"The Equality of Sacrifi ce Grievance

[damagedone37]

What is the verbiage? Put up, or shut up. I searched the links to the UAW's FB page several times not finding whatever information was suppose to be there supporting the argument. Mary and her family knows the language very well, and she didn't know it existed. If it does then it should be easy to produce. :reading:

 

I guess it is easier to unlike my comment then it is to post the language, HUH

Furious

Here is the letter from the 2007-2009 mods/contract. I will look in the PDF file of the 2007 agreement and see if I can find the actual page. I do remember reading this when we first signed the grievance.

http://www.mackinac.org/12030

[Furious1Auto]

Furious

Here is the letter from the 2007-2009 mods/contract. I will look in the PDF file of the 2007 agreement and see if I can find the actual page. I do remember reading this when we first signed the grievance.

http://www.mackinac.org/12030

 

Mr. Bob King

Vice President and Director

UAW, National Ford Department

8000 East Jefferson Avenue

Detroit, Michigan 48214

 

Dear Mr. King:

 

Subject: Equality of Sacrifice

 

During 2007 negotiations the parties had numerous discussions pertaining to the principle of "Equality of Sacrifice" and the Company's management principle of "One Company, One Plan". The Union also expressed concern that the salaried workforce contribute equally to those wage and benefit adjustments necessary to achieve growth and job security. The Company is committed to both of these principles and recognized that all employees should share in the contributions necessary during this difficult period. While the company does not negotiate the wages and benefits for non-represented employees, it has assured the Union that sacrifices by the UAW-represented employees are reflected in the pay and benefit practices of all non-represented employees.

 

Very truly yours,

 

BILL DIRKSEN,

Executive Director

U.S. Labor Affairs

 

It simply says that "In this difficult period" there will be equality in sacrifice. They were careful to word it not to set a precedent for future down turns. They also did not state specifically or even mention what action they would take once the company regained profitability. At the time that the managements compensation was reinstated the difficult period was over, and the company had fulfilled this obligation. There is no violation of the contract by the company related to this letter. This grievance will be batted down by the arbitrator. I have always been pro labor, so I want to tell you there is merit to this grievance, however by itself there is not. Anyone pushing this is doing it for political reasons. If people were unhappy they should have voted it down, instead of ratifying it, and the later agreements that carry the same or worse terms.

Edited December 21, 2011 by Furious1Auto

[lquidspine]

It simply says that "In this difficult period" there will be equality in sacrifice. They were careful to word it not to set a precedent for future down turns. They also did not state specifically or even mention what action they would take once the company regained profitability. At the time that the managements compensation was reinstated the difficult period was over, and the company had fulfilled this obligation. There is no violation of the contract by the company. This grievance will be batted down by the arbitrator. I have always been pro labor, so I want to tell you there is merit to this grievance, however by itself there is not. Anyone pushing this is doing it for political reasons. If people were unhappy they should have voted it down, instead of ratifying it, and the later agreements that carry the same or worse terms.

Page 1U from the 2009 Mods would be the second page Pulse is refering too, page 40/44 of the PDF file for the passed 2009 mods.

[Furious1Auto]

Page 1U from the 2009 Mods would be the second page Pulse is refering too, page 40/44 of the PDF file for the passed 2009 mods.

 

 

The quoted letter won't stand alone. I need to read the letter you are referring to. To this point I can see people are angry, and what I am saying is unpopular. Honesty is better then patronizm! I can say what is popular all day, but it wont make it true. That's why I never ran for committeeman. Cause I knew it would mean defending medical cases, you know people that do anything to get out of working? Now if there is another article that clarifies this one, and or alters it obligated the company, and they did not follow through then there might be something.

Edited December 21, 2011 by Furious1Auto

[Pulse]

Thank you!

 

 

Welcome...I'm trying to post the letter.

[Pulse]

Page 1U from the 2009 Mods would be the second page Pulse is refering too, page 40/44 of the PDF file for the passed 2009 mods.

 

Here is one spine...

[Furious1Auto]

Here is one spine...

 

I can't repost it because of the format;

 

It outlines exactly what cuts the salaried employees will take, and implies in the future that salaried employees will share the burden in down times. However it does not state what will happen to their, or your compensation levels once stability returns. Even if it said the cuts were permanent and ford failed to comply, there is no stated penalty. It also does not say that the company cannot restore their compensation once there was a return to profitability. I suspect Ford knew what they were going to do when this was written.

