United Auto Workers (UAW) News
#41
One on the right for me
Originally Posted by Maximized
Or another idea would be to have UAW workers pay for 50% of their healthcare benefits. They are overpaid in the first place IMO.
I think the copay is a good idea. I dont have the UAW contract language in front of me but I have read a ton of union contracts where there is a cap on Healthcare and the employee pays whatever goes over that cap. That way the employer is able to have a very good estimate of how much it will spend on healthcare and can budget based on that.
There are a few unions around the Bay Area (I am sure other places as well) that have their own healthcare system (cant remember if it is quite that simple but thats the basic idea). I doubt it will work for all of them, but shit thats the best way to avoid any potential problems with negotiations.
#42
Suzuka Master
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Chicago Suburbs
Age: 43
Posts: 5,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by subinf
I think the copay is a good idea. I dont have the UAW contract language in front of me but I have read a ton of union contracts where there is a cap on Healthcare and the employee pays whatever goes over that cap. That way the employer is able to have a very good estimate of how much it will spend on healthcare and can budget based on that.
There are a few unions around the Bay Area (I am sure other places as well) that have their own healthcare system (cant remember if it is quite that simple but thats the basic idea). I doubt it will work for all of them, but shit thats the best way to avoid any potential problems with negotiations.
There are a few unions around the Bay Area (I am sure other places as well) that have their own healthcare system (cant remember if it is quite that simple but thats the basic idea). I doubt it will work for all of them, but shit thats the best way to avoid any potential problems with negotiations.
" The UAW hourly health care is way, way richer" than GM salaried workers' medical coverage, said Bob Lutz, chairman of GM North America, at an investment conference. "We've got to get to the point where all of our employees, hourly and salaried and the UAW, have the same health care contract. ... That would mean huge sums of money for us."
The automaker expects to spend $5.6 billion -- about $1,600 a vehicle -- on health care this year, far more than Toyota Motor Corp., Honda Motor Co. and other foreign rivals.
GM said its 38,000 U.S. salaried workers paid 27 percent of their total health care costs last year, while the company's 119,000 U.S. hourly workers, largely covered by the UAW union contracts, paid 7 percent.
The average U.S. corporate employee pays 32 percent of the cost of his or her health care, GM said. "
-I personally don't have the UAW contract information either, but it seems like there is a easy solution. I wouldn't doubt that you see the UAW paying roughly 4X's(28%) of their total health care. That's fair to me and should save GM/Ford a boat load of money.
#43
One on the right for me
Originally Posted by Maximized
Here is some more information from a Detroit News article:
" The UAW hourly health care is way, way richer" than GM salaried workers' medical coverage, said Bob Lutz, chairman of GM North America, at an investment conference. "We've got to get to the point where all of our employees, hourly and salaried and the UAW, have the same health care contract. ... That would mean huge sums of money for us."
The automaker expects to spend $5.6 billion -- about $1,600 a vehicle -- on health care this year, far more than Toyota Motor Corp., Honda Motor Co. and other foreign rivals.
GM said its 38,000 U.S. salaried workers paid 27 percent of their total health care costs last year, while the company's 119,000 U.S. hourly workers, largely covered by the UAW union contracts, paid 7 percent.
The average U.S. corporate employee pays 32 percent of the cost of his or her health care, GM said. "
-I personally don't have the UAW contract information either, but it seems like there is a easy solution. I wouldn't doubt that you see the UAW paying roughly 4X's(28%) of their total health care. That's fair to me and should save GM/Ford a boat load of money.
" The UAW hourly health care is way, way richer" than GM salaried workers' medical coverage, said Bob Lutz, chairman of GM North America, at an investment conference. "We've got to get to the point where all of our employees, hourly and salaried and the UAW, have the same health care contract. ... That would mean huge sums of money for us."
The automaker expects to spend $5.6 billion -- about $1,600 a vehicle -- on health care this year, far more than Toyota Motor Corp., Honda Motor Co. and other foreign rivals.
GM said its 38,000 U.S. salaried workers paid 27 percent of their total health care costs last year, while the company's 119,000 U.S. hourly workers, largely covered by the UAW union contracts, paid 7 percent.
The average U.S. corporate employee pays 32 percent of the cost of his or her health care, GM said. "
-I personally don't have the UAW contract information either, but it seems like there is a easy solution. I wouldn't doubt that you see the UAW paying roughly 4X's(28%) of their total health care. That's fair to me and should save GM/Ford a boat load of money.
#46
Suzuka Master
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Chicago Suburbs
Age: 43
Posts: 5,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by subinf
I thought it was almost 2200 a car...not that 1600 isnt way to high, just glad I know the right number now. I agree, either have UAW pay more in healthcare until GM can sort through this mess and then open the issue up in the future and see where the Union stands. I still think that if GM gets out of this they should just buy healthcare back from the Union-dont know if UAW will make that easy but thats best case scenario for GM.
