Lack of representation

[RougeWelder]

I just do not understand why our international union does not take a stand on anything. I understood the actions taken when the automotive world was rocked by the economy. Even though I did not like it, I knew we had to give up some of our pay/benefits to get them through the rough times. I thought the membership showed great understanding of the problems that Ford was facing. By allowing Ford to re-negotiate our contract multiple times, we showed our acceptance of the hard times the economy forced upon us and the willingness to "give up" hard earned wages/benefits so Ford could survive the recession/depression(u pick the proper term). The economy is still not where it was before, but Ford is now making huge profits on our apparently naive decision to help them. Just think how they will benefit when/if the economy returns to normal. Our international union now REFUSES to make a stand on anything that might benefit the hourly worker. Whether it be paid holiday's, pay raises, temporary workers, shift premiums, alternate work schedules, how hourly is treated overall(DTP), or the many other things that the majority of the membership would appreciate. I would think that the international uaw has a contractual/moral obligation to represent the members and act upon what the majority says to act upon, not what "they feel" would be best for us. Not that I would, but couldn't they be held legally responsible for their lack of representation for all the paying members they represent? Could somebody, preferably an IUAW representative, explain to me(I know it is tempting, but no sacrastic posts please) why the international UAW allows hourly to be brow beaten and kicked in the balls daily?

Edited August 8, 2012 by RougeWelder

[Langston Hughes]

I just do not understand why our international union does not take a stand on anything. I understood the actions taken when the automotive world was rocked by the economy. Even though I did not like it, I knew we had to give up some of our pay/benefits to get them through the rough times. I thought the membership showed great understanding of the problems that Ford was facing. By allowing Ford to re-negotiate our contract multiple times, we showed our acceptance of the hard times the economy forced upon us and the willingness to "give up" hard earned wages/benefits so Ford could survive the recession/depression(u pick the proper term). The economy is still not where it was before, but Ford is now making huge profits on our apparently naive decision to help them. Just think how they will benefit when/if the economy returns to normal. Our international union now REFUSES to make a stand on anything that might benefit the hourly worker. Whether it be paid holiday's, pay raises, temporary workers, shift premiums, alternate work schedules, how hourly is treated overall(DTP), or the many other things that the majority of the membership would appreciate. I would think that the international uaw has a contractual/moral obligation to represent the members and act upon what the majority says to act upon, not what "they feel" would be best for us. Not that I would, but couldn't they be held legally responsible for their lack of representation for all the paying members they represent? Could somebody, preferably an IUAW representative, explain to me(I know it is tempting, but no sacrastic posts please) why the international UAW allows hourly to be brow beaten and kicked in the balls daily?

 

Whether the international UAW has a contractual/moral obligation to do what you suggest is about best a nebulous concept given that a majority of the workers ratified the contract. And how exactly would you suggest that we would prove that it "now Refuses to make a stand"? What your asking about is called "Duty of Fair Representation" and it's not what you believe it to be at least in legal terms. As long as the local, region or international makes a good faith effort no matter how lousy or poorly handled the attempt is they have not violated that clause.

 

Take AWS for example. It's in the contract and has been ratified by the membership, so the union is not required to do anything when Ford decides to implement it. It does not matter how many people now disagree the union is not under any obligation to do anything to stop the contractual implementation of the agreement. It may choose to do so but it is not required to.

 

It might just be me but I'm struggling to see how you would convince the NLRB with language like brow beaten and kicked in the balls.

[Langston Hughes]

A better explanation

 

http://www.umass.edu/usa/dutyfairrep.htm

[Glow]

Whether the international UAW has a contractual/moral obligation to do what you suggest is about best a nebulous concept given that a majority of the workers ratified the contract. And how exactly would you suggest that we would prove that it "now Refuses to make a stand"? What your asking about is called "Duty of Fair Representation" and it's not what you believe it to be at least in legal terms. As long as the local, region or international makes a good faith effort no matter how lousy or poorly handled the attempt is they have not violated that clause.

 

Take AWS for example. It's in the contract and has been ratified by the membership, so the union is not required to do anything when Ford decides to implement it. It does not matter how many people now disagree the union is not under any obligation to do anything to stop the contractual implementation of the agreement. It may choose to do so but it is not required to.

 

It might just be me but I'm struggling to see how you would convince the NLRB with language like brow beaten and kicked in the balls.

