John Deere strike imminent?

MeowingCows

Well-Known Member
Jun 1, 2015
29,382
24,868
113
Iowa
That is literally the job of the union negotiating team. The fact they didn't do that is not on John Deere.
Agreed, but that doesn't mean Deere is completely incapable of helping craft a deal, unless their entire role is just to wait for the Union to pass one over and then just say "yes" or "no" without any further input whatsoever. Which would only be setting them back further.
No offense but how could they possibly do that and cut out the leadership that negotiated the other agreement? I think the union would have huge, huge problems with that.

The whole point of the union is that it negotiates with the company as a united front. If they can't get on the same page I'm not sure what role the company even could have in fixing that.
They wouldn't have to cut out leadership. Deere can easily gather information without having to dig too deep for it, then pass that back to the negotiating team if it's feasible for them to meet. These steps would speed up their re-negotiating now, if they want to get their labor back ASAP. Doing nothing but wait is the slowest way to get back to working.

Maybe I'm wrong and JDs only allowed role is literally to do nothing except stamp or not stamp a deal. If so, then this is going to be a while, because it doesn't matter who is crafting the deal when the workers aren't working regardless. I'm not saying it's entirely Deere's fault, I never have -- I get that the Union failed to properly vet out what the labor needs were. That said, Deere could still be able to help acquire information on those needs and work with the nego team on a deal around those things, since the nego team already failed at that once.
 

Clonehomer

Well-Known Member
Apr 11, 2006
16,155
9,480
113
I agree. Ultimately my response was to the white collar people at Deere being used in a blue collar capacity and saying they need to use the market to their advantage. Whether that'd be looking for a new job, asking for pay raises or telling management they aren't doing blue collar work.
Why are you assuming the white collar employees are upset about it? They're still getting their normal salaries and potentially OT pay based on that salary. From the folks I know, there's a lot of JD white collar employees that come from farming backgrounds that are happy to pick up tools and build a tractor. It's something that they don't normally get to do. This isn't physically grueling work these days. They're not shoveling coal into furnaces by hand at the foundry anymore.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Macloney

MeowingCows

Well-Known Member
Jun 1, 2015
29,382
24,868
113
Iowa
That's the Union leaderships job. Otherwise they should just get rid of the Union and make it open shop.
Yes, I get that, but Deere has access to all the same information the rest of us have. Both parties could work with this to speed up the process of getting back to work, since both parties already know the first deal didn't cut it. Obviously the leadership group isn't as in touch with the labor as they need to be, but that can only be solved by the Union -- and it can't be resolved right this second. One would think Deere would want to help where they can, since sitting idle is not in their business interests, period.
 

MeowingCows

Well-Known Member
Jun 1, 2015
29,382
24,868
113
Iowa
Why are you assuming the white collar employees are upset about it? They're still getting their normal salaries and potentially OT pay based on that salary. From the folks I know, there's a lot of JD white collar employees that come from farming backgrounds that are happy to pick up tools and build a tractor. It's something that they don't normally get to do. This isn't physically grueling work these days. They're not shoveling coal into furnaces by hand at the foundry anymore.
There's probably some upset about it and some not. If I was in that spot, I'd be trying to ask for better compensation, since I could factually prove to them that my skills and usefulness to the business both grew in a meaningful manner. That's leverage they can use in their own careers.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: isufbcurt

theguru1

Member
Sep 6, 2012
82
41
18
Now this is just my opinion but reading posts by the UAW members I know on social media I don't think it was going to matter what the leadership came back with they wanted a strike. They were out there screaming for like a 30% or 40% raise which seems pretty delusional in my opinion for anybody to expect for any job. Now are they really going to hold out for that big of a pay raise or not who knows. The other things that seem pretty unknown to me is how important getting rid of the two tiered system they have is and how hard are they going to fight for keeping a pension for new hires. If they're still on strike at the 1st of November they miss out on a massive bonus too so if they hold out that long why not hold out for a couple months at that point.
What massive bonus are you referring to?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Cyclones1969

MeowingCows

Well-Known Member
Jun 1, 2015
29,382
24,868
113
Iowa
I'm pretty sure they get their quarterly profit sharing bonus then. A couple of the supervisors I know were saying they were expecting it to be pretty big this quarter but if they're on strike they don't get it.
From a strategy standpoint, though, you can't let a single, short-term bonus get ahead of a permanent, repeatable wage raise.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: isufbcurt

AuH2O

Well-Known Member
Sep 7, 2013
7,246
9,676
113
Hey, I can’t argue you may not have gotten that response. To be honest that is the initial feeling you have when someone doesn’t want to join but wants all the benefits. My previous posts just outlines your basic rights under law. If you didn’t want to join that was your prerogative but don’t expect your union rep to nursemaid a person who chooses not to join.
Don’t know what your issue was but I would also say that not everything that makes someone unhappy is a grievable issue and a good union rep is someone that will tell you when you don’t have something that violates the contract not just always tell you what you want to hear.
I think unions should do what they are required by law for non-members and nothing more. Can someone that really understands the law explain it? I know for the longest time non-members were still part of the CBAs, but the unions could still charge them agency fees for bargaining costs, representation in grievances, and other such direct costs. They could not be charged for political activities and donations.