 

Ignore the rest of my post for a second. Answer this;

 

Why did Alan Mulally first go along with taking government money initially ,knowing that they had already borrowed the restructuring money in advance from private investors in addition to the 20M liquid Ford was already holding? Now answer this one;

Why did he back out of the hearings and say I'm good where I'm at?

 

Simple more cash would have given Ford greater flexibility during the restructuring. The reason he backed out was two parts. Ford would have had to continue sustaining the scrutiny of the media circus surrounding the hearings, and risking further damaging the brands image. And the primary cause was the cap the government wanted to place on executive compensation as a condition of being allowed the loans. Pardon my french, and not to come off condescending, but he is a smart mother fucker. What not taking the government money did for Ford's image was allot more then expected, I would say an unintended consequence, and it paid off big.

 

Now back to the contract, they only had to give the appearance that there was equality in sacrifice to motivate a ratification, being careful that the language did not legally bind the company to make these cuts to be permanent. I guarantee they intended on reinstating the salaried compensation while this language was being drafted. Question is, did Bob King know their intentions, and was a party to it because of some personal investment he had in Ford stock, or was he that blind he could not see it coming. Either he is a sellout or he is inept. Now because of the broken political process for electing the UAW president, he is the new head of the entire union. I stick with my earlier position. This grievance has no merit, the aggrieved are using this tool to save face hanging the blame on an arbitrator, and Alan Mulally is smarter and more capable then Bob King!

Edited December 21, 2011 by Furious1Auto

[FiredMotorCompany]

I can't repost it because of the format;

 

It outlines exactly what cuts the salaried employees will take, and implies in the future that salaried employees will share the burden in down times. However it does not state what will happen to their, or your compensation levels once stability returns. Even if it said the cuts were permanent and ford failed to comply, there is no stated penalty. It also does not say that the company cannot restore their compensation once there was a return to profitability. I suspect Ford knew what they were going to do when this was written.

 

Ignore the rest of my post for a second. Answer this;

 

Why did Alan Mulally first go along with taking government money initially ,knowing that they had already borrowed the restructuring money in advance from private investors in addition to the 20M liquid Ford was already holding? Now answer this one;

Why did he back out of the hearings and say I'm good where I'm at?

 

Simple more cash would have given Ford greater flexibility during the restructuring. The reason he backed out was two parts. Ford would have had to continue staining the scrutiny of the media circus surrounding the hearings, and risking further damaging the brands image. And the primary cause was the cap the government wanted to place on executive compensation as a condition of being allowed the loans. Pardon my french, and not to come off condescending, but he is a smart mother fucker. What not taking the government money did for Ford's image was allot more then expected, I would say an unintended consequence, and it paid off big.

 

Now back to the contract, they only had to give the appearance that there was equality in sacrifice to motivate a ratification, being careful that the language did not obligate these cuts to be permanent. I guarantee they intended on reinstating the salaried compensation while this language was being drafted. Question is, did Bob King know their intentions, and was a party to it because of some personal investment he had in Ford stock, or was he that blind he could not see it coming. Either he is a sellout or he is inept. Now because of the broken political process for electing the UAW president, he is the new head of the entire union. I stick with my earlier position. This grievance has no merit, the aggrieved are using this tool to save face hanging the blame on an arbitrator, and Alan Mulally is smarter and more capable then Bob King!

 

O. M. G.! ! !

 

You mean that Ford would word the contract to appear to require both parties would equally sacrifice in the name of saving the company? But when the company recovers, the hourly cuts stand while salary gets their cuts returned?

 

I AM SO SHOCKED THAT THEY WOULD MISLEAD THE MEMBERSHIP TO GET RATIFICATION!!!!

 

 

 

 

 

 

(Sarcasm OFF)

[Furious1Auto]

That is the same exactly the way I negotiated my divorce. I made her feel like she was getting what she wanted wanted, while behind the scenes I was calculating money, and took the easy road. There are provisions in my divorce decree she won't see for years. Like my dependents for tax purposes, the way it reads is that I get to claim my youngest son every year. That means that at the back end of this I get 3 more years tax return then she. Also I got to claim all three the first year, but she got a lump sum when the divorce was final, but I offered her a settlement equal to my prior tax returns so it cost me nothing out of pocket. She got a car that cost me $254 a month to the lien holder, but didn't add it up, she gave up $1,700 a month in alimony. Could have been driving a new Hummer. I wrote my divorce decree, my attorney and I perfected the verbiage, and the judge and my ex signed off. I am already laughing, but the real genius won't be realized till later nearing the expiration of it's provisions. See what happens when you buy with your emotions. $3,000 before taxes buys you the opportunity to write merit-less grievances. I sold a $28 dollar an hour job for 100K, in the long run Ford will get that money back 10 fold! It's like investing in Geo thermal heating. It cost you thousands up front, but it lowers your long term residual costs. There are some very capable CPA's doing cost analysis for Ford Motor Company, and everything comes down to dollars and sense. Always do the math.

