Official: union bringing ‘significant’ offer to Crystal negotiations
May 22, 2012 at 8:54 am in Grand Forks Herald
A Bakery Workers union official is saying that locked-out American Crystal Sugar workers will bring a counteroffer to the June 8 negotiations with the company. The counter offer will include “a new set of proposals to address their concerns since the last time we met,” Roger Delage, president of Local 2676 in Crookston, said today. Continue Reading
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
9 
21
Ron:
I will give you comp time is often done. It is also illegal.
It used to be used to avoid paying OT. The labor department took a very dim view of that and it resulted in a number of companies getting hit with hefty fines and payback.
The part of the contract you posted said nothing about comp time. It stated able to sell back vacation at 1.5x up to 40 hours a year.
There is a big difference.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
23 
5
Ron and Flying Nurse,
First, I have to agree with Ron. The initial union contract offer (as posted on the acsccontracttalks website) is requesting vacation time, 1 hour for every hour of overtime). It is a confusing sentence, but that is how I read it.
Second, I have to agree with FN. For private businesses, this is illegal (not always illegal for government). A simple google search shows plenty of reputable sources that state this.
I find it curious that the union would propose an illegal business practice be added to the contract. I’d expect they SHOULD know that this is illegal.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
20 
0
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
6 
21
You still haven’t answered his question Ron. Set ACS aside for a second and pretend we’re talking about some other manufacturing facility. Two guys work there and are both assemble “widgets”. Their duties are remarkably similar, (or identical), which kind of makes it difficult to differentiate between the two individuals’ “qualifications”.
When a position opens up that both are interested in, who gets the job? The “more qualified” person will probably get the job. Why? Because minus any other way to tell the two applicants’ “qualifications” apart….one guy has been there longer.
The reason lots of folks have issues with SOME aspects of union situations, can best be summed up by your own words Ron. Read on and THINK about what this statement “means”:
***There is not a single word in the unions proprosal that does not allow the company to put the best qualified applicant into the open position. An employee with less time can be promoted ahead of a senior member if they are MORE qualified (aka best person)***
First things first. WHY would a company WANT to promote a “less qualified” person over someone else? They wouldn’t. So what’s the reasoning behind the language Ron? Why does the union think they need to get their two cents in about something that’s so blatantly obvious? If the company wants to be successful, they’re going to promote/reward the “most qualified” people on their own…..they don’t need any contract language to nudge them in the right direction.
The union’s desire to have such language included in contracts IS NOT some sort of “helpful reminder” intended to guide the company into a more successful direction. It’s there ENTIRELY to allow them to get their “input” involved in the promotion/reward process. Once words like “qualified” get put down on paper, the next step becomes creating a definition of what “qualified” means.
Step outside of the union bubble for a sec Ron. Do you see many examples of businesses pursuing the agenda of promoting/rewarding LESS qualified individuals? Probably not. Did anyone need to “push” them in that direction? Probably not. If YOU had your own business and employees, would YOU need some contract language to remind you to promote/reward YOUR most qualified employees? Probably not.
So if someone proposed putting a set of conditions down on paper that “helped you” determine how such decisions would be made, would you cast a suspicious glance in their direction? If so, you’ve just taken a step outside of the bubble. Congrats.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
23 
5
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
3 
16
Sounds like you don’t trust the management too much. If they’re that bad maybe you need to move on.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
19 
0
“You forget, the bosses nephew needs a job. Therefore he is more qualified. The bosses fishing buddy is least qualified, least senior, and needs more money. Guess he gets the job. The bosses sister in law says she deservers the job and well his wife agrees. I can go on and on.”
We’ve all heard that argument before too. I really have no choice but to believe it’s more silliness that’s been planted in peoples’ brains in between gulps of the Kool-Aid. A while back, there was some discussion in one of these threads about the concerns union members had with whether or not supervisors or managers “liked them”.
The reason it came up, was because I posted something about how ridiculous (I think) it is that a person can’t go into a meeting with a supervisor or manager without a “rep” sitting in on the proceedings. The “defense” for the hand-holding practice was that perhaps I had failed to take into consideration that maybe a manager “didn’t like” this person or that person, and they might treat them “unfairly” as a result. I replied by asking a couple of questions: Why wouldn’t a manager “like” a valued and productive employee? And how does the “no hand-holding” practice work elsewhere? Does the concern about managers and supervisors “not liking me” only exist in *certain* work situations?
I’ve never gone into any meeting with any owner, manager, or supervisor at ANY point in my 30 years of being employed full-time….with a “rep” in tow. I’ve never been concerned about being “liked” either. Despite the fact that ALL of my bosses HAVE HAD the ability to “like” and “dislike” things and/or people, AND, they’ve also had friends/relatives that they could replace me with, (or promote/reward instead of me), it just hasn’t been a concern. As a result, I don’t think it’s “much of a concern” with ACS either. It’s just another scare tactic employed by union “leadership” to coerce members into believing the union is necessary and relevant to their situation.
