UAW Demands 46% Pay Hike

[T-dubz]

51 minutes ago, fuzzymoomoo said:

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, I don’t hate that most recent offer. Make the COLA formula a little stronger, limit the amount of time a temp can be a temp to 90 days (I’ll settle for 6 months) with zero caveat and make the wage progression the length of 1 contract and I’m good with it. 

I understand COLA and the tiers, but what’s the issue with temps? 

[akirby]

4 yr contracts are ridiculous anyway.  It’s only done to keep the negotiators employed and if that’s your job then you can’t say hey the current contract is fine let’s just re-up with a few tweaks.  No, you have to at least make it look like you’re going out and fighting the big bad company to get more stuff.  So much unnecessary work on both sides  even without a strike.

 

At what point does Ford just say this is the best we can do and still be competitive.  Take it or leave it and if they don’t take it, lock them out and start hiring replacements?  If they give them what they want they won’t be able to compete with Tesla and Toyota anyway.  Profit margin will drop to less than 5%, investors will dump the stock, credit ratings will drop.  At that point they’re one price war or recession away from full bankruptcy.  No company no union no jobs.

 

The only way to realistically control labor costs without severely impacting existing workers is to allow new hires at lower rates with fewer benefits but still competitive with the rest of the market.  Then encourage existing employees to retire early.  And I don’t want to hear that it will cause friction between workers.  My company did this years ago and we have employees that came from different companies.  Some coworkers only get 401k contributions and get no retiree benefits and some get full monthly pensions and subsidized retiree health care (or used to) and variations in between.  There are at least 5 or 6 different compensation plans with varying degrees of benefits (and salary) depending on when you were hired and which company you came from.  It’s not an issue because everyone hired in to those terms.

 

 

[akirby]

13 hours ago, Bob Rosadini said:

 

So contract has no qualification other than seniority?  That truly sucks..  In my "day", most contracts  had language under Job postings that were like...Preference will be given to senior most "qualified" employee.  Now if you awarded job to other  than senior bidder you  had better have a good case as to why he did..excuse me...he/she.did not get job or you would have a grievance.

I watched my wife go through this bidding for jobs in the 90s.  You must first be “qualified” for the job then it goes by seniority.  However, the qualifications were just the bare minimum to do the job.  Performance or skill was never a consideration because “all my people do good work all the time” and all workers are the same.  So the end result was that seniority was the only real factor.  Had she been in a non union job she would have gotten 2 or 3 promotions based on performance in that timeframe.

[akirby]

30 minutes ago, T-dubz said:

I understand COLA and the tiers, but what’s the issue with temps? 

They’re probably keeping them longer and using them as a way to keep labor costs down because they probably don’t get benefits.

[fuzzymoomoo]

57 minutes ago, T-dubz said:

I understand COLA and the tiers, but what’s the issue with temps? 

Theres enough loopholes in the contract that can be manipulated by the company to make temps around on a long term basis. If I’m not mistaken, you need to be employed for 1 calendar year (and I think full time at that) in order to be flipped to a permanent seniority employee. I haven’t seen too much of it at my plant but I’ve heard stores from elsewhere where people keep getting flipped from full time to part time to reset that clock. 

[fuzzymoomoo]

34 minutes ago, akirby said:

They’re probably keeping them longer and using them as a way to keep labor costs down because they probably don’t get benefits.

They get some but not a whole lot. I’m not entirely sure exactly what it is. 

[fuzzymoomoo]

48 minutes ago, akirby said:

Profit margin will drop to less than 5%,

Well that seems like an exaggeration. Look at how much profitability improved over the last 6 years without changing much, if anything about union wages. And they still say they have at least double the engineering staff that they should have. Start there. 

[akirby]

21 minutes ago, fuzzymoomoo said:

Well that seems like an exaggeration. Look at how much profitability improved over the last 6 years without changing much, if anything about union wages. And they still say they have at least double the engineering staff that they should have. Start there. 

Prior to Covid and supply chain problems driving up prices Ford was in the 4%-6% range consistently.  Today it’s only 8% and that’s with F series being a lot higher than that so the rest are probably closer to 5%-6%.  If labor is 5% as has been reported and the union proposal will double labor costs as has been reported and which seems entirely plausible if you include pensions and a 32 hour week, Ford will be lucky to break even   And if Tesla or Toyota decides to start cutting prices then it’s over.  Might as well fold up shop right now.

[akirby]

27 minutes ago, fuzzymoomoo said:

And they still say they have at least double the engineering staff that they should have. Start there. 

They’ve been cutting engineers and will continue.  It’s just not always advertised.

[Deanh]

40 minutes ago, fuzzymoomoo said:

Well that seems like an exaggeration. Look at how much profitability improved over the last 6 years without changing much, if anything about union wages. And they still say they have at least double the engineering staff that they should have. Start there. 

based on this BEV kneejerk crap...that "profitability" is about to do an about face...at least temporariliy...

