Union members reject American Crystal contract a third time
June 23, 2012 at 1:34 pm in Grand Forks Herald
With 82 percent of Bakery Workers union members voting, 63 percent voted against the contract. The labor dispute has been ongoing since July 31 when members first voted on the contract. Since then, about 1,300 workers have been locked out and management has hired temporary replacement workers.
Continue Reading
If you do not apply yourself in or after highschool you open yourself up too such scrutany when applying for jobs at places such as american crystal. And I disagree with the union that it is only fair for management to be subjected to such humiliation as a drug test. They have already proven they are a reliable and trustworthy employee.
Like or Dislike:
4 
10
What is so humiliating about a random drug test ron? Why fuss about this? What’s the big deal here? It’s common in today’s workplace. Aren’t you tested on occassion?
Like or Dislike:
11 
0
I would RATHER be drug tested on a random basis along with everyone else…I would be HUMILIATED if I were asked to take a test for “suspicion.” Even if you were “suspected” and were asked to take a test, it would be less conspicuous if everyone is randomed all the time anyway!!
Like or Dislike:
7 
2
“Scott, The question is why would 2 factories in the same region find a need to unionize? 2 companies are not going to “inflate” wages just because. If the workers were getting a fair shake why would they unionize?”
There’s the rub Ron…..”fair shake”.
How is a “fair shake” determined? Do we compare it to other situations? You seem reluctant TO make those comparisons. Why is that? The only comparison you’re willing to make, (because you THINK it proves a point), is to compare a union situation *here* to a union situation *there*. A comparison like that isn’t just meaningless Ron, it’s ridiculous. Instead of comparing one company’s “special situation via a contract” with another company’s “special situation via a contract”, why not compare one company’s “special situation via a contract” with a situation where there IS no contract?
See how the numbers stack up, and then we can discuss “fair shake” some more.
I’ve asked you the same question(s) in just about every way imaginable…and it still hasn’t sunk in.
I set you up with an imaginary company with you as the owner/CEO, and asked you the same question(s)….and it still hasn’t sunk in.
It’s befuddling to say the least…
Like or Dislike:
13 
5
Well scottthey determined american crystal and mn dak were not giving them a fair shake somewhere along the line. You would have to ask the union members that formed the union what a fair shake is. That’s the answer scotty too hotty!
Like or Dislike:
5 
13
So I guess that means as far as answers go Ron….you’ve got nothin’.
Interesting, since you’ve invested so much time and effort on these boards trying to make it appear as though you’re “onto something” and should therefore be taken seriously for some reason as you try to “educate” others..
“Support the union cause….they haven’t been given a *fair shake*!”
“How so Ron?”
“I don’t know….ask them. But in the meantime….support the union cause!”
Good stuff.
***Well scottthey determined american crystal and mn dak were not giving them a fair shake somewhere along the line. You would have to ask the union members that formed the union what a fair shake is. That’s the answer scotty too hotty!***
If you don’t know WHY they didn’t feel they were getting a “fair shake”, and since you’re apparently unsure of how a “fair shake” is usually determined, then why are you posting at all?
You’ve now reverted back to the cutesy name-calling. Given your lack of answers, AND the name-calling, I’d *normally* expect you to stop the nonsense and quit posting now.
But there’s the “Ron factor” to consider. I really don’t expect you to stop posting. You’ll just come back with something else and swerve off topic, or say I said something I never said, or, well….I guess we’ll just have to wait and see.
Like or Dislike:
15 
4
As far as I’m concerned, both ACS and the workers are unneeded. I have started buying sugar beets myself, grinding them up and putting them in my coffee, on my cereal, on toast and a hundred different other things. If everyone started doing this, both the company and the self-entitled workers would not exist.
Like or Dislike:
11 
6
No scotty I just don’t respect you. I don’t respect your arroant attitude and your need to talk down to anyone who makes an argument that you don’t agree with. There are 2 seperate issues were discussing here. I asked you why the union formed in the first place, which you did not answer. You than asked me who judged what a fair shake was. I stated you would have to ask the union members that formed the union because they felt they were not receiving it. I was not referring to the current lockout situation I would think a 6th grader could figure that out!
Like or Dislike:
6 
14
“I asked you why the union formed in the first place, which you did not answer. ”
I didn’t answer the question when you asked it this time, because I answered it already for you….more than once. My take on unions, (especially in manufacturing/production situations), is simply this: Without a union, the employees WOULD be compensated at whatever the “going rate” is. That doesn’t seem satisfactory, so they “organize” to coerce the employer into coughing up more. It really is that simple. If it were a knowledge/skills/experience/whatever issue, then they’d simply TAKE those qualities elsewhere and get the compensation those qualities deserve.