 

 

Very Well stated

[crowdogg]

Langston Hughes, <- another pansy ass who is "just happy to have a job" and thinks we should all just be satisfied with what we have rather than strive for more. Pussy.

[crowdogg]

 

 

Keep striving and Voith will be doing your job

That's probably true. They already stole the Teamsters' jobs.

[Decker]

Langston Hughes, <- another pansy ass who is "just happy to have a job" and thinks we should all just be satisfied with what we have rather than strive for more. Pussy.

 

crowdogg

 

Have you ever read any of the federal labor laws that protect you? Do you realize that once the membership acts on a labor contract in a democratic manner it is, a done deal?

 

Really give it a try, read the last idem in 150E. In simple terms it refers to the fact that if a contract is constructed in a manner that is less than artfully done or if the contract is put together by rep`s that are less skilled in the coming up with a fair and equitable agreement, and these rep`s allow the members they represent to give it a Yeah or Neah then the rep`s have done their duty.

 

Now... lets say the members are frightened (or what ever) and give up more Yeah`s than Neah`s.... then its a done deal. Really, no need to bitch and complain, "I didn`t know that was in the contract" or "You got to be kidding me thats in the contract!!!" because the membership spoke with the Yeah`s making the decision. By law "Done Deal"...

 

Dogg, the union owes it`s members a duty of fair representation (because of the dues that are charged) as a matter of federal law. And yes a member or members can sue for a breach of that duty. But this duty applies to the administration of the Collective Bargaining Agreement. So you, I, Langston and any other member can bitch, moan, threaten to sue.... but, through the democratic process Yeah`ers (yes the membership majority) by law said this unartfully, unskillfuly constructed contract was OKEEDOEKEE for us all....

 

Really.... dogg? It`s summer time in MN too, get out and enjoy... Maybe that level of hostility will lower a little. If not take a drive... I hear DTP has some really good donuts. :shades:

 

Decker

1 of the 1788

Edited August 11, 2012 by Decker

[crowdogg]

I still don't fully understand this "donut" thing you guys are always talking about.

 

I will agree on your description of the contract as "unskillfully and unartfully put together." and while I do understand your whole "done deal" definition of how labor contracts work, I still believe the contract was/is a joke and those in the solidarity house that assembled the contract should've/could've done a much better job negotiating for us.

 

Also, although it is a done deal I feel that we SHOULD strive for more and we should push international to reopen the contract to make amendments in our favor as well as seek to regain some of the concessions we took in 2009. If Ford was able/allowed to reopen the 2007 contract in 2009, why shouldn't the UAW be able to?

Unfortunately you're right about the majority being frightened into voting for this contract, or maybe others swindled by a measly 6k signing er I mean settlement bonus.

 

I guess I would just like to see our union take a stand for us for a change. They did pitiful in 07, 09, 2011, and on the SoE grievance. It'd be nice to be able to feel like they care or actually try.

[Decker]

I still don't fully understand this "donut" thing you guys are always talking about.

 

I will agree on your description of the contract as "unskillfully and unartfully put together." and while I do understand your whole "done deal" definition of how labor contracts work, I still believe the contract was/is a joke and those in the solidarity house that assembled the contract should've/could've done a much better job negotiating for us.

 

Also, although it is a done deal I feel that we SHOULD strive for more and we should push international to reopen the contract to make amendments in our favor as well as seek to regain some of the concessions we took in 2009. If Ford was able/allowed to reopen the 2007 contract in 2009, why shouldn't the UAW be able to?

Unfortunately you're right about the majority being frightened into voting for this contract, or maybe others swindled by a measly 6k signing er I mean settlement bonus.

 

I guess I would just like to see our union take a stand for us for a change. They did pitiful in 07, 09, 2011, and on the SoE grievance. It'd be nice to be able to feel like they care or actually try.

 

I agree with everything you stated.

 

By reading your post I realize that you understand that if and only if the membership would stand up once and say, "go back to the table" or "this is not going to make it", that will be the point where IUAW may and I mean "May" understand who works for who..... If any member has read the arbitrators findings it would be very clear to the members the level of negotiataing skill we are paying for.

