Kellogg's Memphis Plant "Lock-out"

The Kellogg's Memphis plant is in political uproar.

The workers were receiving $28.00 per hr, excellent benefits and healthcare that they did not have to contribute toward. They grossed around $100k per year.

Because of the lower demand for breakfast cereal, due to people eating their breakfast ‘on the go’, Kellogg needed to make some budget changes. They proposed to pay their workers $22.00 per hour instead and have them start to contribute to their benefits.

The Union leaders told the workers to refuse the offer. Production went down. Kellogg had to replace them with temporary employees until they agree or at least negotiate with the proposal. (Keep in mind that these are the same union leaders who "helped" the Hostess workers out of their jobs a year ago)

Thus, the “lockout”.

From the New York Times:

To the locked-out workers, Kellogg is yet another American company seeking to knock middle-class workers down a few pegs and chip away at their pay and benefits. But to Kellogg, the Memphis plant is a high-cost operation with above-market wages that badly need to be brought under control to make the plant competitive.

By far, the main point of contention is Kellogg’s push to greatly expand a group of temporary workers into what would essentially be a permanent lower tier of employees who would earn $6 an hour less than the other workers and have far less generous benefits.

In the company’s view, its Memphis employees have it very good. “Our current employees, on average, earn more than $100,000 annually,” Ms. Charles said. Before overtime, workers average about $58,000 annually

To top it all off, the unionized leaders have decided to make an even more political statement by teaming up with local Civil Rights Leaders, and made a inference to the Workers' Strike proposed by Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

Civil rights groups and numerous local lawmakers have thrown their weight behind the Kellogg workers — the plant’s work force is about 60 percent African-American and 40 percent white. At a church service on Martin Luther King’s Birthday, the Rev. Dwight Montgomery, the president of the Memphis chapter of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, called for a nationwide boycott of Kellogg.

I disagree with unions in general, and differ from my peers on this local topic. In my opinion, they should accept the more than generous proposal and take into account the wage level compared to the skill level. If the lockout continues, the Memphis plant may mimic the North Carolina plant and relocate all together.

What say you?

They seem to be quite well paid, but accepting lower wages is a slippery slope, who's to say that kellogs wont try this again next year, and the year after that?

VoidHawk
They seem to be quite well paid, but accepting lower wages is a slippery slope, who's to say that kellogs wont try this again next year, and the year after that?

Valid point.

However, I see this being a business decison, based soley on economics. Since the demand has decreased, the budget definitely has to be shaped up and reduced.

Besides, going from $28.00 to $22.00 with trimmed benefits will always beat unemployment.

No matter how kelloggs handles the situation they will be the bad guy.
Close the plant to save the corporation, their jerks.
Cut pay to save the plant, their jerks.
Do nothing and go out of business, they were bad managers and jerks.
Kelloggs can't win.

Perhaps if we agreed on reasonable living wages and what that entailed, even as little as keep minimum wage inline with inflation, workers wouldn't feel the need to fight for every change on the fear the corporation will rape them.

reply to post by QueenofSpades


$100,000..... They earn $100,000 p.a.... for watching the machines make cereal.....
In Britain that's £60,000 a year, 90%+ of our country would love wages like that. I'd want to fight to keep that too.

Well, they will learn their lesson the hard way, and I won't feel sorry for them.

The plant will end up closing, and the Union "Reps" will still get their "money", the workers, not so much.

Yet another example of the union outliving it's usefulness.

Idiots.

benrl
Perhaps if we agreed on reasonable living wages and what that entailed, even as little as keep minimum wage inline with inflation, workers wouldn't feel the need to fight for every change on the fear the corporation will rape them.

Right, but determining what wage is considered "livable" is subjective..

When MGT. trims down THEN it's perfectly legit to tell the union leadership wage changes have to be made. You also NEVER see this happen. I'd be curious to see just how top-heavy the admin jobs are before I'd be capping on the union.

chiefsmom
Well, they will learn their lesson the hard way, and I won't feel sorry for them.

The plant will end up closing, and the Union will still get their "money", the workers, not so much.

Yet another example of the union outliving it's usefulness.

Idiots.

Very good point!

This is most likely what will happen, the same as it did with the Hostess workers.

And like you stated, the Union reps will keep getting paid.

reply to post by QueenofSpades



I said this Febuary 3rd in Another post.

Unions, jobs, and wages will be at the forefront of everything this year. Unions will swell and become strong. There will be scandals to discredit them and shut them down. Verbally you will hear of a push to increase wages . The reality is wages will drop significantly. US wages will drop due to imigration. Australian wages will drop to compete with work for the dole. More jobs will off shore with the TPP. By November both Countries will both have Australian and American Springs. Violence is comming. www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by EA006


Exactly, but think about that:

$100k per year to watch a machine make cereal?

They better hope the machine doesn't just take their job altogether. In my opinion it is coming. Look at how the drive-thru clerks at Micky D's don't even have to fix the soft drinks at the window...a machine does it.

We check out at the grocery store with a robot instead of humans

We bank with robots instead of humans

We speak to robots for customer service, instead of humans

The more that technologoy takes over, the less of a demand for a human to do the job period, let alone make $100k per year.

Skills must match the wages, respectively.

As it stands, you should be smarter than or at least as smart as the robot.

As I see it, the only solution is a GM-style taxpayer-funded multi-billion dollar government bailout of the cereal industry. Or, failing that, a way to make a bowl of cereal travel better.

reply to post by QueenofSpades


I detest unions. They are responsible for about 1/3 of the nations problems.

I say break the union, hire scabs, and go on with "business as usual". $28/hr is too much to manufacture cereal. My wife is a nurse and saves people lives every day, and makes far less than that.

QueenofSpades

chiefsmom
Well, they will learn their lesson the hard way, and I won't feel sorry for them.

The plant will end up closing, and the Union will still get their "money", the workers, not so much.

Yet another example of the union outliving it's usefulness.

Idiots.

Very good point!

This is most likely what will happen, the same as it did with the Hostess workers.

And like you stated, the Union reps will keep getting paid.

And Kellogg is making the same mistakes that Hostess made. Back in 2011 they jumped the CEO's pay by 90% making his yearly pay over 6 million a year they did this even though stocks were dropping. If Kellogg is hurting like they claim then why not start cutting the overpaid CEO's and upper managements pay before starting on the people that really does the work. People always cry unions are the blame without looking at the bigger picture.

link

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan


Exactly. This has never made sense to me.

I beleive it is to come with an ever-increasing population of the entitlement generation. Everyone gets a trophy, no matter what place they come in, there is protest about 'livable' wages, and everyone has the "right" to a cell phone.

These workers do not understand that wages usually match the skill, and the skill needs to be in demand. This is basic economics 101. Kellogg Cereal is not in demand as it once was, yet the workers can't make the connection that they have to be paid less unless demand goes up.

bigfatfurrytexan
reply to post by QueenofSpades

 

I detest unions. They are responsible for about 1/3 of the nations problems.

I say break the union, hire scabs, and go on with "business as usual". $28/hr is too much to manufacture cereal. My wife is a nurse and saves people lives every day, and makes far less than that.

Yes let's kill off the middle class something that America wouldn't have without unions.

(edit)

bigfatfurrytexan
reply to post by QueenofSpades

 

I detest unions. They are responsible for about 1/3 of the nations problems.

Only because they sold out and really work for the corps!

reply to post by buster2010


However, one could beg the question: Whose in more demand? An educated CEO with the know-how to run a company, or a person that has low education, low skills, and turns on the machines that do the work?

That is not a derrogatory remark to the workers, just stating the reality of the skillset needed to perform their job.