# Deere Strike



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

*CEDAR RAPIDS, Iowa (KCRG) —*
“This is probably the best bargaining position that John Deere has been in many years,” Iowa State University economics professor Peter Orazem said. “I mean the company is doing very well and the company wants to be expanding and doesn’t have enough workers”

John Deere is projected to earn $6 billion this fiscal year, which is a new record, shattering the previous revenue record set in 2013 by 61%. The company employs about 7,000 workers around Iowa.

More than 10,000 John Deere workers could go on strike for the first time in 30 years.

KCRG reports the United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Workers (UAW) and John Deere were back at the negotiating table in Moline, Illinois, Monday.


This came after union members overwhelmingly rejected a new contract Sunday night with John Deere.

Approximately 90% of union members voted “no” to the tentative agreement reached, which was announced Friday. The tentative agreement came after an extension was announced in September to avoid the original Oct. 1 deadline.

UAW Local 838, based out of Waterloo, posted on its Facebook another extension will occur until Wednesday at 11:59 p.m. If there is no deal, a strike will begin at that time. It would be the first strike since 1986, which lasted more than five months.

Orazem said strikes have become very uncommon, especially during economic slowdowns, and that the current situation is different because employees have more leverage due to labor shortages.










John Deere, UAW resume negotiations after contract rejection; strike possible


More than 10,000 John Deere workers could go on strike for the first time in 30 years.




www.kcci.com


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

That's terrible news with dear season right around the corner.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

mreynolds said:


> That's terrible news with dear season right around the corner.


Already open here


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

Tractor loader is an excellent way to hang deer for processing.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

HDRider said:


> Already open here


Bow season here but I can't pull it now since my hernia. Been thinking about getting a crossbow. 

What do you think about the Deere strike?


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

GTX63 said:


> Tractor loader is an excellent way to hang deer for processing.


But what if your can't buy a Deere for your dear?


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

I've owned several green deers and hung deer with them. The blue, orange and red ones do the job just as well for less pay and have never threatened to quit on me.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

mreynolds said:


> What do you think about the Deere strike?


I am in favor of workers getting a piece of the profit. That said, they need to also shoulder part of the burden during lean years.

Deere annual/quarterly gross profit history and growth rate from 2006 to 2021. Gross profit can be defined as the profit a company makes after deducting the variable costs directly associated with making and selling its products or providing its services.

Deere gross profit for the quarter ending July 31, 2021 was *$3.953B*, a *27.93% increase* year-over-year.
Deere gross profit for the twelve months ending July 31, 2021 was *$14.650B*, a *24.53% increase* year-over-year.
Deere annual gross profit for 2020 was *$11.863B*, a *4.84% decline* from 2019.
Deere annual gross profit for 2019 was *$12.466B*, a *5.76% increase* from 2018.
Deere annual gross profit for 2018 was *$11.787B*, a *19.4% increase* from 2017.





__





Deere Profits Jump 50% to Record $1.21B - CFO


Deere & Co. shares jumped more than 5% on Friday after the world’s largest farm-equipment maker reported record quarterly profits on a surge in equipment sales. For the second quarter, Deere’s net income rose 50% to $1.21 billion, or $3.67 per share, while worldwide net sales and revenues...




www.cfo.com


----------



## rbelfield (Mar 30, 2015)

There are several Deere plants right up the road from me...in Waterloo IA. I have friends who work there. Most of them dont understand the common wage around here for manufacturing is much much less than Deeres pays. I kind of dont feel terrible sorry for either side. The company makes alot of money and so do the workers.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Like any spoiled child….. I want my share, or I’ll throw a tantrum!


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Evons hubby said:


> Like any spoiled child….. I want my share, or I’ll throw a tantrum!


Is it wrong to want to share in the profit?


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

HDRider said:


> Is it wrong to want to share in the profit?


Nope, if you want a share of the profit buy stock. That’s how honest people do it.


----------



## rbelfield (Mar 30, 2015)

HDRider said:


> Is it wrong to want to share in the profit?


it seems they ARE sharing in it with their awesome salaries and great benefits!


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

rbelfield said:


> it seems they ARE sharing in it with their awesome salaries and great benefits!


Exactly.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Evons hubby said:


> Nope, if you want a share of the profit buy stock. That’s how honest people do it.


They can buy stock.

They want more of the operating profit. Why is that wrong?


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

rbelfield said:


> it seems they ARE sharing in it with their awesome salaries and great benefits!


So they should not have any more? You think they get enough of the pie?


----------



## rbelfield (Mar 30, 2015)

HDRider said:


> So they should not have any more? You think they get enough of the pie?


yes, i do think they get enough of the pie. the whole idea of deeres is ridiculous. you pay twice as much for every green piece of machinery, at least twice as much for every part you need when the damn thing breaks down, and the factory workers make twice as much as anyone else in the area. if they keep going up with everything, no one will be able to buy a green tractor because you know the powers that be are just going to increase the cost of the tractor to pass their expenses on. its a never ending cycle. we are quite happy with our off brand red tractor. does all the work it needs and cost a quarter of what a green one does.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

HDRider said:


> They can buy stock.
> 
> They want more of the operating profit. Why is that wrong?


Mostly because it’s not theirs. Theft by any name is wrong, but you know that.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

rbelfield said:


> yes, i do think they get enough of the pie. the whole idea of deeres is ridiculous. you pay twice as much for every green piece of machinery, at least twice as much for every part you need when the damn thing breaks down, and the factory workers make twice as much as anyone else in the area. if they keep going up with everything, no one will be able to buy a green tractor because you know the powers that be are just going to increase the cost of the tractor to pass their expenses on. its a never ending cycle. we are quite happy with our off brand red tractor. does all the work it needs and cost a quarter of what a green one does.


Deere had record profit.

Deer management sets the price of tractors.

Management gets a slice of the profit. Management bonuses fluctuate, up in the good times, and down in the bad times. Why shouldn't labor get a bonus when things are good, and then in turn shoulder the lean times like management does?