 

The one sure way to "strive" towards a better, fair and equitable contract is to read, ask questions and make up your own mine on the contract. If you don`t get the infomation you need to feel secure before you buy a mortgage do just sign the paper? But, we the membership seem to be more in tune with listening to, "this is the best we can get" or "Ford may go bankrupt" or those very interesting pep talks from IUAW rep`s at our local hall`s..... This is not striving, this is being lead down the path to the next round of give backs, give ups or just plain you will work for less of everything.

 

The taking of any "stand" is the responsiblity of the membership. The administrators (IUAW) are not required to take a stand.....Don`t hold your breath with the idea of opening the contract on our behalf.

 

The donut thing is more or less, a way to keep the older readers of this board (like me) smiling.... :D

Edited August 12, 2012 by Decker

[RougeWelder]

Whether the international UAW has a contractual/moral obligation to do what you suggest is about best a nebulous concept given that a majority of the workers ratified the contract. And how exactly would you suggest that we would prove that it "now Refuses to make a stand"? What your asking about is called "Duty of Fair Representation" and it's not what you believe it to be at least in legal terms. As long as the local, region or international makes a good faith effort no matter how lousy or poorly handled the attempt is they have not violated that clause.

 

Take AWS for example. It's in the contract and has been ratified by the membership, so the union is not required to do anything when Ford decides to implement it. It does not matter how many people now disagree the union is not under any obligation to do anything to stop the contractual implementation of the agreement. It may choose to do so but it is not required to.

 

It might just be me but I'm struggling to see how you would convince the NLRB with language like brow beaten and kicked in the balls.

 

Thanks for the well written explanation LangHugh. I know everything you said is true. And to give International Union the benefit of the doubt, I think they have our best interest in mind more times than not. It just seems that sometimes we find out months later about something that was in the contract that was not mentioned in the "contract highlights" that the local goes over with us. I guess I was just venting cause I don't like the AWS I am on and I will never see an 8 hour workday again for the last 11 yrs. of my ford career, the lack of a raise for the last 8yrs., and the other stuff we gave up. It just seems to me that after all that, Ford would throw the membership a substantial "bone" to acknowledge our sacrifice. I am well aware that we are well paid and we recieve a small percentage of the profits through our profit sharing. But those things we get already. How about something that specifically says "Hey, thanks for your sacrifices to make our company profitable again". The equity of sacrifice greivence would have been a good vehicle for that instead of finding a vague or absent language that gives them a reason not to compensate our greivence.

[Langston Hughes]

Langston Hughes, <- another pansy ass who is "just happy to have a job" and thinks we should all just be satisfied with what we have rather than strive for more. Pussy.

 

I would prefer that you prove me wrong by filing and winning a case against Ford or the union at the NRLB than to make bullshit internet tough guy accusations, because at least that way you got off your ass and climbed up the stairs from the room in your mothers basement to do something. If you think you have a case then by all means call and start a file. I've told you the standard you have to meet so don't be shy.

 

I fully expect that you will give us constant updates on your case at the NLRB!

[Langston Hughes]

Thanks for the well written explanation LangHugh. I know everything you said is true. And to give International Union the benefit of the doubt, I think they have our best interest in mind more times than not. It just seems that sometimes we find out months later about something that was in the contract that was not mentioned in the "contract highlights" that the local goes over with us. I guess I was just venting cause I don't like the AWS I am on and I will never see an 8 hour workday again for the last 11 yrs. of my ford career, the lack of a raise for the last 8yrs., and the other stuff we gave up. It just seems to me that after all that, Ford would throw the membership a substantial "bone" to acknowledge our sacrifice. I am well aware that we are well paid and we recieve a small percentage of the profits through our profit sharing. But those things we get already. How about something that specifically says "Hey, thanks for your sacrifices to make our company profitable again". The equity of sacrifice greivence would have been a good vehicle for that instead of finding a vague or absent language that gives them a reason not to compensate our greivence.

 

I can understand that you don't like AWS and I wouldn't either but getting rid of it requires more than dislike. You have to show that the Union didn't bargain in good faith concerning job schedules, which is going to be tough.

[lquidspine]

Thanks for the well written explanation LangHugh. I know everything you said is true. And to give International Union the benefit of the doubt, I think they have our best interest in mind more times than not. It just seems that sometimes we find out months later about something that was in the contract that was not mentioned in the "contract highlights" that the local goes over with us. I guess I was just venting cause I don't like the AWS I am on and I will never see an 8 hour workday again for the last 11 yrs. of my ford career, the lack of a raise for the last 8yrs., and the other stuff we gave up. It just seems to me that after all that, Ford would throw the membership a substantial "bone" to acknowledge our sacrifice. I am well aware that we are well paid and we recieve a small percentage of the profits through our profit sharing. But those things we get already. How about something that specifically says "Hey, thanks for your sacrifices to make our company profitable again". The equity of sacrifice greivence would have been a good vehicle for that instead of finding a vague or absent language that gives them a reason not to compensate our greivence.

