Did American Crystal break the union?
June 16, 2012 at 11:47 am in Grand Forks Herald
The lockout isn’t done, but it might be over despite fresh voteThere are few easy answers for locked-out American Crystal Sugar Co. workers, who will vote Saturday on a contract they rejected emphatically last November. The terms haven’t changed, but in the eyes of some workers, the prospects for a better offer particularly after the latest round of negotiations went nowhere have dimmed. Still, as the fight drags on and parties dig in, it becomes harder for either side to accept what feels like defeat. “It’s hard to get your head around, ‘We really lost this,’” said Greg Cant, a labor relations expert at Concordia College. “That’s a hard pill to swallow.” Continue Reading
The headline pretty much reflects the Herald’s ongoing bias. Seems like it should read “Did the Union Break the Union?”
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
160 
39
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
42 
112
No bias, just the facts. Union leadership, while collecting their paychecks, told the rank and file to reject the contract twice. The onus is on them for going all in with a pair of deuces and their members’ cash.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
152 
29
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
36 
118
The union leadership woefully miscalculated. The workers obediently followed their advice. It’s easy to blame management, union bosses always do. But you’ll notice they never said “We screwed up.” Nor did they ever donate their paychecks to a lock-out fund.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
149 
29
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
33 
99
It’s the rank and file who should have had the expectations. They got thrown under the bus because the leadership’s hubris was more important.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
121 
21
Agreed
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
49 
12
Crystal certainly did not break the Union. The union chose to pick a fight in terrible economic times, when you look at the entire nation. We have seen Unions push to far and then be shocked by the back lash. In Wisconsin we saw the Public Employee’s Union push and push, going way beyond reasonable. They wanted health care and demanded specific coverage. OK I can go with that. But when they demanded, and got, the fact that the plan had to be purchased from the Union at a much inflated price the Union not only loaded the gun but put it to their head and pulled the trigger. I am union member but in this case the Union leaders display no intelligence and are at fault for the plight of the workers. This was not the time to press a fight.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
174 
22
Glen, thats just about the most objective and well spoken overview of this entire situation…well said. From a self professed union guy at that. So I guess there is some sanity among the ranks. Too bad there isn’t more of that in leadership…
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
84 
7
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
50 
145
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
42 
118
Does it really matter where they are advertising?
The point is, many people are willing to work for the wages and benefits the union turned down. It really doesn’t matter where the workers come from.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
144 
37
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
50 
96
It doesn’t take much for ACSC to look better in the public eye than the union.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
119 
34
“Crystal is trying to look better in the public eye by saying there are hiring locals”
Have they hired any locals?
Yes?
I thought so.
Have they released any statements saying that they’ll hire locals EXCLUSIVELY?
No?
I didn’t think so.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
112 
28
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
40 
92
Gayle:
You are missing the point. This is not an emotional/right vs wrong issue. This is strictly economics.
Can ACS make enough money to meet shareholder expectations using replacement workers? If the answer is yes, the union is doomed. If the answer is no, the union wins.
It does not matter if the workers come from EGF or China.
It is about profit and loss
When people try to make it more than that they fail. Right and wrong are simply songs the band plays as the Titanic sinks.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
88 
13
My sources tell me that the vast majority of the temporary employees are locals.
Though I have heard that there are some from such far away places as St. Cloud.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
61 
11
They are hiring locals and ex union employee’s, but what does it matter as long as it’s American workers
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
52 
6
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
21 
55
Gayle…read Mike S.’s comments again. Give it alot of thought. He’s one of the good guys. He’s offering great advice.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
41 
7
“This notion some people have that Crystal is going to prevail in this deal without changing their final offer is predicated on the idea that everything ran and is running just great at the factories.”
If the company changed its final offer now, would that undo any of what’s gone on up until now?
No?
Well, given that….and the fact that the union has no leverage here, what’s your notion that the union will prevail predicated on?
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
87 
22
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
35 
108
Please leave WalMart employees out of this. People actually work there. Not everybody is cut out for factory work. I will tell you this…if I had to chose between WalMart and ACS I would go with WalMart. Feel free to laugh….I really don’t give a sh!t.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
90 
19
Paul,
Even though I thinking your claim of the total incompetence of the replacement workers is overstated…… let’s assume it is true. When do you think Crystal (or the growers) will change their stance? Let’s say it is a bumper crop. When will it become obvious that they need to get you back or lose the processing of a large percentage of the bumper crop? November? January? March? Are you willing to wait that long?
You say you still have leverage, but I’d say you are at least 6 months away from being able to use any of that leverage. If you want to wait that long, it is your choice. Just don’t kid yourself or others into believing that Crystal (or the growers) will change their position before late fall/winter. Seems like this is a vote to 1.) accept and go back to work now or 2.) be out for at least another 6 months, hope/assume the replacement workers will fail with a bumper crop (a crop that hasn’t been harvested yet).
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
70 
10
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
16 
70
Paul, will you stay there when the lock out gets resolved? Or will you go back to Crystal?
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
41 
3
Funny, I don’t recall them changing anything. I do recall the union whining about their unwillingness to meet them half way, but I do not recall any changes.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
27 
8
There have always been problems of that nature at the plants. Granted there have been more because of the new workers inexperience. As for the beets rotting. everyone knows that is a direct result of the unbelievably warm winter we had. I doubt the Union workers control that. With the end of the season it gives Crystal months to continue training with their new employees. When the next production season rolls out I think we will see that production has improved greatly. The Union had best take the last offer as the window is closing very fast, Crystal has no reason to change their offer, the balance will continue to tip to Crystal the more time passes, and it is already tipped in Crystals favor.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
76 
19
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
23 
72
Gayle: again you are missing the point.
Did ACS turn enough profit to make the lockout viable? Is geting the contract management wants worth the economic hardship that it caused?
If the answer is yes, the union loses. If the anwer is no, the union wins
People are trying to make this something it is not. It is an economic game of chicken and the union blinked.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
62 
18
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
17 
50
They finish every year in February or March, while it wasn’t real cold then there still weren’t the temps that were seen in April.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
45 
10
The Union at Sidney Sugar also accepted the SAME CONTRACT that was proposed to you guys!
