Edmunds.com | Inside Line | Auto Observer Your Account | Help | Directory
You are here:
![[F]](http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com/media/townhall/webxicons/site.gif){kind=small}
Forums
Automotive News & Views United Automobile Workers of America (UAW) 
17502 messages, Last post on Mar 07, 2010 at 8:31 PM
You are in the Automotive News & Views Forum. Your Hosts are steve_ & claires
|
Replying to: snookered (Dec 16, 2008 1:02 pm) |
|
|
Replying to: steve_ (Dec 16, 2008 10:16 am) I have gone round and round with Rocky on this subject. My contention is you are on the payroll and the boss asks you to sweep the floor. There should not be work rules that keep you from doing what he asks. Just because you are a lug nut assembler does not mean you should not do what ever needs to be done within your capability. Strict rules have hogtied the B3 for way too long. Time to file for BK and get out of those contracts. Hire people that want to work and are willing to do what it takes to make GM some money. I would bet those Toyota workers that are out mowing the grass instead of standing in the unemployment line are happy they work for a well run company.
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: snookered (Dec 16, 2008 12:55 pm) What companies are allowed to do this? |
|
|
Replying to: gagrice (Dec 16, 2008 1:35 pm) ...unless you're a government employee. |
|
|
Replying to: gagrice (Dec 16, 2008 1:47 pm) This is one of the most offensive things about some unions. Instead of appreciating having a job and being paid to work, they are like spoiled children. Clearly NOT concerned about the best interests of the company, who feeds them. Now that the UAW has almost strangled GM to death they want the non-union taxpayers to bail them out so that their gilded lifestyle does not get hurt. They should have been more concerned about working with their employer to make the company successful. |
|
|
Replying to: gagrice (Dec 16, 2008 1:35 pm) Should have gone to work on the railroad.
|
|
|
Replying to: steve_ (Dec 16, 2008 12:09 pm) As a former Social Security Administration employee, I can explain this. When Social Security was enacted in the 1930s, state & local civil service employees weren't covered at all - partly because most of them had pensions but mainly because the legal experts of the day thought that it would be unconstitutional for the Federal government to force state governments to pay FICA tax. Then, in the 1950s, someone came up with a workaround: amend the Social Security Act to allow states to sign voluntary "coverage agreements" with the Feds to cover specific groups of employees. A state might, for example, designate all members of the teachers' pension plan in that state as a "coverage group" & have them vote for or against SS coverage. If a majority voted for it, the state would then sign an agreement with the Feds. Employees already in the retirement system prior to the effective date could elect or decline SS coverage, but for new employees, SS would be mandatory. Most states in my part of the country (the Northeast) signed coverage agreements, but there were still some holdouts when I left the agency in the early 80s. Even in my state (NY), which was one of the first to sign coverage agreements, temp employees weren't covered because they didn't belong to a state retirement plan. Other states (NJ, for example), signed separate agreements to cover temps. I don't think that a state can revoke a coverage agreement but I'm not sure of this. |
|
|
(thanks Jimbres) "The UAW leadership has given one cutback after another to the auto bosses since president Ron Gettelfinger took office in 2002. In 2002, 2005 and 2007 the UAW gave up health benefits and agreed to sweeping wage cuts. These concessions include two-tier pay levels so that newly hired workers are making under $14 per hour. Now as profits and stock values plummet for GM, Chrysler and Ford, the ruling class has initiated a full-throttled campaign to blame "rich auto workers" for the crisis facing the companies. Politicians and the corporate media have demanded the auto workers’ union surrender every advance won through decades of organizing, picketing and strikes, including during the heroic era of the sit-down strikes in the mid-1930s." Lessons for labor: capitulation is not the only way (Party for Socialism and Liberation - nice graphic of Che on their site too  )
|
|
|
Replying to: bumpy (Dec 16, 2008 2:31 pm)
|
|
|
Replying to: gagrice (Dec 16, 2008 1:35 pm) I do wish that I had chosen to pay into SS also. Since that I am 100% Disabled Veteran and unable to get SSD. |
|
You are here:
Forums
Automotive News & Views United Automobile Workers of America (UAW)
New? Join Now!
Forum Tools
Search Forums
Browse by Vehicle
Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
Today's Chats