#47
One on the right for me
Originally Posted by Maximized
Or phase out union labor so that the company can be competitive with non-union US plants.
That strips employees of their rights though. Cant grieve any discipline, question a termination or suspension, bargain about holiday pay, etc. No more unions equals management taking advantage of the employees. There are not nearly enough government programs to protect the employee.
#48
Senior Moderator
Originally Posted by subinf
That strips employees of their rights though. Cant grieve any discipline, question a termination or suspension, bargain about holiday pay, etc. No more unions equals management taking advantage of the employees. There are not nearly enough government programs to protect the employee.
![Shrug](https://acurazine.com/forums/images/smilies/shrug.gif)
#49
Suzuka Master
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Chicago Suburbs
Age: 43
Posts: 5,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by subinf
That strips employees of their rights though. Cant grieve any discipline, question a termination or suspension, bargain about holiday pay, etc. No more unions equals management taking advantage of the employees. There are not nearly enough government programs to protect the employee.
#50
One on the right for me
Originally Posted by Maximized
They won't have any rights or a job if the UAW stays in power. That's a BS arguement anyways. A lot of industries are non-union and treat employees well. Unions are a plague on American manufacturing.
You never make it clear whether or not you are talking specifically about the UAW or unions in general. If I made a blanket statement about unions (less the UAW, I've agreed with some of your points there) you focus specifically on the UAW. If you dont use the UAW as your launching point there isnt much else to go from. Unions are found in many more fields than just the manufacturing ones...Police Officers, Teachers, Secretarys, hell even some Macy's employees.
This is going to probably get moved to R&P by the end of the day.
#51
One on the right for me
Originally Posted by F23A4
Unless you forgot the [SARCASM][/SARCASM], I'm NOT seeing many non-union, non-management employees from other industries (i.e.: banking & finance) voicing these types of concerns. ![Shrug](https://acurazine.com/forums/images/smilies/shrug.gif)
![Shrug](https://acurazine.com/forums/images/smilies/shrug.gif)
I dont know if there is an easy way to quantify that. You can look at all the complaints made by union members because of the grievance record and looking at the arbitration records. At will employees cant challenge their layoff unless they believe they can drag in the EEOC.
#52
Suzuka Master
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Chicago Suburbs
Age: 43
Posts: 5,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by subinf
You never make it clear whether or not you are talking specifically about the UAW or unions in general. If I made a blanket statement about unions (less the UAW, I've agreed with some of your points there) you focus specifically on the UAW. If you dont use the UAW as your launching point there isnt much else to go from. Unions are found in many more fields than just the manufacturing ones...Police Officers, Teachers, Secretarys, hell even some Macy's employees.
This is going to probably get moved to R&P by the end of the day.
This is going to probably get moved to R&P by the end of the day.
#53
One on the right for me
Originally Posted by Maximized
Any type of union that's associated with manufacturing. The UAW is the most well known and publicized. I can make a solid factual arguement that ALL unions are detrimental to a capitalist economy. Union enrollment is slowly decreasing and eventually I feel that unions will be phased out. Unions became greedy and out of touch with business, that's why they are losing their power. It's funny that you mention teachers unions. There is a lot of information on how they are detrimental to the educational system.
So when you take away unions you are left with...employers that want to dick over their employees however they can? That might not be the case with small business and those who get along well enough with management, but unions are really the only tool that the employee has on their side to voice their concerns and actually bargain for the rights they want. Most unions are not unreasonable in what they ask for. Unions are important mainly because they allow the employee to challenge their termination/suspension otherwise you have a guy who has put in 25 years of work for a company and is terminated because another employee doesnt like him (happens quite a lot)
#54
Suzuka Master
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Chicago Suburbs
Age: 43
Posts: 5,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Another intriguing article on Unions:
http://www.mises.org/fullstory.aspx?control=1590
http://www.mises.org/fullstory.aspx?control=1590
#55
Suzuka Master
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Chicago Suburbs
Age: 43
Posts: 5,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by subinf
So when you take away unions you are left with...employers that want to dick over their employees however they can? That might not be the case with small business and those who get along well enough with management, but unions are really the only tool that the employee has on their side to voice their concerns and actually bargain for the rights they want. Most unions are not unreasonable in what they ask for. Unions are important mainly because they allow the employee to challenge their termination/suspension otherwise you have a guy who has put in 25 years of work for a company and is terminated because another employee doesnt like him (happens quite a lot)
#56
One on the right for me
I'd like to think that people are actually concerned about job security and the like. If you put in hard time for an employeer and are loyal to the company it seems reasonable that you should have a voice in at least questioning your termination rather than being forced to remain silent your entire career.
