On Workers say union no longer effective
Posted on May 24 at 2:13 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
Consider this: As simply as the UFCW was petitioned out (supporters would argue that they're done), they can also be voted back in. This is all about money, and the union would take the employees $$ again if asked. I'm sure Phil Woodman understands this. So, no worries about loss of wage or benefits from this employee.
On Workers say union no longer effective
Posted on May 21 at 3:56 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
Toyota-As far as Woodman's is concerned, you know nothing, and seem to refuse to acknowledge anything.
On Effort to decertify union is driving a wedge into Janesville-based business
Posted on May 13 at 11:31 a.m. ( Suggest removal )
Bottom line is this: A majority of Woodman's employees no longer want to pay for union protection they feel they no longer need!
On Effort to decertify union is driving a wedge into Janesville-based business
Posted on May 12 at 1:03 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
Thanks for the luck tbs! I'll take it to the bank.
On Effort to decertify union is driving a wedge into Janesville-based business
Posted on May 11 at 4:18 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
Anyone who thinks that Phil Woodman is out for his own personal greed knows nothing!
On More charges exchanged in Woodman’s union dispute
Posted on May 3 at 10:04 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
More comments on tbs' post. How would non-union benefits erode after the union is gone when they were never negotiated by the union in the first place? I also understand my ESOP is earned, but what does that have to do with the union? They never negotiated that either. I've thought about my retirement for more than a minute....years actually, and believe it's really for my benefit, a lucrative retirement for me to enjoy. Perhaps you should fill out an application.
On More charges exchanged in Woodman’s union dispute
Posted on May 3 at 3:25 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
Remember, not all Woodman's were union. Since the Kenosha store employees voted to be non-union when the store first opened, every store following (4) are non-union, and employees in ALL stores are treated equally. "Everything goes" does not go on in the non-union stores. Woodman's does have some part-time and week-end only help, but employees who work full-time have never had their hours reduced to part-time so they could no longer receive benefits. Employees who take a part-time position, then decide they want full-time are able to review full-time job postings to decide if the job is what they want. Admittedly, full-time positions are not always available in all departments at all times, because those workers rarely give them up. These are good paying jobs, but in the last 5 years, the union has not been responsible for the added monetary incentives enjoyed by the employees. They were implemented by the company. Woodman's first introduced part-time positions about 15 years ago, and if an arguement is to be made that "getting rid of the union is so that Woodman's can have mostly part-time help and not have to pay any benefits", well, it's bunk. Woodman's still has more full-time positions than part-time in all stores. Again, Woodman's employees DO NOT receive ANY union benefits (no contribution to union insurance or pension). Woodman's as a company contributes and takes care of employee benefits ON IT'S OWN. The union has NO jurisdiction over benefits. One of the reasons the union has become obsolete in reference to Woodman's. As for the millionaires? Every year "the club" increases in number, and when I retire?....I'll enjoy the fantasy.
On More charges exchanged in Woodman’s union dispute
Posted on May 3 at 8:37 a.m. ( Suggest removal )
All customers are valued. The store I work at has many union employees shopping there. Fire and rescue personnel, construction, postal and others. Most are aware of our situation through their union publications. Some of these customers are confused, have questions, or understand the situation...some even have siblings working for Woodman's. Again, this is a unique situation, because employee-owned companys are typically NOT union because the employer is fair. 10 years have gone by since becoming employee-owned, and a majority of the employees felt they no longer needed union protection. We HAD the union health insurance, but voted to let the company seek out it's own health insurance for LESS COST AND BETTER COVERAGE. The union's insurance was becoming inefficient...a common sense move. It's what this situation is all about. It's ok that some union customers are asking questions...to me that means they are seeking out facts and opinions and not just having a blanket opinion about the whole situation. The union paints this as a Phil Woodman vs. the employees/union, and it was NEVER that. The possibility of losing $400,000/yr. in union contributions will spawn a one-sided opinion...don't believe everything you read.
On More charges exchanged in Woodman’s union dispute
Posted on May 2 at 5:51 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
Through the employees dedication and hard work has the company grown and become what it is today. Up until about 10 years ago, Woodman's had BOTH their own retirement fund AND contributed to the union's pension. Woodman's own retirement fund was NEVER negotiated by the union, and most current retirees receive both a union pension and a Woodman's account. Woodman's employees voted to end the unions insurance (Woodman's could provide better coverage at a cheaper price), and end the unions pension contribution (allowing extra contribution to an employees own account). Woodman's pays some of the highest salaries in the industry, and for the sake of comparison, is similar to Costco, but will never be like Walmart.
Page 1 of 2 | Next
On Workers say union no longer effective
Posted on May 26 at 4:38 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
I had 90k added to my account this year. I know employees that had 225k added to their account. These contributions had nothing to do with the union.