John Deere strike imminent?

GrindingAway

Well-Known Member
SuperFanatic
SuperFanatic T2
Nov 27, 2006
4,239
1,724
113
Please tell me how agreeing to a tentative and bring it back to a vote stymied this process. Doing so allows the bargaining committee to go through every change in 1 meeting so everyone can hear the same questions asked and hear the same answer. Otherwise people would be passing rumors about what was there and what wasn’t in there.If you are going to put people out on the street on strike, having them go without a paycheck for their families for God knows how long, you damned well better bring that package back and let them make that determination.I was never one that felt I had a right to do that unilateraly.

I do apologize for coming across as berating which I’m sure I do on some posts but I do get tired in reading some posts that tend to constantly be critical of the union while dropping some incorrect info.
I didn’t say it wasn’t the right move. I’m not in the negotiations. I do know that it is wrong to say they had to bring something back. Especially when the rank and file thinks they shouldn’t have and from their standpoint have a point.
 

1UNI2ISU

Well-Known Member
Jan 30, 2013
3,189
2,720
113
Waterloo
Bringing back an agreement that lost 90-10 was about the worst thing they could do and that was after the rank and file was livid that they extended the old contract and didn't just go out.

They didn't have to bring anything back. The Union would have been MUCH better off not agreeing to the awful temporary that they did to make it at least appear that they were representing the rank and file.

All they did was ensure that the first decent offer is due to be rejected because they lost all trust.
 

isucy86

Well-Known Member
Apr 13, 2006
3,733
2,335
113
Anecdotes are just that and nothing more.

States that withdrew early from federal unemployment programs pushed few people back to work and fueled a nearly $2 billion cut in household spending, potentially hurting their local economies, according to new research....

The data suggests unemployment benefits aren't playing a big role in hiring challenges and that other factors are having a larger impact — a similar thrust to other recent research analyzing the policy decisions.

Not sure I really trust anything published by NBC these days. The word "Potentially" is not a really definitive research conclusion. I could potentially win the lottery by buying a ticket.

Sure, if states like Iowa accepted the additional unemployment benefits that money would have been spent by recipients. Most large corporate CEO's in the retail sector love extended benefits because people continue buying consumer discretionary items.

IMO states like Iowa were being responsible. There was a labor shortage, so why continue expanded unemployment benefits. If reducing unemployment benefits didn't fill the open positions, IMO that just shows the expanded benefits weren't needed. Money was not a issue for those choosing not to return to work.

The JD strike could take a while to resolve because of the inflation resulting from all the Federal Government spending over the last 18 months. I am sure the JD union & employees are going to have to readjust their cost of living assumptions to annual salaries based on the current inflationary environment.

Our Federal Government's easy money policy will do nasty things to America's economy and people's spending power. Many American's have not lived through periods of hyper inflation or high interest rates. In the mid-80's mortgage borrowing rates were in the 10-15% range and consumer credit rates were 20%+.

I will be curious how the Union Negotiators look at the National Economic outlook over the next 6 years and they might have to consider scenarios that have not impacted wage earners for close to 40 years.
 

jmax71

Member
Oct 21, 2006
65
94
18
I didn’t say it wasn’t the right move. I’m not in the negotiations. I do know that it is wrong to say they had to bring something back. Especially when the rank and file thinks they shouldn’t have and from their standpoint have a point.
I should probably clarify what I meant also. There’s probably no legal requirement to bring that back, but it’s in the unions best interest to bring it back and lay it all out again so rank and file totally understands the issues and offers. People can ***** about their leadership bringing that back but at least in doing so, you have all the info out there, and as I said everyone heard the same presentation, questions and answers. At least everyone knows all the issues.

If the negotiators hadn’t brought that back and presented it but had just pulled the pin and put you on the street the rumor mill takes over and inevitably some “selective” information dribbles out that can cause you nothing but problems with your own members. Hopefully things get settled soon but you will be surprised how many peoples opinions change if it were to go 3-4 months.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: VeloClone

Althetuna

Ducky (Above): Best Dog Ever
SuperFanatic
SuperFanatic T2
Jul 7, 2012
10,731
7,883
113
Somewhere in the Minneapolis Area
Not sure I really trust anything published by NBC these days. The word "Potentially" is not a really definitive research conclusion. I could potentially win the lottery by buying a ticket.

Sure, if states like Iowa accepted the additional unemployment benefits that money would have been spent by recipients. Most large corporate CEO's in the retail sector love extended benefits because people continue buying consumer discretionary items.

IMO states like Iowa were being responsible. There was a labor shortage, so why continue expanded unemployment benefits. If reducing unemployment benefits didn't fill the open positions, IMO that just shows the expanded benefits weren't needed. Money was not a issue for those choosing not to return to work.