#57
Senior Moderator
Originally Posted by subinf
I'd like to think that people are actually concerned about job security and the like. If you put in hard time for an employeer and are loyal to the company it seems reasonable that you should have a voice in at least questioning your termination rather than being forced to remain silent your entire career.
![what](https://acurazine.com/forums/images/smilies/what.gif)
Alas, the term job security is subject.
#58
One on the right for me
Originally Posted by F23A4
![what](https://acurazine.com/forums/images/smilies/what.gif)
Alas, the term job security is subject.
So you wouldnt have a problem if you were terminated because a coworker did not like you?
#59
Senior Moderator
Originally Posted by subinf
So you wouldnt have a problem if you were terminated because a coworker did not like you?
It has been my experience that persons being terminated 'on the spot' have warranted the company's decision to do so.
While corp management occassionally commits infractions against workers, it's few and far between. Not to mention, being labeled as an "oppressive" employer is generally counterintuitive to maintaining an efficient and profitable work force.
Back on topic, the contemporary UAW has done N O T H I N G but seal the fate of the American auto worker and contribute to the downfall of the big 2.
#60
Suzuka Master
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Lower Nazzie, Pa
Age: 46
Posts: 5,349
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
1 Post
Talking about job security...
- I have an engineering degree and have very diverse work experience that puts me above most other traditional "engineers."
- I will have my MBA in hopefully 2-3 years from now.
- I also have incoming producing investments that provide income if I were to be unemployed.
- I also have enough savings for a rainy year.
I provide my OWN job security and don't depend on any union or my company's "good will" to do it for me. If my main skills become obsolete due to outsourcing to India or China, then I will develop any of my other skills and make one of them my main skills. If those also become obsolete, I will learn new skills. If worse comes to worse, I will clean toilets if I have to just in order to survive.
but in the end, I make myself an asset to my company rather than a liability. that in itself is job security.
If a person WANTS a union to help manage relations between workers and employees, that's one thing and I'm all for that.
but if a person NEEDS a union to protect his job, that's another thing. If the person is not an asset (as in they are not worth the compensation) he/she/they will need the unions to make sure they get MORE than what they are worth...which is the case with the UAW.
The people who are TOO PROUD to do something "below" them, and UNWILLING to learn a new skill and UNWILLING to be flexible, and UNWILLING to accept pay more in line with their worth are the people that NEED unions.
- I have an engineering degree and have very diverse work experience that puts me above most other traditional "engineers."
- I will have my MBA in hopefully 2-3 years from now.
- I also have incoming producing investments that provide income if I were to be unemployed.
- I also have enough savings for a rainy year.
I provide my OWN job security and don't depend on any union or my company's "good will" to do it for me. If my main skills become obsolete due to outsourcing to India or China, then I will develop any of my other skills and make one of them my main skills. If those also become obsolete, I will learn new skills. If worse comes to worse, I will clean toilets if I have to just in order to survive.
but in the end, I make myself an asset to my company rather than a liability. that in itself is job security.
If a person WANTS a union to help manage relations between workers and employees, that's one thing and I'm all for that.
but if a person NEEDS a union to protect his job, that's another thing. If the person is not an asset (as in they are not worth the compensation) he/she/they will need the unions to make sure they get MORE than what they are worth...which is the case with the UAW.
The people who are TOO PROUD to do something "below" them, and UNWILLING to learn a new skill and UNWILLING to be flexible, and UNWILLING to accept pay more in line with their worth are the people that NEED unions.
Last edited by mrdeeno; 04-07-2006 at 03:08 PM.
#61
job security
okay gentlemen especially Maximized. You stated in another post that unions are not needed because we have osha and department of labor. Osha won't be there until after the accident they supposedly have to much on their plate. department of labor you will starve to death before you can get an arbitration hearing. Turn your employer in to either agency for a violation and see how long you are employed without some kind of backing. Why do think honda, toyota, and other asian car companies in the USA pay competitive wages and benifits? Because if they didn't there would be some kind a of union in their plants and if you think they would pack up leave I don't think so. Even they can't walk away from the billions they have invested. I read your comments that the big three can't compete because of the uaw. I haven't read anything about all the incentives honda toyota nissan and other asian car companies get for building a new plant. Alot of the ground is either given to them or they buy it at a very low price. Then we have the tax abatements for 10 to 20 years. So basically their overhead is reduced from the start. In finishing managers with attitudes like yours is why we have to have unions. Big bussiness will cut the throats of the american worker if given the chance.
#62
Suzuka Master
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Lower Nazzie, Pa
Age: 46
Posts: 5,349
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
1 Post
Originally Posted by Risky
Big bussiness will cut the throats of the american worker if given the chance.
These workers were told over and over and over by the union how EVERY company is bad and would cheat and steal from their own workers, treat them like crap, pay them like endentured servants, and not give a rat's ass about their future since there would always be another worker to take his or her place if he fell.