I agree that paying something on the Equity of Sacrafice grievance would have been a good show, but lets not kid ourselves. Write a grievance based on contractual language; That grievance was wrote on the basic understanding outlined in the letter of understanding to King from Hinrichs" Equity of Understanding" page 79C of the new agreement(deleted with the ratification of the 2011 CBA).

That letter also references another 2009 modification letter of understanding titled "Executive Compensation and Benefits Letter" to King from Dirksen (page 44U in the unpublished letters of understanding that was also removed with the ratification of the 2011 CBA).

 

The point I am trying to make is do not write a grievance based on a vauge letter of understanding that also has a letter that goes along with it, that clearly spells out that the merit increases and the matching 401k in the equity language only is specific for the year 2009.

 

Not that I like it but I see why the arbitrator ruled the way he/she did, the grievance was based on assumptions when the letters used as evidence on our side spelled out exactly how long those losses that salaried took and could be back after the year they were held liable for.

 

If nothing else was learned from the EoS grievance it should be this; as good a relationship as the UAW and Ford Motor Company have over the years the bottom line is Ford is a global buisness, never make assumptions and never assume that the company will just give out something they are not contractually bound too.

[Trimdingman]

How much do you figure is a fair, or should I say ethical wage? If I am not making enough so that my taxes are paying my fair share of the federal and state/provincial budget, then my employer is taking advantage of the community, state, and country. We need to calculate that number, and advertise and boycott these businesses. That includes companies that contract out to these unethical wage paying parasites.

 

There are a lot of unemployed people, and companies are taking advantage of them because they are desperate, but there needs to be consequences or else we will all become slaves. Low wages hurt us all. Find out who the parasites are and make them pay an ethical wage and not contract out to anyone who does not pay an ethical wage, or else the country will drown in debt because the government will be starved of tax revenue and have to keep borrowing.

Edited August 12, 2012 by Trimdingman

[X NAP MILLWRIGHT]

Ethical wage? Who decides that? If a person does not posess a marketable skill they will make a lower wage. Someone working a cash register does not deserve what an assembly line worker makes. Someone waiting tables does not deserve an engineers salary. The government enables people to stay in these low wage jobs by providing benefits. If they stop the handouts people will be forced to improve their situation.

Employers pay what the market demands. I believe it's unethical to have a second tier wage scale in a union contract but the majority of UAW membership disagrees. So that means the first tier wage must be unethically high. I'm sure anyone that agrees could donate the difference to one of the underpaid workers. I feel better already.

 

 

[X NAP MILLWRIGHT]

Absolutely right. Look no further than the airlines. Senior employees are making $6 less per hour than they were 10 years ago. Think the 2nd tier or part time employees care?

[Trimdingman]

Ethical wage? Who decides that? If a person does not posess a marketable skill they will make a lower wage. Someone working a cash register does not deserve what an assembly line worker makes. Someone waiting tables does not deserve an engineers salary. The government enables people to stay in these low wage jobs by providing benefits. If they stop the handouts people will be forced to improve their situation.

Employers pay what the market demands. I believe it's unethical to have a second tier wage scale in a union contract but the majority of UAW membership disagrees. So that means the first tier wage must be unethically high. I'm sure anyone that agrees could donate the difference to one of the underpaid workers. I feel better already.

 

If you don't think the person is capable of doing a job for you, you don't have to hire him. If you do hire him, you should not take advantage of his situation and pay him slave wages. How much should he be paid? Well, the government needs a certain amount of money that is obtained through income tax. A person should be paid enough so that he is in a tax bracket where he is paying his fair share. If he is paying less than his fair share, then the government is actually subsidizing his employer. Minimum wage laws are a joke. Minimum wage is slavery. I am not suggesting a mandatory "ethical wage", however, I would like to see one calculated, and companies that paid less than that ostracized or even boycotted.