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
44 
8
Could be but remember it was 50 degrees in January. This was a record setting WARM winter.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
40 
5
Hey Gayle, Crystal lost less than 2% of their crop. Fact. stay where you are at, if they like you so much and you get paid sooo much more, why would you go back. is your new job union?
ill bet you are blowing smoke. but, no one cares. see ya!
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
47 
15
“et the remelt sugar piled up, a vacuum pan blew up, several pulp dryer fires occurred, and many other issues came up”. Those issues crop up every year. Funny you don’t say it was the union’s fault when it happened before. In actuality, now when things need to be repaired, replaced or serviced, it gets done NOW, not tomorrow, not next week, not after the company has to wade through the union stipulations and regulations regarding who can do the work and when. THAT is a major issue the union doesn’t want to capitulate on.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
72 
15
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
17 
48
Yes, Gayle, maybe EMERGENCY situations were when things were fixed ASAP, but if it wasn’t an emergency, it was a way for the union workers to bilk their paycheck while waiting for the appropriate person to come and fix it…maybe today, mabye tomorrow, maybe next week. The workers they have in their now know how to fix some of the stuff and they do it NOW. If they can’t fix it, they can call someone who can without having to get permission or worrying about stepping on someone’s toes. Also, they are being trained, trained, trained right now. They spent days on end in training and cross training. They will know every aspect of their respective plants in no time so I suggest going and voting yes if you plan to ever go back. I hope you don’t because my spouse is getting a pretty nice paycheck every two weeks!!
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
48 
12
At least crystal doesn’t need to worry about a worker saying it’s not in their job description to do that work and go sit in the break room during repair as it was with the union.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
54 
13
Not all of them Eldredton…my husband was the guy doing the repairs. He stayed until the factory was up and running again for which he earned some very nice overtime. I remember those days…so so long ago.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
37 
3
Wow, you keep bringing those issues up? The last I heard of anything bad happening was back in October. My undestanding is that after the initial hiccups the factories have run fairly decently.
Oh, and by the way, how much damage was there in Whapeton for their fire this spring? Wait, that couldn’t have happened since your BCTGM comrades are working so hard down there.
My point being, things happen no matter who is working in the factories.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
64 
12
The fat lady has sung, this would have been over months ago if Minnesota hadn’t been paying them unemployment.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
137 
34
Isn’t that the truth?
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
103 
31
No matter how this so-called union vote goes, it will mean absolutely nothing…..it’s ALL totally over folks; amazes me so many people still don’t get it.
Unions have been breaking for decades…..recent case-in-point Wisconsin.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
123 
28
It bothers me that people think employees simply followed the union recommendation like a bunch of lemmings. How disrespectful of some great people. I truly feel the union leadership is living in the past and the 90% of employees so badly missed a fair offer (for these times). I wish Gene D and others who have no noticeable affection for the locked-out workers would quit judging them. I also wish, and pray, that the employees will change their mindS on Saturday.
Hot debate. What do you think?
51 
59
Alvin, that is exactly what happened. The union members followed their leaders right over the cliff!
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
98 
28
To be more precise, they went over the cliff while their leaders stood at the edge and waved good-bye.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
98 
24
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
21 
45
Nothing wrong with judging people when their actions serve as the basis for that judgement. The workers voted overwhelmingly twice against the offer made by management. All at the behest of their “leaders.” The latter kept getting a big paycheck, the former ended up jobless. Pretty straightforward stuff.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
83 
19
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
28 
77
“Then again as gullible as a lot you people are your probably wouldn’t notice.”
Given what led up to the current situation, I’m not sure it’s the posters here who are “gullible.”
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
61 
22
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
19 
67
You likely know there is no real union.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
49 
18
Just to clarify: In ND it is illegal for state workers to engage in collective bargaining. The state supreme court upheld the law by saying that state workers are all actually independent contractors. The so-called unions, therefore, have no real power, since they are enjoined from real negotiations dealing with salaries, benefits and the like. My bet would be that the SCOTUS would strike down the law, which is at least 50 years old. But no one has ever pursued it that far. This is why years ago, when Simplot went out on strike, it became known that a 20-year worker there with a high school diploma was making more than a 20-year full professor at UND. It also explains why faculty salaries at UND, the so-called flagship institution of the state , are ranked 394th in the country. Thus the place is a revolving door for professors.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
54 
13
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
29 
54
tj: Like many, you’re frustrated, but engaging some of these lines of thinking is completely fruitless. I’ve seen manuals on pay equity and job values. It’s a fact that education certainly increases the value of a job description. The market sometimes throws a kink into these values. It’s frustrating for some of these cranky old PHD’S, but a journeyman electrician is
probably paid better than an entry-level professor in North Dakota. That’s also a frustration for some of the Crystal workers. I don’t doubt that some Crystal workers are worth $35 an hour or more. Many educated people find this quite unlikely.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
54 
8
Gene, that’s 394 out of 3000 colleges in the US. Bad but not as bad as if it was 394 out of 400.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
44 
14
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
15 
50
Gene DuBois you are correct when you state that public employees in North Dakota have no “collective bargaining” rights. That does not mean they do not lobby and have discussions with the legislature and Govnr.
They can NOT strike. Which means they do not have the power to intimidate the state in their compensation. But they can negotiate. The other side is the state can not force employees to stay because of a contract. People can and do walk, many times for much higher paying jobs in the private sector. Presenting evidence to back their claims is the weapon of public employees in North Dakota. I for one prefer it the way it is in North Dakota. Join a Union if you want but you are not forced to join.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
50 
4
@spearman and Glen, my response to you both is being moderated, which means it will never appear here. Strange, since it was nothing more than statistics. Point is that 394th includes med, law , and other professional salaries. Also, unions have no power; it’s the Legislature that approved 0-3% acrosss the board raises over more than 2 decades. Hence, ND faculty have been the lowest paid in the country for over 20 years.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
31 
5
Posting this for a second time since the first one has been “awaiting moderation” for several hours.
