How responsible is the UAW regarding Ford's situation?

[spongebob]

Taken directly from the National Labor Relations Act ( http://www.nlrb.gov/nlrb/legal/manuals/rules/act.asp )

(d) [Obligation to bargain collectively] For the purposes of this section, to bargain collectively is the performance of the mutual obligation of the employer and the representative of the employees to meet at reasonable times and confer in good faith with respect to wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment

Probationary periods and leaves of absence are clear and obvous "terms and conditions of employment". Hell, just go ask your shop steward if your company can set the Probationary period for employees to some large timeframe -- like two years. Also, go ask your shop steward if your union has the right to negotiate leaves of absence in your next contract. Not if they are going to -- if they have the RIGHT to raise the issue to management.

The only reason probationary periods were an issue was because the Teamsters were saying that if we went 90 days, we may be able to discrimintate against those "temporary" employees and not convert them to full-time status because by then we'd have enough time to ascertain their pro or anti-union leanings. And guess what? They'd be right.

i dont have a shop steward to ask. but what you've pointed out is a good point. but from the last two companies i worked for that item along with others were covered in the company policy. it covered all employees probation period, even salary.

also when i made that statement i was generally referring to your specific situation. it sounded like company policy covered it, therefore the union had no right to negotiate it. sounds like they didnt get it in the long run.

 

[spongebob]

I do have an anti-union attitude, because it's sad to see them destroy manufacturing jobs in America. Unions served their purpose, but their demise is long overdue. It's just a shame that it takes being ravaged by global competition to kill-off these dinosaur organizations.

i disagree, the issue is too dynamic to just say, "ok everyone, we've reached equilibrium on workers rights, and we promise companies are not gonna lobby govt to write new laws which are inherently not friendly to the worker."

and its unfortunate that since we have allowed it to become a global economy without having a chance in hell in playing on a level playing field.

 

[spongebob]

Chase the following link: http://www.iir.berkeley.edu/library/contracts/pdf/0062.pdf

It's the union agreement between the City and County of San Francisco (hint: that's an employer) and the Bricklayers and Allied Crafts Union, Local 3 (hint: That's a union)

In Article II.B of the agreement, it establishes the Probationary Period for employees to be six (6) months.

Then chase this link: http://www.iir.berkeley.edu/library/contracts/pdf/0378.pdf

It's the union agreement between The State of Indiana (hint: that's the employer) and the Interational Union, United Automobile, Aerospace & Agricultural Implement Workers American Federation of Teachers (hint: that's the union)

In Article 4 Section F, there is a provision for leaves of absence in the event a union member is elected into an officer role within the union.

In Article 18 Section L, there is a provision for leaves of absence for "Parental Involvement in Children's Education"

Now... that pretty much points-out how you blatantly have no clue what you are talking about. How are you going to explain your way out of that one?

ive already recognized your point. see above post.

it does not change the fact that if a company has standing policy written in an employee handbook, that policy supercedes a contract.

and your right, i have no clue of what im talking about, i made all of this up, ive never even been in a union, hell ive never had a job. thats how blatantly wrong and clueless i am. i know nothing.

 

[mrplunkey]

also when i made that statement i was generally referring to your specific situation. it sounded like company policy covered it, therefore the union had no right to negotiate it. sounds like they didnt get it in the long run.

Again... no, no, no and hell no. Company policies routinely address "wages, benefits and terms and conditions of employment". That's not all the policies cover, but any competent set of company policies will address those things.

Just think about it. Does ANYONE here work for a company that doesn't have policies about eligibility for raises? or earned vacation time? what about overtime policy? what about health insurance (or lack thereof)? Guess what? Those all fall under "wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment" which unions are authorized to negotiate under the National Labor Relations Act. Not only can unions CHALLENGE company policies during contract negotiations -- employers are BOUND BY LAW "to meet at reasonable times and confer in good faith with respect to wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment."

Now... let's do something different this time. Before you say something that makes no sense, like "Companies don't cover vacation policies in their policies and procedures", think ahead this time. You'll say something like that, and I'll just go to the web and post some links to employee handbooks that cover the policy.

One time... just to make it really simple...

1) If a company has a policy or procedure in place that addresses "wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment" and a union wants to negotiate the item, the company is obligated by law "to meet at reasonable times and confer in good faith with respect to wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment."

2) If a company has policies and procedures in place and the union contract is SILENT on the issue, hence the contract says nothing about the issue one way or the other, then company policy will stand.

3) If an active union contract addresses a specific situation to be handled differently than the established company policies and procedures, the union contract will supercede company policy.

Cake! This stuff really isn't hard

 

[spongebob]

Again... no, no, no and hell no. Company policies routinely address "wages, benefits and terms and conditions of employment". That's not all the policies cover, but any competent set of company policies will address those things.

Just think about it. Does ANYONE here work for a company that doesn't have policies about eligibility for raises? or earned vacation time? what about overtime policy? what about health insurance (or lack thereof)? Guess what? Those all fall under "wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment" which unions are authorized to negotiate under the National Labor Relations Act. Not only can unions CHALLENGE company policies during contract negotiations -- employers are BOUND BY LAW "to meet at reasonable times and confer in good faith with respect to wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment."

