For the grown-ups

JustMe123

TB Lurker
Credits
0
I am doing my best to remain objective here, because I really do believe that each side is doing what they think is right and I respect that. However, I want to set the record straight about one issue. It has been stated on numerous posts that the LBF offer had removed the Teamster pension. This was one of the first issues that the company gave up on during negotiations once the bargaining committee made it very clear that there was no way they were going to give up the Teamster pension. If the company had in fact changed that back to a 401(k) instead of the pension in the LBF that would be a ULP offense. The Teamsters have been very quick to file any and all ULP complaints that they feel might have a chance at sticking. Why hasn't there been a regressive bargaining ULP filed? If the LBF actually DID take out the pension this would be a blatant offense by OAKH which would stick.

I would like to hear from both sides of the fence on this one and have a discussion, so go and play somewhere else kids, it's time for the grownups to talk. No name-calling, flaming, or trolls, please.
 
They did stop putting the 401k/Pension crossover in their proposals back in May. There was still the issue, however, of changing to a company medical plan which doesn't cover as much in comparison and would cost more out-of-pocket....and could be raised over an -x- amount of years.

The ULP complaints were first filed back in July/August in regards to all of the meetings, management pulling individuals aside, management telling us we couldn't display Teamster logos at our work stations. The strike due to ULP offenses was called in September after the last contract proposal but I believe it was being planned a little in advance, which is why this strike is a ULP strike, and not economic.

Anyone, let me know if this isn't entirely accurate. This is what I've gathered over this past year. I'm not a Teamster official or a steward so I'm not privy to the super-secret stuff.
 
From what I remember the company wanted to give the employees "choices". The pension proposal the company originally put forth was for employees who wanted to stay in the pension to stay and for those that wanted out of it to get out of it. Once again, the company did not do their homework. The pension plan is an all or nothing program. Once they learned what their proposal actually meant they withdrew the offer. Now their proposal is to not make any additional contributions over the $3.00 and change they put into it currently.

If the company did not want what they now face they could have thrown a dollar amount out to the bargaining committee and said divide it how you want this is all you get. What they want is to have a non-union company. Everything they have done has pushed the union and employees to distrust them, not respect them and force them to fight for things they spent time securing. The simple fact is that it just isn't right.
 
While the company did back off on the issue of the 401(k) versus the pension as my esteemed colleague just pointed out, they have not been willing to entertain any increase in the pension that the union has submitted across the table.

As this is an economic item and usually one of the last things negotiated during bargaining, it took a while to get to the point where the union committee could see the full view of what direction the company wanted to take the overall economic part of the contract.

The fact is, the pension has only gone up about $.80 an hour or so in the last eighteen to twenty years. Our pension contribution is so far behind industry standards, it is pitiful. Last contract, we had to convert our retro pay to pension contributions just to get any increase at all.

Clearly, the point of the Vander Pol's bargaining strategy is to get us away from any union-sponsered plans. Barring that, they will try and keep our pension so low that it will eventually become a major point of contention, and a wedge issue in contracts to come. It's all part of their little union-busting campaign strategy.

Been there, done that... seen it done a whole lot smoother than the Vander Clowns have tried to pull off here...
 
i guess most people wanted an increase in the pension freezing it at $3.21 for 5 years would mean working for an extra five years instead of retiring as a younger employee i would have to work an extra ten years at that amount in my pension just to get by as this company does well so should we it was us who invented the oak harbor way wasnt it we dont go the the extra mile because were told too we do it because we wnated the company to prosper so that we would be able to prosper spin it how you want but the employee makes the wheel turn not the co. owners remember ed saying that you cant learn how to run a company from the inside of a truck i thought that was funny being that henry did and he made a damn good company maybe ed should have started out in a truck instead of hanging out with the skirts
 
I have heard that ABF got a $.65 raide into their pension. That is almost as much as I have seen total since I started at Oak some 13 years ago. Even if we had agreed to a 401 none of us would have any money in it to retire right now. I agree that the pension, health, sick and other clauses regarding the Gap were reasons not to accept the contract, but it was the continued badgering by the management that finally pushed union leaders into action. It is ahainst the law. Go to the NLRB website and look at the reasons for Unfair labor practices. The 1st 3 things listed as just cause are what Oak's management has done to us. They are not above the law.
 
Shifter, I have to ask the question - If the pension contribution has only gone up $.80 over the last eighteen to twenty years, as you stated, how did the union allow this to happen? This is a negotiated issue. Over that time frame, there have been how many contracts? Four? Five? Six? And, during all of those negotiations, the union agreed to only that level of increase?
 
Shifter, I have to ask the question - If the pension contribution has only gone up $.80 over the last eighteen to twenty years, as you stated, how did the union allow this to happen? This is a negotiated issue. Over that time frame, there have been how many contracts? Four? Five? Six? And, during all of those negotiations, the union agreed to only that level of increase?

The point is??????
 
The point is??????

I think the question is why did the members vote to ratify contracts that had substandard pension increases, and why did previous negotiation committees agree to proposals that left pension increases on the back burner?

The only answer I could offer would be local 741 principle officers sold Oak Harbor members out a long time ago. It has been a uphill battle to reverse the damage they did.
 
I think the question is why did the members vote to ratify contracts that had substandard pension increases, and why did previous negotiation committees agree to proposals that left pension increases on the back burner?

Thank you Silver. I for one am looking for answers here, and not just more rhetoric.
 
I think even though the pension is an important issue in this day if you don't have descent health care it doesn't matter how much you make. My wife was in the hospital for a procedure for 22 hours and the bill was $29 thousand dollars. I would still be paying without our medical coverage. We at ohfl know that most of us can not go out on 80 if we haven't had prior NMF history. But why should we work for substandard health care with no sick leave. A lot of us are getting older and sometimes the body just doesn't work anymore after working 10,12, 14 hour shifts day in and out. As for the overtime work for unloading the Gap I think the 3 V brothers who have worked every weekend to milk as much money from ohfl as they can and have know crossed the line to milk from the rest of us will be the biggest losers.
 
Well, you would be the expert on selling out, wouldn't you, Ray? As well as betrayal and sucking-up to management.

What cracks me up is all of these experts commenting on union management or politics, when none of these guys ever made a union meeting in their whole silly, sad lives...
 
AubDriver doesn't know that the company was planning on locking the employees out in 2007. What would you have done AubDriver? You point alot of fingers but I see no ideas on how to armchair quarterback this situation. Since you know so much why aren't you running the local union?
 
Well, you would be the expert on selling out, wouldn't you, Ray? As well as betrayal and sucking-up to management.

What cracks me up is all of these experts commenting on union management or politics, when none of these guys ever made a union meeting in their whole silly, sad lives...

This is exactly why I addressed the question to you specifically back on November 3rd. Why has the contribution increase over the last 20 years been so low? I'm not making any judgement here, just trying to learn something.

Thanks.
 
Because the company always cried broke. It was more important to people to keep descent medical and a liveable wage. Now the company not only doesn't want to keep our pensions going they want to take away a good medical plan, OHFL wages are now substandard for the industry, the sick leave is also part of the h/w package and they want to take that away also. So are people having a hard time seeing how far backwards ohfl is going?
 
Top