 

I want to do away with much of government, but since that is not happening, we need to pay for it. Companies have been cutting wages, and that takes tax revenue from the government, causing deficits and borrowing. Maybe that is their way of trying to collapse the government or force the government to ease up on regulations, using workers as pawns and scapegoats. Maybe they are just taking advantage of the surplus of unemployed to exploit them. A person deserves to be paid what he is worth, not what he can be exploited for.

Edited August 13, 2012 by Trimdingman

[X NAP MILLWRIGHT]

It comes down to personal responsibility. No one in this country is forced to take a minimum wage job. If you have made it into adulthood and you work for minimum or low wages it is your fault. People have every opportunity to suceed in this country. An employer is paying what the market demands. Walmart/target should be full of teenagers working part time. Instead its full of uneducated/ unskilled adults that could not count change without a cash register. You have valid points but wages set based on government need is dangerous. Based on that idea everyone would pay the exact same amount of tax. Wealthy could even pay less based on the fact they use less government services.

[RougeWelder]

It comes down to personal responsibility. No one in this country is forced to take a minimum wage job. If you have made it into adulthood and you work for minimum or low wages it is your fault. People have every opportunity to suceed in this country. An employer is paying what the market demands. Walmart/target should be full of teenagers working part time. Instead its full of uneducated/ unskilled adults that could not count change without a cash register. You have valid points but wages set based on government need is dangerous. Based on that idea everyone would pay the exact same amount of tax. Wealthy could even pay less based on the fact they use less government services.

 

Let me see if I understand your post.......If you got hired at Ford at age 20(1990), get married and have 2 kids, buy a house and have a nice lifestyle because you feel secure in your union job , and worked the line for 20yrs.(2010) and your plant gets shut down....you are now 40 yrs. old in todays economy with a family to feed and a mortage to pay. You initially collect unemployment($362 a week = approx $9hr) until you can find work because you are too proud to not work, or eventually run out of the benefits you earned......what are your realistic options? Go back to school for a degree? In todays economy, corporations are NOT going to hire a 45yr old person fresh out of college for a decent, comparable, livable wage. Hell, most 25yr olds with a college degree cannot get a job making a livable wage that will support a family/mortgage/etc.. So now, after you use up all your savings and still can't find a job making comparable wages, you lose your house and go bankrupt cause there is no way to keep the standard of living that you enjoyed for the 20yrs. of your supposed secure union job. But wait....you still have a family to shelter, cloth, and feed. You are now in a 2 bedroom apt. in a less than secure part of town. The local Home Depot offers you a job starting at $9hr. with an increase to $10.50 after 1year.......What do YOU do? Is this person at fault because they took the production job at Ford Mtr. 20 years ago?????? This scenario is not just for auto workers, it is the same for construction workers, teachers, firemen, highly paid office workers, and yes....even Wall Street execs. And you say it is thier own fault????? But wait....lets say your family has connections with the rich and powerful. You could be dumb as a stump and talk like the village idiot and get the best job in the land(George W. Bush).

[X NAP MILLWRIGHT]

Yes

[Trimdingman]

A dollar an hour back in the fifties would buy more than what 20 dollars an hour buys to-day. Twenty dollars an hour should be the going rate for casual labor. I am not suggesting any laws. People should be allowed to work for free if they want to. If someone is working for less than 20 dollars an hour, he is probably brainwashed, and for sure being exploited. Just because someone is willing to crawl for peanuts if he is starving, doesn't mean it is all right to force him to. I've never been to Cuba, and probably never will, but I have heard stories about what these poor wretched people will do for a single dollar bill. It is sick. It is getting almost as bad here. It doesn't matter who you are, your life is worth more than ten or twelve dollars an hour. People will even give blowjobs for slices of bread if they are starving. It is wrong to degrade destitute people to the limit just because you can.

Edited August 14, 2012 by Trimdingman

[X NAP MILLWRIGHT]

$1 in 1950 adjusted for inflation is $9.52 in 2012 dollars. My point is the membership better wake up and fight for the wages/ benefits that they have. It is unbelievable what was lost in the last negotiation. The only way to keep/ preserve what you have is through collective bargaining. I know what the assembly line is like and workers earn their wage. It seems like the union/ membership is willing to let it go. Two tier wage was a pandaoras box that in itself was strike worthy. Job protection is basically gone as well. That leaves no good options for the example you give( middle age layoff) and no one to blame except the majority of the membership.