I do appreciate the post about the concerns of nepotism, favoritism, and other such “employment corruption” though. Goodness knows that unions are never, and have never been *guilty* of any of those things….
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
18 
3
Ron:
Until you can define “best qualified” in terms other than seniority, you are talking in circles. As I said, pretty window dressing.
If two equally qualified people apply, the one with the most seniority gets the job. Your definition of qualified does not take into account the gray areas: the people skills, the ability to function as a member of a team, good fit with the employees who are already in that position.
These are all very hard to quantify, and they make HR specialists insane because they are subjective. That said, they are also the difference between a well run crew and a nightmare.
We have all worked with people who are so negative they would suck the life out of Jesus. They are also inevitably the “best qualified,” they have all the appropriate schooling and certifications, they have seniority, and they are more toxic than a Love Canal backyard.
If management cannot choose who does what, why are they there? Under your scenario the union is in charge.
As a person who writes paychecks for a living: not a chance.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
26 
5
Ron,
If what you say is true, then there should be no issue with any wording change that ACSC wants to make to allow them to promote the most qualified person. I mean, if it is already allowed, then what is the union’s complaint?
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
21 
0
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
8 
24
Now you are sounding like a locked out Crystal employee. I’ve read and compared the union’s proposal alongside both Crystal’s initial and final offers. Crystal made several changes and included some of the union’s proposals in their final offer. My understanding is that the union negotiators refused to discuss ANY of Crystal’s proposals during negotiations. Thus the need for a Final Offer. The time for negotiating is done. If the union workers want to work for Crytsal they need to force a vote and approve the final offer. Otherwise, they need to move on and find other employment. Crystal has proved that they can process beets and make saleable sugar without the union employees, maybe not as efficiently, but given time the new employees will gain experience and will be able to do the job just as well as the union did, maybe even better since a lot of the old ways of doing things are now gone.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
28 
3
“American crystal is in the buisness of union busting. It is blatenly clear in their final offer when you compare it to the unions proposal.”
Once again Ron, the union’s “proposal” isn’t the only consideration. Your inability to accept the notion that comparisons ELSEWHERE need to also be made makes the whole thing difficult for you to understand.
It has already been established, (a few hundred times now), that the majority of these positions are not extraordinary at all. The prerequisites for employees are not extraordinary. The level of skill, education, and experience is, once again….not extraordinary. So when the union comes to the table with a proposal that tosses all of that out the window and asks for a contract that in NO WAY resembles a package someone else with the same “qualifications” receives elsewhere, OF COURSE the company they’ve “proposed” it to is going to offer less. The “less” the company has offered is still more than the other guy working elsewhere gets. Why do you feel that’s irrelevant?
“When you read the facts that is what is happening.”
Ron, if “union-busting” in your mind means that the company looked at a ridiculous proposal and then offered up one of their own that’s more in line with reality, then so be it. Put me down as a staunch supporter of your brand of “union-busting”. Please keep in mind though that in order for the “union-busting master plan” to be successful, union members have to get on board. They’re going to have to REFUSE to look at contract offers objectively and vote them down as the result.
There it is again Ron. That pesky “objectivity” thing. It kind of sucks when the “union-busting” finger-pointers ultimately have to ‘fess up to their complicity in the “union-busting master plan”….doesn’t it?
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
26 
5
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
8 
22
The following documnet is available on the National Labor Relations Board website. Dismissal Letter for 18-CA-061493. It states that “The Union repeatedly refused to consider the Employer’s proposals, and made virtually no counterproposals
to try to address the Employer’s objectives. As a result, almost no progress was made in negotiations from May 19 until the last two bargaining sessions in July.”
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
27 
4
And to add an additional “exclamation point” to that NLRB decision, we shouldn’t ignore the fact that the reason the NLRB was even involved was because the union asked them to step in because they claimed the company wasn’t bargaining in good faith. In other words, they, (the NLRB), weren’t some casual sideline observers making some off-the-cuff comments. A complaint was logged, which meant some investigation would be required. That mean stuff like ACTUAL documents would be gone over. Not hearsay, misquotes, paraphrases, and spin. ACTUAL documents. Oh, and they didn’t just “deny” the union’s claims either. The word “significantly” preceded “deny”.
(I’ve noticed over the years that the use of the word “significant” in such applications is often VERY intentional and it’s meant to indicate something.)
The union ASKED them to get involved. Once the NLRB didn’t rule in their favor, the union’s next step was to downplay the importance and/or relevance of their decision. Would they have done that if the NLRB had sided with them? Nope. There would have been chest-thumping aplenty at having their “case” receive support.
It was just another attempt at “throwing something out there”. If it worked, great. If it didn’t, well….on to the next “strategy” from the handbook.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
21 
3
Ooops, my bad. Now that i think about it, the NLRB didn’t say “significantly deny”, they said “substantially deny”.