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

HDRider said:


> They can buy stock.
> 
> They want more of the operating profit. Why is that wrong?


It doesn't have to be right or wrong.

While others can choose their own kind of rudder to guide them, I tend to view ownership and labor as a Matthew 20v15 thing.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Evons hubby said:


> Mostly because it’s not theirs. Theft by any name is wrong, but you know that.


How is wanting a higher wage, or a bonus based on company performance theft?

Are you saying they should work for free?


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

HDRider said:


> Why shouldn't labor get a bonus when things are good, and then in turn shoulder the lean times like management does?


Unions don't vote for things like that.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

GTX63 said:


> It doesn't have to be right or wrong.
> 
> While others can choose their own kind of rudder to guide them, I tend to view ownership and labor as a Matthew 20v15 thing.


Labor is as much an owner as management.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

HDRider said:


> How is wanting a higher wage, or a bonus based on company performance theft?
> 
> Are you saying they should work for free?


You are arguing incrementalism on one hand and absolutism on the other.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

HDRider said:


> How is wanting a higher wage, or a bonus based on company performance theft?
> 
> Are you saying they should work for free?


Nope. They don’t work for free. they get paid, and paid quite well as I understand it.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

GTX63 said:


> Unions don't vote for things like that.


I am not a union negotiator. I am arguing for a more fair sharing of the profit, and the loss.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

GTX63 said:


> You are arguing incrementalism on one hand and absolutism on the other.


I do not understand your comment


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

HDRider said:


> Labor is as much an owner as management.


Ummmm no! Just plain no!


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Evons hubby said:


> Nope. They don’t work for free. they get paid, and paid quite well as I understand it.


So the pay they get is not theft, but wanting more pay than they are offered by management is theft?


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Evons hubby said:


> Ummmm no! Just plain no!


Why not?

I have seen all kinds of employees get stock grants.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

HDRider said:


> Labor is as much an owner as management.





HDRider said:


> I am not a union negotiator. I am arguing for a more fair sharing of the profit, and the loss.


Profit should not factor into what is considered the F word, a "fair wage" during negotiations.
But then my business principals are not modernized nor elightened.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

HDRider said:


> So the pay they get is not theft, but wanting more pay than they are offered by management is theft?


Wanting more is one thing. using strong arm robbery to get it is quite another.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

HDRider said:


> I do not understand your comment


You are creating the picture of a worker simply wanting a better standard of living vs ownership seeking a zero wage scale. I know that isn't what you meant but it is a common technique used in a lot of hot button issues.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

GTX63 said:


> Profit should not factor into what is considered the F word, a "fair wage" during negotiations.
> But then my business principals are not modernized nor elightened.


Fair is fair, regardless of how the reward is shared. I am not saying all reward has to be in the form of a wage. It can be a one time, or variable annual bonus structure. 

Elasticity is called for on both sides of the negotiating table.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Evons hubby said:


> Wanting more is one thing. using strong arm robbery to get it is quite another.


How else can they negotiate if not collectively?


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

HDRider said:


> How else can they negotiate if not collectively?


Individually.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

GTX63 said:


> You are creating the picture of a worker simply wanting a better standard of living vs ownership seeking a zero wage scale. I know that isn't what you meant but it is a common technique used in a lot of hot button issues.


I am not using a "technique". I am simply saying that the idea of management sharing profit, and only offering a take it or leave it hourly wage is wrong.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

HDRider said:


> I am not using a "technique". I am simply saying that the idea of management sharing profit, and only offering a take it or leave it hourly wage is wrong.


How is it wrong to offer someone a wage, and letting them decide if they want it or not?


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Evons hubby said:


> Individually.


There is no hope of that working in a production environment. That works in a management role because what you do is more individualized and not as much a commodity as a machine operator. 

Simply stated you are not in favor of collective bargaining. Just say that.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

HDRider said:


> Fair is fair, regardless of how the reward is shared. I am not saying all reward has to be in the form of a wage. It can be a one time, or variable annual bonus structure.
> 
> Elasticity is called for on both sides of the negotiating table.


The Case & New Holland guys I have known have always made less than what Deere paid. I am no fan of record profits being divvied up for CEO bonuses and stock shares and fat checks to board members only. Maybe the Union has standing here. I just tend to weigh market factors ie industry standard pay vs expectations of a seat at the owner's table for some of the pie.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Evons hubby said:


> How is it wrong to offer someone a wage, and letting them decide if they want it or not?


That is exactly what is happening now with Deere.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

HDRider said:


> There is no hope of that working in a production environment. That works in a management role because what you do is more individualized and not as much a commodity as a machine operator.
> 
> Simply stated you are not in favor of collective bargaining. Just say that.


I’m opposed to theft, under any name.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

HDRider said:


> I am not using a "technique". I am simply saying that the idea of management sharing profit, and only offering a take it or leave it hourly wage is wrong.


Wrong from what standpoint? Business, moral?


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

GTX63 said:


> The Case & New Holland guys I have known have always made less than what Deere paid. I am no fan of record profits being divvied up for CEO bonuses and stock shares and fat checks to board members only. Maybe the Union has standing here. I just tend to weigh market factors ie industry standard pay vs expectations of a seat at the owner's table for some of the pie.


No one group has a greater claim on profit than the other. It is a partnership, or it is more like a feudal system, one or the other


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Evons hubby said:


> I’m opposed to theft, under any name.


But you cannot even define theft


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

HDRider said:


> That is exactly what is happening now with Deere.


And then let anyone who doesn’t like the offer clean out his locker and leave.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

GTX63 said:


> moral


And one could easily make an argument that it is shortsighted from a business perspective when the relationship is adversarial. A pissed off worker will not make a good product


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Evons hubby said:


> And then let anyone who doesn’t like the offer clean out his locker and leave.


That is what they plan to do


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

HDRider said:


> No one group has a greater claim on profit than the other. It is a partnership, or it is more like a feudal system, one or the other


A business owner is the owner. Period. They have sole rights to profits they make.


