As long as they currently work for JD I don't consider them scabs, they have been told their jobs now require other duties and so they go to the factory. Scabs IMO are outside workers hired to cross the picket line and work only while the strike is going on. But that's only my opinion.
John Deere strike imminent?
- Thread starter ISUCyclones2015
- Start date
As long as they currently work for JD I don't consider them scabs, they have been told their jobs now require other duties and so they go to the factory. Scabs IMO are outside workers hired to cross the picket line and work only while the strike is going on. But that's only my opinion.
Ottumwa successfully lobbied a truck to not drop parts, but they did it by asking not threatening or protesting.
Also several delivery companies have a policy not to cross a picket line. I know UPS does and I assume any of them organized by the Teamsters would have a similar policy.
Aren't they still making deliveries to alternate locations though? Kind of a PR move more than anything...
Deere's real problem is that they have a horrible corporate culture. Much of that is due to the antics of the UAW, and much of it is due to the company retaining terrible middle managers. Both constrain the productivity that would grow the pot of money.
I used to work in and around the USPS, and that was another toxic culture. The APWU at the time was full of some of the most venomous unproductive individuals I've been around in my entire life. Not all, but a LOT. And of course you can probably imagine the skill level of much of the USPS middle management.
I don't feel bad for them mainly because if I was in their position I'd quit and look for work elsewhere. They were hired for specific office type roles, not to manufacture on the floor. If they don't want to use the current employment climate to their advantage then let them work extra.
Good question as I think many posters who aren’t to familiar with this type of labor management relationship are using terms and pay examples using their own definitions and thoughts to try and make a point. In my book my definition of a scab is a wage employee working in a union shop or facility who chooses not to belong to the Union. Iowa is a “right to work state“ meaning the employee is not forced to join the Union. These non union members will be covered under the labor agreement the same as the union members. In other words, the Non union guy will get the same pay increases, additional holidays, benefit increases etc. without paying any dues, that the union members do.
A bigger issue that always galled me and many union employees is that under Federal Labor Laws the union is required to represent the scabs in any issues of employment including representation for discipline. It was always amazing to see that non union employee get their butt in a jam and the first thing they do is run to the union for representation. Legally the union has to represent them and to grind it even more, if that non union member feels the union didn’t do a good job he/she can file NLRB charges for discrimination in representing them. Sorry for the rant but most people don’t know those ins and outs about scabs.
I would not consider salaried employees having to work on the line as a scab. They have to do what they are directed to do and I can’t argue that one.
Additionally, I wouldn’t take too much from thar earlier posted earnings statement one way or another. I have never seen anything that looks like that, but mostly the figures mean very little without knowing other info such as rate of pay, layoff info, hours worked, OT worked etc.
Last edited:
So I gather I used "scabs" incorrectly, I'm definitely still learning here. I do find it interesting that federal law says the Union must also represent non-Union members...that seems illogical. As does the company giving non-Union employees the same benefits (although that may just be a simplicity thing, instead of handling two different 'classes' or 'groups' of what is otherwise the exact-same labor employees).
In Minnesota workers in represented positions who choose not to join the bargaining unit can be (and almost universally are) charged "fair share" fees. They can be charged up to 85% of the full member dues for what they get from the unit. But since they aren't full members they cannot attend union meetings and get no vote. I have never heard of a bargaining unit charging any less than the full 85% either.
That I'm not sure about. I haven't seen anything out there that says they are but it doesn't mean they aren't either.
Sounds great in Des Moines. Now if you live in Waterloo you can quit and go somewhere else to make less money or pick up your family and move somewhere else. Everybody has their pay vs ******** scale and for me the pay is enough I'll deal with the ******** until my kids are out of the house. Once that happens my scale will probably change.
I didn’t mean single you out on that as a lot of people on the thread have used all kinds of terms In making their point. Your just happened to give me a chance to explain my thoughts and maybe provide a little more info that most people don’t know.
Most labor laws involving unions were written in the 1930-1940 era and the laws just don’t change. Again, most people don’t know that the union has to represent the non union employee and in most cases the folks that have dropped out of the union are one always in a jam and are upset the union can’t bail their ass out of every jam. The old adage about 95% of problems are caused by 5% of the people is spot on.
You also need to have a little bit of FU money saved up and the scale will change
Just another reason to not have kids. They prevent you from looking for a better working situation.
Like someone else mentioned,UPS won’t cross the line. Baker Electric does a lot of work for JD Des Moines work. They also said they won’t cross the line. There are others but those 2 for sure. Not sure if anybody has mentioned it but Vilsack is suppose to come and publicly support the Union on the 23rd.
Well in my case about 20 years ago at UPS that certainly wasn't true. I was told if I had a grievance I was on my own. Which I was perfectly fine with and expecting since I didn't join. Maybe things have changed, maybe different locals do different things, maybe they were just lying their a**** off to me. I don't know, and didn't care. I would have turned down their help anyway. If the management was that bad I needed to run crying to Mr. union rep every week........time to find a different employer.
