Toyota workers warned

[jpblue1000]

Originally Posted by SumoDog68

4hour entitlement as you call it is not what is sending car manufacturing broke . It is equivalent of an individual giving $2 to children's hospital appeal - or you are against that too ?

If every employee gave blood 4 times a year, or approximately once every 12 weeks as advised by the red cross, a total loss of production time would equate to; 2500 (staff in Altona) x 4 hours each x 4 times per year. or 40,000 hours lost. an average hourly rate of pay might be $40 so a wage loss of 1.6 million. However loss per employee may be 2-3 times that due to overheads so possibly circa 4+ million dollars per year. which in itself equates to 40+ bucks per car or over 1 percent of the saving necessary. And I think Toyota is only asking for a reduction from 4 to 2 hours.

JP

[brettv]

only assuming every employee takes up on the entitlement every 12 weeks, highly unlikely I think!
so yes a saving to be made but hardly in the millions
cheers mav

Originally Posted by jpblue1000

If every employee gave blood 4 times a year, or approximately once every 12 weeks as advised by the red cross, a total loss of production time would equate to; 2500 (staff in Altona) x 4 hours each x 4 times per year. or 40,000 hours lost. an average hourly rate of pay might be $40 so a wage loss of 1.6 million. However loss per employee may be 2-3 times that due to overheads so possibly circa 4+ million dollars per year. which in itself equates to 40+ bucks per car or over 1 percent of the saving necessary. And I think Toyota is only asking for a reduction from 4 to 2 hours.

JP

[jpblue1000]

Originally Posted by brettv

only assuming every employee takes up on the entitlement every 12 weeks,

I did say If!
But its a staggering number if you just consider its a good will gesture and one of many the company undertakes, along with many companies. A small drop in the ocean for the individual but potentially a big cost impost.
Id liek to know if Toyota has the blood bank come to them, or they allow staff to leave the premises to undertake blood donoring, and how does the company know their generosity is actually being matcheb by the employee.

JP

[gtfpv]

i'd like to know . if toyota introduced and offered that to the employees . heeps seem to be bagging it . but we dont even know who put the motion forward . i'm betting it was toyota management , which the employee members accepted , now the members themselves are being bagged here for it as if it was all thier making .
i'd like to know how this company BLOOD DONATING policy came about .

"" I have come to the conclusion that there are lots of 'Uncle Arthers' on this forum . ""

[vztrt]

I do find it funny about people being up in arms about the blood donating thing....yet 9 sick days is fine. I bet if people didn't get paid for sick days you wouldn't get many taking them and the ones that do would actually be sick.

[MITCHAY]

Originally Posted by gtfpv

i'd like to know . if toyota introduced and offered that to the employees . heeps seem to be bagging it . but we dont even know who put the motion forward . i'm betting it was toyota management , which the employee members accepted , now the members themselves are being bagged here for it as if it was all thier making .
i'd like to know how this company BLOOD DONATING policy came about .

"" I have come to the conclusion that there are lots of 'Uncle Arthers' on this forum . ""

If it were up to Toyota (and every other company) only the basics would be on the table as required by law. It would have been put on the table by a bargaining representative as an important issue for some employees.

For some perspective, donations to employees works out to be around 16% last year assuming unique donations where I work.

Given I work in an office environment and it's probably more flexible for workers to donate blood, I'd say Toyota would be far less.

Not a majority but perhaps enough to sway a vote in combination with other things.

Easy thing for Toyota to offer up and easy to take out too especially if it is to contribute to pay rises or maintaining other conditions.

Toyota would expect only a small number of people to exercise their entitlement to this condition that's why such things are usually found in EBAs.

[Franco Cozzo]

Originally Posted by jpblue1000

If every employee gave blood 4 times a year, or approximately once every 12 weeks as advised by the red cross, a total loss of production time would equate to; 2500 (staff in Altona) x 4 hours each x 4 times per year. or 40,000 hours lost. an average hourly rate of pay might be $40 so a wage loss of 1.6 million. However loss per employee may be 2-3 times that due to overheads so possibly circa 4+ million dollars per year. which in itself equates to 40+ bucks per car or over 1 percent of the saving necessary. And I think Toyota is only asking for a reduction from 4 to 2 hours.

JP

If every Toyota employee gave blood 4 times a year it would probably solve the blood shortage we have?

[Bill M]

Originally Posted by Barraxr8

It is too simple to highlight wages as the main reason for Toyotas cost dilemma.