----------



## rbelfield (Mar 30, 2015)

HDRider said:


> Deere had record profit.
> 
> Deer management sets the price of tractors.
> 
> Management gets a slice of the profit. Management bonuses fluctuate, up in the good times, and down in the bad times. Why shouldn't labor get a bonus when things are good, and then in turn shoulder the lean times like management does?


Their wages dont go down during the lean times tho. There isnt alot of sympathy for the workers around here as they are the highest paid people in the area for what they do.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

HDRider said:


> That is what they plan to do


Good, what seems to be their holdup?


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Evons hubby said:


> A business owner is the owner. Period. They have sole rights to profits they make.


There are 310 million owners at Deere


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Evons hubby said:


> Good, what seems to be their holdup?


I did not say there is one. You did and called the workers thieves.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

rbelfield said:


> Their wages dont go down during the lean times tho. There isnt alot of sympathy for the workers around here as they are the highest paid people in the area for what they do.


Yup, they aren’t big on shouldering the bad times!


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

HDRider said:


> I did not say there is one. You did and called the workers thieves.


The article doesn’t mention that any of the workers have quit. If not why not?


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

rbelfield said:


> Their wages dont go down during the lean times tho. There isnt alot of sympathy for the workers around here as they are the highest paid people in the area for what they do.


Then management is obligated to move to a lower wage area, or labor has an obligation to accept prevailing pay.

That is what will happen.

I just think there is a better way to set reward than a battle that pits the two parties against each other, and everyone, especially the customer suffers. Like I said, a pissed off worker make a piss poor product.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Evons hubby said:


> The article doesn’t mention that any of the workers have quit. If not why not?


It is stupid to play dumb


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

HDRider said:


> Then management is obligated to move to a lower wage area, or labor has an obligation to accept prevailing pay.
> 
> That is what will happen.
> 
> I just think there is a better way to set reward than a battle that pits the two parties against each other, and everyone, especially the customer suffers. Like I said, a pissed off worker make a piss poor product.


Any worker making a poor product should be fired.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Evons hubby said:


> Any worker making a poor product should be fired.


They can play all kinds of games and it never points back to them. 

You only think in terms of win/lose. There are lose/lose, and there are win/win situations.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

HDRider said:


> It is stupid to play dumb


And yet here you are, taking up for theives.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Evons hubby said:


> And yet here you are, taking up for theives.


To you they are thieves.


----------



## Vjk (Apr 28, 2020)

The last riding mower I bought is a Deere. Don't like it. The seat is made for someone under 5'6". no grab bars, have to replace the belt ~2-3 times a year. Or more. I can never buy a belt when I need it so I have to keep an extra on hand. When this Deere dies, I'm going back to Husqvarna. 
My tractor is Kubota. 15 years and 0 problems.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

HDRider said:


> To you they are thieves.


Only if they use strong arm tactics to steal from the rightful shareholders. Remember them? The 310 million people who bought the rights to any profits.


----------



## Elevenpoint (Nov 17, 2009)

Nobody mentioned a profit sharing program at Deere.
Do they have one?
Not uncommon.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Elevenpoint said:


> Nobody mentioned a profit sharing program at Deere.
> Do they have one?
> Not uncommon.


That is what I am suggesting.

I do not know if they have one now


----------



## TripleD (Feb 12, 2011)

My tenants work for me. I provide a decent living environment in return for my pay. I'm the take it or leave of type of man. Collective bargaining wouldn't make sense to me. Someone else will take their place should they decide to quit...


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

TripleD said:


> Collective bargaining wouldn't make sense to me


I am the first to admit collective barging sets up an adversarial relationship.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

HDRider said:


> I am the first to admit collective barging sets up an adversarial relationship.


So I am trying to understand your pov. Is this your preference for employment relationships regarding corporations/unions or would you like to see this type of sharing incentives throughout all workplaces?


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

HDRider said:


> I am the first to admit collective barging sets up an adversarial relationship.


It certainly does. Anytime someone starts using force to get into the next fellers wallet it spells trouble.


----------



## Pony (Jan 6, 2003)

HDRider said:


> They can buy stock.
> 
> They want more of the operating profit. Why is that wrong?


It's not wrong if they are also willing to share in the risk. Don't see a lot of them offering to do that.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

GTX63 said:


> So I am trying to understand your pov. Is this your preference for employment relationships regarding corporations/unions or would you like to see this type of sharing incentives throughout all workplaces?


All the compensation does not have to come through one stream.

I had a salary. I got a bonus based on company performance, if I got it. I got stock grants.

That seems fair.

The Union/Management thing feels like the King and Lords bestowing favors on the peasants working the land. No matter how well I have ever seen it go, it is always a win/lose. Lots of animosity, and it lingers well up until the next negotiation. Lots of things in the kingdom suffer.


----------



## Forcast (Apr 15, 2014)

Did they get vaccinated before strike?


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Pony said:


> It's not wrong if they are also willing to share in the risk.


I am suggesting everyone does, or should.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Forcast said:


> Did they get vaccinated before strike?


Hopefully no one gets shot


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

But do you believe the method you have suggested should be applied to all workplaces, all working relationships between boss/employee, corp/union, etc?


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

HDRider said:


> All the compensation does not have to come through one stream.
> 
> I had a salary. I got a bonus based on company performance, if I got it. I got stock grants.
> 
> ...


It is fair. As long as it was the terms agreed to by all parties at the outset.
when I worked real estate my broker would double our salary every year. Sounds great on paper but we had no salary! Two times nuthin is still nuthin. If we wanted to earn more we needed to sell more. That was fair.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

GTX63 said:


> But do you believe the method you have suggested should be applied to all workplaces, all working relationships between boss/employee, corp/union, etc?


I am trying to think where it would not work. Nothing pops into my mind. I just don't know. Knowing one thing works poorly (e.g. Union/Management) does not automatically imbibe one with what the better alternative is.

I have to ask you, why not?