I'm sure there are some companies like that, but i'm willing to bet MOST modern U.S. companies are not like this at all. There isn't an abundant amount of workers skilled enough to do every job. There ISN'T always someone standing in line waiting for the guy in front of them to get canned in order to take over.
I really don't see how if unions in this country fail, it would translate into doom for all of us.
Unions exist to protect workers from their employers. It doesn't make a difference if the company down the street is unionized or not, if a non-union company is going to abuse their workers, they'll do it anyway! If MORE non-union companies were treating workers like crap, the unions would be ON THE RISE...not on the downfall. Unions are on the downfall because they are NO LONGER NEEDED. Workers are treated well and they are productive and valuable, and valuable employees are hard to replace and every successful company knows this.
Bottom line, companies make money because their workers are productive and valuable. If workers aren't productive, they would lose money and eventually go out of business. Can you tell me how productive the workers in the jobs bank are? Can you tell me how productive the retired workers are? Can you tell me what GM's current status is? I rest my case.
Last edited by mrdeeno; 04-07-2006 at 09:14 PM.
#63
do you think that if by some miracle that gm got its employees to take a 25% cut in wages and benifits they would lower there car prices? AS far as retirees being productive you the know the answer to that . I wish I could find the article in the afl cio mag that had some proof that gm legacy cost may higher for retired excutives and white collar workers. Granted a union that protects lazy employees isn't good for anybody. By the same token gm's hourly employees didn't design and decide to produce the aztec and other white elephants. I believe there is plenty of blame to go around in both gm and ford . I just get tired of some people ragging on the union all the time. They do have major faults but alot of that is from leadership that has a seperate agenda and doesn't have memberships best interest at heart.
#64
Suzuka Master
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Chicago Suburbs
Age: 43
Posts: 5,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Risky
okay gentlemen especially Maximized. You stated in another post that unions are not needed because we have osha and department of labor. Osha won't be there until after the accident they supposedly have to much on their plate. department of labor you will starve to death before you can get an arbitration hearing. Turn your employer in to either agency for a violation and see how long you are employed without some kind of backing. Why do think honda, toyota, and other asian car companies in the USA pay competitive wages and benifits? Because if they didn't there would be some kind a of union in their plants and if you think they would pack up leave I don't think so. Even they can't walk away from the billions they have invested. I read your comments that the big three can't compete because of the uaw. I haven't read anything about all the incentives honda toyota nissan and other asian car companies get for building a new plant. Alot of the ground is either given to them or they buy it at a very low price. Then we have the tax abatements for 10 to 20 years. So basically their overhead is reduced from the start. In finishing managers with attitudes like yours is why we have to have unions. Big bussiness will cut the throats of the american worker if given the chance.
#65
Suzuka Master
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Chicago Suburbs
Age: 43
Posts: 5,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Risky
do you think that if by some miracle that gm got its employees to take a 25% cut in wages and benifits they would lower there car prices? AS far as retirees being productive you the know the answer to that . I wish I could find the article in the afl cio mag that had some proof that gm legacy cost may higher for retired excutives and white collar workers. Granted a union that protects lazy employees isn't good for anybody. By the same token gm's hourly employees didn't design and decide to produce the aztec and other white elephants. I believe there is plenty of blame to go around in both gm and ford . I just get tired of some people ragging on the union all the time. They do have major faults but alot of that is from leadership that has a seperate agenda and doesn't have memberships best interest at heart.
#66
One on the right for me
Originally Posted by mrdeeno
Talking about job security...
I provide my OWN job security and don't depend on any union or my company's "good will" to do it for me. If my main skills become obsolete due to outsourcing to India or China, then I will develop any of my other skills and make one of them my main skills. If those also become obsolete, I will learn new skills. If worse comes to worse, I will clean toilets if I have to just in order to survive.
but in the end, I make myself an asset to my company rather than a liability. that in itself is job security.
.
I provide my OWN job security and don't depend on any union or my company's "good will" to do it for me. If my main skills become obsolete due to outsourcing to India or China, then I will develop any of my other skills and make one of them my main skills. If those also become obsolete, I will learn new skills. If worse comes to worse, I will clean toilets if I have to just in order to survive.
but in the end, I make myself an asset to my company rather than a liability. that in itself is job security.
.
Anyway, I was just using the job security example to show one of the positive sides of belonging to a union. That could have been the wrong term to use, but pretty much I was trying to get across that most at will employers can get rid of you for any reason they want to (barring eeoc claims). usually unions bargain a just cause standard into their contracts to ensure that employees are not unfairly terminated. if the employee commits a "cardinal sin" then of course the employer has the right to terminate without question, but if for a lessor reason without just cause...thats another story.
