-
#60
by
LocalLodge44
on 03 May, 2015 03:24
-
And locallodge44, am I correct in understanding that IAM's main objections are over the healthcare and retirement changes? Not other grievances? Not about the flexibility ULA needs to compete?
If it is any condolence, On Friday I watched my wife's local rank and file reject a contract because the school district was trying to convert the health care plan from a 90/10 to an 80/20, and some minor changes to the sick bank. It was very interesting, I had someones car keys, and thus got to watch several members of the HOG blow a serious gasket in counting room as tally was done. Conversion of benefits is a pay cut, in this case a 1/2 percent cut after a two percent raise plus step. They though it was the best they could get, it clear your local's leadership stands up for the rank and file. Good for them.
I still am confused why rejection will lead to an immediate strike. No extension, no working without a contract, no back negotiating the contract. My wife's current contract has a no strike clause. Just to take ULA's side for a second. That would be item one for me.
You are partially correct. The pension is of course a large reason many came to work for ULA. I can't discuss a lot of the particulars of the contract proposal until we have a signed deal. I am sure there are ULA management watching this thread as closely as they are our local lodge website, facebook account and every other possible channel of communication. What I can tell you is there are several things that makes this contract unfavorable to the members:
1) Pension frozen
2) Increase in healthcare costs (which is expected but there is much more of a back story that would take entirely too long to discuss and would bore you to death)
3) Probably the biggest gripe that everyone has about this contract is much of the non-economic language. Since all three site's local lodges joined under one contract we have watched the launch site management bastardize the language to pieces in an attempt to gain further control of the launch sites. In reality, how the launch sites operate and how a factory operates isn't even comparable but they have put so much language about slip shifts, call in hours at all times of the night, being disciplined for not answering the telephone at our homes. It is laughable really what they have proposed. So, you have all the people at the factory up in arms about all of this that doesn't really apply to them but in a sense does because we fall under the same contract. Does Decatur ever intend to use the language? Beats me, but the problem is, it is in there for them to use.
Lastly, to answer your question about extensions and such. That is always a possibility but I think a very slim one. We know what is on the pads, we know what is in the factory awaiting delivery. Our leverage is in the fact that ULA's manifest is so packed right now and for the foreseeable future. We are willing to go back to the table and negotiate right now if they wanted but they have rolled the dice and are hoping to buy the contract vote with a $6k signing bonus. They did the same thing on the last contract when they froze new hires out of the pension and won the contract by 5 votes across all sites. This time it is a little more personal and I highly doubt they have thrown enough bribe money in to the signing bonus to get people to bite.
So, if the contract proposal is vote down AND 66 and 2/3 employees vote to strike we will walk the picket line until a new contract is accepted. It will be up to ULA to determine if/when they want to negotiate. Regardless, there will be a strike until a new contract is offered, voted on and accepted.
It also would not surprise me if Boeing/LockMart thinks that financially Vulcan would be a bad investment because of the "loading" to support pensions that SX does not have, so the use of capital is at a disadvantage in ULA.
Or that LM/Boeing is simply using that as a whipping boy. AFAICT, ULA is going to have to dig a lot deeper than cutting benefits for what appears to be a minority of the workforce to compete with SoaceX.
Yes, ULA needs to find savings everywhere they can (of which this is one place), but the reason ULA is not competitive is much more fundamental--ten years on from the formation of ULA, they are simply not geared to compete.
You sir, are absolutely correct. I am of the opinion, and this is just my personal opinion not one of the collective members, that ULA is using SX as a paper tiger to get concessions out of their employees. Do they need to compete, absolutely if it is their intent to continue doing business. To me, the more important question is, does Lockheed and Boeing truly want to compete or do they just want to drain the cash cow dry and throw it to the side when it is empty? ULA was formed not because they wanted to but because the government asked them to. Right now it is a very lucrative business. When it ceases to be lucrative, my guess is it will cease to be a business. So much for those that think this industry is a "calling".
-
#61
by
AncientU
on 03 May, 2015 13:43
-
The collective membership should be alerted to the fact that the purported paper tiger is stalking that same cash cow. Half of your collective jobs are de facto gone already; Union leadership should be scrambling to protect the remaining half, not dissembling as to the reality of the situation. The threat is real -- deal with it.
-
#62
by
joek
on 03 May, 2015 17:49
-
The collective membership should be alerted to the fact that the purported paper tiger is stalking that same cash cow. Half of your collective jobs are de facto gone already; Union leadership should be scrambling to protect the remaining half, not dissembling as to the reality of the situation. The threat is real -- deal with it.