Paul posted this in regards to the contract:
“9.5 Steps in Grievance Procedure: In the event of a grievance, any employee affected who wishes to have the matter determined with respect to him shall file a grievance in writing with (a steward,)the Company etc.
The words in parenthesis have been eliminated in the contract. This means the company is denying you the right to union representation when presenting a grievance.
This is in violation of Federal labor law. ”
A couple of questions Paul. First off, what law(s) specifically does that violate? Secondly, the NLRB reviewed all of this and would have been very interested, (and concerned), about language in the company’s proposal that “violated Federal labor laws”, and yet they substantially denied the union’s complaints about failing to bargain in good faith. Why is that?
Here’s an excerpt from another site on standard procedures in union employee grievance situations:
***A Typical Grievance Process:
In a union environment, a typical grievance procedure begins with an employee presenting a problem to his or her immediate supervisor within a certain time period after the offending event has occurred. The supervisor then has a set amount of time to either respond or send the grievance on to be addressed by the head of the department. At this point, a union representative enters the negotiations on behalf of the employee.”***
Where in there does it say ANYTHING about Federal Labor Laws dictating that a union steward be involved right from the start? It CLEARLY states that the employee presents the problem to their supervisor, who then has a set amount of time to respond or send the grievance on to a department head. AT THAT POINT, a union rep gets involved.
(I’m posting the information and not including the link this time to see if the link was what was causing the moderation delay. It’s easy to find though. Just Google “union employee grievance procedures” or something similar.
Paul, correct any of this that’s wrong, but it seems like your union wanted to have a steward involved from the get-go. The company wants the situations to be handled the way they usually are handled. They are not denying the employee representation at all, nor are they violating any Federal Labor Laws.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
52 
11
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
10 
54
Then 2 1/2 years later the union does nothing about the grievance. What did the workers in simply is their union is terrible. Furthermore, their claim about seniority is a farce. They have no seniority because the white hats can and will decide who they want to have a job even if they hire someone off the street for the job. They were offered a fair contract from the get go. ACS had to negotiate with the thought the sugar program could be chopped by congress and with that a 1/3 to a 1/2 less revenue for their finished product. When you self-insure and you have a lot of older people working for you your healthcare costs rise quickly. This is one case where the union did their membership an extreme disservice.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
54 
12
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
13 
27
I understand your point of view Tundra but I realize the union cannot win this time around. I don’t want to get into this to deep since it’s been talked to death. The truth of the matter is the company has the advantage due to the economy.
Just read the story about the Northland’s Rescue Mission to see how bad the things are for people outside the RRV. Oh by the way…I still manage to donate monthly to them on my salary. I don’t give a lot but I’ve been doing it for close to fifteen years.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
32 
2
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
8 
27
http://www.powerlineblog.com/admin/ed-assets/2012/06/Farm-Bill-Spending-Primarily-Directed-To-Food-Stamps.jpg
Just sayin’…
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
27 
1
An overwhelming majority of the “farm bill” includes the School Lunch Program and Food Stamps. Farm Program payments, price supports, and crop insurance are a very small portion. And yes, there are a few who abuse it and they should be made an example of. Same goes for those who abuse the Food Stamp program.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
31 
0
The news about the farm bill is interesting. According to the story I read: direct subsidies are gone (good – should never have been there to begin with) and replaced with a more robust crop insurance program (insures 75% income). There is some dissatisfaction with the insurance provisions because there are no caps on how much can be paid out (caps would seem reasonable to me). Also, government subsidized insurance premiums are over $2 billion a year. No wonder the insurance industry is such a staunch supporter. I would be too for $2 billion in guaranteed funds.
Food stamps are scheduled to take a hit somewhere between $20 billion and $43 billion. Since the program has mushroomed during he recession, the GOP says that is proof it is being abused. Can’t quite figure out that logic, especially when over $100 million a year in food stamps are redeemed on military bases (you try and feed a family of four on an E2 wages).
Like or Dislike:
17 
5
So I guess the moral is I should actually check to see what’s happened to things like the farm bill before I comment on them? Damn…..Everyone else gets away with it..
I know I initially was refering to a comment on farm subsidies, but I’ve had a bi chip against corporate welfare for many years. It just irks me that those who have more than they could ever use have manipulated the system to get more from the tax payers. This is especially true with big oil and big pharma. So whenever we talk subsidies I just go off a bit…But I guess I should read the riviting articles about things like the farm bill if I’m going to make comments….
Like or Dislike:
13 
7
You won’t find me arguing with you. I believe in the market. That means I do not believe there is such a thing as too big to fail.
I despise protectionism. It defeats the inherent checks and balances of the market 100% of the time.
As I have railed on before, you cannot get $4 prescriptions in ND because someone in some small town is convinced that if WalMart or Target or Fry’s opens a pharmacy their small town apothecary will go out of business. What nonsense. If their small town apothecary is worth keeping open, the people of the town will keep it open.
When I owned my business I made an effort to use local businesses whenever possible. I remember the owner of an office supply company I used to frequent going on and on about Sam’s club. The cost of a box of envelopes at the local shop was 2.5X what it was at Sam’s. I used to pay it because of my commitment to buying local, until I saw the owner of the office supply store buying the same box of envelopes at Sam’s they thought they would then sell to me. I never entered their store again.
Protectionism is anathema to a free market. ND loves protectionism. It thrives on it. The examples are endless. Everyone uses the excuse that we are small and if we do not protect what we have we will have nothing. What a bunch of hog wash.
Like or Dislike:
16 
4
Flyingnurse, yes there are needy people who need food stamps. However, the program has blossomed into an entitlement program that extends beyond the needy. In Minnesota, a family of four with income of $28,000 is eligible for over $930 per month in food assistance. During the school year the two children in that family are also eligible for free school lunch and, in a majority of the school districts, free breakfast as well. Yes, our service men and women are underpaid, but the answer is better pay not bigger entitlement programs. Additionally, in 23 states there is no asset testing, just income testing; you can live in a million dollar home and still get food stamps.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
22 
2
Joe,
I agree with you, but the bill under discussion addresses none of those issues. We have not drilled our way down that far yet, we are just talking numbers.