I posted this a month or two ago when I asked YOU a question about “widgets”. Ring a bell? I asked you if there were two manufacturing facilities in the same town somewhere and they both churned out “widgets”, but one was union while the other wasn’t….what were the differences between the two OTHER THAN the contract one had? Was the union shop more skilled *automatically*? Were the tasks there more dangerous *automatically*? If we looked in the classifieds for the prerequisites for both places of employment, would the union shop’s list of qualifications be more stringent *automatically*? I know the answers to these questions Ron. It’s “nope”, “nope”, and “nope”.
Yet the union shop wants, (and expects), *more*, otherwise they’re not getting a “fair shake”.
So yes, I did answer your question. You just weren’t paying attention.
Again.
Like or Dislike:
14 
5
He doesn’t deserve his fair share because he can’t get off his butt and apply at the better paying company! Its that simple scott. Quit worrying about theother guy and how he has it so much better than you and take the steps to put yourself in his shoes! Its so simple but you don’t get this concept scott.
Like or Dislike:
10 
8
“Quit worrying about theother guy and how he has it so much better than you and take the steps to put yourself in his shoes! Its so simple but you don’t get this concept scott.”
The simple concept you’re not grasping Ron, is that the “special situation” exists simply because of a contract. The guy that wants to “put himself in the other person’s shoes” has to make a move TO the place with the “special situation”. Why does the “special situation” exist *here* but not *there*? In Ron’s world, a large percentage of the working population HAS TO not be in on the “special situation” in order for the numbers to work.
The other simple concept you’re not grasping, is that a lot of folks kind of see it as illogical for someone that has a contract to stand alongside the road and ask for support from the other 80% of those that don’t. Additionally, a lot of folks have seen terms like “skilled labor” be continuously watered-down to the point that they’re almost meaningless. You’re as guilty of that as anyone. You’ve maintained, (over and over), that ANYTHING a person learns to do on any job constitutes a “skill”. The problem with your logic, is that you conveniently only want to APPLY the BENEFITS that go along with what you label “skill” or “skills” once again….to the workers that have the “special situation”.
Other workers elsewhere that have also gone into work day after day and accumulated “skills” themselves, well….they have to leave their “un-special situation” and make a move to a place with a “special situation” in order to, (in your words), “better themselves”.
The problem is Ron, there not enough “special situations” exist to include everyone. Someone gets left out. Are they getting a “fair shake”? Are those under the umbrella of the “special situation” in ANY position whatsoever to even bring up the concepts of “fair” or “unfair”?
Hardly. Unless they’re able to switch the tunnel vision on and talk themselves into it.
None of this is about me Ron….I’m doing fine. And as I’ve said before, it’s not as if I couldn’t join a union if I so desired. I’ve read the list of prerequisites….it certainly doesn’t seem like it’s an exclusive club that’s hard to elbow into. Any doubters only need to take a look at what they offer up as “leaders”….
Like or Dislike:
11 
2
Ading some of the was just reading some of the drug testing comments and what are these people thinking? Yes you should be drug tested at american crystal as a general employee. And never under any circumstances should a contracted worker have to take a drug test for american crystal! They can do this on their own if their company requires it.
Like or Dislike:
8 
10
I have a book in front of me called A Heritage of Growth. American Crystal Sugar Company and the first 100 Harvests. Crystal gave each of their employees a copy of this book several yrs. ago. M sure growers all recieved a copy. One page in this book is called Laboring for Recognition. I will type this page word for word.
The devestating effects of the Great Depression on working people led many workers to organize unions-among them American Crystal Sugar Company.
In 1937.almost 40 years after the company was founded, employees at American Crystals Oxnard and Clarkston plants organized local unions under the American Federation of Labor.Knowing that a competitor in California was offering a minimum wage of 55 cents an hour, American Crystal Management quickly recognized the union. It raised the minimum wage at Clarkston from 40 to 55 cents an hour and from 35 to 45 cents at Oxnard-with the understanding it might have to raise Oxnards rate again.
Management also established minimum wages for employees in specific work classifications. For example, Oxnard machinists and welders got 77 1/2 cents an hour, sugar boilers and pulp plant foremen 70 cents, and evaporator and battery operators 60 cents.
Employees in other American Crystal factories soon establishedtheir own unions, becoming part of the American Federation of Grain Millers. The California employees became part of the Beet Sugar Operators of America.