[T-dubz]

1 hour ago, fuzzymoomoo said:

Theres enough loopholes in the contract that can be manipulated by the company to make temps around on a long term basis. If I’m not mistaken, you need to be employed for 1 calendar year (and I think full time at that) in order to be flipped to a permanent seniority employee. I haven’t seen too much of it at my plant but I’ve heard stores from elsewhere where people keep getting flipped from full time to part time to reset that clock. 

I consider a temporary worker as someone who is contracted through a temporary agency. They get paid by the temp agency, not by the employer, and come at a substantial cost savings to the employer because they don’t have to pay any benefits. What you are describing sounds like the employment status within ford changing from part time to full time or vice versa?

[fuzzymoomoo]

43 minutes ago, T-dubz said:

I consider a temporary worker as someone who is contracted through a temporary agency. They get paid by the temp agency, not by the employer, and come at a substantial cost savings to the employer because they don’t have to pay any benefits. What you are describing sounds like the employment status within ford changing from part time to full time or vice versa?

To my knowledge we don’t have any hourly on the line working for a temp agency. I know Stellantis does that all over and they get paid less than direct hires to start. 
 

What I’m referring to is the classification TPT (Temporary part-time) and TFT (Temporary full-time). The company can change you back and forth at will and every time they remove you from full time that 1 year clock resets. 

Edited September 21, 2023 by fuzzymoomoo

[Bob Rosadini]

2 hours ago, akirby said:

I watched my wife go through this bidding for jobs in the 90s.  You must first be “qualified” for the job then it goes by seniority.  However, the qualifications were just the bare minimum to do the job.  Performance or skill was never a consideration because “all my people do good work all the time” and all workers are the same.  So the end result was that seniority was the only real factor.  Had she been in a non union job she would have gotten 2 or 3 promotions based on performance in that timeframe.

That was not the way our contracts were.   Any one could bid an opening.  Then seniority would prevail..but "Most senior  qualified"...and it worked but at times over a grievance =that would go to various levels.

[Rangers09]

5 hours ago, silvrsvt said:

 

That is all fine and good till reality hits the workers in the face when they can't pay their bills and mortgages. Which I already think is on some of their minds. 

 

I think Ford might be in a better position here in that regard. 

 

It just seems like the UAW leadership is being an asshole just to prove a point...when in the grand scheme of things they are actually closer then they want to admit?

 

In a strike it is always the employees who face challenges making ends meet, as the Union leadership continues to draw regular salaries. Don't know the UAW salaries, but my employee's union president made the same as the highest paid member in the union, which 12 yrs ago was > $100K for a small union, of about 4,000 members.

 

I've always thought when a union strikes and the workers only receive strike pay, everyone employed by the union should be paid at the same level as the workers on strike. 

[Rangers09]

16 hours ago, Bob Rosadini said:

 

So contract has no qualification other than seniority?  That truly sucks..  In my "day", most contracts  had language under Job postings that were like...Preference will be given to senior most "qualified" employee.  Now if you awarded job to other  than senior bidder you  had better have a good case as to why he did..excuse me...he/she.did not get job or you would have a grievance.

 

I experienced similar contract language when I moved to Canada, and in my preferred industry, all positions except Captain were within the union. Fortunately, the contract language set 3 criteria for determining the successful applicant for job postings - qualifications, experience, and ability, and if all were equal it went to seniority. Being the most junior, I won all of the postings I applied for, which was a real bug to the union. Every one was grieved, with 1 even going to arbitration. With this language, I was able to move through the union positions quickly, attaining the experience for an exempt position much younger than they could today.

 

Sadly, the union eventually got the criteria changed to the senior competent and qualified applicant. We developed a series of tests to determine competence, setting the bar fairly high. It had the desired effect that most of the ones with limited ability couldn't pass the tests, but with union pressure, the company refused to back us, and watered down the testing requirements. Before, I retired it was basically all by seniority, although we still did interviews and I could at times eliminate the senior applicant. Failing that, our only option was failing them during the familiarisation phase and then again during probation.

 

The original criteria of qualification, experience and ability sure saved considerable time ensuring a competent person got the job. 

[rperez817]

23 hours ago, Flying68 said:

I don't know why the UAW hasn't aggressively pursued unionizing Tesla.

 

23 hours ago, fuzzymoomoo said:

they did for a while but it was kind of a half assed effort and they gave up when met with resistance from the company. It was shortly after that when the corruption scandals started. 

 

UAW is gearing up for a more concerted effort to organize Tesla workers in California and Texas. For Tesla and Musk, Auto Strike Carries Benefits and Risks - The New York Times (nytimes.com)

 

“There is a group of Tesla workers who are actively talking about forming a union and creating the best representation they can for themselves and their co-workers through collective bargaining,” said Mike Miller, the director of the U.A.W.’s Region 6, which includes California and Nevada, where Tesla makes cars and batteries. Tesla also has a large factory in Austin, Texas, not too far from a unionized G.M. factory in the Dallas-Fort Worth area.