The MN example is interesting. Definitely not the case in ND. Silly things like in ND they do not take child support into account. For most government programs if you pay child support they deduct that from your income. In ND when they calculate benefits they do not.
What that means is if you have a young family, and either the mother or the father is paying child support, they receive no credit for that, even though they do not have that money to live on.
I agree there will always be people who make a living out of not working. You cannot plan for them. You have to arrange your programs to help those you are trying to.
There will always be crooks. You can prosecute them but you will never get rid of them. They are simply just a price of doing business.
Like or Dislike:
13 
2
See my response below. Somehow I messed up and posted it in the wrong spot. Sorry.
As for school lunches (and breakfast), easily the best money spent. We are talking more valuable than any piece of new technology.
You cannot learn if you are hungry. Kids by definition are always hungry. You also cannot blame the kid because his/her parent should have been sterilized. You deal with the situation as it is, not how you think it should be.
School meals are one area that is proven to increase test scores, attendance, etc. All of the things we measure.
You can either spend the $5 a day to feed the kid or the $60,000 a year to incarcerate him/her down the road.
The only federal program that offered more bang for the buck was the post WWII GI bill (they calculate the government received $16 in increased tax revenue for every $1 spent on the program – the best investment the government has ever made; including the Panama Canal).
Cutting back of school food is definitely cutting off your nose to spite your face.
Like or Dislike:
13 
5
I pray to god there is no one with a family of 4 living on E-2 wages since I know that is horrible. I joined the Navy at 17 and in less than 3 years I was an E-5. Different era though and times may have changed.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
18 
0
The most common rank in the Army is E4. Most make that in about 3 years. If you signed up as an E1 or E2 & were already married with kids, it can be a long 3 years. Base housing is as rare as an honest politician on most bases so you are forced to live on the economy.
With the recession many older people with families enlisted just for the bennies. It was the only way to cover their kids with insurance.
Like or Dislike:
14 
2
I hear what you are saying flyingnurse. I went in young and single, Lived aboard my ship and caught almost every break imaginable for advancement. Things don’t always fall like that.
Like or Dislike:
11 
0
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
13 
54
Paul, do you lie awake at night dreaming this stuff up or are you just not busy enough where you work now?
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
45 
12
If an employee is filing a grievance this is done on the employee’s time and they can consult with whoever they please.
The union steward has to sign off on the grievance for step #1, so how would they not get advice from the steward?
Are you referring to a progressive discipline issue? Was anything changed for that?
Or is this just something more for adding some drama to an already worn out, need something new to stay mad at, argument?
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
32 
6
I would love to hear more comments on what these grievances were about. I have heard that most of them are so darn petty they border on ridiculous. Adults acting like children.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
40 
6
Well in light of the recently dead Rodney King….”Can’t we all just get along?” Probably not, but worth saying anyway….
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
23 
6
“As to your question of what the NLRB thought about this, if the union chooses to sign away their rights there’s nothing they are going to do about it.”
I find it very hard to believe that an employee’s rights with NLRB can be signed away by anyone, not even their union.
A big shout out to Mike S. for replacing Paul’s and Gail’s half truth with the whole truth on this “greivance” matter. I hope those who vote on June 23 are as well-read on the contract as Mike S. and are not mislead by the comments of Paul and Gail.
Before the last vote, the hot topic was contract language about which union employees would be eligible to return. That conversation died right after it did it’s job of enticing a “no” vote. Is the “steward” language the next red herring?
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
36 
7
Paul: You are right, I probably disagree with 90% of employees when I say the offer is fair. It troubles me when you say, “This is a violation of Federal law.” That’s either a disturbing fact or
another example of employees being misguided. Either way, my friend, good luck to you and your colleagues on Saturday.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
53 
8
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
18 
38
Then the Union can accept the contract and the go to court and have that provision thrown out as a violation of law. A provision in a contract that violates the law can not be enforced. That is basic.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
51 
9
Paul: If you are right, does Glen’s approach have any merit? Of course, we are talking about ONE point of many.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
36 
5
if this were true, the FEDERAL MEDIATOR would have taken care of this. also, the contract was found in court to be bargainging in good faith.
too bad your facts are again false. reconsult your union thugs and get back to me.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
35 
9
ACS did not break the union, the union broke itself. “Holding thier ground” based on decades old beliefs did not work. This country has migrated away from the need of a union to assist the employees with better benifits and job security. Today’s business world has made it the “norm” to offer benifit packages to all employees in order to be competive in the marketplace for the employess. Every person working has a choice to work were they want to, nobody is forcing the locked out workers to work at ACS- move on the union is gone.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
77 
18
“If ACS left out the steward part is it because they understand anything is negotiable & if they can get the union to agree to eliminate language then that supersedes the labor law”
Really Spearman? A company can “eliminate language” that dictates how a procedure is supposed to be handled…when eliminating that language indicates an intention to violate Federal labor law?
I still want to see the specific language in the alleged law Paul referred to. I also still want an answer to the NLRB question. If the company is trying to wiggle out of a policy/procedure that Federal labor law mandates, would that not raise the NLRB’s eyebrows a bit? Why in the world would they “substantially deny” the union’s claims of not bargaining in good faith if the company was attempting to circumvent Federal labor law?
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
57 
9
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
14 
35
And that supports your earlier statement….how? You said the company is trying to do something that violates Federal labor law. You still haven’t proven your point. The proposed contract eliminated the words “a steward” when it detailed the process of filing a grievance, which, (as far as I can see), violates no Federal labor law. Your “Weingarten Rights” post means essentially….nothing.
The company is required to follow any procedures required by labor law. Labor law apparently doesn’t REQUIRE the immediate involvement of a union rep WHEN the employee files a grievance.
If you find something that DOES SAY that Federal labor law REQUIRES the company to follow the procedure YOU would LIKE to see followed….by all means post it.
Until you do, your first post on the topic hasn’t been substantiated.
A little more on the Weingarten Rights:
***In 1975 the United States Supreme Court, in the case of NLRB v. J. Weingarten, Inc., 420 U.S. 251 (1975), upheld a National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) decision that employees have a right to union representation at investigatory interviews. These rights have become known as the Weingarten Rights.