Edited December 22, 2011 by Furious1Auto

[Pulse]

I can't repost it because of the format;

 

It outlines exactly what cuts the salaried employees will take, and implies in the future that salaried employees will share the burden in down times. However it does not state what will happen to their, or your compensation levels once stability returns. Even if it said the cuts were permanent and ford failed to comply, there is no stated penalty. It also does not say that the company cannot restore their compensation once there was a return to profitability. I suspect Ford knew what they were going to do when this was written.

 

Ignore the rest of my post for a second. Answer this;

 

Why did Alan Mulally first go along with taking government money initially ,knowing that they had already borrowed the restructuring money in advance from private investors in addition to the 20M liquid Ford was already holding? Now answer this one;

Why did he back out of the hearings and say I'm good where I'm at?

 

Simple more cash would have given Ford greater flexibility during the restructuring. The reason he backed out was two parts. Ford would have had to continue sustaining the scrutiny of the media circus surrounding the hearings, and risking further damaging the brands image. And the primary cause was the cap the government wanted to place on executive compensation as a condition of being allowed the loans. Pardon my french, and not to come off condescending, but he is a smart mother fucker. What not taking the government money did for Ford's image was allot more then expected, I would say an unintended consequence, and it paid off big.

 

Now back to the contract, they only had to give the appearance that there was equality in sacrifice to motivate a ratification, being careful that the language did not legally bind the company to make these cuts to be permanent. I guarantee they intended on reinstating the salaried compensation while this language was being drafted. Question is, did Bob King know their intentions, and was a party to it because of some personal investment he had in Ford stock, or was he that blind he could not see it coming. Either he is a sellout or he is inept. Now because of the broken political process for electing the UAW president, he is the new head of the entire union. I stick with my earlier position. This grievance has no merit, the aggrieved are using this tool to save face hanging the blame on an arbitrator, and Alan Mulally is smarter and more capable then Bob King!

 

 

 

The problem here Furious is that before the Octo mods were even voted down (10-9-09 dated email)...the company planned on giving the bonuses and sent an email to salary personel setting guidelines for their 2009 performance reviews which they supposedly agreed to give up in February (the letter I posted). The knuckleheads sent it to hourly as well by mistake. Luckily I opened it before it could be recalled...which they tried.

 

Therefore...by doing that action, they started the process of reinstituting salary bonuses...a direct violation of the 2009 February modifications(binding contract); which is grievable.

 

I will not post the email from fear of "unauthorized use clause' being flung at me. But...this will all come out in the wash...

[Furious1Auto]

The problem here Furious is that before the Octo mods were even voted down (10-9-09 dated email)...the company planned on giving the bonuses and sent an email to salary personel setting guidelines for their 2009 performance reviews which they supposedly agreed to give up in February (the letter I posted). The knuckleheads sent it to hourly as well by mistake. Luckily I opened it before it could be recalled...which they tried.

 

Therefore...by doing that action, they started the process of reinstituting salary bonuses...a direct violation of the 2009 February modifications(binding contract); which is grievable.

 

I will not post the email from fear of "unauthorized use clause' being flung at me. But...this will all come out in the wash...

 

I get it.

 

I suspected that it was premeditated, and you have proof I was correct. However the language said that they would take concessions during the downturn, and they did. So Ford exercised their obligation. Did they project a return to profitability date, and release a tentative reinstatement date to the upper level plant managers? If I were in their shoes I would have, even if I feared I may fall short. Their goal was to retain talent while pacifying the union to get support for a ratification. Once again preempted reinstatement notifications does not mean a breach of contract. They had fulfilled their obligation by repealing the managements compensation in accordance with the language. That is all that the language mandated. The smoking gun, and the biggest deciding factor in this case is going to be lack of language covering what was to happen to the conceded compensation levels once Ford returned to profitability.