The idea that one individual creates a business, and at some point is able to share ownership as a form of reward, while still maintaining control, seems immensely interesting.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

Just hypothetically, there is a fella on here that lives a little north of you that claims to pay his highschool workers $20-$25 an hour for day labor, plus bennies and bonuses. Some make even more than that he says.
He is having record profits on lumber, pigs, chickens and seemingly whatever he touches.
Would it be fair to ask him to set up savings accounts and rainy day money for the down times, winter layoffs or sick days? Where would he be if he was the head cook and bottle washer?


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

Are you of the opinion that it should be better for an employee to demand more from his company when the times are good, or to market themselves for every penny they can get?


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

HDRider said:


> I am trying to think where it would not work.


it wouldn’t work in any business I own.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

GTX63 said:


> Just hypothetically, there is a fella on here that lives a little north of you that claims to pay his highschool workers $20-$25 an hour for day labor, plus bennies and bonuses. Some make even more than that he says.
> He is having record profits on lumber, pigs, chickens and seemingly whatever he touches.
> Would it be fair to ask him to set up savings accounts and rainy day money for the down times, winter layoffs or sick days? Where would he be if he was the head cook and bottle washer?


No. You don't work, you don't get paid, unless it is some kind of workers comp for work place injuries or whatever.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

GTX63 said:


> Are you of the opinion that it should be better for an employee to demand more from his company when the times are good, or to market themselves for every penny they can get?


A person should always be able to move along.

Are you familiar with cliff vesting?


----------



## Redlands Okie (Nov 28, 2017)

I am self employed and I believe what is left over after paying the bills at the end of the month is mine. I will take and keep the profit and I do not expect the employee to get any. On the other hand they suffer no risk of not being able to pay my bills, UNLESS things get bad enough and then they will loose their job. It’s business, I will protect myself above all, and do not blame a employee for doing the same. I will strive to keep them employed, after all a good employee is the best tool there is in the tool box, and they know that. They are going to charge me what the market will handle. I can pay or they go elsewhere. It’s business. 

It’s more than obvious that Deere is charging what the market will handle for their product for as long as they can. Its business. It’s not any different with large corporation or their employees. Those employees know full well that if times get bad they will loose their job and the corporate management will not hesitate to fire them. Why in the world would people not expect those employees to get what they can when they can?

Now one work around of all these issues is profit sharing. It’s fairly common and employees know that they are getting a piece of the profit when times are good. On the other hand, in the back of their mind, they know full well they will be fired if the profits get low enough…………….


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

HDRider said:


> No. You don't work, you don't get paid, unless it is some kind of workers comp for work place injuries or whatever.


My intent isn't to badger, but rather to drill down a bit. I am trying to find your point of differentiating between who deserves profit sharing, if any.
Say you had a stay at home wife who had a very lucrative job offer with travel, that would require a housekeeper, a nanny, maybe someone to manage the horses, or cattle and help with chores, etc. 2-3 people lets say. Without them, she would have to stay home, therefore no fat income, bonuses, vehicle, perks, stock options.
Or similar to the previous scenario, you own a little 5 & 10 store, using highschool kids after school and a couple of full timers. Since labor is the backbone of most every company, don't they also deserve the same path to the profit pie as the Deere workers? 
Why should scale matter? 
Without a union, how could you be compelled to open your books and pay a fair share to your crews?
Wouldn't coming to work everyday for a slightly above rate and witnessing your own lifestyle create an attitude of envy and resentment?


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

HDRider said:


> A person should always be able to move along.
> 
> Are you familiar with cliff vesting?


If you are earning top tier wages for a company at the head of the pack, what would be the motivation to move along?

Yes I am aware of cliff vesting and creating multiple streams to enhance employee income.

I am asking you if you believe an employee is automatically worth more because of their owner's earnings?

Is fair a static term or fluid? Does "Fair to share" only apply in the realm of the John Deere strike?


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

GTX63 said:


> My intent isn't to badger, but rather to drill down a bit. I am trying to find your point of differentiating between who deserves profit sharing, if any.
> Say you had a stay at home wife who had a very lucrative job offer with travel, that would require a housekeeper, a nanny, maybe someone to manage the horses, or cattle and help with chores, etc. 2-3 people lets say. Without them, she would have to stay home, therefore no fat income, bonuses, vehicle, perks, stock options.
> Or similar to the previous scenario, you own a little 5 & 10 store, using highschool kids after school and a couple of full timers. Since labor is the backbone of most every company, don't they also deserve the same path to the profit pie as the Deere workers?
> Why should scale matter?
> ...


You are not badgering. I enjoy putting meat on the bones.


First, let me say, my suggestion is not to mandate anything, or create any new law. It is just another way to reward workers. No one should be compelled by any force other than their conscious. 

In the example you used, again, the owner has the right to reward in any manner he chooses, and the market allows.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

GTX63 said:


> I am asking you if you believe an employee is automatically worth more because of their owner's earnings?


Some might be. It is based purely on contribution to the success of the business. That said, I do think the opportunity of a very profitable business should allow for a very well paid janitor. 



GTX63 said:


> Is fair a static term or fluid? Does "Fair to share" only apply in the realm of the John Deere strike?


I cannot think of a situation where fair has multiple meanings. Fair means sharing the success, and sharing the challenges, sharing the lean times.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Workers in various industries nationwide are threatening to go on strike in a sweeping effort to secure higher pay and better working conditions.

More than 100,000 unionized employees — between Hollywood production crew members, John Deere factory workers and Kaiser Permanente nurses — have overwhelmingly voted to authorize strikes and are preparing to join the picket line unless they get stronger collective bargaining agreements.

Thousands are already on strike, including 2,000 New York hospital workers, 700 Massachusetts nurses and 1,400 Kellogg plant workers in Michigan, Nebraska, Pennsylvania and Tennessee.