During an investigatory interview, the Supreme Court ruled that the following rules apply:
Rule 1: The employee must make a clear request for union representation before or during the interview. The employee cannot be punished for making this request.
Rule 2: After the employee makes the request, the employer must choose from among three options. The employer must: grant the request and delay questioning until the union representative arrives and has a chance to consult privately with the employee; deny the request and end the interview immediately; or give the employee a choice of having the interview without representation or ending the interview.
A couple of interesting things ABOUT the Weingarten Rights:
1) They were an NLRB decision…which leads me to believe that the NLRB is AWARE of what they entail
and….
2) It says in the first paragraph that the employee has the right to request representation at INVESTIGATORY INTERVIEWS.
How can there BE any “investigatory interviews” about any issue….UNTIL there’s an issue to investigate? In other words, once the employee BRINGS UP the issue to BE investigated, THEN the “investigation process” begins, AT WHICH POINT call in a rep if you’d like.
Feel free to correct any of this Paul….
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
48 
8
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
10 
47
…and by the way, this is irrelevant:
“Teachers in Mn. can go straight to their building union steward & the steward goes to management.”
Your statement says a teacher *can* go straight to their steward. It does not say they HAVE TO because it’s required by any law. Paul alleges there’s some law in place that ACS is trying to wiggle around…..
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
45 
8
This is going to get me in trouble, but oh well!!!
I spent a weekend with an old teacher of mine, he said on an average a teacher in grade school spends around 4 hours a day with his or her students. This is from a teacher now, he said yes they grade papers that takes less time as years go by. So because we are speaking of teachers and education, if a teacher makes $50,000 a year at 4hours a day at 180 days of school? When will the train arrive in Cleveland?
P.S. I do know there is more involved then that, but they have summers off!! Right
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
42 
10
One of the great mantras of ND is that teachers are overpaid. Maybe, maybe not. But, when you realize that you are putting the country’s greatest and parents’ most loved resource into the hands of these people, to prepare them to be citizens, seems that sqawking about salaries pales. People don’t flinch in paying $150/hr to a psychologist to listen to their problems. Or $50/hr labor for car repair. Or $10K for a funeral. But the idea that somehow teachers are of no value strikes a resonant chord.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
31 
16
I am not squawking about teacher’s salaries here Gene. And I certainly didn’t say teachers are of no value. I agree with you, they have the best of the country in their hands. I think the best teachers should be payed the more then psychologists, but I also think the bad teachers should be weeded out and not be in charge of our national treasure. There should be a standard that is met, kind of like being promoted by merit.
By the way the train comes in at train comes in at $69.44 an hour mountain time.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
40 
2
Well, then you have a much more magnamimous viewpoint than many in ND. I agree that merit should override seniority in regard to teacher salaries. But given that most districts have step-scale systems, that isn’t likely. As for the train, it it’s Amtrack, it’s probably 6 hours late.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
34 
5
I’ll cough up the cash for the ticket Gene and help you pack if that would help get you out of town faster. I will even give you a ride to the train station and forward your mail to you…after I pick out all the checks…but you have to take Fly with you or the deal is off. It’s time to rid the Valley of the riff raff. Your riff and Fly is raff.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
32 
10
Wait one more year and you won’t have to assist; I’ll be out on my own volition.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
35 
0
I don’t want to see you go Gene. I’m just giving you and Fly some good-natured grief.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
29 
2
I didn’t take it seriously…but retirement IS calling. What bothers me more is that 7 people like the idea of my departure.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
32 
1
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
10 
26
Spearman, are you saying an 8hr work day is inhumane? Maybe we should get down to a three day work week too. I dream of a day when we will have to go to work to unwind from our Utopian vacation schedule.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
34 
4
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
5 
25
Even if they vote to aprove this contract their are a lot of people that ACS is not going to let back into work anyhow. I would bet anyone who has been on the radio, letters in the papers, noisy on the picket line, or tv say bye-bye.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
51 
16
Jack,
Based on what? This sounds just like the “eligible employee” argument that Crystal clarified in January. If you have received a letter from ACSC, you will have a hearing to determine if you will get your job back. There were less than 10 people who had to worry about that.
You don’t lose your right to free speech and the company can’t discipline you (or take away your job) because you advocated for a “No” vote. That is an unfair labor practice.
If they vote yes, 99% of the people who want to return will get to return. Stop making up stories that have no basis in fact. That is what drives free into people so they vote based on a suspicion and such.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
46 
7
Don’t get me wrong here. I don’t agree with ACS doing this but reality is reality. Would you bring the lazy trouble makers back? I know a lot and have known a lot of guys who work or have worked at ACS. If you don’t think there is a list of who does not get to come back just wait and see. They have broken state labor laws out there so many times and the union does nothing. So what makes you think they will abide by it now?
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
31 
13
Its incredible that our society allows people to live off of unemployment checks this long.
Vacations over boys, GET A JOB!
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
67 
13
what’s even more amazing to me is that Minnesota guidelines for unemployment specifically state that you cannot turn down a job that offers the same or more pay per hour, with the same type of classification as the job you lost, etc. So how is the final offer that the workers were offered how many months ago and turned down, not a violation of the Minnesota unemployment system?? When I was on unemployment for losing my job through no fault of my own, I had to report where I applied to and the only way I wasn’t made to take them was because they offered lower pay than I had previously received…yet the union were being offered more than what they had been paid. This screams FRAUD from all levels!
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
48 
8
Even more appaling when you find out that Minnesota is paying for these workers to go back to school, paying for gas, housing and all other stuff.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
35 
8
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
18 
62
Union members,
You are the ones who get to vote. My opinion does not matter. However, I request one thing. Study the proposal NOW. It was unfortunate that in January the question of what is an “eligible employee” didn’t arise (at least publicly) until the day of the vote. When things aren’t understood, people will tend to vote “No”.
If you have questions about what is in or out of the contract, ask it NOW. If something isn’t clear, ask questions NOW. Don’t wait until Friday or Saturday. The contract has been available for a long time now. There is no excuse to get to Saturday with unanswered questions.