Material costs of locally sourced parts, costs incurred from local logistics providers, the cost of locally sourced steel, power costs, are all internationally uncompetitive.

Most of the $3,000 odd in cost saves being sought are NOT wages !!

Originally Posted by b0son

But they could be. If Toyota is anything like Holden, they have more supervisors than necessary, more union-related expenses (like the infamous training days) than any sane person would consider reasonable, etc. It all adds up. At the end of the day, it comes down to man hours per vehicle, and we lag Europe/japan/etc quite significantly.

"But they could be"

Are they or not?

"If Toyota is anything like Holden they have more supervisors than necessary"

What are the ratio of supervisors to workers in both plants?
Sounds like you are passing off vague ideas as a platform for your views.
But if you can substantiate what you say then it is worth analysis.

[SumoDog68]

Originally Posted by b0son

I take it you've never heard the phrase death by a thousand cuts? I assume you're capable of understanding its relevance to the discussion.



Its equivalent to giving a donation and then expecting to be reimbursed by your employer. You think that's ok?

Don't assume that you hold some sort of intellectual superiority and that I need educating about the subject.

No one is expecting anything - 4 hour clause is a part of an eba agreement that was agreed on and signed by both parties.
One party is now requesting variations in a legal document which can only be achieved by consultation. Process is taking place and in the meantime feel free to vent your frustrations about it.

[b0son]

Originally Posted by Bill M

Are they or not?

What I was alluding to was that were Toyota in a position to start from scratch, and offer only wages and conditions in line with a basic manufacturing award, quite significant cost savings could be made.

What are the ratio of supervisors to workers in both plants?

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opin...1226781040913#

When Toyota wants to hire someone, a union (employee) representative must sit in every single job interview as "an observer"

Toyota is allowed to hire casuals only from "time to time" and not at all without union agreement

Contract labour can be hired only after Toyota reaches "agreement with the relevant Union official and Employee (union) Representative"

the agreement mandates one team leader to look after "between 5-7 process workers". Supervisors, whose base rates range from $75,000 to $103,000, are forbidden from helping with workloads.

If Toyota needs to dismiss someone, an outrageous procedure of at least three years and three months continuous disciplinary action is required before dismissal can occur.

One could be forgiven for thinking the union runs Toyota.

[nstg8a]

Some ludicrous conditions there.

[b0son]

Originally Posted by SumoDog68

Don't assume that you hold some sort of intellectual superiority and that I need educating about the subject.

Cleary, one sole entitlement isn't sending a company to the wall. And yet you felt obliged to state the obvious like it was worth contributing to the thread....

[bobthebilda]

Originally Posted by jpblue1000

If every employee gave blood 4 times a year, or approximately once every 12 weeks as advised by the red cross, a total loss of production time would equate to; 2500 (staff in Altona) x 4 hours each x 4 times per year. or 40,000 hours lost. an average hourly rate of pay might be $40 so a wage loss of 1.6 million. However loss per employee may be 2-3 times that due to overheads so possibly circa 4+ million dollars per year. which in itself equates to 40+ bucks per car or over 1 percent of the saving necessary. And I think Toyota is only asking for a reduction from 4 to 2 hours.

JP

Red Bood can be donated every 3 months. Platelets and plasma can be donated every 2 weeks, so depending on the wording of the EBA, a caring worker ( just like I do), could be getting off 4 hours every 76 hours of work time. That could equate to 5% of someones worktime.

[Joe5619]

Originally Posted by jpblue1000

If every employee gave blood 4 times a year, or approximately once every 12 weeks as advised by the red cross, a total loss of production time would equate to; 2500 (staff in Altona) x 4 hours each x 4 times per year. or 40,000 hours lost. an average hourly rate of pay might be $40 so a wage loss of 1.6 million. However loss per employee may be 2-3 times that due to overheads so possibly circa 4+ million dollars per year. which in itself equates to 40+ bucks per car or over 1 percent of the saving necessary. And I think Toyota is only asking for a reduction from 4 to 2 hours.

JP

And you missed the real problem here!! Toyota has said that most people take the 4 hour leave on Friday afternoon or Monday morning. This makes the plant unproductive for 2 half days (i.e 1 full day or 20% of the time). That is where the real cost of this program is!!