Whether half of those jobs are "de facto gone" is far from clear. How many of those jobs are related to ELC, which is a significant future risk? Unknown (any data?). Last projection showed ~1900 ULA FTE's dedicated to ELC, which appear to make up the majority of ULA's workforce and costs for DoD-related business.
Yes, the threat is real. But maybe ULA would be better served by first addressing more fundamental and structural issues. Mr. Bruno has indicated that there will be a restructuring of ULA in order to better compete. That restructuring, and getting the workforce behind it and involved in it, should be the priority IMHO.
While I suppose ULA management (or maybe Boeing and LM) decided they had to start somewhere, putting this union issue early in the game seems to be putting the cart before the horse.
-
#63
by
AncientU
on 03 May, 2015 18:31
-
Three years from now is too late.
My opinion only, of course.
If anyone truly believes 'business as usual' until 2018, they are in denial. Leadership of Mr. Gass (excuse me for the loose usage) set this course by ignoring the rising costs and risk of reliance on RD-180... and the threat of being significantly undercut on price and performance (FH will deliver double the payload at one third the cost of DH), so I'm not surprised the workforce is just waking up to the reality. Being dependent on legislative reprieves to 'save' the company is a crap situation -- only hard work on all fronts will pull this one out.
The next three years will see major cuts being implemented to prepare to compete the next 28 core block buy. This is where Union leadership should be trying to soften the blow to membership, not keeping the foot on accelerator when heading over a cliff. I am missing the discussion about modernizing methods, improving productivity, incentivizing flexibility, bringing sub-contracted work in house, etc.
-
#64
by
rbarry55
on 03 May, 2015 18:42
-
The question I have for you is why your union intends on striking? SpaceX will never go on strike. Blue Origin in a few years will be a peer competitor to ULA and Blue Origin will never go on strike. Customers know strikers wont delay commercial or national security payloads at those two startups.
SpaceX is beating ULA on price and knows how to play the DC beltway lobbying game as the RD-180 ban demonstrates. SpaceX has driven Ariane to phase out the now uncompetitive Ariane 5 in favor of a hoped for cheaper version just as ULA is being forced to do. You referred to SpaceX as a 'paper tiger'. Some paper, some tiger.
So why do you want to give prospective customers of ULA one more reason to do business with the competition? I ask this respectfully and believe you probably have grievances worth negotiating.
-
#65
by
AncientU
on 03 May, 2015 18:56
-
A strike when ULA/Boeing/LM are furiously seeking a legislative reprieve cannot help the cause. Everyone knows that ULA has been too fat for too long... allowing additional RD-180s to be used and ELC to stand unchanged (by a Republican Congress whose platform is anti-Union and anti-Russian at best) is not guaranteed. A strike makes it even less so.
-
#66
by
joek
on 03 May, 2015 19:26
-
A strike when ULA/Boeing/LM are furiously seeking a legislative reprieve cannot help the cause. Everyone knows that ULA has been too fat for too long... allowing additional RD-180s to be used and ELC to stand unchanged (by a Republican Congress whose platform is anti-Union and anti-Russian at best) is not guaranteed. A strike makes it even less so.
How is that? If by some magic an RD-180 replacement appeared tomorrow at no additional cost, the fundamental issues remain. Whether ELC remains in its present form appears to have less to do with these union issues, and more to do with fundamental ULA structural issues.
-
#67
by
rcoppola
on 03 May, 2015 19:42
-
A few honest questions for any (Private Sector) Union members on this forum:
Is it at all possible, that 20th century Union Leadership orthodoxy is ill equipped to properly represent the best interests of its' members, especially the newest and future ones in today's marketplace?
If ULA realized they needed new leadership (Mr. Bruno) to evolve and transform into a viable commercial launch services provider, do the members think that perhaps the same can be said of their leadership with regards to a Union evolution, transformation?
-
#68
by
AncientU
on 03 May, 2015 19:49
-
A strike when ULA/Boeing/LM are furiously seeking a legislative reprieve cannot help the cause. Everyone knows that ULA has been too fat for too long... allowing additional RD-180s to be used and ELC to stand unchanged (by a Republican Congress whose platform is anti-Union and anti-Russian at best) is not guaranteed. A strike makes it even less so.
How is that? If by some magic an RD-180 replacement appeared tomorrow at no additional cost, the fundamental issues remain. Whether ELC remains in its present form appears to have less to do with these union issues, and more to do with fundamental ULA structural issues.