#67
One on the right for me
Originally Posted by mrdeeno
Unions exist to protect workers from their employers. It doesn't make a difference if the company down the street is unionized or not, if a non-union company is going to abuse their workers, they'll do it anyway! If MORE non-union companies were treating workers like crap, the unions would be ON THE RISE...not on the downfall. Unions are on the downfall because they are NO LONGER NEEDED. Workers are treated well and they are productive and valuable, and valuable employees are hard to replace and every successful company knows this.
Its not that the country will fail, its that the labor laws will pretty much revert back to what they were at the turn of the century, barring some exceptions. Employees will no longer have a say in anything, depending on the employeer, if they are not unionized. You act like every single union out there is out to destory the very existance of companies. That is simply not the case. There are thousands of examples throughout the country where the employer and the respective union coexist with no problems at all. they sit down, bargain what they want, have a great relationship, etc.
UAW did very well in negotiating their contracts-they now must realize what the financial situation is for GM and make the necessary concessions until better times. The same issues facing GM today have been around since the late 1980...healthcare was killing them then, as is now, etc etc. (just to stay on topic)
#68
Suzuka Master
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Chicago Suburbs
Age: 43
Posts: 5,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by subinf
Its not that the country will fail, its that the labor laws will pretty much revert back to what they were at the turn of the century, barring some exceptions. Employees will no longer have a say in anything, depending on the employeer, if they are not unionized. You act like every single union out there is out to destory the very existance of companies. That is simply not the case. There are thousands of examples throughout the country where the employer and the respective union coexist with no problems at all. they sit down, bargain what they want, have a great relationship, etc.
UAW did very well in negotiating their contracts-they now must realize what the financial situation is for GM and make the necessary concessions until better times. The same issues facing GM today have been around since the late 1980...healthcare was killing them then, as is now, etc etc. (just to stay on topic)
UAW did very well in negotiating their contracts-they now must realize what the financial situation is for GM and make the necessary concessions until better times. The same issues facing GM today have been around since the late 1980...healthcare was killing them then, as is now, etc etc. (just to stay on topic)
Unions are a dying bread and I bet that in 50 years they will be non-existent. The enrollment trend is definetly on a huge decline.
#69
Suzuka Master
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Lower Nazzie, Pa
Age: 46
Posts: 5,349
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
1 Post
In this day and age, most workers, even non-union workers, are savvy enough to know that a company cannot survive without its workers.
not all unions are bad, correct, but not all are needed either. the unions that aren't sucking their companies will survive since there's no problem with the status quo. But in cases like the UAW, steel, and industries where the unions have such a tight grip on their companies' throats, either the unions will have to give in to the companies eventually (UAW) or watch the companies go bankrupt (steel).
and if all unions eventually fade away and employers start treating workers like crap, there's no law saying that unions can't be formed again if needed.
my point is that unions are not needed in this day and age. if a union is beneficial to both company and worker, that's fine, but nonetheless, they are still not a necessity.
not all unions are bad, correct, but not all are needed either. the unions that aren't sucking their companies will survive since there's no problem with the status quo. But in cases like the UAW, steel, and industries where the unions have such a tight grip on their companies' throats, either the unions will have to give in to the companies eventually (UAW) or watch the companies go bankrupt (steel).
and if all unions eventually fade away and employers start treating workers like crap, there's no law saying that unions can't be formed again if needed.
my point is that unions are not needed in this day and age. if a union is beneficial to both company and worker, that's fine, but nonetheless, they are still not a necessity.
#70
One on the right for me
Originally Posted by Maximized
That's false. Will the gov't suddenly disband all the labor laws or OHSHA? NO!!! Employees always have a say, even if the company is non-unionized. We do have lawyers and a judicial system, don't we? Both of your arguments are false.
#71
Well, Canada does have a national healthcare program, and, until recently, a 65c dollar; obviously these benefits didn't help enough. Without all those SUV and minivan sales the Big 3 would have tanked several years ago. Are the buyers of those vehicles buying American, or are they buying what they want? Well, for the rest of us, who would really want to own/drive an "American" car with the exception of a Corvette, or a Mustang? I think the Big 3 have to share the blame for first poor design, then technology (especially suspension), then quality. Ford not bringing the new euro Focus to NA is a classic mistake, citing North Americans unwillingness to spend a premium for a small car! So we soldier on with the 7-time recalled 199? design, in an effort to slow the bleeding. I think it's like making donations - I'll support something like the museum, zoo, symphony, etc, by buying tickets, so that there is some mutual benefit, but I don't want to see the same show ten times.
#72
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Champaign, Illinois
Age: 42
Posts: 7,309
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by gdcwatt
I think it's like making donations - I'll support something like the museum, zoo, symphony, etc, by buying tickets, so that there is some mutual benefit, but I don't want to see the same show ten times.