The final decision and the vote is then up to you.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
70 
0
Excellent…no one says it better than Mike S.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
45 
4
My only hope is that all of the replacement workers that want to stay are allowed to stay. Most of the union folk have found other work. The reason they are demanding a vote is they found out the other work does not pay nearly as well. Forget about benefits.
They also discovered that when you have to compete for your job and not rely on seniority and antiquated workhouse rules, you are more productive. They discovered that most other employees require a level of work not previously expected.
The replacement workers brought in the harvest and made it work. They should be rewarded. ACS can use their willingness to work
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
61 
20
You’re presuming a yes vote this time around, which may not be a certainty.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
45 
2
Agreed. When I first heard about the vote I thought it was to vote for the contract against the wishes of leadership. Now I am not too sure. It sounds like it could be 50/50 or 60/40. Be interesting to see.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
32 
6
I think FN is presuming a lot of things with his statement.
Hot debate. What do you think?
14 
23
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
21 
31
This is true, however there should be lots of openings due to retirements and those that have left for greener pastures.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
44 
2
Agreed Gayle. That is what I meant. Like has been said, there will be lots of open positions. If I understand things correctly once you retire you cannot “un-retire” and come back with your seniority intact. You would simply be a new hire.
I can not think of one reason to ratify unless it is to admit you were wrong. In which case, why is your leadership still there (just reelected)? That makes absolutely no sense.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
42 
6
senority is out the door in the contract as it should have been years ago.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
44 
13
In a case where a worker went back in after applying, got their previous job back, they wont have to reapply. Only in a case where the job one has no opening if by some chance it passes. MN right to work law is coming soon, so workers wont have to be union anyways.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
25 
7
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
5 
29
Spearman: I believe in the market. Supply and demand. Capitalism is a contact sport; that is why it is not very popular among the feel good crowd. There are winners and losers (as I have explained before, I have been on both sides).
Social Darwinism is a factor (not the whole – just a factor) in all economic systems, even Communism (Remember the famous quip: In the Soviet Union everyone is equal; some are just more equal than others?).
In this case your skills determine your pay. A WalMart greeter works. That in and of itself is worthy of respect. Work = good. Sitting at home waiting for someone to take care of you = bad.
That said, a WalMart greeter does not and will not earn as much as a physician simply because their skill set is not as much value to the market as the physician. Does this mean the physician is a better person? No. It simply means their skills are more valuable.
Many of the locked out workers found out the market does not regard their skill set as highly as they thought. They found out there were many other people with the same skill set so they could not earn as much.
That is extremely hard on the ego and the pocketbook, especially for those of us at or around 50 (which many of the locked out workers are). They can’t collect their 401K till 55, but the bills are still the same. They also know if they cash out their retirement they will be broke by the time they are 65-68.
It is a two edged sword: they thought the market valued them more highly than it did, and if they cash out now they will be broke when they really need the money.
The market is not nice. I have said all along the union was foolish to try this labor action during an economic downturn. The leadership (supported by 90% of the union membership) thought of themselves more highly than they ought; and paid the price.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
34 
10
btw, what has the leadership recommended, since the story never said? Also, it’s interesting Riskey got voted out of the mayor’s office this time around. I wonder if his “leadership” status in the union had anything to do with that.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
44 
9
From what I’ve read, the union isn’t recommending either a yes or no vote.
But I’ve read that somewhere else before so take it with a grain of salt.
The vote will take place immediately after “Informational meetings” are given by the union.
Funny this all seems so familiar.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
42 
6
If it’s the same contract, how can they recommend a yes vote? It would be an admission of defeat for them. And since this has all been about leadership pride, not the fate of the rank and file, I don’t see it.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
35 
6
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
20 
62
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
10 
46
That is the biggest bunch of nonsense I have ever read (and that is saying a lot on these boards).
ACS workers have enjoyed above market wages and benefits for decades. To try and pull the poor poverty striken worker routine simply does not match the facts.
We are not talking the abuses heaped upon WalMart workers here. The reason the lockout succeeded is there were plenty of people willing to work for what you turned down.
Had ACS been terrible to work for, they never would have found the workers they needed to get the job done.
The union lost the moment the campaign ended. It did not have to be pretty, it just had to be completed; and it was.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
49 
14
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
10 
36
It’s not wages, It’s the stupid union senority garbage crystal has been stuck with for much too long, same goes for paying too much of the health insurance portion which should have been taken care of last time around.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
40 
13
They got lucky that time around….we knew this was coming….I’m surprised the union is making such a big stink about it. They act like this came out of nowhere and caught us off guard. That’s not the case.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
41 
4
Gayle:
It goes back to what I have said previously about what labor is worth and how that is determined.
Why do you think you (speaking metaphorically, not you in particular) deserve a raise simply because the company is making a profit and you have survived another year of employment?
Has your job changed? Is it more strenuous? Dangerous? Did you require extra schooling to complete it?
What changed over the preceding 12 months that warrants a pay increase?
Even though I am going to get in trouble for picking on my daughter in law (a WalMart employer), lets use them as an example. If you are a greeter or stock shelves, and you do not move to another department or learn a new job, why do you deserve a raise for doing the same thing?
For WalMart, the answer is you do not, and they are correct. Nothing in the job changed to justify a pay increase.
WalMart may choose to give you a cost of living increase, or they may choose to give you a raise in order to stay competitive and attract the best employees, but both of those are management decisions and largely based on the market.
As I said before, I did not get a raise or a cost of living adjustment because management did a survey and found out our wages were already competitive in the market. That is their prerogative.
In response to this slight, turnover among nurses went from 10% per year to over 20%. Since it takes 3 -6 months to train a new flight nurse ($10,000 – $25,000), this increase in turn over resulted in a huge hit to the bottom line that the company could not ignore.
You guessed it. We got a raise this year. It was done without a union. Simple market forces took care of it for us.
As I said above, ACS is well above market for the skill set required. By assuming you are entitled to a raise, and free benefits, and a seniority system that places too much power in the hands of the employees simply because you have always gotten them, regardless of the market, was false.
