5 ms·

What? Where did you read that? The worker's union won, with full concessions from management, and with nearly all of the employees hired back. The new employee

What? Where did you read that? The worker's union won, with full concessions from management, and with nearly all of the employees hired back. The new employees Kellogg tried to hire to replace the striking workers failed miserably. They didn't have enough workers with domain knowledge to run the plants; the new workers caused the company more money than they saved: > Small fire at Kellogg’s Plant in Lancaster, striking continues in week 11 https://www.abc27.com/news/local/small-fire-at-kelloggs-plant-in-east-hempfield-township/ https://www.abc27.com/news/local/small-fire-at-kelloggs-plan... > UPDATE: Efforts to replace striking Kellogg's workers has been disastrous, workers tell us. Scabs wreaked havoc on the factory, most cereals are not being produced, and a delivery train went off the track yesterday. https://twitter.com/MorePerfectUS/status/1469417376231866375?t=YBXJnSneWFfYX-U3rcgApA&s=19 https://twitter.com/MorePerfectUS/status/1469417376231866375... Management yields 100% to workers, all demands met: > Highlights of the new five-year collective bargaining agreement: • No take aways; No concessions • No permanent two-tier system • A clear path to regular full-time employment • Plant closing moratorium: No plant shut downs through October 2026 • A significant increase in the pension multiplier • Maintenance of cost of living raises > https://bctgm.org/2021/12/21/kelloggs-strike-ends-bctgm-members-ratify-new-contract/ https://bctgm.org/2021/12/21/kelloggs-strike-ends-bctgm-memb... Please post your source that said the Union gave up. There's no way to misinterpret this outcome at all; they clearly won.

matheweis 5y ago
I had also read a few weeks back that Kellogg intended to hire permanent replacements for those on strike. Seems that must not have worked out too well for them... > The Kellogg Company announced Tuesday [Dec 12] that a majority of its U.S. workers have voted against a proposed five-year contract and that the company would hire permanent replacements for the employees who went on strike https://www.npr.org/2021/12/07/1062240467/kellogg-to-hire-replacements-for-striking-workers-who-rejected-a-proposed-contra https://www.npr.org/2021/12/07/1062240467/kellogg-to-hire-re...
- jessaustin 5y ago
  It seems corporate PR isn't made any more reliable by passing through NPR...
- KittenInABox 5y ago
  My understanding is that proposed contract that was being rejected was being rejected because it created a perpetual underclass of juniors who would've had less benefits. The union was supporting the striking workers by rejecting the contract in order to ensure all their members are treated fairly.
- ceejayoz 5y ago
  People flooded the online job application with bullshit. https://www.npr.org/2021/12/10/1063112624/redditors-spam-kelloggs-job-portal-striking-workers-union https://www.npr.org/2021/12/10/1063112624/redditors-spam-kel...
  - throwawaysea 5y ago
    This type of action should be illegal. I see it more and more, including spamming political event registrations and things like that. It just doesn’t seem ethical, and gives me cartel vibes.
    - runnerup 5y ago
      It already is against the law and is called ~~'tortious interference'~~ (corrected). If those who are negatively affected by it want to recoup damages, they have an established mechanism for doing so. I'm not convinced we need more.
      - GavinMcG 5y ago
        Tortious interference is the deliberate interference with a contract between the target and a third party, and generally requires the intent to disrupt performance of that contract. Submitting fake job applications doesn't fit the bill: there's no contractual relationship that it interferes with.
        runnerup 5y ago
        I agree, I mistakenly thought the job portals were those of placement agencies and temp worker agencies. If the job portal is run by a subcontractor (job placement agency) then it could be tortious interference. Perhaps this would fall under fraud.
    - forgotmyoldname 5y ago
      Corporations and political organizations freely spam our inboxes with emails and real mail garbage to milk us for money. I can't possibly get angry at citizens spamming them once in a while. Seems like just a 21st century form of protest--at worst, it inconveniences them.
- genocidicbunny 5y ago
  Turns out that 'unskilled labour' isn't so unskilled, nor fungible. The replacement workers made a mess of things, including derailing a supply train!
jlmorton 5y ago
> Please post your source that said the Union gave up. There's no way to misinterpret this outcome at all; they clearly won. How about the fact that everything you just listed was in the previously-rejected contract that weeks ago the pro-union side was saying was made in bad faith? As far as I can tell, the union now accepts very close to the same contract, and rather than arguing it was made in bad faith, they have switched to arguing they have won absolutely everything they wanted. It's sort of like living in Bizarro World.

matheweis 5y ago

I had also read a few weeks back that Kellogg intended to hire permanent replacements for those on strike. Seems that must not have worked out too well for them... > The Kellogg Company announced Tuesday [Dec 12] that a majority of its U.S. workers have voted against a proposed five-year contract and that the company would hire permanent replacements for the employees who went on strike https://www.npr.org/2021/12/07/1062240467/kellogg-to-hire-replacements-for-striking-workers-who-rejected-a-proposed-contra https://www.npr.org/2021/12/07/1062240467/kellogg-to-hire-re...

jessaustin 5y ago
It seems corporate PR isn't made any more reliable by passing through NPR...
KittenInABox 5y ago
My understanding is that proposed contract that was being rejected was being rejected because it created a perpetual underclass of juniors who would've had less benefits. The union was supporting the striking workers by rejecting the contract in order to ensure all their members are treated fairly.
ceejayoz 5y ago
People flooded the online job application with bullshit. https://www.npr.org/2021/12/10/1063112624/redditors-spam-kelloggs-job-portal-striking-workers-union https://www.npr.org/2021/12/10/1063112624/redditors-spam-kel...
- throwawaysea 5y ago
  This type of action should be illegal. I see it more and more, including spamming political event registrations and things like that. It just doesn’t seem ethical, and gives me cartel vibes.
  - runnerup 5y ago
    It already is against the law and is called ~~'tortious interference'~~ (corrected). If those who are negatively affected by it want to recoup damages, they have an established mechanism for doing so. I'm not convinced we need more.
    - GavinMcG 5y ago
      Tortious interference is the deliberate interference with a contract between the target and a third party, and generally requires the intent to disrupt performance of that contract. Submitting fake job applications doesn't fit the bill: there's no contractual relationship that it interferes with.
      - runnerup 5y ago
        I agree, I mistakenly thought the job portals were those of placement agencies and temp worker agencies. If the job portal is run by a subcontractor (job placement agency) then it could be tortious interference. Perhaps this would fall under fraud.
  - forgotmyoldname 5y ago
    Corporations and political organizations freely spam our inboxes with emails and real mail garbage to milk us for money. I can't possibly get angry at citizens spamming them once in a while. Seems like just a 21st century form of protest--at worst, it inconveniences them.
genocidicbunny 5y ago
Turns out that 'unskilled labour' isn't so unskilled, nor fungible. The replacement workers made a mess of things, including derailing a supply train!

jlmorton 5y ago

> Please post your source that said the Union gave up. There's no way to misinterpret this outcome at all; they clearly won. How about the fact that everything you just listed was in the previously-rejected contract that weeks ago the pro-union side was saying was made in bad faith? As far as I can tell, the union now accepts very close to the same contract, and rather than arguing it was made in bad faith, they have switched to arguing they have won absolutely everything they wanted. It's sort of like living in Bizarro World.