With Janus v. AFSCME a couple years ago the ruling appears to be that PUBLIC unions can't charge these agency fees. However, you see some sources saying this does not apply to private sector unions, and it's business as usual - they have to represent non-members but can charge them these agency fees for representation. Then you see some saying there are recent court decisions that suggest Janus v. AFSCME could/should be read more broadly and could apply to private unions. However, it seems there have been no court cases yet actually presenting that case, and it would take overruling prior cases that set the mandatory representation but ability to recover agency fees in private sector unions.

So it APPEARS the current laws say that the union has to represent non-members but can still charge them fees when they negotiate CBAs or represent them in grievances. It could be coming that unions get squeezed by this and be required to provide representation with no right to collect agency fees for non-members, but it seems like that's at least years of legal challenges from being the case. But I could be wrong.
 

jbhtexas

Well-Known Member
Oct 20, 2006
13,649
3,266
113
Arlington, TX
Perhaps part of the problem is that unemployment since the start of COVID became open ended with no limit on the length of benefit along with a weekly cash bonus. I knew of a lot of people who would have to get off their couch and get a job in the past who were willing to make less money lying on it for a long time simply because they knew there was no sunset on their UE benefits.

I have also seen news stories about people who refused to take any of the plethora of jobs out there because they won't take any job they can't do entirely from home. Now they are crying because their unemployment money is finally running out and they think they should be subsidized indefinitely. This is only a part of the problem but federal spending at this level is unsustainable.

I hope someone - anyone - in Washington comes to their senses before it comes to a head and we truly have to pay the piper. When it does come to a head it will be UGLY. At this time neither major party seems the least bit interested in making tough choices and tackling the deficit at all. And that is just the deficit - not the debt. I am just talking about how much we are going further in debt, not about how we get out of debt.
I know several local "sit-down" restaurant owners. Earlier this year, they were struggling badly, because they couldn't get workers. They were running partial dining rooms, which is unsustainable for many in that industry. The interview pool was strong, but the people coming in for interviews were leaving fake call-back contact info...they were just coming in to satisfy the requirement to get unemployment benefits.

At the end of June, Texas opted out of the federal Covid jobless benefits...since late summer, those restaurants are now fully staffed and running full dining rooms. Fast food places are still struggling to get workers though.

You are absolute right about the unsustainable federal spending. I would suggest however, that it is already ugly. The Fed has recently admitted that we now have "real" inflation, with no particular immediate relief in sight, as opposed to transitory inflation mantra they were peddling early this year.
 
  • Dumb
Reactions: Cyclones1969

MeowingCows

Well-Known Member
Jun 1, 2015
29,382
24,868
113
Iowa
True but if the number I was told was correct it would have been the same as getting a $2/hr raise for the quarter.
****, they might be looking at getting that permanently now thru the strike. While a good bonus, I don't think I'd give in just for that in the current situation.
 

theguru1

Member
Sep 6, 2012
82
41
18
That's where I don't understand why they are being ridiculed by some people and media members. They came to an agreement with the union. The union members didn't agree to the agreement their leaders put out there for them to vote on. What is Deere supposed to do there? Reject the offere from the UAW and say no, that's not enough, we need to pay people more?
UAW international does the negotiation along with local committee men. They brought the contract that deere offer for a vote as a good faith gesture. Most of the committee men knew it was going to get voted down from what I gathered. That’s all the agreement was, to bring Deere’s offer for a vote.An effort to avert a strike. The old contract had already expired on October 1st. I believe the vote took place on the 10? In no way does UAW get to write the contract. Deere makes the offers to UAW . International goes to these negotiations with a list of demands and prioritize these demands.
 

VeloClone

Well-Known Member
Jan 19, 2010
39,881
26,521
113
Brooklyn Park, MN
You are absolute right about the unsustainable federal spending. I would suggest however, that it is already ugly. The Fed has recently admitted that we now have "real" inflation, with no particular immediate relief in sight, as opposed to transitory inflation mantra they were peddling early this year.
That may be ugly but nothing like the **** show it would become if the Chinese decide to mess with the US and stop buying US debt. And that kind of thing doesn't have to ramp up; we could just wake up one day with that problem.
 

drmwevr08

Well-Known Member
Nov 25, 2006
4,326
575
113
46
Tempe, az
From a strategy standpoint, though, you can't let a single, short-term bonus get ahead of a permanent, repeatable wage raise.
This is the kind of stuff management loves to test solidarity with, and it often works. Some don't think long term, some know they aren't staying long term, etc.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MeowingCows

theguru1

Member
Sep 6, 2012
82
41
18
I'm pretty sure they get their quarterly profit sharing bonus then. A couple of the supervisors I know were saying they were expecting it to be pretty big this quarter but if they're on strike they don't get it.
That’s not true. There is no such thing as a quarterly bonus. The only bonus is profit sharing given out at the end of year. Deere has a thing called Continous improvement pay plan (cipp). This is part of your wage and gets paid out 4 times a year. It’s never massive.
 

Clonehomer

Well-Known Member
Apr 11, 2006
16,155
9,480
113
That may be ugly but nothing like the **** show it would become if the Chinese decide to mess with the US and stop buying US debt. And that kind of thing doesn't have to ramp up; we could just wake up one day with that problem.
China isn't self sufficient in that they still require exports to run their economy. So while that would absolutely hurt the US, it would also do a lot of damage to the Chinese economy.