This lack of understanding of simple economics was your downfall.
Had you signed the pro-offered contract and waited till the economy was better to stage a labor action, you might very well have won (In a better economy ACS may not have been able to find enough replacement workers at a price they could afford to make it worthwhile).
We will never know.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
30 
7
“A bunch of fat cats overran a bunch of powerless workers.”
Powerless workers???
I keep seeing all these signs that say “They have the factories, We have the power!”
Hmmmmm, someone is lying…………….
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
36 
7
John, your comments have to be one of the most absurd and ignorant I have read on this forum. AC is a COOP made up of family farmers who took a major risk and invested their life savings into purchasing a company from actual Corporate minions who really couldn’t give a crap about the workers or the growers. “The sugar lobby” is made up of family farmers investing their hard earned money to insure that world dumped sugar doesn’t flood the US market putting tens of thousands of people out of work, including other “union” workers.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
27 
6
ACS did not break the union. The union broke the union. We have been saying that for the better part of a year.
Poor strategic planning and an almost negligent decision by union officials to undertake a labor action during the lowest part of a recession.
Foolhardy does not begin to describe their decisions.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
48 
14
Paul, so I guess you’re NOT going to back up your original post alleging that ACS has given the union a proposal with conditions that violate federal labor law, huh?
So I guess we can chalk it up to YET ANOTHER attempt at throwing some misinformation out there in the hope that it’ll “stick”, huh?
You’ve had several months to get your facts straight, and it only took a couple of minutes of looking in order to disprove what you posted.
We can continue this for as long as you’d like.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
37 
9
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
13 
36
Gayle, here’s what Paul posted:
“9.5 Steps in Grievance Procedure: In the event of a grievance, any employee affected who wishes to have the matter determined with respect to him shall file a grievance in writing with (a steward,)the Company etc.
The words in parenthesis have been eliminated in the contract. This means the company is denying you the right to union representation when presenting a grievance.
This is in violation of Federal labor law. ”
I want to see what federal labor law is being violated if/when the company “denies the right” to union representation when PRESENTING a grievance.
It seems to me that first-of-all there would have to BE a law that says employees are entitled to have representation in tow when they PRESENT their grievance.
Can we see it?
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
32 
7
Gayle,
FIrst I must ask the final offer the company has posted on their website is really the offer you are voting on? If you continue to read section 9.5, there are 3 steps to be taken after the grievance is filed. The following is a copy from the Final Offer on the ACSC website.
“The grievance shall be processed in accordance with the following steps:
STEP 1: Within five (5) days after the date shown on the written grievance, the steward and the aggrieved employee and the shift superintendent, if any, shall meet and attempt to settle the grievance. The grievance shall proceed to Step 2 if no settlement or written response is made by the Company within two (2) days after such meeting or within seven (7) days after the date shown on the written grievance, whichever is earlier.
STEP 2: Within seven (7) days after the date shown on the written grievance, and whether or not a meeting has been had in accordance with Step 1, but only if no settlement has been made pursuant to Step 1, the Employee’s Committee of the Local Union shall meet with the appropriate management representative of the Company and attempt to settle the grievance. The grievance shall proceed to Step 3 if no settlement or written response is made by the Company is made within ten (10) days after the meeting between the Employee’s Committee and the Management Representative or within seventeen (17) days after the date shown on the written grievance, whichever is earlier.
STEP 3: Within seventeen (17) days after the date shown on the written grievance, if no settlement has been made pursuant to Steps 1 and 2, a representative from the Employees Committee or a representative of the International Union shall take up the pending grievance either in person or by telephone with the Employee Relations Manager and appropriate local manager of the Company and they shall attempt to effect a settlement. If no settlement is made within thirteen (13) days after the matter has been taken up with the Employee Relations Manager and appropriate local manager or, within thirty (30) days after the date shown on the written grievance, whichever is earlier, the matter may be referred to arbitration.”
The Union Steward and/or other union representatives are involved in all three steps. I don’t understand how you can read this and then say that “the employee stands alone with the Company in the greivance process”.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
37 
6
The answer is NO american crystal did not break the union. American crystal sat down and had an official meeting with union represenatives last week. The union reelcted the same leadership. The union members will vote on the final offer for a 3rd time. If the union votes to accept american crystals proprosal the union will still be in tact. A yes vote would only mean a change in direction for the union and its union members. Unless the union officially disbands american crystal has to recognize its existance. So no american crystal has not broken the union.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
39 
3
Quote of the day:
“A yes vote would only mean a change in direction for the union and its union members.”
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
39 
4
In my honest opinion there are american crystal employees that voted noduring every vote so far. Mn unemployment is paid to workers who lost their job at no fault of their own. By voting yes and being locked out you lost your job at no fault of your own. Since the unemployment office can not access who voted for what they treat all the locked out workers the same. Do you really believe people who voted for the contractdo not deserve unemployment.
Hot debate. What do you think?
19 
20
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
11 
29
Unemployment benefits for workers who voluntarily relinquish their jobs during a labor dispute is simply wrong. It allows the labor dispute to go on longer than would be natural because it artificially allows one side to remain solvent.
The corollary would be the government subsidizing ACS for the cost of replacement workers. How well would that go over?
By definition a labor dispute is a form of warfare. By subsidizing one side over the other the government is in fact taking sides. A very unwise thing to do.
Many a company has been brought to their knees by labor actions. The fact that did not happen this time is no reason to adjust the balance of power in the worker’s favor.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
33 
10
BEST CASE SCENARIO FOR EVERYONE INVOLVED: The union votes no by a wide margin. Since this has gone on too long already, and there is very little to be gained by maintaining the status quo, the union votes to decertify.
Those union members then organize with the local replacement workers under a different union with new leadership and start from scratch.
It may seem counterintuitive to vote no then decertify, but enough old hangers on still exist that they re-elected the same leadership. As events have clearly shown this leadership is incapable of closing the deal. A new union and new leadership is needed to move forward.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
40 
11
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
11 
29
Absolutely Ron. We have discussed this before. The key words in your argument is moved on. They chose to take their talents elsewhere. That is the appropriate thing to do when your employer no longer offers a compensation package you are willing to work for.