More than 100K workers threaten strikes as unions flex muscles


Workers in various industries nationwide are threatening to go on strike in a sweeping effort to secure higher pay and better working conditions.




thehill.com


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

Yet, when you hear of politicians and employees referring to "fair share" how many of them are including those lean times?
I know of no employment agreement that includes them.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

HDRider said:


> Some might be. It is based purely on contribution to the success of the business. That said, I do think the opportunity of a very profitable business should allow for a very well paid janitor.
> 
> 
> I cannot think of a situation where fair has multiple meanings. Fair means sharing the success, and sharing the challenges, sharing the lean times.


Then it sounds like you are advocating for pay to be based on a sliding scale, determined by the success of the employer, rather than area, experience, market, current wages.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

I'll include merit in the above. I was told numerous times by management and Union reps in several jobs, both private and government, that merit increases were not allowed. What would have been fair for one was not considered fair for the rest.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

GTX63 said:


> Yet, when you hear of politicians and employees referring to "fair share" how many of them are including those lean times?
> I know of no employment agreement that includes them.


Please do not equate any idea I might share with the thieves we vote into office. I hate who they are and what they do

My bonus was less, my raise was smaller during lean times. You should not expect to share the good, if you are unwilling to share the bad.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

GTX63 said:


> Then it sounds like you are advocating for pay to be based on a sliding scale, determined by the success of the employer, rather than area, experience, market, current wages.


It is one factor, but all those things are factors.


----------



## Fishindude (May 19, 2015)

Sure hope this doesn't get ugly.
Last thing we need is for Deere to relocate overseas.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Fishindude said:


> Sure hope this doesn't get ugly.
> Last thing we need is for Deere to relocate overseas.


Would it not be management's obligation to move their company to a an area with lower wages? Management is responsible for maximizing profit. High labor costs eats profit.


----------



## Fishindude (May 19, 2015)

HDRider said:


> Would it not be management's obligation to move their company to a an area with lower wages? Management is responsible for maximizing profit. High labor costs eats profit.


I'm not taking your response too serious as I see that many of your threads and comments are simply to get people thinking and in some cases to "stir them up", which is fine.

Anyone with half a lick of sense realizes that labor is only a small piece of the cost in manufacturing a piece of equipment. There are also huge costs involved to pull up stakes and relocate.
However, it wouldn't be the first big business that organized labor (the UAW) has sunk.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

HDRider said:


> Please do not equate any idea I might share with the thieves we vote into office. I hate who they are and what they do
> 
> My bonus was less, my raise was smaller during lean times. You should not expect to share the good, if you are unwilling to share the bad.


Which is why I consider "Fair" a foul four letter f bomb when it comes to jobs, taxes and opportunity.
I am asking you how you can equate fair to one area of the workforce without including the whole? You are already living in a "where is mine" society; fair to the majority does not include the bad times. 
Fair to most means more of what the ones with the most have.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

Fishindude said:


> I'm not taking your response too serious as I see that many of your threads and comments are simply to get people thinking and in some cases to "stir them up", which is fine.


I consider on line discussions with persons of interesting views to be engaging. In this case I am simply trying to absorb a rational.
More often than not, those with a strong opposing opinion are dishonest cowards. They cannot defend what they many times already know is a weak argument, so they change the subject or refuse to answer questions.
They are a waste of time.
When discussions are honest, not trolling, and willing to examine other ideas, there is little of the juvenile behavior.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

GTX63 said:


> Fair to most means more of what the ones with the most have.


I do not let others change the definition of a word, or sully its meaning. Fair means fair to all parties.

I can see how the definition of "fair" is subjective. What is fair to one, might not be to another. Simply said, fair means neither party feels disadvantaged or taken advantage of by their circumstances. 

@Fishindude is right, I do post to provoke thought. 

My thought is - Too much wealth is landing into too few hands. Nothing good will come from that.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Fishindude said:


> I'm not taking your response too serious as I see that many of your threads and comments are simply to get people thinking and in some cases to "stir them up", which is fine.
> 
> Anyone with half a lick of sense realizes that labor is only a small piece of the cost in manufacturing a piece of equipment. There are also huge costs involved to pull up stakes and relocate.
> However, it wouldn't be the first big business that organized labor (the UAW) has sunk.


I am very serious. 

I do try to make people think. I never intend to make someone mad, or "stir them up". I can't help if thinking is hard on some people.

I have moved plants, and it is just a cost of doing business. The most basic cost benefit analysis.

Our tax code is such that the cost to relocate is a good write off. It is a business expense. And I can carry it on my books until I need it.

Plus, our tax code makes moving a business to lower tax countries attractive.

The US government dos not do anything that makes sense, but stupid people feel good about it because they don't think, they don't get "stirred up".


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

HDRider said:


> I do not let others change the definition of a word, or sully its meaning. Fair means fair to all parties.
> My thought is - Too much wealth is landing into too few hands. Nothing good will come from that.


Yet how many believe the US is a Democracy?
Would you rather fair be a collective or specific to the individual?

Rules are adjusted to suit those with the means to adjust the rules. 
Corps like Pfizer, Google, Disney benefit from the ability to crush competition.
I don't see John Deere in the same light.

Life isn't always fair nor is it promised to be.
Opportunity should be though.
Higher wages because, or wealth redistribution because, aren't solutions.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

GTX63 said:


> Yet how many believe the US is a Democracy? *How does that matter?*
> Would you rather fair be a collective or specific to the individual? *If one is fair to the individual, by extension they are more fair to the collective. *
> 
> Rules are adjusted to suit those with the means to adjust the rules. *That is corrupting the intent of "the system"*
> ...


I am not sure who you are challenging, because your comment bears no resemblance to what I have tried to say. Maybe it is this mode of communication


----------



## barnbilder (Jul 1, 2005)

HDRider said:


> Would it not be management's obligation to move their company to a an area with lower wages? Management is responsible for maximizing profit. High labor costs eats profit.





Fishindude said:


> Sure hope this doesn't get ugly.
> Last thing we need is for Deere to relocate overseas.


Ten of fourteen John Deere plants are already there.