[gtfpv]

some weird and inconclusive assumptions here . for 1 with the union mandate post #160 . i see agreement here . but the dribble last paragraph is simply that 3 years and 3 months discipline before dismissal is made up rubbish , to fool the reader . the rest of the post is very fair and mutually agreed .
and this 1/2 day off on friday or monday rubbish . assumes the person is going to a club or hung over on monday and simply rocks up saying i took my blood donation leave . GOD YOU GUYS WHO POST THIS RUBBISH ARE INSANE !!!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rr1HpBgnjxU

[jpblue1000]

Originally Posted by gtfpv

some weird and inconclusive assumptions here ...

but the dribble last paragraph is simply that 3 years and 3 months discipline before dismissal is made up rubbish , to fool the reader
GOD YOU GUYS WHO POST THIS RUBBISH ARE INSANE !!!!!

But Page 42 of the,

TOYOTA MOTOR CORPORATION AUSTRALIA (TMCA)

WORKPLACE AGREEMENT (ALTONA) 2011
[2011] FWAA 8133

explicitly states a process to be undertaken for disciplinary action leading to dismissal. The periods described amount to 3 years and 3 months!
The remainder of page 42 and all of page 43 extend the detail of each phase to be undertaken before dismissal.
I dont believe Boson made a statment about dismissal which was erroneous or deliberately inflamatory.

JP

[Romulus]

Originally Posted by b0son

One could be forgiven for thinking the union ruins Toyota.

Fixed!

[gtfpv]

Originally Posted by jpblue1000

But Page 42 of the,

TOYOTA MOTOR CORPORATION AUSTRALIA (TMCA)

WORKPLACE AGREEMENT (ALTONA) 2011
[2011] FWAA 8133

explicitly states a process to be undertaken for disciplinary action leading to dismissal. The periods described amount to 3 years and 3 months!
The remainder of page 42 and all of page 43 extend the detail of each phase to be undertaken before dismissal.
I dont believe Boson made a statment about dismissal which was erroneous or deliberately inflamatory.

JP

DISMISSAL !!! for what . and does austrailan work place relations law over ride this clause !!! . lets make it simple . 2 workers on the floor have a fight . no injuries reported , but physical punches were thrown making contact . 5 minutes down time occured , and fight was witnessed by floor manager !!! . where in the work place agreement does it say a 3 yerar 3 mnonth disciplinary period applies once the manager states that these people need to dismissed !!! i havent read the documant . i dont need to . i think people here are using this document to deceive people here with untruths .
something most people do when they ridicule unions and agreements .

[BHDOGS]

So when you all buying Toyotas to help out the industry and keep it in Australia or is that only the workers job

[Joe5619]

Originally Posted by gtfpv

DISMISSAL !!! for what . and does austrailan work place relations law over ride this clause !!! . lets make it simple . 2 workers on the floor have a fight . no injuries reported , but physical punches were thrown making contact . 5 minutes down time occured , and fight was witnessed by floor manager !!! . where in the work place agreement does it say a 3 yerar 3 mnonth disciplinary period applies once the manager states that these people need to dismissed !!! i havent read the documant . i dont need to . i think people here are using this document to deceive people here with untruths .
something most people do when they ridicule unions and agreements .

In your example you are right, they can get sacked ASAP. But what happens when an employee is under performing?? That is 3 years Toyota needs to stuff around before an under performing employee can be shown the door. This is real, so stop trying to make it out like it is not as you are wrong!

[Joe5619]

Delete

[gtfpv]

Originally Posted by Joe5619

In your example you are right, they can get sacked ASAP. But what happens when an employee is under performing?? That is 3 years Toyota needs to stuff around before an under performing employee can be shown the door. This is real, so stop trying to make it out like it is not as you are wrong!