Now... let's do something different this time. Before you say something that makes no sense, like "Companies don't cover vacation policies in their policies and procedures", think ahead this time. You'll say something like that, and I'll just go to the web and post some links to employee handbooks that cover the policy.

One time... just to make it really simple...

1) If a company has a policy or procedure in place that addresses "wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment" and a union wants to negotiate the item, the company is obligated by law "to meet at reasonable times and confer in good faith with respect to wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment."

2) If a company has policies and procedures in place and the union contract is SILENT on the issue, hence the contract says nothing about the issue one way or the other, then company policy will stand.

3) If an active union contract addresses a specific situation to be handled differently than the established company policies and procedures, the union contract will supercede company policy.

Cake! This stuff really isn't hard

when i left me last job the company robbed me from my accrued vacation. when i called the texas work force commission, they told me that whatever company policy was regardless of the contract, that was my legal recourse. that is the state of texas.

your free to google whatever it is you like, but i have a little experience in the matter.

 

[hanselthecaretaker]

In GM's case:

Here's USA Today's version of a primary problem at GM: "GM might be able to handle its problems if it could control its health costs. It spends about $1,500 on health care for each car it makes in the U.S., about twice as much as it spends on steel. This is driven by benefits for 1.1 million workers, retirees and families."
The Detroit News repeated the $1,500 figure in early July. The number sticks in people's minds. GM says it will spend $5.6 billion on legacy costs-health care and retiree benefits-for the past and present union members in 2005, an increase of $400 million a year. It's a huge expense that won't improve a single engine or floor mat.
But no one mentions that GM would be in even better shape if it weren't for the fixed retirement costs of its white-collar retirees. For example, we never hear about the retirement benefits of the legendary Roger Smith (of Roger & Me fame) or any of the past CEOs, not to mention the thousands of retired managers, accountants and engineers, some of whom created the retirement plans that now support them. GM spends $7 billion annually for 450,000 retired white-collar workers-$7 billion. USA Today isn't writing about those expenses. It's simpler to blame the union.

-taken from the article Car Wars by Arthur Kretchmer, January 2006 issue of Playboy. Yeah, LOL at it coming from Playboy, but still valid points.

 

[Razorguns]

health cost when ur average worker is 41 years old -- is expensive.

 

[spongebob]

Again... no, no, no and hell no. Company policies routinely address "wages, benefits and terms and conditions of employment". That's not all the policies cover, but any competent set of company policies will address those things.

Just think about it. Does ANYONE here work for a company that doesn't have policies about eligibility for raises? or earned vacation time? what about overtime policy? what about health insurance (or lack thereof)? Guess what? Those all fall under "wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment" which unions are authorized to negotiate under the National Labor Relations Act. Not only can unions CHALLENGE company policies during contract negotiations -- employers are BOUND BY LAW "to meet at reasonable times and confer in good faith with respect to wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment."

Now... let's do something different this time. Before you say something that makes no sense, like "Companies don't cover vacation policies in their policies and procedures", think ahead this time. You'll say something like that, and I'll just go to the web and post some links to employee handbooks that cover the policy.

One time... just to make it really simple...

1) If a company has a policy or procedure in place that addresses "wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment" and a union wants to negotiate the item, the company is obligated by law "to meet at reasonable times and confer in good faith with respect to wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment."

2) If a company has policies and procedures in place and the union contract is SILENT on the issue, hence the contract says nothing about the issue one way or the other, then company policy will stand.

3) If an active union contract addresses a specific situation to be handled differently than the established company policies and procedures, the union contract will supercede company policy.

Cake! This stuff really isn't hard

both places i worked at with unions, company policy did not address wages.

 

[mrplunkey]

when i left me last job the company robbed me from my accrued vacation. when i called the texas work force commission, they told me that whatever company policy was regardless of the contract, that was my legal recourse. that is the state of texas.

your free to google whatever it is you like, but i have a little experience in the matter.

Ahhh... first of all, that does suck.

My guess (and yes, i'm totally guessing here) is that if you were leaving a union job for another non-union (or different union, for that matter) job they probably didn't want to champion your cause since you would no longer be a card-carrying, dues-paying member.

Could that be it?

 

[mrplunkey]

both places i worked at with unions, company policy did not address wages.

Non-union companies prefer the use of "salary bands" to address wages. For example, during my time at General Electric, we had bands such as "Professional", "Senior Professional", "Executive", and "Senior Executive" just to name a few. The idea is to state a pay range by band, but then give the company maximum wiggle-room to work with the employee within that band. GE used a few bands, with wide pay ranges.

In the previous management job, we had something like 28 different employment bands (and corresponding pay ranges). It was actually wierd, because you couldn't just give someone a raise -- you had to move them from "industrial sewer" to "double-needle tacker" and crazy shit like that. Both of these band-based approaches are nifty ways to set a company's wage policy without locking them down to a specific number.

Unions generally frown on "banding" and prefer specific wage tables based on job description and time in job (and sometimes other metrics that are performance-based). They take a lot of flack over scales that are purely-based on "time in job" -- and rightly so since there is less discretion over subjective measures such as an employee's attitude.