Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Pension COLA history

Expand Messages
  • fran_asbeck
    Yesterday I posted the years and %ages of COLAs applied to IBM pensions since 1969 over on the IBM_RETIREE club board, if anyone is interested in reading and
    Message 1 of 10438 , Oct 1, 1999
      Yesterday I posted the years and %ages of COLAs applied to IBM pensions since 1969 over on the IBM_RETIREE club board, if anyone is interested in reading and weeping.<br>Fran Asbeck
    • donshuper
      From a friend at Boeing This might be help this fall. Last contract security video taped us doing informational pickets, strike practices prior to the
      Message 10438 of 10438 , Feb 28, 2002
        From a friend at Boeing <br>This might be help
        this fall. Last contract security video taped
        us<br>doing informational pickets, strike practices prior to
        the contract<br>vote.<br> <br>.S. Appeals Court
        Upholds NLRB Decision on Illegal Videotaping of
        Union<br>Activities (Feb 15, 2002) <br>The U.S. Court of Appeals for
        the Sixth Circuit upheld on February 4 a<br>decision
        <<a href=http://www.lraonline.org/pdf/nlrb_timken.pdf> target=new>http://www.lraonline.org/pdf/nlrb_timken.pdf></a> by the National<br>Labor Relations Board (NLRB)
        finding that a company's restriction and<br>videotaping
        of employees handing out union literature at the
        plant gates<br>were unfair labor practices.<br>The
        original NLRB case grew out of a 1996 dispute between
        employees<br>seeking to join the United Steelworkers union and their
        employer, Timken<br>Co., which manufactures bearings and
        steel products at its Bucyrus,<br>Ohio, plant. During
        the union campaign, the company restricted
        hand<br>billing at the plant gates to only two off-duty employees
        at a time.<br>After an incident involving an alleged
        scuffle between a manager and an<br>employee, the company
        started videotaping employees at the plant gate<br>who
        were passing out union literature. When employees at
        Timken also<br>refused to obey the company's two-person
        limit at the gate, they were<br>disciplined by
        management for insubordination.<br>The employees in response
        filed unfair labor practices charges against<br>Timken
        with the NLRB.<br>In its decision, The Board found
        that Timken's policy of allowing only<br>two off-duty
        employees to hand out union literature was not
        reasonable,<br>and therefore the disciplining of workers who refused
        to obey the policy<br>was a violation of the
        National Labor Relations Act (NLRA).<br>The Board also
        found that Timken did not provide adequate evidence
        to<br>support the claim that the videotaping was necessary to
        monitor the<br>personal safety of employees at the gate.
        Moreover, the Board ruled that<br>in the context of other
        unfair labor practices committed by Timken,
        the<br>surveillance amounted to intimidation of employees engaged in
        protected<br>activity under the NLRA.<br>Timken appealed the Board's
        decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for<br>the Sixth
        Circuit, which covers Ohio, Michigan, Tennessee, and
        Kentucky.<br>In its ruling, Timken Co. v NLRB (No. 00-1828), the
        Sixth Circuit court<br>rejected Timken's argument and
        upheld the Board's decision in favor of<br>the workers.
        Specifically, the court shot down Timken's argument
        that<br>defense of its private-property interests warranted
        restriction of<br>employees engaged in union activity at its
        plants gates. Timken tried to<br>argue that under a
        Supreme Court ruling, Lechmere v. NLRB, the union
        did<br>not have a right to pass out handbills on company
        property. But as the<br>Sixth Circuit noted, Lechmere
        applies to non-employee union<br>representatives, not
        employees who are engaged in protected union<br>activities
        during non-work hours.<br>The court also upheld the
        Board's ruling that Timken's indiscriminate<br>use of
        video surveillance was unwarranted based on the facts.
        Timken<br>claimed that it videotaped interactions between employees
        and management<br>to ensure safety and protect itself
        against lawsuits. But Timken<br>videotaped employees when
        management was not present, and that amounted<br>to
        intimidation of employees engaged "protected concerted
        activities,"<br>according to the court.<br>The Sixth Circuit's ruling in
        Timken is important for workers and unions<br>because it
        establishes conditions under which employer surveillance,
        in<br>this case indiscriminate videotaping, is a violation
        of workers' rights<br>under the National Labor
        Relations Act. Off-duty employees peacefully<br>passing out
        union literature are not a threat. The company's use
        of<br>video surveillance in this case was obviously intended
        to intimidate<br>workers who were seeking to join a
        union.<br>The court's ruling in Tim
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.