well in the worst case scenario for the company , the employee would pick himserlf up and improve his game , making it near impossible to sack him , however this would mean the person is now a good employee .
#2 the employee continues being unsatisfactory , he would be repremanded to the letter by the company for everything he did , he would probably leave , as his work mates trying to help him would simply give up on him . however this would be pretty much up to him , he would be only doing minor things in order to keep him being marched out by the company .
these things would not be things like being late , etc . those things are sackable after 3 warnings . so it would be things like mistakes and incompetance the company would look at , meanwhile they would re train him if they wish ( optional) him if they wish , and the company would have to proved this isnt a personal discriminatry agenda .
I'N this CASE AS I SAID HE WOULD SIMPLY LEAVE OF HIS OWN ACCORD , THOSE ASCOCIATED WITH HIM would also come under the spotlight . no one will support a bad dude in the work force . at the end of the day my job isnt going to be ruined by someone else . so the odds are he'd pick up his game , resign , or simply be demoted , unless he is being victimised , then he would be protected and encouraged to stay by his work mates and they would help him .
#3 the most likely scenario , which happens every day , is the boss wants the guy sacked so he is simply given his notice and often marched off site . the employee along with the union will go to court siting unfair dismissal , the union workforce may strike and be ordered back to work by fair trading , and the guy will have his day in court . in most cases companies wont do this unless there is good reason , therefore workers will not support this person . however he still has the right to a fair trial in court . the most he can hope for is unfair dismissal which noramlly takes around 6 months to get a hearing . thats 6 months of no wages !!!! if he wins the case fair trading australia will award a maximum of $50k. he has 4% chance of getting his job back . i'd say the odds ARE HEAVILY STACKED AGAINST THE WORKER , WOULD YOU NOT ? AND IF HE GETS HIS JOB BACK NOTHING TO STOP THE BOSS SACKING HIM AGAIN .
the only real protection nwould be union strike action , in which case every worker has to vote to go out ., once out the gate your breaking the law . it becomes a game of who can last the longest . unions wont do this for un rightious reasons at all . too much is at stake .
i'm sick of people thinking unionist ruin companies . it simply isnt the case . they have toi work within the law and only represent people who have been wronged . otherwise that person is on thier own .

things like this are put in place by UNIONS and backed by unionists . to stop things like an accountant saying . these guys are on too much money ? lets ack them one by one , no matter how good they are and descretely replace them with my BROTHER AND HIS wife , BUT SIR THEY ARENT TRAINED . shut up .
it also stops non unionists walking in the door and saying i'll work for 1/2 the money , give me a job . etc etc etc .
it's the uncle arthers who boast without looking behind the door !! the non unionists who dont care about conditions or work mates , that ridicule unions and stretch the truth .

[Joe5619]

Hehehe. Just wait until you work in a company where it happens!! People don't just leave on they own. People can be very spiteful!!..

[b0son]

gtfpv, do you even live in the real world? once problem employees are set upon the disciplinary path, its not exactly uncommon for them to have an 'injury' that requires extensive time off and compensation. this was an issue with unfair dismissal in general.

as for non-unionists coming in and under-cutting existing staff... why shouldn't the company have the right to hire such workers if and when it needs them (if you guys are so valuable, the cheap guys wont be worth the effort to train up)? you expect the company to share the spoils when times are good, but when times are bad, you refuse to allow the company to try and seek out cheaper workers. its either a market economy or its not. trying to have it both ways is simply hypocrisy.

[gtfpv]

Originally Posted by b0son

gtfpv, do you even live in the real world? once problem employees are set upon the disciplinary path, its not exactly uncommon for them to have an 'injury' that requires extensive time off and compensation. this was an issue with unfair dismissal in general.

as for non-unionists coming in and under-cutting existing staff... why shouldn't the company have the right to hire such workers if and when it needs them (if you guys are so valuable, the cheap guys wont be worth the effort to train up)? you expect the company to share the spoils when times are good, but when times are bad, you refuse to allow the company to try and seek out cheaper workers. its either a market economy or its not. trying to have it both ways is simply hypocrisy.

yeah i think your right Boson . i think thats why my 3rd point is used most . marched off site .
regarding cheaper labour . i guess the rights are subject to laws written by govt and people allowing them to take effect . at the moment though our govt says we have the right to negotiate with companies through LEGAL EBA'S . and you also have the right not to be part of a collective and NOT IN A union , some people express this right and individualy negotiate thier own contracts . , most of em decide they'll join the collective to get a better deal . there may be some out there getting better deals than the collective , the ones i think who get less pretty much are entitled to what the collective get , so get it anyways , even if not in a union . maybe there are people doing better because they arent in a union , but surely they would be costing the company more , ( more expensive labour ) but i dont think thats going to help companies trying to reduce thier wages and conditions .
cheaper labour etc i guess would have to go through industrial relations law . they are the only rights i'm aware of .
perhaps ask the govt your questions . i'm sure they might be able to give further advice . and we all have the right to ask the govt department . i'm not sure which dep it is , but they have a duty to answer your questions if you ask .