The JD strike could take a while to resolve because of the inflation resulting from all the Federal Government spending over the last 18 months. I am sure the JD union & employees are going to have to readjust their cost of living assumptions to annual salaries based on the current inflationary environment.

Our Federal Government's easy money policy will do nasty things to America's economy and people's spending power. Many American's have not lived through periods of hyper inflation or high interest rates. In the mid-80's mortgage borrowing rates were in the 10-15% range and consumer credit rates were 20%+.

I will be curious how the Union Negotiators look at the National Economic outlook over the next 6 years and they might have to consider scenarios that have not impacted wage earners for close to 40 years.
First, if your don't like CNBC's reporting then read the study. It was not conducted by CNBC.

Second current inflation rates are in the low 5% range. That's half of what they were '78--'80. In addition, 30 year mortgage rates are still near historic lows, in the 3% range.

I do find it humorous that just a few months ago FED haters were saying the federal reserve system was broken because they couldn't get inflation up to the 2% target rate. Now the narrative is just the opposite.
 

GrindingAway

Well-Known Member
SuperFanatic
SuperFanatic T2
Nov 27, 2006
4,239
1,724
113
I should probably clarify what I meant also. There’s probably no legal requirement to bring that back, but it’s in the unions best interest to bring it back and lay it all out again so rank and file totally understands the issues and offers. People can ***** about their leadership bringing that back but at least in doing so, you have all the info out there, and as I said everyone heard the same presentation, questions and answers. At least everyone knows all the issues.

If the negotiators hadn’t brought that back and presented it but had just pulled the pin and put you on the street the rumor mill takes over and inevitably some “selective” information dribbles out that can cause you nothing but problems with your own members. Hopefully things get settled soon but you will be surprised how many peoples opinions change if it were to go 3-4 months.
I think in normal negotiating situations you’re correct. I think there’s a lot of dynamics that make this one abnormal
 

CyJack13

Well-Known Member
May 21, 2010
11,245
1,514
113
Whole lot of people that have no idea what the **** they are talking about in this thread. Hilarious to me to see people act like these line jobs are so tough. They literally hire people without high school degrees for these jobs. Give a guy with a mechanical engineering degree two hours training and you’re getting just as good as work from some Union loser.
 

Stormin

Well-Known Member
Apr 11, 2006
41,536
7,385
113
Whole lot of people that have no idea what the **** they are talking about in this thread. Hilarious to me to see people act like these line jobs are so tough. They literally hire people without high school degrees for these jobs. Give a guy with a mechanical engineering degree two hours training and you’re getting just as good as work from some Union loser.
Sounds like Deere has their labor issue settled then. They will fill the line positions with people with Mechanical Engineering Degrees.
 

CyJack13

Well-Known Member
May 21, 2010
11,245
1,514
113
Sounds like Deere has their labor issue settled then. They will fill the line positions with people with Mechanical Engineering Degrees.
Deere has a terrible culture right now. They’re internal employee survey results are so bad they stopped doing them. The vast majority of salary personnel feel the same way the UAW guys do. But to act like these are highly skilled laborers are just disingenuous. Maybe 10% of the Union jobs are actually highly skilled jobs, the rest are easily replaceable.

But in general Deere’s culture is terrible right now. Management has made clear over and over that all that matters is SVA. Let go of experienced engineers and replace them with graduate engineers in Mexico and expect no fall off in the quality of work with increased workloads.
 

Stormin

Well-Known Member
Apr 11, 2006
41,536
7,385
113
Deere has a terrible culture right now. They’re internal employee survey results are so bad they stopped doing them. The vast majority of salary personnel feel the same way the UAW guys do. But to act like these are highly skilled laborers are just disingenuous. Maybe 10% of the Union jobs are actually highly skilled jobs, the rest are easily replaceable.

But in general Deere’s culture is terrible right now. Management has made clear over and over that all that matters is SVA. Let go of experienced engineers and replace them with graduate engineers in Mexico and expect no fall off in the quality of work with increased workloads.
Problem is apparent. The contributions of the Deere Workers is deemed to be insignificant. They are easily replaceable. When management has no respect for worker contributions then you have a terrible culture.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cymac2408

BryceC

Well-Known Member
SuperFanatic
SuperFanatic T2
Mar 23, 2006
22,436
11,910
113
Deere has a terrible culture right now. They’re internal employee survey results are so bad they stopped doing them. The vast majority of salary personnel feel the same way the UAW guys do. But to act like these are highly skilled laborers are just disingenuous. Maybe 10% of the Union jobs are actually highly skilled jobs, the rest are easily replaceable.