[rmc523]

On 9/20/2023 at 2:01 PM, Oacjay98 said:

So I suppose Tesla workers are never gonna want a raise and are just gonna stay at the same rate of pay??

 

 

On 9/20/2023 at 2:59 PM, akirby said:

Perhaps I was a bit harsh but all workers are unhappy with their employers at some point.  Mine took away 5 days of vacation  a couple of years ago. I wasn’t at all happy about it, but looking at it objectively I enjoyed 33 days of vacation for the last 15+ years which is FAR more than most.  So while I don’t like it, if you compare it to other companies it’s still a great deal.  I also lost retiree medical coverage subsidies but again that’s the new standard in most companies because of rising health care costs,   If I don’t like it I’m free to go work somewhere else.  Or retire.

 

Companies that have significantly higher labor costs than their direct competition and single digit profit margins are one price war or economic downturn away from bankruptcy.

 

I wish I had anywhere near that lol.

 

19 hours ago, fuzzymoomoo said:

To that end the union could definitely be less confrontational about the coming transition. There has to be a way to maintain job security while not giving up the farm order to do so. 
 

It’s very similar to what we’ve seen in the week since the strike began. Instead of a 2-way dialogue happening the union is making the company do all the leg work instead of actually legitimately negotiating. 

 

Yeah, not to get political, but sounds like DC on both sides - this "my way or the highway" mentality for everything is ruining everything.  What ever happened to meeting in the middle on issues to where neither side gets exactly what they want, but each gets some of what they want??

[hllywd]

10 hours ago, silvrsvt said:

It just seems like the UAW leadership is being an asshole just to prove a point...when in the grand scheme of things they are actually closer then they want to admit?

You aren't wrong. I think all the theatrics and chest-thumping is an effort to distance themselves from the corruption that led to prison terms. I don't personally like the tactics but the hardliners and the younger generation sure seem to love it.

[hllywd]

7 hours ago, akirby said:

They’re probably keeping them longer and using them as a way to keep labor costs down because they probably don’t get benefits.

What they're actually doing is keeping them 89 days, letting them go and then rehiring them. Some have been through this cycle for years. I am not against hiring in at 70%, getting a raise every six months and eventually obtaining the top rate with experience. But I don't think it's fair to keep employees in an endless loop of hire/fire/rehire. I don't think the progression should be 90 days but I do think these people should become regular employees after 90 days. I think the language needs to be strengthened to indicate anyone with more than 90 days experience will transition to full time, regular employment. Current language says 90 consecutive days.

[fuzzymoomoo]

11 minutes ago, hllywd said:

I don't think the progression should be 90 days but I do think these people should become regular employees after 90 days.

like I said, I would settle for 6 months but definitely remove the damn loopholes. 

[akirby]

We don’t have temps but we have contractors for 1-2 years.  When their contract is up they can’t be rehired for 6 months.  Allowing them to be immediately rehired is stupid.

[fordmantpw]

14 minutes ago, akirby said:

We don’t have temps but we have contractors for 1-2 years.  When their contract is up they can’t be rehired for 6 months.  Allowing them to be immediately rehired is stupid.

 

What's the point?  Just keep the contractors around indefinitely.  We do.  I was one for 7+ years, then again for 9.  Now I'm a FTE.  The reason it took me so long to become a FTE was because the first attempts to recruit me were into a union position.  I wanted no part of it because of the whole 'everyone is the same' issue.

Edited September 21, 2023 by fordmantpw

[akirby]

29 minutes ago, fordmantpw said:

 

What's the point?  Just keep the contractors around indefinitely.  We do.  I was one for 7+ years, then again for 9.  Now I'm a FTE.  The reason it took me so long to become a FTE was because the first attempts to recruit me were into a union position.  I wanted no part of it because of the whole 'everyone is the same' issue.

They’re supposed to be temporary and easier to let go when they’re no longer needed or budgets get cut.  But a lot end up being semi-permanent especially former employees who have specialized knowledge.

[paintguy]

8 hours ago, akirby said:

They’ve been cutting engineers and will continue.  It’s just not always advertised.

Much of the engineering problem is types and deployment. Powertrain will take a big hit as ICE declines. Some manufacturing facilities misuse engineers with tasks with less of a return than should be.

[fuzzymoomoo]

1 hour ago, paintguy said:

Much of the engineering problem is types and deployment. Powertrain will take a big hit as ICE declines. Some manufacturing facilities misuse engineers with tasks with less of a return than should be.

I’ve seen numerous instances of there being too many cooks in the kitchen and nothing getting accomplished because of it.