UAW Demands 46% Pay Hike

[akirby]

35 minutes ago, Oacjay98 said:

That’s true and that’s one of the ongoing issues at the table I’m sure. 

Ithought they already agreed to eliminate the tiers.

[fuzzymoomoo]

6 minutes ago, akirby said:

Ithought they already agreed to eliminate the tiers.

Depends on how you want to define tier. A lot of workers will say there will always be tiers as long as some people get pensions and the rest of us don’t. Personally I want no part of a pension so if there does end up being a choice between a pension or increased 401k matching I’ll choose the latter. 

[akirby]

10 minutes ago, fuzzymoomoo said:

Depends on how you want to define tier. A lot of workers will say there will always be tiers as long as some people get pensions and the rest of us don’t. Personally I want no part of a pension so if there does end up being a choice between a pension or increased 401k matching I’ll choose the latter. 

That’s the case at almost every corporation now.  New workers get bigger 401k matches but no defined benefit pension.  And you have to pay for health care.  Mine is $150/month with a $9k deductible.  And I lost subsidized health coverage for retirement two years ago.  That’s the real world.

[fuzzymoomoo]

8 minutes ago, akirby said:

That’s the case at almost every corporation now.  New workers get bigger 401k matches but no defined benefit pension.  And you have to pay for health care.  Mine is $150/month with a $9k deductible.  And I lost subsidized health coverage for retirement two years ago.  That’s the real world.

 

Honestly, it’s not even relevant to what’s going on anyway. That’s not the hill the union is dying on.

[Oac98]

2 hours ago, akirby said:

Ithought they already agreed to eliminate the tiers.

Farley said that Fain begs to differ so to me that means nothing has been eliminated officially yet. 

[paintguy]

5 hours ago, Oacjay98 said:

That’s true and that’s one of the ongoing issues at the table I’m sure. 

I'm sure a major point of negotiation is an equitable solution to the lower tier. Any proposal likely to have supporters and detractors even within the union. Wisdom of King Solomon needed. Or great leader of your choice. Happy New Year to our Jewish friends.

[Oac98]

Maybe so but the lower tiers really need more in general. This is a HUGE issue which anybody could’ve foreseen including these corporations. 

[paintguy]

50 minutes ago, Oacjay98 said:

Maybe so but the lower tiers really need more in general. This is a HUGE issue which anybody could’ve foreseen including these corporations. 

Agree it is a major issue. Retention of new employees has been rough. When production was riding high OT helped the lower tier make some money. The supply chain crisis and highly variable production has the lower tier making less than burger flippers.

[akirby]

1 hour ago, Oacjay98 said:

Maybe so but the lower tiers really need more in general. This is a HUGE issue which anybody could’ve foreseen including these corporations. 

Are the older workers willing to give up some of their pay to help out the newer workers?  They were created to help the company control labor costs without affecting the older workers.

[paintguy]

6 hours ago, akirby said:

Ithought they already agreed to eliminate the tiers.

I've heard similar. In the now discussed 20% over the life of the contract, how much goes to lower tier vs legacy? Can imagine much heated discussion among UAW bargainers.

[jpd80]

29 minutes ago, akirby said:

Are the older workers willing to give up some of their pay to help out the newer workers?  They were created to help the company control labor costs without affecting the older workers.

Am I wrong or is the UAW not negotiating on anything?

It seems like their expectations are set in stone and simply rejecting company offers out of hand…

Under different circumstances, I could see a lot of members either open to or accepting the Ford offer.

[ExplorerDude]

17 hours ago, .I. said:

And then people criticize when Ford decides to import the Lincoln Nautilus from China. Given what is happening with the absurd demands of the automobile unions, Ford (and the other American brands) should stop producing vehicles in the USA and move the plants to Mexico, Canada or China. By the way, all these lawsuits do not affect either Toyota or Tesla. I don't know if the idea is to bankrupt the 3 traditional American companies, because that is what will happen if common sense doesn’t prevails.

I honestly believe if the UAW gets exactly what they’re asking for then there’s a very strong chance Ford will dust off the plant plans for San Luis Potosí or somewhere else in Mexico and build a new plant in there. With high labor and EV production costs, they’ll build a new plant and close 2 in the US which haven’t gotten EV conversion investments. 

[akirby]

9 minutes ago, ExplorerDude said:

I honestly believe if the UAW gets exactly what they’re asking for then there’s a very strong chance Ford will dust off the plant plans for San Luis Potosí or somewhere else in Mexico and build a new plant in there. With high labor and EV production costs, they’ll build a new plant and close 2 in the US which haven’t gotten EV conversion investments. 

What about BOC being a non union plant?  Is that possible?

[silvrsvt]

6 hours ago, paintguy said:

Agree it is a major issue. Retention of new employees has been rough. When production was riding high OT helped the lower tier make some money. The supply chain crisis and highly variable production has the lower tier making less than burger flippers.