My point is it is going on a year. There seem to be quite a few members who are waiting for ACS to change and it plain and simple is not going to happen. They too must decide whether to capitulate or move on.
I have said all along I thought the leadership was negligent. That is my opinion. Obviously the rank and file think differently since they re-elected them.
I just find that fact confusing: you want a different result but you choose the same horse to get it. Makes no sense.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
34 
7
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
8 
18
“What if the vote was 60 no and 40 yes on the contract? Does the 40 percent yes lose a job at no fault of their own and not deserve unemployment benefits?”
That’s kind of confusing Ron, in a sort of “we want all up-side….all of the time”, kind of way.
If union members want to enjoy the “power” that their numbers bring, then they really should greet any “down side” belonging to the group brings with equally-open arms.
The “at no fault of their own” part is going to stir up some debate methinks, because that sentiment could be just as easily applied to things like compensation packages and other union “perks”.
Did EVERYONE that belongs to this, (or any other union), do JUST AS MUCH, JUST AS WELL as the next guy? Nope, probably not. But guess what? When viewed collectively….as a group….with a contract…..even the loafers get to benefit.
“At no fault of their own”.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
31 
7
“Does the 40 percent yes lose a job at no fault of their own?”
Ron:
A vote is hardly “no fault of their own.”
Coming to work and being told the factory is closing or being downsized and HR has decided you are one of the employees who have to go. That is “no fault of their own.”
Making a choice to engage in a labor action is far different from the scenario outlined above. A choice is simply that, and it has consequences.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
31 
6
That sounds like a good idea, Ones that vote for it go to work, hopefully see the light, change to non union, ones that dont want it go work someplace else.
Like or Dislike:
5 
0
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
9 
34
Ignorance, arrogance of union leadership and membership greed broke the union! Where is Mr Mark Froemke now??
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
34 
10
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
5 
39
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
3 
14
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
10 
28
So I’m guessing you feel the fact that it’s much harder to identify and weed out employes like that in union situations is some old wive’s tale, huh?
Perhaps the situations I’ve seen personally, heard about, and read about ARE all anomalies.
Good to know.
The following is copied from a site that offers up hiring/firing information for businesses so they won’t get sued Ron. I’d tell you to read this and draw your own conclusions, but you already DO draw your own conclusions….which is why you’re still confused about all of this:
***How to Fire Employees Under Contract or a Union Agreement:
Unfortunately, you will find written contracts and union agreements are relatively binding. This is true even when the employer does not like the type of work that an employee does. The way to fire an employee under contract or union agreement is if the worker has broken the terms of the agreement. Some of these terms should include the use of drugs or alcohol on-the-job, insubordination of a supervisor or company owner, failure show up to work or physical, verbal or mental abuse of another employee.
Despite the termination reasons, you must record all disciplinary action and evidence for a problem employee under contract. You may need to present this evidence and proof of signed disciplinary warnings in a post-termination hearing or in court proceedings if the employee takes further action. If such legal proceedings do occur, you will know you have protected yourself and your business.***
Now go back and read the first two sentences again.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
29 
7
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
9 
30
“I really don’t see your argument. ”
Totally unsurprising Ron….you tend to “not see” a lot of things. What I posted from the other site clearly indicated that there are differences in the procedures when there’s a contract involved. It ISN’T about it “being bad” to have to live up to a contract, it’s simply that union contracts have page after page of stipulations, rules, procedures, etc.
All of those “hoops to jump through” are completely intended to take a LOT of the “say-so” out of the hands of the employer. Taking ANY “say-so” out of the hands of the employer, in turn makes it more difficult to discipline or terminate an employee.
If you don’t understand that, well…..
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
28 
6
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
8 
25
Ron,
I’ll give my opinion… which I hope is not demonizing the employees. Working in a union shop results in long periods of low concern over the future of your job (when you are under contract) and short (usually) periods of higher concern (when the contract is up for renewal).
Everyday I come to work I know the company could choose to end my employment. For a union member, that is not true. So, the ACTION that leads to them being locked out and NOT getting unemployment (in ND) is the fact that they work at a union shop. They made that choice (whether they join the union or not) and with it they get both perks and negative consequences. They get collective bargaining. They get union representation during grievances. They get a contract that provides them job protection.
They also have to pay dues and their employment with the company is not up to them (or their vote) it is up to the union (or collective vote). So whether they vote yes or no, they are treated the same.
The exact same is true if 60% vote yes. What about the other 40% who didn’t vote yes. Is it fair that they have to accept the new contract? That wasn’t their vote!
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
35 
4
The choice is/was to stay with the union. As many ACS employees have done, you simply cross the line.
That is anathema to union thought, but it is a choice nonetheless.
There is no legal requirement to stay with the union.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
33 
7
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
4 
22
Ron, you said earlier that a loafer “would still get fired in a union position”. I said it’s much more difficult to do so, and you seemed confused by that….as if you were completely unaware of what “hoops there are to jump through” are contained in a typical contract.
Nobody said an employer should be able to discipline/terminate “for any reason”. It does raise a question though…especially in regards to termination. Why would an employer WANT to terminate a skilled, valuable, and productive employee? Seems *kind of* counterproductive, doesn’t it?
Union leaders have done an excellent job at convincing their members that they always have something to fear from the employer. We’ve seen numerous posts that have mentioned examples.
“What if a manager doesn’t like me?”
It’s ridiculous to argue that contracts don’t make it more difficult to disciple/terminate when they contain PAGES of nonsense specifically intended to do so. The union talking-heads have convinced the membership that minus all of the contract rules to protect them, employers would just line the employees up every single day and terminate random individuals at the toss of a coin….no matter how skilled, valuable, and productive they might be.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
24 
6
typo…should have said “discipline/terminate” in last paragraph.
Like or Dislike:
18 
4
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
7 
22
I know what you mean. Some of these comments get me all worked up. So much so that once I told Fly he was full of himself. It felt really really good at the time but the next day I was ashamed of myself. I get a chuckle out of it now when I think about it. Oh the times we’ve had on here….
Like or Dislike:
17 
10