to get the christmas bonus back but fell short. And again all these promises on jobs & product everybody knows if the economy tanks none of this will happen. So shame on youy Bob King for bring the GM membership such a piece of garbage to vote on. I have not decided yet what I think of the agreement as a whole, however I would say if we can make up the shortcomings of the VEBA without taking from our hourly rate I am in support of this. Like I already said this is not only an investment in our current retirees care it is an investment in our own future. Increasing entry level wages and benefits should be a priority in my opinion, those are future members that will vote on contracts that will in fact have our retirement pensions at stake. Again small gains for them now to eventually get them on par with traditional workers is in our best interest long term. Who cares that the Big 3 are bitching about labor costs, if the company is willing to slowly allow us to get entry level on par with us thats a win for us period. Yes product commitments are subject to market conditions, however if those conditions are good isnt it good to know we have the commitments in place to meet those demands without worry of were those products will be manufactured ? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ratatattat Posted September 20, 2011 Share Posted September 20, 2011 Our union is weak men, unleash the army and break out the guns 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Armstrong Posted September 20, 2011 Share Posted September 20, 2011 Yes product commitments are subject to market conditions, however if those conditions are good isnt it good to know we have the commitments in place to meet those demands without worry of were those products will be manufactured The 2007 product commitments were based on economic conditions. 98% of the product commitment obligations were met. All while we went thru the 2008 Bush Economic meltdown and the worst economy any living American has ever seen. The IUAW still insured these commitments were met You argument is pointless, after this economic condition did not stop the investment 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lquidspine Posted September 20, 2011 Share Posted September 20, 2011 The 2007 product commitments were based on economic conditions. 98% of the product commitment obligations were met. All while we went thru the 2008 Bush Economic meltdown and the worst economy any living American has ever seen. The IUAW still insured these commitments were met You argument is pointless, after this economic condition did not stop the investment Well for one I am sure my grandma that lived through the great depression era would disagree with your second statement. Second had Ford's products not sold well all the commitments would not have been realized. the contract does not reference the countries economic conditions it addresses the companies economic conditions and most importantly the market conditions. If the auto market is not buying what we are selling cuts will be made to keep with proper demand levels. Are you really that oblivous to what the intent of commitment language means ? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chucky Ray Posted September 20, 2011 Share Posted September 20, 2011 unleash the army Oh Chuckie, you right. Unleash the army to vote YES for the contract. Brilliant thinking. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whereswaldo Posted September 20, 2011 Share Posted September 20, 2011 The only concern i have is that they changed the formula to give sell us on better profit sharing and then the 10% reduction would basically nullify that. Solid House has used increased profit sharing to assuage our anger over no potential raises and it would suck to end up with nothing more than we already had. I'm hoping to see some math on the differences before i make my final judgement, but if i only end up with 10 to 12 percent more in profit sharing and then they take it away, then I want a raise. Wow what a sellout of retiree healthcare. Only 3 yrs of VEBA and already GM members will be putting 10% of their pro sharing in to prop it up. Wasnt it Firestone VEBA or similar that went Bankrupt just a few yrs after it began. What will VEBA do if there's no profit ?? Also do we include that 10% in our W-2 earnings and have to pay tax on it ?? Tell you one thing. If and when Repub's get in and repeal healthcare reform, VEBA is screwed because health inflation is not under control and membership will revolt if they have to keep increasing level of support for VEBA down the road. Thats why I voted no. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whereswaldo Posted September 21, 2011 Share Posted September 21, 2011 Increasing entry level wages and benefits should be a priority in my opinion, those are future members that will vote on contracts that will in fact have our retirement pensions at stake. Again small gains for them now to eventually get them on par with traditional workers is in our best interest long term. Who cares that the Big 3 are bitching about labor costs, if the company is willing to slowly allow us to get entry level on par with us thats a win for us period. Actually I voted no on a 2nd tier wage but It was I-UAW that agreed to this pathetically low wage structure in the 1st place. They could have done one thing that the USPS does right and that is have a structure that takes about 11 yrs to get to top pay. It gets new members in the door, gives them many raises over several yrs,and is definitely better for morale. They actually have a light at the end of the tunnel. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
longball Posted September 21, 2011 Share Posted September 21, 2011 At least one of us has actually earned ours. :happy feet: You do realize that if you, yourself wants coverage from your retirement medical benefits....you are going to have to fund them while you are working.... it is no longer the company's problem.....this new funding will do nothing but make it possible for YOU to have some sort of medical when you are retired....did you think that you would be covered by the money that the company bought off the union for?,,,,please 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whereswaldo Posted September 21, 2011 Share Posted September 21, 2011 You do realize that if you, yourself wants coverage from your retirement medical benefits....you are going to have to fund them while you are working.... it is no longer the company's problem.....this new funding will do nothing but make it possible for YOU to have some sort of medical when you are retired....did you think that you would be covered by the money that the company bought off the union for?,,,,please You do realize that this may not even be legal. I predict someone will test it if it is implemented. Also this could be a bellweather over the real costs that VEBA is going to incur. If they need help after only 3 yrs., they better hope healthcare reform doesnt get repealed. Not but a couple yrs ago and ole Gettlefinger said VEBA was viable for 80 yrs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
longball Posted September 21, 2011 Share Posted September 21, 2011 You do realize that this may not even be legal. I predict someone will test it if it is implemented. Also this could be a bellweather over the real costs that VEBA is going to incur. If they need help after only 3 yrs., they better hope healthcare reform doesnt get repealed. Not but a couple yrs ago and ole Gettlefinger said VEBA was viable for 80 yrs. You must not have understood my previous post....If the present workers, want medical when retired ....they need to fund them 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Twincam Harley Posted September 21, 2011 Share Posted September 21, 2011 If it's not legal it's moot. I wonder how long it will take for them to determine that. I want someone from International to explain to me why they need 10% of our profit sharing for the VEBA. Originally we were told that the VEBA would last at least 80 years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whereswaldo Posted September 21, 2011 Share Posted September 21, 2011 You must not have understood my previous post....If the present workers, want medical when retired ....they need to fund them LOL ! I understood your opinion. The fact is VEBA was established as a company funded (yes not anymore) plan. Also a fact is the iuaw accepted 50% or less of what was considered minimally adequate funds to carry traditional employees thru accepted lifelines. The concern WAS raised then about viability. Our great pres. stated that it was viable for 80 yrs. It also a fact that this is not medicare nor social security. I suppose we should start funding our future pensions also ?! Dont get me wrong. I dont want retirees to lose anything. But I felt they(we) lost as soon as VEBA got approved.( I didnt support its creation). If you are an hourly, you may understand my post. If you are salary , sorry you have to fund yours but that is the boat that you got on. Since you refer to "if the present workers,....." I notice you are implying that you are not part of that group. Here's a solid math problem for you....How much healthcare for retirees at Ford and esp. GM was taken off their books????? Insert here_______. Now how much profits have they made for the same time period you just researched??Insert here_____. 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.