----------



## Redlands Okie (Nov 28, 2017)

GTX63 said:


> My intent isn't to badger, but rather to drill down a bit. I am trying to find your point of differentiating between who deserves profit sharing, if any.
> Say you had a stay at home wife who had a very lucrative job offer with travel, that would require a housekeeper, a nanny, maybe someone to manage the horses, or cattle and help with chores, etc. 2-3 people lets say. Without them, she would have to stay home, therefore no fat income, bonuses, vehicle, perks, stock options.
> Or similar to the previous scenario, you own a little 5 & 10 store, using highschool kids after school and a couple of full timers. Since labor is the backbone of most every company, don't they also deserve the same path to the profit pie as the Deere workers?
> Why should scale matter?
> ...



“Wouldn't coming to work everyday for a slightly above rate and witnessing your own lifestyle create an attitude of envy and resentment?”

In my thoughts that is called motivation to do better.


----------



## Redlands Okie (Nov 28, 2017)

barnbilder said:


> Ten of fourteen John Deere plants are already there.


Now factor in the amount of foreign product brought into the USA to be used on the equipment “made” here.


----------



## Redlands Okie (Nov 28, 2017)

I can see where a form of profit sharing might help motivate a worker to have less mistakes, call in sick less, to stay at their job year in and year out, in general to be a better employee, assuming they remember why they are getting a bonus. 

If a welder is worth XXX price per hour in wages in a area, why would the same welder be worth a larger wage at a company that makes a lot of profit versus a company that makes less profit ?


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

Redlands Okie said:


> “Wouldn't coming to work everyday for a slightly above rate and witnessing your own lifestyle create an attitude of envy and resentment?”
> 
> In my thoughts that is called motivation to do better.


I agree. American society however, is being taught otherwise.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

Redlands Okie said:


> If a welder is worth XXX price per hour in wages in a area, why would the same welder be worth a larger wage at a company that makes a lot of profit versus a company that makes less profit ?


As a group, it would be tying wages to profits.


----------



## Danaus29 (Sep 12, 2005)

Redlands Okie said:


> I can see where a form of profit sharing might help motivate a worker to have less mistakes, call in sick less, to stay at their job year in and year out, in general to be a better employee, assuming they remember why they are getting a bonus.
> 
> If a welder is worth XXX price per hour in wages in a area, why would the same welder be worth a larger wage at a company that makes a lot of profit versus a company that makes less profit ?


Unfortunately with most companies, the profit sharing or bonuses tied to plant performance are given across the board with no difference between the lazy worker who makes everyone elses job more difficult and the person who spends more time doing the job of 5 people while neglecting their family obligations.


----------



## Danaus29 (Sep 12, 2005)

I wonder if striking workers will lose their jobs before long. It's too easy for companies to move production overseas like Ford has done, or simply close up shop and lay everyone off like WonderBread did.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

They did it -

New York (CNN Business)About 10,000 members of the United Auto Workers union went on strike against farm and construction equipment maker John Deere early Thursday morning.

The UAW had reached a tentative agreement on a new six-year contact with the company two weeks ago, only to see 90% of the rank-and-file members of the union reject it in a ratification vote that concluded this past Sunday. Union and management negotiators talked into the night Wednesday trying to reach a new deal but were unable to do so.


----------



## barnbilder (Jul 1, 2005)

Why would anybody buy a John Deere, haven't been able to find a good reason in decades. Best idea so far is resale value, but there is absolutely no reason for them to have a resale value.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

I haven't had any of their big Ag tractors but I owned maybe a half dozen of their late model compacts and sub compact models. No issues with them that other manufacturers don't have. I can get a Kioti, LS, Case to do the same job with as many or more options for less money, and their accessories will fit across multiple platforms.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

barnbilder said:


> Why would anybody buy a John Deere, haven't been able to find a good reason in decades. Best idea so far is resale value, but there is absolutely no reason for them to have a resale value.


Brand loyalty. 
There is green, and then there are the other colors.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

Sales of tractors, 40 hp and under, are *up 15.2% for the year through June*, compared to the same period in 2020. Tractor sales in the 40-100 hp range are up 19.4% for 2021 compared to the same six-month period in 2020.

Just my opinion, but I would think the trend will continue, in spite of any virus, economic turmoil, political nonsense and on.
Labor likely sees this. Management maybe sees something else in the long term.


----------



## barnbilder (Jul 1, 2005)

My tractor dealer says that the market right now is driven by the deer lease owner. 30 hp, 4 wheel drive, with a bucket. Push out roads, plant food plots, bush hog. These are for playing, not for farming, not that you couldn't do a lot of farming with one like that, but these aren't farmers buying them.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

I agree. Many of the folks who bought my tractors needed a lesson on what stuff did. I can't count how many times I had to put a tractor they bought on their trailer for them. Go to tractorbynet forum and you can read endless threads about suburbanite newbie owners. They wax them, armorall them, spray tire foam to give a shine to those R4s.


----------



## barnbilder (Jul 1, 2005)

My tractor dealer loves it. They buy them, tear them up, and come buy another one, have them fixed, upgrade, etc.. None of them know how to operate a tractor. None of them really need a tractor. But they are convinced they have to have one to get big bucks like on the magazine covers. (What it takes to make those is a semen tank.)


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

GTX63 said:


> I agree. Many of the folks who bought my tractors needed a lesson on what stuff did. I can't count how many times I had to put a tractor they bought on their trailer for them. Go to tractorbynet forum and you can read endless threads about suburbanite newbie owners. They wax them, armorall them, spray tire foam to give a shine to those R4s.


I can relate to that a little with all the new stuff they put on them now. I was using an 8N Ford my whole life until I got to be an adult. Sophomore year in ag they had a tractor driving contest to see who would go to contest. I could see how to start the dang thing but that was it. The was too many bells and whistles for me to figure out. 