![Spit](https://acurazine.com/forums/images/smilies/spit.gif)
#73
UAW is firm on jobs bank
UAW is firm on jobs bank
Gettelfinger takes questions online
FREE PRESS WIRE SERVICES
November 22, 2006
United Auto Workers President Ron Gettelfinger said Tuesday the union would try to preserve the jobs bank that guarantees pay for laid-off workers.
He also reassured General Motors Corp. and Delphi Corp. retirees and workers about the safety of their pensions.
During a live lunch-hour Internet chat with union members and reporters on the UAW Web site, Gettelfinger was asked if the union is committed to preserving the jobs bank.
"Why would you think anything else?" he replied.
Manufacturers have said the jobs bank, in which laid-off workers get most of their pay and benefits even when they're not working, puts them at a competitive disadvantage with their Asian counterparts who make cars in the United States.
GM, Ford Motor Co. and DaimlerChrysler AG have faced troubles this year as high gas prices shifted consumer demand from trucks and SUVs to more fuel-efficient models made mainly by Japanese-owned competitors.
All three have announced production cuts to bring factory capacity in line with reduced demand for their products.
The number of workers in jobs banks is likely to fall next year as more workers leave GM and Ford through buyout and early retirement offers.
Gettelfinger also said the union's battle with auto-parts maker Delphi over proposed wage cuts "is far from over."
"While the executives of Delphi, their attorneys and financial advisers are slopping at the trough in New York, in the final analysis our membership will have the last word," he said.
"Our union has been available to meet with the corporation at any time, day or night, but honestly, at this time there has been very little discussion," he said. Gettelfinger's remarks come four days after U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Robert Drain agreed with Delphi to delay making a ruling on voiding labor contracts until Jan. 31 to give the parties more time to reach an out-of-court settlement.
Drain has scheduled a Nov. 30 conference for an update on the Delphi negotiations. GM, which spun off Delphi in 1999, is helping to pay for the supplier's job cuts.
Gettelfinger's comments indicate that "Delphi and its stakeholders are still sorting through issues with GM around its level of further support and the value of its claim back as a Delphi creditor," said Brian Johnson, a Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. analyst in New York who rates the automaker "neutral."
Delphi and the UAW also signed an agreement Tuesday for temporary workers hired on or before Monday to become permanent employees, Gettelfinger said in a second live Internet session.
Excluded from that accord are those hired as contract employees, temporary workers with Delphi-credited service starting Jan. 1, 1999, or later and temporary employees who accepted a buyout offer from GM or Delphi, according to UAW memo obtained by Bloomberg News.
"As a result of our attrition plan we are working on staffing issues at our UAW plants," said Williams, the Delphi spokesman. "We have nothing to announce at this time."
At the Delphi electrical components factory in Kokomo, Indiana, 950 out of 2,250 workers will gain permanent status because of Tuesday's agreement, said George Anthony, bargaining chairman of UAW Local 292 at the plant.
"I didn't care for putting temporaries on to begin with," Anthony said. "Now that we've got this turned around, I'm happy for my membership, and I'm sure they're going to be thrilled."
Copyright © 2006 Detroit Free Press Inc.
Gettelfinger takes questions online
FREE PRESS WIRE SERVICES
November 22, 2006
United Auto Workers President Ron Gettelfinger said Tuesday the union would try to preserve the jobs bank that guarantees pay for laid-off workers.
He also reassured General Motors Corp. and Delphi Corp. retirees and workers about the safety of their pensions.
During a live lunch-hour Internet chat with union members and reporters on the UAW Web site, Gettelfinger was asked if the union is committed to preserving the jobs bank.
"Why would you think anything else?" he replied.
Manufacturers have said the jobs bank, in which laid-off workers get most of their pay and benefits even when they're not working, puts them at a competitive disadvantage with their Asian counterparts who make cars in the United States.
GM, Ford Motor Co. and DaimlerChrysler AG have faced troubles this year as high gas prices shifted consumer demand from trucks and SUVs to more fuel-efficient models made mainly by Japanese-owned competitors.
All three have announced production cuts to bring factory capacity in line with reduced demand for their products.
The number of workers in jobs banks is likely to fall next year as more workers leave GM and Ford through buyout and early retirement offers.
Gettelfinger also said the union's battle with auto-parts maker Delphi over proposed wage cuts "is far from over."
"While the executives of Delphi, their attorneys and financial advisers are slopping at the trough in New York, in the final analysis our membership will have the last word," he said.
"Our union has been available to meet with the corporation at any time, day or night, but honestly, at this time there has been very little discussion," he said. Gettelfinger's remarks come four days after U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Robert Drain agreed with Delphi to delay making a ruling on voiding labor contracts until Jan. 31 to give the parties more time to reach an out-of-court settlement.
Drain has scheduled a Nov. 30 conference for an update on the Delphi negotiations. GM, which spun off Delphi in 1999, is helping to pay for the supplier's job cuts.
