Tier 1 pay cut $5.00 next contract

Tier 1 pay cut $5.00 next contract

Posted in the Chrysler Forum

Charles

Anderson, IN

#2 Jan 16, 2013
Well you need to do more reading than talking. What next for bap is the cut of c shift. Chrysler is betting on the right to work law coming to IL then they will hire you for non union jobs in the plant the same way they do down south. When you get some time in they will fire you the first chance they get and in two weeks they will call you to see if you want your job back but you will have to start at day 1. This is done all the time down south in the right to be poor states.
buttplug

Rockford, IL

#3 Jan 16, 2013
Charles wrote:
Well you need to do more reading than talking. What next for bap is the cut of c shift. Chrysler is betting on the right to work law coming to IL then they will hire you for non union jobs in the plant the same way they do down south. When you get some time in they will fire you the first chance they get and in two weeks they will call you to see if you want your job back but you will have to start at day 1. This is done all the time down south in the right to be poor states.
15, 17, or whatever they make, per hour, down there is good money. Believe me. Up here, thats a different a different story.
Yep

Huntington, IN

#5 Jan 16, 2013
Charles wrote:
Chrysler is betting on the right to work law coming to IL then they will hire you for non union jobs in the plant the same way they do down south. When you get some time in they will fire you the first chance they get and in two weeks they will call you to see if you want your job back but you will have to start at day 1.
I am trying to learn what I can about right-to-work legislation. Any idea what it means for collective bargaining? I know it doesnt go into effect for us until this contract expires as all existing contracts will be honored but what is to prevent them at the end of the contract from saying all line jobs now max out at $12 or $14 an hour? Personally i dont think getting strike priveledges back meant a whole lot even before with no money in the locals for a strike and few being in a position financially for an eXtended strike. But is it a moot point now? Can they just hire other ppl for less if we strike under right-to-work?
Truth

Chicago, IL

#6 Jan 16, 2013
The term right-to-work law refers to a statute in the United States of America that prohibits union security agreements, or agreements between labor unions and employers that govern the extent to which an established union can require employees' membership, payment of union dues, or fees as a condition of employment, either before or after hiring. "Right-to-work" laws do not, as the short phrase might suggest, aim to provide a general guarantee of employment to people seeking work, but rather are a government regulation of the contractual agreements between employers and labor unions that prevents them from excluding non-union workers,[1] or requiring employees to pay a fee to unions that have negotiated the labor contract the workers work under.
Right-to-work laws exist in twenty-four U.S. states, mostly in the southern and western United States but also in central states such as Michigan. Business interests represented by the Chamber of Commerce have lobbied extensively to pass right-to-work legislation.[2][3][4][5] Such laws are allowed under the 1947 federal Taft–Hartley Act. A further distinction is often made within the law between those employed by state and municipal governments and those employed by the private sector with states that are otherwise union shop (i.e., pay union dues or lose the job) having right to work laws in effect for government employees.
Truth

Chicago, IL

#7 Jan 16, 2013
So it's aimed more towards the workers and the union then anything to do with the company the union will still exist and will continue the same way they may back off on the dues so as not to have people jump ship but it's gonna be a rare situation
God bless

Cleveland, OH

#9 Jan 17, 2013
By next contract tier 2 will be on the street there's your pay cut !!!!
Fingerscrossed

Perrysburg, OH

#11 Jan 17, 2013
Right To Work - gives workers an option if they want to pay dues and join the union or not. No matter if they join and pay the dues or not - they are covered by the Union contract when they are in the plant working (ie. a company cannot pay a union work and a non-union worker doing the same job different pay). If a person decides not to pay dues and join the union, they miss out on all the benefits the union provides (for example if they would get laid off - many times in a contract they the union pays a person so much along with the person's unemployment - a non-union employee would not be entitled to that extra pay). Oviously there is more to it than that, but I do know that is part of it.
Mark11

United States

#13 Jan 17, 2013
I made 74,000 this year and I'm tier 1.
Yep

Huntington, IN

#16 Jan 17, 2013
I have been under the impression that in a way the union owns the jobs so-to-speak under the old laws which is why the company had to use union workers and couldnt use a strike against us to fire union workers and give their jobs to people outside the union. But if Right-To-Work means the company does not have to use union workers then how do we have any leverage come contract time? If we were to vote down a contract then what would prevent the company from simply hiring non-union workers for less money? Or for that matter deciding instead of having disgruntled union workers that were forced to accept less money that they are better off just hiring new non-union workers for less money that would jump on the opportunity? And what protects our jobs as far as who they can fire if they dont have to use union labor? It is not like most line jobs are a "skilled trade" where quality would necessarily plumment if they brought in new people and train them. What power will the union have when this goes into effect?
Yep

Huntington, IN

#17 Jan 17, 2013
I have been looking up articles and I dont see how this doesnt screw us. It says under Rifgt-To-Work laws a company can hire non-union labor and can negotiate with more than one group. And police and firefighter unions are exempt from right-to-work laws. So basically any union where workers are replaceable that wouldnt affect public safety if a less qualified or experienced worker was hired is going to have almost no power come contract time. Workers still have the right to organize or engage in collective bargaining but the company doesnt have to deal with them if they dont want to. They could basically suggest for example that Tier2 workers get their own representation if the split between accepting a new contract is between both tiers and just deal with the group willing to accept lower wages. But this isnt good for anyone as we could all be in a take it or leave it situation on whatever they offer for wages if the union cant successfully challenge the laws in court which is doubtful they will succeed.
Yep

