I met with the grocery and meat negotiating committees tonight to discuss a proposal for Mondays negotiations.You all are aware of the move to prepackaged meats, and thats an issue at the table. The traditional approach is to protect the work.Unfortunately building a wall around the meat depts. hasn't worked very well.We spent several hours putting together a proposal where we would protect the worker instead.There are obvious pitfalls in that also, but it would seem to make more sense. The devil is always in the detail, but it would mean combinning seperate meat and grocery contracts into a single agreement.If there was ever a layoff, meat members would then have senority with grocery members.Obviously each group has to vote their own settlement which would include accepting one another into one contract.I think it forces us to act more like a Union.What do you think?
quote:
We spent several hours putting together a proposal where we would protect the worker instead.
quote:
The devil is always in the detail
What's the proposal? A word_for_word account would be cool, then we can tell you if you're acting like a union or not. 
OT - you should invite your members and your negotiating committees to the site to discuss it further. That would be 
Here the meat departments are local 247 while the rest of the store is 1518. That means two different executive boards and two different Presidents. Your local is wall to wall... meat and grocery? I say it's the members vote. Myself I havn't seen this huge impact people keep talking about but then Im not in the meat department. Would the move to grocery be an open or closed door move? meaning if a meat person moved into grocery could they change their mind and go back? Would they take full senority? How about a pool list for meat cutters to work in several stores to max out their hrs? What about the plant it's coming from, can meat cutters post into that plant with full senority and pay/benefits?
quote:
posted by slek:
quote:
together a proposal where we would protect the workerWe spent several hours putting instead.
What's the proposal? A word_for_word account would be cool, then we can tell you if you're acting like a union or not.quote:
The devil is always in the detail
OT - you should invite your members and your negotiating committees to the site to discuss it further. That would be
quote:
Here the meat departments are local 247 while the rest of the store is 1518
Not all are like that. After the last agreement some meat departments are 1518. It's confusing to say the least.
The 1518 meat workers don't have seniority rights throughout their store or at the source of the ready_pack and with some meats being 247 I doubt their seniority would carry over onto a different local either.
Why or how 1518 got some of the meatcutters is a mystery, as Eagle one said traditionally meat departments were local 2000.
What part did the 2000/777 merger play in that? The meat department division happened in '96 and the merger in '01. Why did 1518 keep some meat departments?
--------------------------------------------------
Whats the proposal? A word for word account would be cool.
--------------------------------------------------
You guys are as bad as members, you expect information to make decisions. Just kidding.Actually we've been talking to members in the stores since our last negotiating session on Tuesday. We posted up the employers "job protection language" and it certainly gave us something to talk about.The negotiating committee liked the two page document we had. We made the suggested changes and will bring it on Monday.At days end,(Monday) you'll be able to see what we proposed on our youareworthmore,org website(as well as anything else we exchange).We also will send out e-mails to the 300 members on our communicatios committee.They are doing an awesome job distributing stuff the next day.
We merged with the small(400) meat local in 1980.We've maintained seperate contracts for all these years.This change would give bidding rights if there were layoffs to meat members based on their seniority date. It will also open up the meat department for grocery members to work back there. As you can imagine, there is a fair amount of controversy both ways.
Thanks for visiting so often, Bill. While I don't agree with everything you've said, what I like most about you, and what I see so little of from union leaders is that you aren't afraid to share information. As well, you don't get all exorcised when you are challenged (maybe you just take it out on a raquet ball 
). I also like the fact that you're nowhere near a condescending as many others are (I know, I know, I sometimes am, but I'm only condesending with trolls).
Bill I was wondering if you could tell me what process your local uses to select a negotiating committee?
Siggy: We don't select our committees, we elect them.We hold proposal meetings where members who want to be on the negotiating committee have to be elected by their co-workers. We identify how many and what kind of split(ft or pt), but the rest is up to the membership.I know thats not how everyone does it, but we find we get a more vocal mix, and livelier discussion.
Elected committees are a must IMHO 
. Presently our negotiating committee for 2003 is being hand_selected from the already appointed stewards. It doesn't leave the Power Source feeling like they have any power/participation/say. I just don't see how it could end up being very productive. The hand_selected method has a very negative impact and leaves some nasty residue.
A guy that was going to run on our slate in '99 was once on the negotiating committee for Save-On. He told me that he once questioned Brookes wisdom [outside the meeting room away from the employer] That was the last time he ever sat on that committee. As the story goes, prior to the next contract a petition was passed around to have him put back on the committee. It was ignored.
That's how 1518 is, if Brooke is happy with you your in. If he isn't your out. Tom Fox once told me that if I wanted to ride Brookes coat tails onto the executive board they had to know Brooke "could count on me" for support. I told him only if I though Brooke was right. Funny...I never made it on the board despite my own petition with over 1000 sigs. in three days. Darn eh? 
Union democracy in action.
© 2012 Members for Democracy