Because each factory Union negotiated separately with the company, employees in various plants got different pay for doing the same work. In 1943, the minimum wage was 85 cents an hour at Oxnerd and Clarkburg. 69 cents at Missoula, 66 1/2 cents at Rocky Ford and East Grand Forks, and 64 cents at Grand Island, Mason City and Chaska.
In 1940, American Crystal began offering a retirement plan for it’s employees, as well as insurance for the families of employees who died before retirement.
The Unions flexed their collective muscle for the first time in 1944, demanding that American Crystal calculate overtime pay based on a 48 hour rather than a 56 hour week-thus providing a higher overtime wage at Grand Island, Chaska and Mason City plants from 64 to 66 1/2 cents an hour. The case went to the National War Labor Board before management decieded to meet the unions demands.
Just a little FYI for you all!
Like or Dislike:
10 
7
That was interesting. The last part is a little telling. ACS fought to the end before adjusting to a 48-hour regular pay week. In 1944, you could argue that ACS was living in the past, not able to adapt to the times.
Like or Dislike:
13 
5
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
6 
18
To be consistent, growers should file for unemployment and let others do the necessary work of feeding the world.
Like or Dislike:
14 
4
For me it’s not the rhetoric but the belief that the company is not going to back down. Once I realized that the fight was over for me. I don’t need all the money in world. I just need enough to live comfortably. I can bend a little. I was there when the union won the last round seven years ago. I knew this time things were going to be cut. It didn’t come as a surprise to me. The majority of the people in the RRV and throughout MN and ND think the union overplayed their hand. It was time to sign the contract but union radicals can’t see the light of day. They want to keep up the fight even though nothing is going to change.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
19 
2
They would actually have to get out of their pickup to do the neccessary work to feed america! (Couldn’t resist)
Like or Dislike:
7 
10
There is no random drug testing in my current company. I have only been drug tested in one position I have held with a previous company. The only reason I was tested is because I neede to be compliant with the dot. I have objections to criminalizing someone with out just cause which random drug testing does.
Like or Dislike:
1 
7
Ron….you don’t like random drug testing, just just keep hanging with the union and you have nothing to worry about. (except you may be unemployed) You obviously have no clue about what employers have to pay for business insurance. Usually if there is a random drug testing, the business premiums are lower.
Like or Dislike:
11 
2
Criminalizing someone over a random drug test? That is a stretch for me ron. In my opinion if they want the job they follow the rules. FYI my husband found a chunk of Meth in the bathroom at work one day. Drugs are brought to work. It used to be just weed but now it’s harder drugs as well. If people would only behave themselves…huh ron? Life would be cheaper and easier for all of us.
Like or Dislike:
12 
2
Seriously though, everyone seems to forget there is a network of people that feed the world. It isn’t just the farmer, it is his hired help, his agronomist, his banker, his insurer, the usda, his elevator manager, his brokers, ect…. THAT FEED THE WORLD. Without these other people the farmer would not be able to do what he does.
Like or Dislike:
6 
8
Ron…thanks for clearing up any confusion any farmers and consumers mite have about this situation. What would we do without your words of wisdom on how the agriculture industry “really” works from your extensive years of experience in growing food for the world?
Like or Dislike:
12 
4
IMO feeding us would be cheaper without the banker, insurer, broker, etc…but it’s how the system works. I just want to go to the grocery store, buy a loaf of bread, pick up some milk, and whatever else I need. I’m not as adventurous as Dead Inside. I’m not going to grind my own sugar beets.
Like or Dislike:
11 
1
Everyone should try it. It gives a more full, earthier, healthier, non-refined taste. And of course, no chemicals added.
Like or Dislike:
5 
5
We made it to 200…it’s not as high as last fall when Jan Bailey and Rich Guy were fighting it out like an old married couple but it’s still a good number of comments.
Like or Dislike:
6 
0
Mike I use the mobile site which is also the reason words end up jumbled at the begining of sentences sometimes the keyboad on this I pad stinks.
Like or Dislike:
4 
4
Ron,
Thanks for the very valid explanation. Now I know the problem is the technology and not you. Most days I just let it slide by as a little annoyance. Yesterday was a really bad day and that, more than anything, pushed me to ask. Now I know not to blame it on you.
Like or Dislike:
6 
0
I’m sorry you had a bad day yesterday Mike. I hope today was better.
Like or Dislike:
6 
0
Thanks TJ. Sometimes you just have to slow down and remember what is really important. Looking forward to the weekend.