 

IMO I think the amount of money that burger flippers get isn't as high as we think it is either....they might say hey we will pay you 15-20 bucks an hour, but you'd be lucky to work 10-15 hours a week.

 

Retention with new employees is horrible in every single industry-I work for the government and like 3/4 of the entry level employees moved new positions with in 3-4 years of working there chasing $$$. I also know people working as Contracted Service Support that used to be government employees and hated their choices because they lost out on a more or less permanent position that would pay almost as well as the civilian world without much of the chance of getting laid off.   

 

My wife works in providing services with children with Autism and other behaviors and it was a running joke with her with no call, no show with interviewees at an old job she used to work at. She'd have 2 or 3 a week trying to fill positions. 

 

The labor market is really fucked and will be even more fucked in the next 10 years.  

[fuzzymoomoo]

2 hours ago, akirby said:

What about BOC being a non union plant?  Is that possible?

It’s possible, yes. That’s an issue to be addressed when the place opens. How likely that is I think depends on the outcome of these negotiations. 

[jpd80]

1 hour ago, silvrsvt said:

 

IMO I think the amount of money that burger flippers get isn't as high as we think it is either....they might say hey we will pay you 15-20 bucks an hour, but you'd be lucky to work 10-15 hours a week.

 

Retention with new employees is horrible in every single industry-I work for the government and like 3/4 of the entry level employees moved new positions with in 3-4 years of working there chasing $$$. I also know people working as Contracted Service Support that used to be government employees and hated their choices because they lost out on a more or less permanent position that would pay almost as well as the civilian world without much of the chance of getting laid off.   

 

My wife works in providing services with children with Autism and other behaviors and it was a running joke with her with no call, no show with interviewees at an old job she used to work at. She'd have 2 or 3 a week trying to fill positions. 

 

The labor market is really fucked and will be even more fucked in the next 10 years.  

While most would agree that fast food work is transitory and that most people are looking for better full time work, to hear the anecdotal experience of your wife trying to help people that don’t bother to front is so disappointing.

Some people can’t be helped or reached because they don’t want to be.

 

 

With the two tier system, my understanding is that they are hired at half pay and it takes ten years to progress to full wage. I think there’s a lot of room there to improve and fast track those employees - maybe demonstration of acquired skills and knowledge should be a part of that as it’s often quoted as the difference between new starters and people on full wages.

Edited September 17, 2023 by jpd80

[Bob Rosadini]

I haven't followed every post on this subject but if you haven't read the post by Ice-Capades on Friday, it is a good one.  Go back and read it  as he posts as a guy who  was on the union leadership side of the table.

 

I on the other hand, spent 44 years on the other side of the table.  And for the last 30 years or so I was the chief spokesman for  the company.

And my attitude was always the best resolution was one in which neither side was the winner  as it meant both sides  had to compromise. 

 

Looking back, I would say my best achievement was I  instituted a two tier wage structure...which not only did I have to sell to the union, I also had to sell it to my management. 

 

We were faced with a decision to outsource our transportation function-or at least a large portion of it- to outside carriers whose labor costs were far lower than ours.  I sold it to the unions on the basis that two tiers allowed us to stay competitive with outside carriers by keeping our fleet utilization up, thereby protecting senior drivers.  And as long as the labor market had potential drivers waiting at the door, we justified the proprietary fleet operation-and two tiers worked.  Once the market for drivers tightened, the concept would no longer work.

 

As JP80 pointed out, I agree that a 10 year progression is unrealistic.  Our progression rates were far lower and we could afford to advance new hires as there was always attrition at the top as senior drivers retired.  The concept allowed us to fully utilize our equipment...much as two tiers allows the auto industry to function.

 

Management IMO is  asleep at the switch if they cave on this issue-the issue should be solved with reasonable compromise. 

 

Likewise, "big balls"  Fain is doing  his members no favors as the new hires that would come on board as dues payers  will never get hired...when "Big Broncos" are built along  side their little brothers in Hermosillio (sp?).  The guy is totally out of touch with reality.

 

And I have to agree, Farley's salary is a joke, but his job is not at stake, Fuzzy's job is and unfortunately, he gets it, but I think but too many of his  co-workers swallow the bullshit hook line and sinker.

 

[akirby]

Well said Bob.  I’ve been involved in many similar contract negotiations and business cases.

 

The reality is the company has to stay competitive with their cost structure to stay in business.  And while labor isn’t always the biggest component it’s usually the easiest and quickest to adjust.  Good union leaders understand this and they understand that if the company can’t compete they won’t have any jobs.  
 

If you start from that position then you can find creative ways to achieve that goal while maximizing benefits for existing employees.  It’s better to protect current (especially senior) employees with tiered wages while new hires get less.  The new hires are voluntarily signing up for these jobs which most are happy to have and if the compensation isn’t competitive in the market nobody will apply.  The alternative is outsourcing or pay cuts across the board. 
 

There are other things the union can ask for like more days off, more job security (to a point)  - things the company can provide while remaining cost competitive.  Good unions do this.  Bad unions call great wages “poverty level” and make insane demands that are 100% out of touch with reality and convince their members to die on the sword, which is exactly what will happen here one way or the other.