Either way, it wasn’t just a “nope”. And i find that to be significantly substantial. Or, substantially significant.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
20 
2
Ron, you use the term “unionbusting” alot. From my understanding, the only way a union can be busted is if it is disolved from within. ACS cannot decertify the union. So, with that, I do not understand this claim that from day one, ACS has been out to bust the union. As a grower, I support mgmt fully. I will say that I do not trust anyones word on anything business related. With that, I have reviewed closely what has occured and I do not see where in the contract proposals that ACS figured the union would not accept. The contract has monetary gains, even with the new health insurance, and other increases in retirement and has been modified to address job security and “elligible” employees. I have heard from numerous other union workers with different companies that the ACS contract is not a bad one and they would have signed it before the lockout. Thats not propaganda, it is honestly what I have been told. I guess now it boils down to a decision the union has to make, evolve with the company and get back to a good living with a stable company or continue the lockout without a paycheck.
If I am wrong on my understanding of how “unionbusting” works, please educate me and maybe I will see a different side. If there is something in this contract that is so undesirable, again, please educate me so I can understand the unions position.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
33 
1
ACS made a business decision that is contrary to the union’s (not necessarily the employee’s ) interests. That is their legal prerogative.
The pro union guys act as if the company can only act with their permission. Where did they get this idea?
The employees only recourse is to take their talent elsewhere. That is how the system works.
It never ceases to amaze me that the union keeps trying to turn this into a moral or ethical issue. It is an economic issue.
I used to work for Altru. I like the people and I believe in the company. I am also less than generous in my critique of some of their Human Resource practices.
Do I write letters to the editor about what a horrible place it is to work? No, I take my talent elsewhere. Altru misses me but is not likely to shut down because I am not there. I miss them but I haven’t missed any child support payments since leaving either.
Life goes on. It is a job. Nothing more. Nothing less.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
30 
3
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
5 
15
Ron,
Look at the NOLO site after searching for “comp time overtime illegal”. For non-exempt employees (like all union positions), replacing overtime with comp time is illegal. Don’t try to complicate this with references to “restrictions and classifications”. There are many references (Wikipeida for example) that clearly state that it is an illegal practice for private sector workers.
I’d also assuem they would run their proposal by a legal advisor. Either they didn’t or the legal advisor failed to do their job. BTW: There are plenty of recent lawsuits related to this. Walmart was ordered to pay $4.83M in March of this year. Bank of America in 2009.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
19 
0
They did run it by a legal adviser. Froemke wrote the proposal on a VFW napkin and Jeff H. looked it over, said it was perfect. The problem is was eating hot wings at the time and it ended up in the garbage. Well that’s what I was told anyway.
Seriously: Happy Memorial Day, thanks to the troops, god bless the ones that gave all.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
25 
1
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
1 
24
Are you sure Ron? I heard it from a pretty good source. I will take your word for it, I am sure you are right about the local reps having no touch with reality, because the big wigs are very unprofessional. You have great insight.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
21 
2
How much longer is it until instead of being locked out your just unemployed and there is no union at this place?
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
18 
2
“In 2009, Scottsdale implemented a 2 percent, across-the-board pay cut. Since then, the city has frozen pay and raised the amount that all employees pay toward their health care.”
This was in the paper this morning about Scottsdale, also known as Snottsdale because it is where all the rich people live.
Paying more for your own healthcare is the norm, not an aberration
Read more: http://www.azcentral.com/community/scottsdale/articles/2012/05/24/20120524scottsdale-public-safety-costs.html#ixzz1wGFiIbJE
Like or Dislike:
12 
2
Yes nurse paying more for your health care in local government positions is becoming the norm. Your comparing apples to oranges again. Paying more for health care in an industry that is achieving record profits is just stupid! A bad year now is an average yield 20 years ago.
Like or Dislike:
2 
10
Being fined from the government for providing a health care plan that is deemed excessive is “just plain stupid”.
Like or Dislike:
9 
0
Gussy, the cadillac plan tax would not go into effect until 2018. The current contract proposal expires in 2017. Your cadillac argument will not effect this contract. By 2018 a lot of legislation could go through. Dems want to tax employers and your republicans want to tax the individual.
Like or Dislike:
2 
10
Ron, you are right about the fact that the excise tax on cadillac plan not going into effect til 2018. It was originally suppose to take effect in 2013, which would certainly made it a concern in negotiations. By the way, I have voted for demcrats in every election in the last 35 years…. This year it is going to be every non-incumbant will get my vote, government is too polarized to get anything accomplished right now.
Like or Dislike:
6 
2
the whole point of the cadillac tax was to make healthcare more affordable for everyone. A tax is not applied until a healthcare plan reaches a certain value. The intent is that the people that can afford that type of plan can also afford the tax. It is not intended to be passed onto the employers but onto individuals who elect for greater coverage. Unfortunatly some employers will get nailed with the tax for creatin benefits that exceed other corporations in their industry. You are right it is unfair to punish an employer for doing the right thing and providing above and beyond. I do not know where the current american crystal health care plan would fall and if it would be considered a cadillac plan. Hopefully there will be plenty of debate and legislation to fix this flaw in the healthcare bill.
Like or Dislike:
1 
10