 

Yes the membership got suckered into agreeing to terms that were either misrepresented to them, or not clarified, or withheld. I am sure the highlights did not showcase this provision. I feel you, the UAW membership have given up allot. I argued like hell to stop it, alas I am not a one man army. Now in my personal dealings I have and would act in the same manor as Ford, I think like a corporation. When it comes to money there is only one person looking out for your best interests, if you are not then their isn't even one person. I can't accuse you of not staying informed, but I can scold many of the other members for not being involved.

 

What I want to know is; Was the union a party to it, did they know the companies intentions? Also I want to know exactly how many UAW reps purchased large sums of Ford stock while insisting the membership agree to these terms! I know for fact at least one I-UAW rep did, because he disclosed it to me in a personal message. A $50,000 personal investment while Ford stock was selling for less then $2 dollars a share.

Edited December 23, 2011 by Furious1Auto

[Pulse]

I get it.

 

I suspected that it was premeditated, and you have proof I was correct. However the language said that they would take concessions during the downturn, and they did. So Ford exercised their obligation. Did they project a return to profitability date, and release a tentative reinstatement date to the upper level plant managers? If I were in their shoes I would have, even if I feared I may fall short. Their goal was to retain talent while pacifying the union to get support for a ratification. Once again preempted reinstatement notifications does not mean a breach of contract. They had fulfilled their obligation by repealing the managements compensation in accordance with the language. That is all that the language mandated. The smoking gun, and the biggest deciding factor in this case is going to be lack of language covering what was to happen to the conceded compensation levels once Ford returned to profitability.

 

Yes the membership got suckered into agreeing to terms that were either misrepresented to them, or not clarified, or withheld. I am sure the highlights did not showcase this provision. I feel you, the UAW membership have given up allot. I argued like hell to stop it, alas I am not a one man army. Now in my personal dealings I have and would act in the same manor as Ford, I think like a corporation. When it comes to money there is only one person looking out for your best interests, if you are not then their isn't even one person. I can't accuse you of not staying informed, but I can scold many of the other members for not being involved.

 

What I want to know is; Was the union a party to it, did they know the companies intentions? Also I want to know exactly how many UAW reps purchased large sums of Ford stock while insisting the membership agree to these terms! I know for fact at least one I-UAW rep did, because he disclosed it to me in a personal message. A $50,000 personal investment while Ford stock was selling for less then $2 dollars a share.

 

 

"I suspected that it was premeditated, and you have proof I was correct. However the language said that they would take concessions during the downturn, and they did. So Ford exercised their obligation."

 

Well...I guess this is where we will have to agree to disagree... I don't see how they exercised their obligation for the life of the agreement when they were crying for more concessions and in the same breath, they started the process to give "2009 year end" incentives. The language was only 8 months old. We were still in the "downturn" based on their demands for more concessions and the numbers they gave in good faith. That IMO is not "equity of sacrifice"...they wanted more from us and were in the process of giving salary rewards. Nothing should have been initiated until this contract. That's why it's grievable...people get in trouble all day long for "planning" a crime. They got caught before the damage could be done. That doesn't mean they should get away with it. It was a plot by management. IMO...borderline imbezzlement...they tried to fleece us. Thank God it didn't work.

 

Look at the language...it say's "Eliminated 2009 merit increases" and "Cancelled ALL bonuses to be paid in 2009 for ALL salaried employee's". They aren't eliminated or cancelled when they were going to be paid at the end of the 2009 year.

 

As for the IUAW conspiracy theory...I don't think there is any credit to that...just my opinion.

 

Folk's gobbling up stock by shifting TESPHE money or personal investment into the best bargain since IBM?... that was a no brainer even without any possible inside info. That will pay off huge! A lot more than the $15,000 in concessions...already has really.

Edited December 23, 2011 by Pulse

[Glow]

I can't repost it because of the format;

 

It outlines exactly what cuts the salaried employees will take, and implies in the future that salaried employees will share the burden in down times. However it does not state what will happen to their, or your compensation levels once stability returns. Even if it said the cuts were permanent and ford failed to comply, there is no stated penalty. It also does not say that the company cannot restore their compensation once there was a return to profitability. I suspect Ford knew what they were going to do when this was written.

 

Ignore the rest of my post for a second. Answer this;

 

Why did Alan Mulally first go along with taking government money initially ,knowing that they had already borrowed the restructuring money in advance from private investors in addition to the 20M liquid Ford was already holding? Now answer this one;

Why did he back out of the hearings and say I'm good where I'm at?