After I watched the teacher get on it I saw where everything was and tried again. Some of those today look like they belong in a sci-fi flick.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

14 plants on strike

The contracts under negotiation covered 14 Deere plants across the United States, including seven in Iowa, four in Illinois and one each in Kansas, Colorado and Georgia.

The contract talks at the Moline, Illinois-based company were unfolding as Deere is expecting to report record profits between $5.7 billion and $5.9 billion this year. The company has been reporting strong sales of its agricultural and construction equipment this year.









More than 10,000 John Deere workers go on strike at 14 U.S. plants


35 years have passed since the last major Deere strike, but workers were emboldened to demand more this year after working long hours throughout the pandemic and because companies are facing worker shortages.




www.cbsnews.com


----------



## Hiro (Feb 14, 2016)

barnbilder said:


> My tractor dealer says that the market right now is driven by the deer lease owner. 30 hp, 4 wheel drive, with a bucket. Push out roads, plant food plots, bush hog. These are for playing, not for farming, not that you couldn't do a lot of farming with one like that, but these aren't farmers buying them.


I bought one some years ago. It had 32 hours on it, came with a mowing deck, tiller and bucket. The story I got from the Kubota dealer that I bought it from was a farmer bought it for his better half and after numerous malfunctions and poor dealer service, he traded all his green equipment in for orange. 

As a side note, it now has 259 hours on it and I have spent just about as much time working on it. I think Deere has two segmented businesses, the real equipment and what they sell hobby farmers.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

Hiro said:


> I bought one some years ago. It had 32 hours on it, came with a mowing deck, tiller and bucket. The story I got from the Kubota dealer that I bought it from was a farmer bought it for his better half and after numerous malfunctions and poor dealer service, he traded all his green equipment in for orange.
> 
> As a side note, it now has 259 hours on it and I have spent just about as much time working on it. I think Deere has two segmented businesses, the real equipment and what they sell hobby farmers.





Hiro said:


> I bought one some years ago. It had 32 hours on it, came with a mowing deck, tiller and bucket. The story I got from the Kubota dealer that I bought it from was a farmer bought it for his better half and after numerous malfunctions and poor dealer service, he traded all his green equipment in for orange.
> 
> As a side note, it now has 259 hours on it and I have spent just about as much time working on it. I think Deere has two segmented businesses, the real equipment and what they sell hobby farmers.


They do for sure. Deere industrial is pretty bad adze.


----------



## Redlands Okie (Nov 28, 2017)

barnbilder said:


> My tractor dealer says that the market right now is driven by the deer lease owner. 30 hp, 4 wheel drive, with a bucket. Push out roads, plant food plots, bush hog. These are for playing, not for farming, not that you couldn't do a lot of farming with one like that, but these aren't farmers buying them.


I think this is accurate and also why the resale value of fairly new tractors are so low. To easy to buy or get a new one to operate.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

I just heard Kellogg's is on strike too









Workers at all of Kellogg's U.S. cereal plants go on strike


Work has halted at all of the Kellogg Company’s U.S. cereal plants as roughly 1,400 workers went on strike




abcnews.go.com


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Then I found this

It looks like there were 311 strikes since 2017 and some are going on right now





__





ILR Labor Action Tracker






striketracker.ilr.cornell.edu


----------



## JRHill02 (Jun 20, 2020)

I am thinking of the union members generally. When the strike is called out, everyone is 'out'. There are probably a fair number of folks who don't want to strike, who need and want the pay check but have to follow suit. It's not a happy time for those people and their families regardless of how much money the company is making and the other arguments.

Those who seek work opps in the temporary are screwed. Very few employers would be interested hiring them knowing they are used to much higher wages and conditions than generally available. They also know that those folks will be gone in a heartbeat when the strike is over.

I've been there through strikes and furloughs. It sucks. And it takes a good while to recover the lost wages even after one gets back to work. It was fun at first - it was like summer vacation as a child all over again. Then it wasn't so much fun. Then it got critical.

I can only hope for a quick and speedy resolve for all involved.


----------



## 101pigs (Sep 18, 2018)

HDRider said:


> *CEDAR RAPIDS, Iowa (KCRG) —*
> “This is probably the best bargaining position that John Deere has been in many years,” Iowa State University economics professor Peter Orazem said. “I mean the company is doing very well and the company wants to be expanding and doesn’t have enough workers”
> 
> John Deere is projected to earn $6 billion this fiscal year, which is a new record, shattering the previous revenue record set in 2013 by 61%. The company employs about 7,000 workers around Iowa.
> ...


The workers will get a good raise. Strike will not last long. Deer
e is making a lot of money so they should share it with the folks that make it possible. .


----------



## Hiro (Feb 14, 2016)

101pigs said:


> The workers will get a good raise. Strike will not last long. Deer
> e is making a lot of money so they should share it with the folks that make it possible. .


Their customers?


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

Their Ag tractors are stickering at well over a half million and close to three quarters of a million when factoring in additions. Those machines aren't really relevant for HT. So here is a typical Green 40HP tractor with a backhoe and loader as priced by JD themselves.
I have owned numerous set ups like below in other colors, and I can tell you their cost was no where near 43K; not even if I switched the 4 and 3 around.

Entry level line workers start out at about 31k and move up to about 65k per year, before bonuses and bennies.

2021 John Deer 3039R $43,200


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

Hiro said:


> Their customers?


No. No. I think @101pigs meant their investors.

I mean, without the investors and owners, their employees wouldn’t have a job to go to, and their customers wouldn’t have a product to buy.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> I mean, without the investors and owners, their employees wouldn’t have a job to go to, and their customers wouldn’t have a product to buy.


Conversely
Without employees, investors and owners would not have jobs performed and customers would not have a product to buy

That will be true until AI takes over and then UBI will kick in

You will own nothing and be happy


----------



## Hiro (Feb 14, 2016)

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> No. No. I think @101pigs meant their investors.
> 
> I mean, without the investors and owners, their employees wouldn’t have a job to go to, and their customers wouldn’t have a product to buy.