( EDITED - PLEASE RE READ )

[MAD]

Originally Posted by gtfpv

yeah i think your right Boson . i think thats why my 3rd point is used most . marched off site .
regarding cheaper labour . i guess the rights are subject to laws written by govt and people allowing them to take effect . at the moment though our govt says we have the right to negotiate with companies through LEGAL EBA'S . and you also have the right not to be part of a collective and NOT IN A union , some people express this right and individualy negotiate thier own contracts . , most of em decide they'll join the collective to get a better deal . there may be some out there getting better deals than the collective , the ones i think who get less pretty much are entitled to what the collective get , so get it anyways , even if not in a union . maybe there are people doing better because they arent in a union , but surely they would be costing the company more , ( more expensive labour ) but i dont think thats going to help companies trying to reduce thier wages and conditions .
cheaper labour etc i guess would have to go through industrial relations law . they are the only rights i'm aware of .
perhaps ask the govt your questions . i'm sure they might be able to give further advice . and we all have the right to ask the govt department . i'm not sure which dep it is , but they have a duty to answer your questions if you ask .

( EDITED - PLEASE RE READ )

How can you see that as an increased labour cost?

If they negotiated a higher wage, the company must see them as being more valuable.
Maybe that person is more productive in their shift, so in the end the company wins.

[gtfpv]

Originally Posted by MAD

How can you see that as an increased labour cost?

If they negotiated a higher wage, the company must see them as being more valuable.
Maybe that person is more productive in their shift, so in the end the company wins.

YOUR RIGHT . have no problem with people doing better . as long as they dont have to sell their home , or lower their existing lifestyle to compete with lower wages overseas then i'm all for it .
i think any union also would be in favour of giving away blood donations and reducing shutdown duration over christmas also , but seek more flexibility to perhaps have scope for leave during the off season . thats why they are there too , to keep thier members employed . i'm sure they will be able to make significant changes . heres hoping .
i wonder if they make these changes if the company will se them as more valuable for giving things away and increase the wages . hopefully eh !

[TheSneakiness]

Originally Posted by b0son

When Toyota wants to hire someone, a union (employee) representative must sit in every single job interview as "an observer"

Toyota is allowed to hire casuals only from "time to time" and not at all without union agreement

Contract labour can be hired only after Toyota reaches "agreement with the relevant Union official and Employee (union) Representative"

the agreement mandates one team leader to look after "between 5-7 process workers". Supervisors, whose base rates range from $75,000 to $103,000, are forbidden from helping with workloads.

If Toyota needs to dismiss someone, an outrageous procedure of at least three years and three months continuous disciplinary action is required before dismissal can occur.

One could be forgiven for thinking the union runs Toyota.

This.

Why is Toyota not allowed to employ someone without union involvement?
Why is Toyota not allowed to hire casuals?
Why is Toyota not allowed to hire contractors without approval from two (?!?!?) union members?

What a effin load of bull excrement. The more I read about unions and their ridiculous agendas the more I'm satisfied that I decided to go with being a white collar worker.

39 months continuous disciplinary action before dismissal?

Crap

If you eff up here three times you're gone.
If you make a huge mistake with someone's money you're gone.
If you are representing your company in an important meeting and you badmouth your employer you can bet your bottom dollar you're gone.

Someone put in a law to eradicate unions and the country may survive future hurt.

[MAD]

Originally Posted by gtfpv

YOUR RIGHT . have no problem with people doing better . as long as they dont have to sell their home , or lower their existing lifestyle to compete with lower wages overseas then i'm all for it .

I'm confused. How do you link "doing better" with "selling their home" and "lowering lifestyle"?

[gtfpv]

Originally Posted by Rapid_Axe

This.

Why is Toyota not allowed to employ someone without union involvement?
Why is Toyota not allowed to hire casuals?
Why is Toyota not allowed to hire contractors without approval from two (?!?!?) union members?

What a effin load of bull excrement. The more I read about unions and their ridiculous agendas the more I'm satisfied that I decided to go with being a white collar worker.

39 months continuous disciplinary action before dismissal?

Crap

If you eff up here three times you're gone.
If you make a huge mistake with someone's money you're gone.
If you are representing your company in an important meeting and you badmouth your employer you can bet your bottom dollar you're gone.

Someone put in a law to eradicate unions and the country may survive future hurt.

take it to govt mate . get the laws changed your arguing with our govt laws . we cant change them here , but it's a free country , and there are laws for millions of things , why cant we drive on the right side of the road ?
you want to change things than make it happen ? thats what democracy is all about .
youll have to change collective principles in every sector though , govt are collective , so are doctors , so are military , so are sports , so is law , everyone has to follow some form of collective law in a democratic society . thats why we vote . it's all tied in together with LAW . touch one touch all relates to our whole country - change one change all

how can we have policing if there are no common rules to follow .