I try to remember…. you shouldn’t drive drunk and you shouldn’t blog angry. It is easy to take your aggression out anonymously on others. Easy, but immature.
I do like Ron….. even if we tend to disagree more often than not. He has shown some real willingness to think and respond thoughtfully……. that is when he isn’t being beaten up (verbally)by Scott and others. If it weren’t “Ron against the world” I think we could have some good discussions.
Hope you have a great weekend too.
Like or Dislike:
7 
0
Thanks Mike. Be safe.
Like or Dislike:
2 
0
Sorry shadow but it truly is a network of people that make the agricultural world run. My friend you are sadly msitaken If you want to be arogant and think the farmer does it all with his own 2 hands.
Like or Dislike:
2 
9
You are right, Ron, the farmer does hire help…but he HIRES them, he doesn’t let the workers tell him how to run his own farm. Do you think the hired help, agronomist, banker, insurer, USDA, the elevator manager, and his brokers, because they are SKILLED workers, should be able to tell the farmer what he should pay them? Do you think all those people who help the farmer make his profit should get a huge chunk of his pie? Do you think that the farmer should provide health insurance to all those workers because they have some sort of special skill set that others don’t have? The answer is and should be no. The farmer knows how much it takes to run his farm, how much he can afford to pay out in hired help, and make sure that he has a living himself. Well, Dave Berg knows how much it costs to run all these factories and how much he needs to provide the farmers (the OWNERS) a good living. They can’t just cave to your demands and pay you what you think you ought to be paid…life just simply doesn’t work that way and clearly the unions aren’t getting the hint, but hopefully they will soon the more and more we hear about them being ousted and their power being stripped, as it should be.
Like or Dislike:
11 
1
IHO you do not have the foggiest idea how CRYSTAL works their farmers, if they don’t follow orders on how much to plant ,when to plant , fertilize ,plow under etc. they are subject to forfeiture of their shares at what they” deem fair market value”. Who works for who?
Like or Dislike:
3 
6
Umm, a good agronomist dictates his own rate based on his knowledge, and not the other way around. Good hired help has a say in what he is payed if they feel they can get better pay elsewhere there is nothing stopping them from leaving. A farmer knows this and pays accordingly. Good farms have good help because they invest in their employees with competetive wages. Poor farms have poor help becauses hire anyone and pay them rock bottom wages.
Like or Dislike:
2 
4
Because they hire anyone and pay rock bottom wages. This is not a knock on the ability of growers. It is just a statement that their are more people out there working just as hard to feed the world.
Like or Dislike:
2 
6
Just because an insurance company says we need to randomly drug test our employees doesn’t mean I have to agree with it! If I ran a buisness and I was given a much lower rate if I. Randomly drug tested my employees I could implement a testing program and still have my own negative opinions on it. And don’t even start on how wrong that statement is because a lot of people in this world believe one thing and say the other all based on the mighty dollar bill!
Like or Dislike:
2 
5
Well here’s the thing….if you were a business owner you could decide not to drug test your employees. But you wouldn’t be able to get the same insurance policy ACSC carries on their employees.
Now…let’s imagine this scenario. One day one of your workers dies an accidental death. After his funeral his widow is seriously upset. As she struggles through her grief her kids talk her into suing you and your company.
Suddenly you are facing a financial crisis. You need to hire lawyers. After a lengthy and very expensive trial the jury finds your company not to be at fault because drugs were found in the victim’s system.
You spent a fortune defending yourself and your company. I would imagine around that time you would wish you randomly drug tested your employees.
Like or Dislike:
8 
0
Mike, I do respect and appreciate your input also. I know my opinions do not match the opinions of forum communications and it’s readers but I still try to have some discussion n the topics at hand.
Like or Dislike:
3 
4
Ron….just be yourself. It’s works for me. Don’t be discouraged by the comments on this one subject. Do what I do…ignore the rude posters so you can enjoy the good ones.
Like or Dislike:
5 
0
Tj that is very true, but a random test could easily miss that particular employee also and you would still be in the same lawsuit.
Like or Dislike:
3 
1
I agree ron….now we are back to my previous comment where I stated the wish that people would just behave themselves. Sadly I don’t see that happening anytime soon.
Like or Dislike:
4 
0
Aug, that is why there are beet shares. You simply do not have the freedom of choice on planting extra acres as you do with wheat corn and soybeans. Everyone understands this and it is a minor issue if one at all.
Like or Dislike:
3 
1