But in general Deere’s culture is terrible right now. Management has made clear over and over that all that matters is SVA. Let go of experienced engineers and replace them with graduate engineers in Mexico and expect no fall off in the quality of work with increased workloads.
I did a lot of construction until I was about 25 and even some welding. The vast majority of guys working at the factory are welders. I did a lot of ag construction including building a crapload of Sukup grain bins to name drop one of our ISU athletics benefactors. I could never get the hang of welding. I suck at it.

You can't learn to weld in 2 hours, not the quality level you'd want. You can't learn to weld to the degree you'd want on high quality farm equipment quickly. That's just my opinion of course but there is an art to welding and if it were just screwing nuts on bolts you'd have a point but you're wrong. Just my opinion obviously.

Also you aren't replacing that number of workers easily. That's just false.
 

Urbandale2013

Well-Known Member
Jan 28, 2018
2,893
3,284
113
27
Urbandale

Maybe I’m just not old enough to really remember strikes. This seems really stupid from Deere’s perspective. I don’t think they have any real public support but I’m not sure the union does either. This seems like it is going to turn people towards the union.

I haven’t heard issues with true harassment but maybe I just have been ignorant of it.
 

JM4CY

Well-Known Member
SuperFanatic
SuperFanatic T2
Aug 23, 2012
18,786
33,716
113
America
Deere has a terrible culture right now. They’re internal employee survey results are so bad they stopped doing them. The vast majority of salary personnel feel the same way the UAW guys do. But to act like these are highly skilled laborers are just disingenuous. Maybe 10% of the Union jobs are actually highly skilled jobs, the rest are easily replaceable.

But in general Deere’s culture is terrible right now. Management has made clear over and over that all that matters is SVA. Let go of experienced engineers and replace them with graduate engineers in Mexico and expect no fall off in the quality of work with increased workloads.
I have heard from many people who work at Deere, salary and union, that it is an awful, awful place to work.
 

BCClone

Well-Known Member
SuperFanatic
SuperFanatic T2
Sep 4, 2011
42,219
34,626
113
North Iowa

Maybe I’m just not old enough to really remember strikes. This seems really stupid from Deere’s perspective. I don’t think they have any real public support but I’m not sure the union does either. This seems like it is going to turn people towards the union.

I haven’t heard issues with true harassment but maybe I just have been ignorant of it.
The strike may actually work to gain Deere some support and cover up some supply chain issues. Deere now has a reason why the farmer is not getting the new tractor, hey, the workers are on strike. There are several guys who lease combines and a few that do it for tractors. Stop the new guy lease and it rolls downhill. Trades are pushed to a standstill for what isn’t already on their lots. Come planting/harvest season farmers only care that they have what they need. They need it for a 2-4 weeks pending the season so getting it a month late is as good as a year late.
 

Pope

Well-Known Member
SuperFanatic
SuperFanatic T2
Feb 7, 2015
1,499
3,582
113
Given the unprecedented nature of today's labor environment, I don't think there's any way Deere management can avoid having to make significant concessions to their workers.

It seems to me they can deal with this the hard way by having a prolonged strike, costing the company an enormous amount of profit. Or they can make the concessions now and return to generating many millions in daily profits. I'd choose the latter if I were them.
 

BryceC

Well-Known Member
SuperFanatic
SuperFanatic T2
Mar 23, 2006
22,436
11,910
113
Deere's management can either do this the hard way or the easy way.

Given today's labor market, Deere no choice but to make significant concessions to their workers. They can try to hold out as long as possible and hope the workers cave, but that's not gonna happen and they will lose an enormous amount of profits by stalling. The sooner management accepts this, the sooner they can make concessions and get back to making many millions per day in profits.
Given the unprecedented nature of today's labor environment, I don't think there's any way Deere management can avoid having to make significant concessions to their workers.

It seems to me they can deal with this the hard way by having a prolonged strike, costing the company an enormous amount of profit. Or they can make the concessions now and return to generating many millions in daily profits. I'd choose the latter if I were them.
You just going to keep posting this every day?
 

VeloClone

Well-Known Member
Jan 19, 2010
39,050
25,310
113
Brooklyn Park, MN
On the issue of bringing an unacceptable proposal back to the rank and file - I have personally seen a team bring back a proposal and not recommend it on the vote. As has already been mentioned the informational meetings before the vote give them an opportunity to lay out what they are seeing at negotiations and talk frankly about what they think they can and can't get if the unit walks out. Most importantly it also gives the rank and file a voice directly to management. Going back to management with a 90-10 'no' vote with the notice of intent to strike helps to bolster the point that the rank and file is in this for the long haul and strengthens their position when they do finally get back to the bargaining table.