From: (Name Redacted)
To: No Pay MSA
In the email where you stated what you were fighting for, you said you were going to fight for $26/hr across the board along with the other incentives...Glen reiterated that and told us when he met with him that you guys were pushing for $26/hr and that if we unionized, and that it was the agreed upon pay rate, thats what everyone would get across the board...if thats the case, what would be the incentive for us to vote to unionize if you are already proposing $26/hr across the board before negotiations even begin, cutting our pay rate by $9.00/hr?
From: No Pay MSA
To: (Redacted)
You asked us this same question in April and we told you we would never ask for anyone's pay rates to be lowered. The fact that Glen told you this is very serious. He's violated several laws by saying this in the meeting and we will be reporting him to the Federal Government for investigation.
In addition, the email we sent said the starting pay would remain at $26. We never said anything about current handlers pay being lowered. We also believe the pay rate for new handlers in NorCal should remain at $35 just like we told you in April.
Our position is the same as it always has been. We will never lower anyone's pay rates or use it as a bargaining chip. We know there are several areas in the country besides NorCal that have different pay rates and we have no issue with them continuing at that rate. MSA makes more than enough money to allow us all to have a livable wage and the benefits that are required by law.
If you have any other questions, please ask.
What guarantee can you give us if glen refuses to give us a raise or that he won't lower our pay?
ReplyDeleteWe can't guarantee Glen won't retaliate against us by cutting pay. It's highly unlikely he would do that because he knows we would quickly sue him, like we have sued other MSA leadership, for retaliation. The end result would be pay rates returning to normal and MSA being forced to pay us back wages going back from when they lowered the pay rates.
ReplyDeleteIf a union isn't voted in, MSA can do as they please, like they have in the past. They can lower our pay, take our benefits, or terminate us for any or no reason.
A union gives us all representation. A union means MSA won't be able to change anything without a negotiation with all the handlers. It also means we will all have input on improvements to our working conditions without fear of retaliation.
If Glen and MSA have every intention of improving our working conditions, why are they so opposed to having it made official with a bargaining agreement? Why do they insist their plans be kept secret and only implemented if you vote no?
If we don't get a Union, MSA isn't going to do squat. Things will just stay the same, they will sell the company, walk away with nice bonuses and we are F'd.
ReplyDeleteI just found out from somebody at 2PP that some benefits that were in the works for hourly
ReplyDeleteemployees are kicking in next month. The union stuff put them on hold. Increased PTO time & money, paid holiday for veterans day for military service, more bereavement days 50k in life insurance. its a start. msa cant legally change handlers money or benefits until suit is settled. i'll take it, i'm now a no.
There will be a post about it soon. It's interesting you'd rather have these "benefits" than compensation for off hours training that's required by law, an increase to the stipend, and a system of yearly raises.
DeleteReally??? Your now a no??You sound like an infiltrator. Nobody can be that gullible and either are we.
DeleteYou know I usually Don't getting caught up in this kind of stuff, but I feel compelled to speak. What makes you guys think MSA can't and won't make changes with a union in place. They can institute policy and changes as they see fit. And I am sorry but I am not comfortable being represented by a transportation union. Actually we were better off when LEOSO,hope I got their name right, wanted to represent us. Sorry, but I want to be represented by a union that is experienced in representing the employees in their respective fields. Honestly I agree with the person that said he or she was voting no. That is my vote as well. I think we are better off giving Glen the opportunity to do what he said he is trying to do. If it does does not pan out, the union options are always on the table. I said sorry a lot throughout this comment because I think we will all be sorry if we bring inexperience in to represent us. Think about it, look at the facts. I Don't know what happened prior to my being hired here, other than what I have read. But I have not heard anything that would have me vote yes at this point. I think I can pretty much represent myself under these circumstances. And I choose not to go anonymous, because why hide if you stand for something you truly believe in. We can agree to disagree.
ReplyDelete