 

Can the NLRB help with mediation?

[fuzzymoomoo]

1 hour ago, Bob Rosadini said:

And I have to agree, Farley's salary is a joke, but his job is not at stake, 

I disagree. First time UAW declared a strike against Ford in 50 years happened under his watch. Rumor is Bill Ford is PISSED over how it all played out. Farley continuing to talk to the media can’t be helping. 

[akirby]

14 minutes ago, fuzzymoomoo said:

I disagree. First time UAW declared a strike against Ford in 50 years happened under his watch. Rumor is Bill Ford is PISSED over how it all played out. Farley continuing to talk to the media can’t be helping. 

He would be fired tomorrow if he agreed to 36% raises.  As would Barra and the Stellantis CEO.

[fuzzymoomoo]

13 minutes ago, akirby said:

He would be fired tomorrow if he agreed to 36% raises.  As would Barra and the Stellantis CEO.

You still think raises are the key issue…. Like I said in the other thread, stop believing everything thing you read in the media. 

[mackinaw]

44 minutes ago, fuzzymoomoo said:

I disagree. First time UAW declared a strike against Ford in 50 years happened under his watch. Rumor is Bill Ford is PISSED over how it all played out. 

 

I doubt this.  I'm sure Bill Ford has been aware of, and has approved, Ford's bargaining strategy from Day One.  

 

And it was Fain who stiffed both Bill Ford and Farley last Tuesday when they both went to meet with the union to present their latest proposal.  Hard to bargain in good faith when the UAW Chief blows off the meeting.

[Bob Rosadini]

1 hour ago, akirby said:

Well said Bob.  I’ve been involved in many similar contract negotiations and business cases.

 

The reality is the company has to stay competitive with their cost structure to stay in business.  And while labor isn’t always the biggest component it’s usually the easiest and quickest to adjust.  Good union leaders understand this and they understand that if the company can’t compete they won’t have any jobs.  
 

If you start from that position then you can find creative ways to achieve that goal while maximizing benefits for existing employees.  It’s better to protect current (especially senior) employees with tiered wages while new hires get less.  The new hires are voluntarily signing up for these jobs which most are happy to have and if the compensation isn’t competitive in the market nobody will apply.  The alternative is outsourcing or pay cuts across the board. 
 

There are other things the union can ask for like more days off, more job security (to a point)  - things the company can provide while remaining cost competitive.  Good unions do this.  Bad unions call great wages “poverty level” and make insane demands that are 100% out of touch with reality and convince their members to die on the sword, which is exactly what will happen here one way or the other.

 

Can the NLRB help with mediation?

 

AK-

Thx your third paragraph does a better job of summarizing the two tier concept.  What is missing is a reasonable progression rate if you want to have a future.

 

As for the NLRB? IMO forget it-totally in labor's pocket

 

One other thing I should add.  When I started as a trainee right out of college the big dog in the oil industry was OCAW-   Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers Union-60,000 workers.  And later on unions experienced same pressures as every one and with bigger refineries closing smaller ones .  OCAW was swallowed by paper workers union-with over 200,000 members .  First time I had to negotiate in Maine with the paper workers, our policy was to open negotiations with a "state of the union" as to what issues our industry  had to face.  This guy interrupts

me and says..."I don 't care what your problems are, I'm here to get best deal for my company".  I countered with.."If your union paid closer attention to problems paper industry faced, there would probably be more paperworkers left in state of Maine".

 

And that trend continued.  Before  I retired the paperworkers were swallowed by the Steel Workers.   I was lucky as the USW rep I dealt with in another part of country was an old OCAW guy, survived the Paper Workers and then was the USW rep.  I hear from him and he is bullshit as USW wanted him to go on a weekend to NYC for a big rally USW wanted to support for steel workers in So. America!  Another example of unions at the top not in touch with the front lines.

[Bob Rosadini]

56 minutes ago, fuzzymoomoo said:

I disagree. First time UAW declared a strike against Ford in 50 years happened under his watch. Rumor is Bill Ford is PISSED over how it all played out. Farley continuing to talk to the media can’t be helping. 

 

Well you my be right but as a practical matter, Farley is I believe the lowest paid of the big three.

But its the same old story..does the rifleman in the trench make the same as the platoon leader, as the company co etc...Incoming could kill all three at once!

But I also hear there are other issues so perhaps it is not all "milk and honey" as far as Farley is concerned.

 

Like this loyal stockholder, customer has to listen to my pals rag me on recalls while Farley wants to pour money down the Formula One rabbit hole.

[Oac98]

20 hours ago, akirby said:

Are the older workers willing to give up some of their pay to help out the newer workers?  They were created to help the company control labor costs without affecting the older workers.

You know the answer to that Akirby. This is about getting the lower tier on par with veteran workers in terms of pay. In progression takes 8 years now to full pay. That needs to change.