 

Simple more cash would have given Ford greater flexibility during the restructuring. The reason he backed out was two parts. Ford would have had to continue sustaining the scrutiny of the media circus surrounding the hearings, and risking further damaging the brands image. And the primary cause was the cap the government wanted to place on executive compensation as a condition of being allowed the loans. Pardon my french, and not to come off condescending, but he is a smart mother fucker. What not taking the government money did for Ford's image was allot more then expected, I would say an unintended consequence, and it paid off big.

 

Now back to the contract, they only had to give the appearance that there was equality in sacrifice to motivate a ratification, being careful that the language did not legally bind the company to make these cuts to be permanent. I guarantee they intended on reinstating the salaried compensation while this language was being drafted. Question is, did Bob King know their intentions, and was a party to it because of some personal investment he had in Ford stock, or was he that blind he could not see it coming. Either he is a sellout or he is inept. Now because of the broken political process for electing the UAW president, he is the new head of the entire union. I stick with my earlier position. This grievance has no merit, the aggrieved are using this tool to save face hanging the blame on an arbitrator, and Alan Mulally is smarter and more capable then Bob King!

 

Furious1........Gotta agree with you on the stock buy at 2 bucks a share. Even though the $18 high point this year is still decreasing and is currently at $10.96 a share a whole lot of uaw people are socking it away......including me.

Edited December 24, 2011 by Glow

[KCAPFINAL]

Love Reading what you outhouse lawyers post

[Furious1Auto]

Love Reading what you outhouse lawyers post

 

 

[itsmeuaw]

*** Equality of Sacrifice Arbitration Update From Vice President Jimmy Settles ***

 

As we previously indicated, the arbitrator would attempt to resume the testimony phase sometime last week. However, due to the holidays and the end of year responsibilities of the arbitrator and witnesses from both the union and the company, a reasonable date was not established.

 

Therefore, testimony will not resume until after the first of the year.

 

It is important to note that the delays in scheduling are in no way an indicator of the potential outcome of the grievance. In fact, we believe the grievance carries such weight that the painstaking nature of the process is necessary for proper diligence.

 

I have reiterated to my staff, and accordingly I ask of you, that we all remain patient during the arbitration process. The magnitude of the grievance filed against Ford Motor Company has no historical precedent, meaning every step forward along the way presents a new challenge that deserves our willingness to allow the process to play itself out.

 

I respectfully ask at this time, with the holidays approaching, that we all reflect on the goodness in our lives and the past year, and that we dedicate this time to find harmony with our coworkers, friends and family. May God continue to bless you and your family.

 

Thank you for your understanding, and we will continue to do our very best at keeping the entire membership informed.

 

In Solidarity,

 

Jimmy Settles

Vice President and Director

UAW National Ford Department

Mr. Bob King

Vice President and Director

UAW, National Ford Department

8000 East Jefferson Avenue

Detroit, Michigan 48214

 

Dear Mr. King:

 

Subject: Equality of Sacrifice

 

During 2007 negotiations the parties had numerous discussions pertaining to the principle of "Equality of Sacrifice" and the Company's management principle of "One Company, One Plan". The Union also expressed concern that the salaried workforce contribute equally to those wage and benefit adjustments necessary to achieve growth and job security. The Company is committed to both of these principles and recognized that all employees should share in the contributions necessary during this difficult period. While the company does not negotiate the wages and benefits for non-represented employees, it has assured the Union that sacrifices by the UAW-represented employees are reflected in the pay and benefit practices of all non-represented employees.

 

Very truly yours,

 

BILL DIRKSEN,

Executive Director

U.S. Labor Affairs

 

Concur: Bob King

[itsmeuaw]

Any News,Local reps shold we should hear sometning by Nov 22,2011

Has jurors made a verdict ,or are they still interviewing witnesses to this CSI investication of the big Equality Case???????

[Furious1Auto]

Has jurors made a verdict ,or are they still interviewing witnesses to this CSI investication of the big Equality Case???????

 

Sshhh Bob! Don't make light of this, our constituents are reading. They have to believe we are doing something for them or we won't get reelected. Oh That's right, we didn't get elected by the members, and we get to stay till we retire. We also get to decide for the delegates who they will elect next.

 

Sounds democratic to me!

Edited January 5, 2012 by Furious1Auto