Past Messages

September 11, 2002

July 29, 2002

May 6, 2002

August 10, 2001

February 5, 2001

October 24, 2000

October 9, 2000

September 15, 2000

August 29, 2000

August 7, 2000

July 3, 2000

June 23, 2000

May 8, 2000

April 17, 2000

April 4, 2000

October 16, 2002

My fellow workers,

By now, no doubt, everyone has heard about the new status of our contract. Apparently the company, at the corporate level, has found a technicality with which to break-off negotiations and “roll-over” our contract for another year. It seems that while our international fulfilled the legal requirements of notifying the appropriate state and federal agencies of our desire to terminate the existing bargaining agreement, it did not fulfill its obligations, under Article 32 of the contract, to provide the company with written notification of our intentions at least 90-days prior to the expiration of the contract. The USWA legal staff confirms, it does not matter that both the union and company discussed a mutual desire to negotiate a new contract both before and after that 90-day mark, nor does it matter that the company took the initiative and made all the necessary arrangements for our negotiation meetings and then actually engaged in substantive and fruitful bargaining sessions with us. The letter of the agreement stands.

This is no simple case of a “different interpretation” or putting a “spin” on some situation. In a clear and obvious demonstration of bad faith the company has lied, in both deed and word. Anyone who has been involved with our union over the past two and one-half years knows that doing a 180° reversal by going back on our word is a stunt I would have never allowed our side to pull. Nearly as amazing is the fact that Mike Pfeiffenberger, the Plant Manager and lead negotiator, was neither consulted with nor even made aware of this decision -- he first heard the news from me. This should serve as a very clear lesson to each of us about the kind of people we’re dealing with at RBC. It should also provide the motivation for us to pull together and send the signal to the company that business as usual has come to an end.

Ultimately our contract has simply been extended for another year, much like the 1992 extension. As in ’92, there will be neither a wage nor pension increase. But more importantly, all the other features of the contract will remain in place and intact. Our insurance coverage remains unchanged, as does our weekly co-pay -- unlike ’92; our vacation remains unchanged (unless of course your seniority warrants an increase, then you’ll receive additional time); the current workgroup structure, pay-for-knowledge system and wage structure remain in place; and the Plant Council will continue as a consultative decision making body.

In short, the company has only succeeded in saving the cost of a wage increase. In return they will bear the full burden of rising employee related expenses while seeing none of the work rules or plant structure changes that had already been negotiated. And although it presently goes unvalued by them, their greatest cost can be measured in the evaporation of any trust and good will on the part of our union. All this because they decided to force upon us, in an underhanded and conniving manner, terms that, with just a little good faith and effort on their part, we might otherwise have agreed to at the bargaining table.

John

This page hosted by  Get your own FREE HOME PAGE