Yes, probably more to do with structural issues, but
any business-as-usual news is negative at this point. If there was a serious negotiation ongoing between ULA leadership and the entire workforce (including the Union) about tough changes and restructuring -- and Union leadership was preaching change to membership, then the evolution of the business would be plausible. As it is, everybody is looking to maintain status quo. Boeing/LM lobby effort is worst example.
(Please, please, Congress, give us a break... or we'll cancel Vulcan is not a strong negotiating position. It's actually a dare or a threat.)
-
#69
by
joek
on 03 May, 2015 21:17
-
Yes, probably more to do with structural issues, but any business-as-usual news is negative at this point. If there was a serious negotiation ongoing between ULA leadership and the entire workforce (including the Union) about tough changes and restructuring -- and Union leadership was preaching change to membership, then the evolution of the business would be plausible. As it is, everybody is looking to maintain status quo. Boeing/LM lobby effort is worst example.
So who should take the lead? IMHO it should be ULA management, as they are or should be the ones responsible for sailing this ship. The changes required and preaching should come from the top down--not a side effect of a quibble with the unions.
If the union is required or expected to lead and preach such change, then you might as well admit the company is rudderless, management is incompetent, and close shop and send everyone home. I hope and expect that is not the case.
-
#70
by
AncientU
on 03 May, 2015 21:31
-
I completely agree.
-
#71
by
johnmoe
on 03 May, 2015 21:57
-
-
#72
by
kevin-rf
on 03 May, 2015 22:15
-
Wow!
-
#73
by
kevin-rf
on 03 May, 2015 22:40
-
Personally, I don't think this bodes well for IAM,
Last year Boeing pushed through similar concessions with IAM's rank and file over the union's objections so they could keep future 777x production in Washington state.
Then the failed attempt by IAM to organize the VW plant in TN last year.
Add in IAM having to call off the organization vote at Boeing SC for the second 787 production line because they did not have the votes.
And now the rank and file pass this over the union's objections.
This does not bode well for IAM, I am very surprised. If you ask me, this was a must win save face event for IAM.
-
#74
by
AncientU
on 03 May, 2015 22:41
-
Good.
-
#75
by
Prober
on 04 May, 2015 00:03
-
These number don't speak well.
-
#76
by
DDG40
on 04 May, 2015 00:22
-
Personally, I don't think this bodes well for IAM,
Last year Boeing pushed through similar concessions with IAM's rank and file over the union's objections so they could keep future 777x production in Washington state.
Then the failed attempt by IAM to organize the VW plant in TN last year.
Add in IAM having to call off the organization vote at Boeing SC for the second 787 production line because they did not have the votes.
And now the rank and file pass this over the union's objections.
This does not bode well for IAM, I am very surprised. If you ask me, this was a must win save face event for IAM.
The IAM didn't try to organize VW. The Union presented the contract to the membership for a vote, If the Union objected to the contract it would not have been recommended for a vote.
-
#77
by
LouScheffer
on 04 May, 2015 01:40
-
I wonder if employee representation on the board (as mandated in many cases in Germany) would help cases like this?
A big-picture view might help the union decide if the management demands are (a) just squeezing because they can, or (b) decreaing costs and increasing productivity in order to survive. Board representation is probably needed for this since companies always claim (b) even if the situation is (a).
Of course this depends on the board having an honest view into the companies future. In the past I was not convinced the ULA board saw this, but the recent burst of new ideas and activities has me at least a little more optimistic.
-
#78
by
kevin-rf
on 04 May, 2015 01:54
-
If 850 was accurate, that's a 84% turnout. Not bad. 379 accept, 339 reject. A 40 vote difference. 132 did not vote or handed in a blank card.
Odd, on the strike auth, looks like they only counted Decatur, though if true, one more voted on the strike vote, vs. the contract vote. A blank?
Before we say this is a total failure on IAM's part, ULA clearly knew what the min they needed to give the rank and file was for acceptance. They offered the min while ignoring the Union. Oppinion, but without IAM, they would have most likely offered even less.
-
#79
by
FutureSpaceTourist
on 04 May, 2015 03:28
-
As about 65% of the Decatur votes rejected the deal, and two thirds were prepared to strike, might the result lead to a higher rate of staff moving on? Or is the renumeration package still good by aerospace standards? (Ie not many opportunities for better elsewhere)
Edit: fixed autocorrect typo