Huntington, IN

#18 Jan 17, 2013
Marcioni made it clear before the ink was dry on the last contract that the goal for the next one was to have a single tier with everyone making the same amount and that was going to be done by finding a compromise between the wages for both tiers. More than likely they were probably going to push for a max wage of like $23 an hour with better profit sharing and bonuses. But that was before Right-To-Work passed. I wouldnt be the least bit surprised if now they dont even raise where Tier 2 maxes out at like $19 and some change and say that is the top wage going forward and offer like a 6-7k signing bonus and better profit sharing just to make sure they have enough people to run the lines while doing a mass hiring. They dont have to offer buy-outs any longer either if they can hire non-union workers. But whatever they do we can be sure it wont even be as good as what was going to be offered b4 right-to-work. Hope some of this can be fought politically before the contract is up
Booga King

Fairfax, VA

#21 Jan 17, 2013
Yep wrote:
Marcioni made it clear before the ink was dry on the last contract that the goal for the next one was to have a single tier with everyone making the same amount and that was going to be done by finding a compromise between the wages for both tiers. More than likely they were probably going to push for a max wage of like $23 an hour with better profit sharing and bonuses. But that was before Right-To-Work passed. I wouldnt be the least bit surprised if now they dont even raise where Tier 2 maxes out at like $19 and some change and say that is the top wage going forward and offer like a 6-7k signing bonus and better profit sharing just to make sure they have enough people to run the lines while doing a mass hiring. They dont have to offer buy-outs any longer either if they can hire non-union workers. But whatever they do we can be sure it wont even be as good as what was going to be offered b4 right-to-work. Hope some of this can be fought politically before the contract is up
Maccaroni is just a big dreamer of how he imagines life should be in 'his world' but this is not his world; do we get it? The last contract the UAW couldn't strike based on the Gov't bailout clause put in and voted on in our agreement. In 2015 this no longer applies; just look at the agreement the CAW voted in new hires at Chrysler Canada starts at 20+ dollars an hour, why ? because the CAW didn't allow their Govt to stipulate the Unions contract. Its this simple next contract new hires 20+ an hour to start.
china

Rockford, IL

#23 Jan 18, 2013
Charles wrote:
Well you need to do more reading than talking. What next for bap is the cut of c shift. Chrysler is betting on the right to work law coming to IL then they will hire you for non union jobs in the plant the same way they do down south. When you get some time in they will fire you the first chance they get and in two weeks they will call you to see if you want your job back but you will have to start at day 1. This is done all the time down south in the right to be poor states.
Good it is about time they lay me off so I can hunt for another job. This place sucks. But it is a poverty paycheck. Cannot wait until 2015 when all the playing cards will all be equal.
Yep

Huntington, IN

#24 Jan 18, 2013
Booga King wrote:
<quoted text>The last contract the UAW couldn't strike based on the Gov't bailout clause put in and voted on in our agreement. In 2015 this no longer appliesIts this simple next contract new hires 20+ an hour to start.
Can I ask what you are basing that on as far as new hires? Every contract is a totally seperate negotiation. And under right-to-worl the union will no longer "own" the jobs. so yeah we could strike with no strike pay in the locals but while we are out of work the company isnt forced to shut down because they can now hire non-union workers.And where is the incentive for the company to come back with a better offer when they can replace anyone with someone off the street willing to work for less an desperate for a job and they wont have to pay medical for 9 months or profit sharing. The only thing the company has to worry about is a public backlash if they abuse Right-to-Work and offer a really unfair take it-or leave it wage. Other than that we have little leverage
Yep

Huntington, IN

#25 Jan 18, 2013
china wrote:
<quoted text>
Good it is about time they lay me off so I can hunt for another job. This place sucks. But it is a poverty paycheck. Cannot wait until 2015 when all the playing cards will all be equal.
Equally sh!tty would be my guess. This is why it drives me nuts most people dont pay attention to the local elections. State reps and the governor and even judges can have way, way more direct impact on someone than a President. How in a historically Democrat state with one of the highest percentage of union workers do the Republicans get a commanding majority in the state legislature where only a simple majority is needed to pass a law unlike 2/3 in a lot of states? Instead of the union spending tens of millions on a constitutional ammendment that had no chance why havent they been out there educating voters about local races? It is almost hard to say we arent reaping what we have sown from our own ignorance, arrogance, and apathy. All of this was preventable. It's sad
Itp

Naperville, IL

#26 Jan 19, 2013
There will be only a 1 tier scale next contract, however, all new and future hires will working ten years before they make top pay. This will save Chrysler money for years. As people retire they will be replaced with people who will need ten years to reach top pay. This cycle will never end for Chrysler
lucky

Grand Rapids, MI

#28 Jan 19, 2013
where would the pay be at for people thats getting hired now when the new 2015 contract takes place?
extra

Rockford, IL

#30 Jan 20, 2013
Go back to your home plant Greedy Saint Louis people. Can't wait for the pay cut in 2015. Then the greedy will finally go back to where they came from Greedville.
belmike

Beloit, WI

#32 Jan 21, 2013
hard to strike on the local when we don't even have a local yet. It's been 15 months with no signed local agreement. That my friends is an embarrassment.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Chrysler Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News 2017 Chrysler Pacifica: Return of the American van 48 min Mossy 4
Dundee in a mess 2 hr Flush the bowl 32
Dundee Engine Plant Syncreon Layoffs 2 hr Truth hurts 4
News Jeep's small models to soldier on 4 hr mister v 3
Sterling stamping going down the tubes . 12 hr LOSERS 21
chrysler hiring process FAQ for new applicants. (Jun '12) 13 hr CSHL 17,446
whats gonna happen to tpts when shap shuts down? 19 hr JnapA5 9
More from around the web