lquidspine Posted September 21, 2011 Share Posted September 21, 2011 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. I agree with you and voted the same, however the fact is that entry level is a reality. Now only time will tell if we can correct that move, for GM this was the first step in that direction. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lquidspine Posted September 21, 2011 Share Posted September 21, 2011 (edited) i do and although i like others don't think the union made the best choice in the funding issue thats not what matters to me. What is important to me is simple. Solid house told us no new raises but we will get you better profit sharing so you will get some part of the companies success. I bought that line. Then i noticed that 10 percent might go to them and I might have been better off with the last profit sharing. But what really pisses me off is that they didn't go around talking about it. I watched Cindy Estrada on TV. Nothing about needing the Hoourly workers to fund their own VEBA. They kept us in the dark and then spring it on us. Going by the GM chart (page 161 of the PDF file), Ford hourly UAW workers would have recieved 6,500 profit sharing this past spring. Minus 10% and we would have recieved 5,850 thats still higher than what most people grossed for profit sharing this past year. While I can agree UAW workers should not have to suppliment the shortcomings of the retiree health care, but can you honestly say on a good year $650 is not worth ensuring our health care will last for our retirement ? Edited September 21, 2011 by lquidspine Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lquidspine Posted September 21, 2011 Share Posted September 21, 2011 Its not that. I don't mind paying for healthcare for retirees. Come out with it ahead of time. Be upfront. I hear what you are saying bro but remember members that took hits on contracts during the 80's did not get some of that back until the late 90's. History has proven when workers give anything back it really does take a long time to recoupe those losses, another reason why give backs should be very carefully considered and not just offered too easily (*cough* Octomods). I agree as well be up front about it, while IUAW is getting better than in the past about being up front with information, they still have a ways too go still. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ALEX4398 Posted September 21, 2011 Share Posted September 21, 2011 If we don't make a profit are they going to ask for 20 percent next time. Or if the profit is low will it last till I retire in 20 years Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ktp1989 Posted September 21, 2011 Share Posted September 21, 2011 I am all about taking care of the retirees as I am to be one soon...but that's not the job of the members to catch up the VEBA....the company is suppose to put that 10 billion back that it owes the fund...that's not our dime!! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ratatattat Posted September 21, 2011 Share Posted September 21, 2011 (edited) Anytime earnings come out, if you don't make what they "PROJECT" it's considered a loss to them so they want us to give up our pay and concessions, so should we project that in 2012 we will make a 10 or 12k profit sharing check, and if we don't we will consider it a loss and then ask the company to take concessions in operation costs and pay us back what we loose?? I say we start running on projections and not actual factual figures like the company does.. Ok for the last 5 years I projected a profit sharing of 10k per year, and didn't get it, so I lost.. So therefore I'm voting NO on this deal cause they didn't give me what I lost.. Lets do the same to them as they do to us.. Lets cry poor mouth on projected losses in our pay and profit and request it this time in our new deal so we can actually get it back! No Pattern bargaining will be tolerated this time. We didn't take government money and we didn't go bankrupt. Edited September 21, 2011 by ratatattat 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don't Tread on Me Posted September 21, 2011 Share Posted September 21, 2011 I hear what you are saying bro but remember members that took hits on contracts during the 80's did not get some of that back until the late 90's. History has proven when workers give anything back it really does take a long time to recoupe those losses, another reason why give backs should be very carefully considered and not just offered too easily (*cough* Octomods). You are right. Based on past history, we got most, if not all of our losses back and got more gains. But, it took time. A few of these fuckers want everything back right now and are on BON crying about it. Some are from full plants who can retire and they don't give a shit about you or me. They only care about how much money they can get before they leave and screw you. Fuck them. I support more jobs and job security for all the membership, not just money for the few greedy fuckers who come on this site. Right, Gary? 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lquidspine Posted September 22, 2011 Share Posted September 22, 2011 You are right. Based on past history, we got most, if not all of our losses back and got more gains. But, it took time. A few of these fuckers want everything back right now and are on BON crying about it. Some are from full plants who can retire and they don't give a shit about you or me. They only care about how much money they can get before they leave and screw you. Fuck them. I support more jobs and job security for all the membership, not just money for the few greedy fuckers who come on this site. Right, Gary? Cool my opinion matters when you agree with me, great too know because it was less than a weak ago everything i said was bullshit. /sarcasm off Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grim Reaper Posted September 22, 2011 Share Posted September 22, 2011 Cool my opinion matters when you agree with me, great too know because it was less than a weak ago everything i said was bullshit. /sarcasm off Its not that we all agree or disagree. Its the simple fact that we must understand and not undercut each other. GM is different than Ford on profit sharing. It was a gain at GM including the 10% reduction. They included Canada and Mexico profits like us (Ford) where they were just US profits only. That would have boosted their earnings as you stated earlier. This is still a gain. Before 2007 we always funded retiree healthcare out of our wages. We just didnt see it because it was taken out of our wages historically the entire time. It was not a "permissible" item of bargaining and unsustainable. Many are agreeing it was still the best thing the UAW did in 2007 which protected GM and Chrysler retirees from losing health care during the bankruptcy hearings, saving hundreds of thousands of retirees and surviving spouses 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chessman Posted September 22, 2011 Share Posted September 22, 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? You are right this is BS, the company and the Union knew at the beginning that we, the workers, would have to fund the VEBA. You don’t have to be to smart to know that if you have a fund set up which pay out so much money a year and you are not getting the right amount of return on your money, than you would have to put in more money just to maintain your current investment. The union and company knew this and decided at the time that they make this deal that they would get it from the workers. Just think about it, why would the union agree to take on the VEBA which is base on the market with all its up’s and down’s. Now they want us to pay 10%, be for real. I am all good with helping the retirees but not by taking money from my family. Lets take a look at the numbers------- Tax = 41% plus Union dues of 1% ( which I don’t see why they should get this, we are already paying them each month ) and now VEBA 10% which is 52%. Now the Taxes may be wrong, I think that is just Federal. So if we add in State and City which I guess is around another 6% which I may be wrong, but that would take us to 58%-------WOW----- so if we get a profit sharing of $8000 you will be bring home around $3360.Now that is BS. The Union is jacking us around they care more about the new hires than the members who been paying dues for years. The new hires are the future of the union, why you think they sold out the retirees, now they are trying to sell us out again. Giving the new hires a raise at the same time taking money from us again. UAW just want more members so if they can show the other auto factories that is not unionized that they can get $2 to $3 an hour raises when everybody else are taking pay cuts and pay freeze, so that they will sign up with them----I am just saying-----something to think about------- 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Empire Posted September 22, 2011 Share Posted September 22, 2011 I dont know why everyone is crying over the GM agreement. This agreement is exclusive to GM. Their profit sharing was enhanced and even with the veba reduction the profit sharing still comes out as an increase for GM workers. Are we all retiring and getting a pension? Funding the veba will be our benefit one day. We always funded the veba before 2007 that was deducted out of our base rate when negotiated over the past 65 years, just was never realized by most of us because it was not an issue or really discussed. Are we so confused to think somehow retiree medical was free all of those years? It came out of wages period before the veba!!
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.