Gettelfinger's comments indicate that "Delphi and its stakeholders are still sorting through issues with GM around its level of further support and the value of its claim back as a Delphi creditor," said Brian Johnson, a Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. analyst in New York who rates the automaker "neutral."
Delphi and the UAW also signed an agreement Tuesday for temporary workers hired on or before Monday to become permanent employees, Gettelfinger said in a second live Internet session.
Excluded from that accord are those hired as contract employees, temporary workers with Delphi-credited service starting Jan. 1, 1999, or later and temporary employees who accepted a buyout offer from GM or Delphi, according to UAW memo obtained by Bloomberg News.
"As a result of our attrition plan we are working on staffing issues at our UAW plants," said Williams, the Delphi spokesman. "We have nothing to announce at this time."
At the Delphi electrical components factory in Kokomo, Indiana, 950 out of 2,250 workers will gain permanent status because of Tuesday's agreement, said George Anthony, bargaining chairman of UAW Local 292 at the plant.
"I didn't care for putting temporaries on to begin with," Anthony said. "Now that we've got this turned around, I'm happy for my membership, and I'm sure they're going to be thrilled."
Copyright © 2006 Detroit Free Press Inc.
#75
UAW and GM talks
as you guys know the UAW (United autoworkers) and GM are in contract neg. now. the big hang up i've heard is the 5 dollar per hour cut. do you see the GM workers buying into it. I see them walking out.
However if GM gets the UAW members to buy into this i can see Dodge and Ford doing the same.
However if GM gets the UAW members to buy into this i can see Dodge and Ford doing the same.
#76
Oshawa to feel GM strike
http://www.wheels.ca/article/31719
DEE ANN DURBIN and Tom Krisher
THE Associated Press
Sep 24, 2007
DETROIT – Thousands of United Auto Workers walked off the job at General Motors plants around the United States today in the first nation-wide strike during auto contract negotiations since 1976.
A GM Canada spokesperson could not immediately be reached for comment, but union officials told The Star's Tony Van Alphen the car complex in Oshawa would likely run into parts shortages by early Tuesday and then shut down.
A neighbouring truck plant in Oshawa could continue for two days before it also stops output, added union official John Scanlon.
"It's still a little early to tell because we're trying to get clear information on how extensive the strike is," he said. "We should know better later today."
GM's Canadian operations include powertrain plants in St.Catharines and Windsor that feed U.S. operations but it is unclear how long they could continue because of the walkout.
In the U.S., GM spokesperson Dan Flores said the union launched a national strike after the late morning UAW strike deadline passed without agreement on a new contract, which would include a groundbreaking provision establishing a UAW-managed trust that will administer GM's retiree health care obligations.
Workers began picketing outside GM plants.
The UAW has 73,000 members who work for GM at 82 U.S. facilities, including assembly and parts plants and warehouses.
It remained to be seen what effect the strike would have on the automaker and consumers. The U.S. company has sufficient stocks of just about every product to withstand a short strike, according to Tom Libby, senior director of industry analysis for J.D. Power and Associates.
Charlie Coppinger, who has worked at GM's powertrain plant in Warren, Mich., for 31 years, walked the picket line along with a handful of others shortly after the deadline passed.
The 51-year-old Rochester Hills resident said he hoped a strike could be settled quickly but that union members were on the line to support the union and its bargainers.
"We're just here to support them," said Coppinger, who said leaflets were passed out indicating that the strike was on.
Flores said the automaker is disappointed in the UAW's decision to call a national strike.
"The bargaining involves complex, difficult issues that affect the job security of our U.S. work force and the long-term viability of the company. We remain fully committed to working with the UAW to develop solutions together to address the competitive challenges facing GM," Flores said.
GM had been pushing hard for the health-care trust – known as a Voluntary Employees Beneficiary Association, or VEBA – so it could move $51 billion in unfunded retiree health costs off its books. GM already has nearly 339,000 retirees and surviving spouses.
Worker Anita Ahrens burst into tears as hundreds of United Auto Workers streamed out of a GM plant in Janesville, Wis.
Oh my God, here they come," said Ahrens, 39. "This is unreal."
Ahrens has seven years at the plant, where she works nights installing speakers in sport utility vehicles. She waited outside the building today for her husband, Ron Ahrens, who has worked there for 21 years.
The couple has three children, including a college freshman, and Ahrens worried about how they would pay their bills.
"This is horrible, but we're die-hard union, so we have to," Ahrens said. "We got a mortgage, two car payments and tonnes of freaking bills."
More than a thousand UAW workers streamed out of GM's Delta Township plant near Lansing at 11 a.m. UAW members were handing out picket signs that say: "UAW On Strike."
"I don't think it's a win for either side. It's too bad it's come to this, but we have given up a lot already," said Pat Haley, 50, from Dimondale, a quality control specialist who has been with GM for 31 years.
He said he didn't have a big problem with the VEBA, but he opposes a possible $5 an hour wage cut (dollar figures U.S.) and restrictions on vacation time.
While GM has enough cars and trucks to withstand a short strike – the automaker had about a 65-day supply of cars and trucks as September began, according to Paul Taylor, chief economist for the National Automobile Dealers Association – it still would be costly for the company.
The UAW last struck GM in 1998. In that strike, workers at two GM parts plants walked out for 54 days, costing the automaker $2.2 billion.
The strike, which occurred between years when national negotiations were held, was over work rules and GM's plans to eliminate jobs.
THE Associated Press
Sep 24, 2007
DETROIT – Thousands of United Auto Workers walked off the job at General Motors plants around the United States today in the first nation-wide strike during auto contract negotiations since 1976.
A GM Canada spokesperson could not immediately be reached for comment, but union officials told The Star's Tony Van Alphen the car complex in Oshawa would likely run into parts shortages by early Tuesday and then shut down.
A neighbouring truck plant in Oshawa could continue for two days before it also stops output, added union official John Scanlon.
"It's still a little early to tell because we're trying to get clear information on how extensive the strike is," he said. "We should know better later today."
GM's Canadian operations include powertrain plants in St.Catharines and Windsor that feed U.S. operations but it is unclear how long they could continue because of the walkout.
In the U.S., GM spokesperson Dan Flores said the union launched a national strike after the late morning UAW strike deadline passed without agreement on a new contract, which would include a groundbreaking provision establishing a UAW-managed trust that will administer GM's retiree health care obligations.
Workers began picketing outside GM plants.
The UAW has 73,000 members who work for GM at 82 U.S. facilities, including assembly and parts plants and warehouses.
It remained to be seen what effect the strike would have on the automaker and consumers. The U.S. company has sufficient stocks of just about every product to withstand a short strike, according to Tom Libby, senior director of industry analysis for J.D. Power and Associates.
Charlie Coppinger, who has worked at GM's powertrain plant in Warren, Mich., for 31 years, walked the picket line along with a handful of others shortly after the deadline passed.
The 51-year-old Rochester Hills resident said he hoped a strike could be settled quickly but that union members were on the line to support the union and its bargainers.
"We're just here to support them," said Coppinger, who said leaflets were passed out indicating that the strike was on.
Flores said the automaker is disappointed in the UAW's decision to call a national strike.
"The bargaining involves complex, difficult issues that affect the job security of our U.S. work force and the long-term viability of the company. We remain fully committed to working with the UAW to develop solutions together to address the competitive challenges facing GM," Flores said.
GM had been pushing hard for the health-care trust – known as a Voluntary Employees Beneficiary Association, or VEBA – so it could move $51 billion in unfunded retiree health costs off its books. GM already has nearly 339,000 retirees and surviving spouses.
Worker Anita Ahrens burst into tears as hundreds of United Auto Workers streamed out of a GM plant in Janesville, Wis.
Oh my God, here they come," said Ahrens, 39. "This is unreal."
Ahrens has seven years at the plant, where she works nights installing speakers in sport utility vehicles. She waited outside the building today for her husband, Ron Ahrens, who has worked there for 21 years.
The couple has three children, including a college freshman, and Ahrens worried about how they would pay their bills.
"This is horrible, but we're die-hard union, so we have to," Ahrens said. "We got a mortgage, two car payments and tonnes of freaking bills."
More than a thousand UAW workers streamed out of GM's Delta Township plant near Lansing at 11 a.m. UAW members were handing out picket signs that say: "UAW On Strike."
"I don't think it's a win for either side. It's too bad it's come to this, but we have given up a lot already," said Pat Haley, 50, from Dimondale, a quality control specialist who has been with GM for 31 years.
He said he didn't have a big problem with the VEBA, but he opposes a possible $5 an hour wage cut (dollar figures U.S.) and restrictions on vacation time.
While GM has enough cars and trucks to withstand a short strike – the automaker had about a 65-day supply of cars and trucks as September began, according to Paul Taylor, chief economist for the National Automobile Dealers Association – it still would be costly for the company.
The UAW last struck GM in 1998. In that strike, workers at two GM parts plants walked out for 54 days, costing the automaker $2.2 billion.
The strike, which occurred between years when national negotiations were held, was over work rules and GM's plans to eliminate jobs.
#77
Suzuka Master
These people already get paid better that 80% of the country for screwing in a speaker. Let them go. I'm sure other people would be happy to have their jobs.
#79
Suzuka Master
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Chicago Suburbs
Age: 43
Posts: 5,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Unions are dinosaur of old industry that's almost extinct. They have no purpose in the modern business world, except to increase wages of unskilled workers, which hurts the Big 3.
#80
The sizzle in the Steak
![Agree](https://acurazine.com/forums/images/smilies/agree.gif)