No. No. They are the the evil capitalist oppressors of the proletariat.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

HDRider said:


> Conversely
> Without employees, investors and owners would not have jobs performed and customers would not have a product to buy
> 
> That will be true until AI takes over and then UBI will kick in
> ...


What happens when the AI tells us to get a job because they ain't paying no more welfare?


----------



## barnbilder (Jul 1, 2005)

GTX63 said:


> Their Ag tractors are stickering at well over a half million and close to three quarters of a million when factoring in additions. Those machines aren't really relevant for HT. So here is a typical Green 40HP tractor with a backhoe and loader as priced by JD themselves.
> I have owned numerous set ups like below in other colors, and I can tell you their cost was no where near 43K; not even if I switched the 4 and 3 around.
> 
> Entry level line workers start out at about 31k and move up to about 65k per year, before bonuses and bennies.
> ...


And if one of their crappy bolts break, you will likely find that instead of using a regular bolt, like a decent tractor brand, it has some kind of weird flange, bevel, or some weird feature, designed specifically to force you to obtain it from a John Deere dealer at an exorbitantly high price. Any part that you put on it will cost you way more than the same part from any other brand of tractor. And probably won't last as long. Some parts even seem to be designed to break, keeping the dealers and parts suppliers hooked up to the scam. We always said "well it's got that green paint, and to make the paint they have to mine priceless unobtainium from the farthest reaches of a place you can't get to from here" to explain why a 2 dollar bolt cost thirty bucks and you had to wait two weeks to get it. 

I hate John Deeres. If you tried to give me one and stipulated that I couldn't turn around and unload it on a sucker, I wouldn't take it unless you gave me two, so I could push the first one down a hole and cover it up with the other one. You can buy a John Deere, or you can get a tattoo on your forehead that says dummy, the tattoo would be the wiser fiscal choice. That being said, the steady stream of idiots make that equipment a good choice, if you intend to sell equipment at regular intervals and continuously upgrade. Because they command a high sticker price, the resale price is high. If you want a tractor to be your tractor for the next decade or so, run away from anything with green on it, you will be better off with some no name foreign job and use it until it catastrophically fails and sell it for scrap and buy another one, you still won't have the money wasted that you will waste on that stupid, worthless green paint. The wheels are painted right, the color of a lemon, and that is what most of them are.


----------



## colourfastt (Nov 11, 2006)

HDRider said:


> I am not a union negotiator. I am arguing for a more fair sharing of the profit, and the loss.


I thought the requirement in the US is to privatize the profits and socialize (have the gov't pay for) the losses.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

HDRider said:


> Conversely
> Without employees, investors and owners would not have jobs performed and customers would not have a product to buy
> 
> That will be true until AI takes over and then UBI will kick in
> ...


That’s certainly true, but, by that rationale, when do they send the rightful cut to the butterfly who farted and started the hurricane that caused their boom in earth-moving sales?

At the end of the day, we’re debating financial reward for a company’s success. In such an economy, rewards go to he who takes the risks. It’s the investors who took all the financial risk, so the rewards are theirs to reap.

If a company goes teets-up, the investor can lose everything he put into the company. The factory worker keeps every dime the company ever paid him. The factory worker has no risk; no skin in the game. Why should he be entitled to the gains of prosperity, when he doesn’t risk losing anything should it fail?

You might argue that he loses his job, but that job is one that he “cashed out” every week. His investment, paid with his labor, went home with him and was vested every week. The investor put his money on the table, and he risks getting nothing for it.

I think it’s great when companies work out profit incentives for their workforce, but that is not done because it’s the “right” thing to do. It’s an investment choice, and nothing more. Just like buying better tooling and gauges may get them a better product, converting that investment into greater sales and higher profit, they invest in their workforce, in various ways, for exactly the same reason.

If they choose to invest in better tools, gauges, or their workforce, who’s money pays for that? If those tools, or happier workers don’t improve the bottom line of the company, who loses?


Labor is a commodity. There is no doubt that better products can be made from better materials, but better materials is no guarantee of a better product. If your design, marketing, or reputation is better than your competitions’, you can make a better and/or more profitable product from equal materials.

The position you’re arguing for is like saying that two companies, who buy the same grade of lumber from the same mill, should pay prices for that lumber based on the profitability of their business. There are obviously other factors that make the one business more profitable than the other, but you’re saying the more profitable one should pay more because they made more with it? That’s actually one of the most Marxist positions I’ve ever heard argued on this forum.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

mreynolds said:


> What happens when the AI tells us to get a job because they ain't paying no more welfare?


You missed the UBI part


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> when do they send the rightful cut to the butterfly who farted


We can have a semi serious conversation or you can have the nonsensical one by yourself 

Some of us own small businesses, and many of us were employees. I am always amazed how people that operate as employees so often side with management when employees, especially as a group, try to get more of the pie. Smack of "I got mine-ism"

To me the labor/management divide resembles the royalty and serf model. But no one sees themselves as serfs.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> Labor is a commodity


Labor is a person.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

HDRider said:


> Labor is a person.


No it’s not. Labor is the product of a person. It is the commodity which they can directly produce.

My point wasn’t nonsensical at all. Labor is a cost contributer to every raw material. If John Deere can make more money from a batch of steel than The Ford Motor Company, should they pay more for that steel? By your rationale, there is “people” in that steel. Do they get to share in the success of Deere, or is it only deserved by the laborers who bolt that steel together?


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

HDRider said:


> We can have a semi serious conversation or you can have the nonsensical one by yourself
> 
> Some of us own small businesses, and many of us were employees. I am always amazed how people that operate as employees so often side with management when employees, especially as a group, try to get more of the pie. Smack of "I got mine-ism"
> 
> To me the labor/management divide resembles the royalty and serf model. But no one sees themselves as serfs.


Almost everyone of us has operated as employer, employee and manager at various times. Why would you assume the worst, and characterize our position as “us v. then” or “I got mine-ism”? Why can’t it just be a developed, informed opinion?

As an employee, I am responsible for the quality of my own work. My success hinges on my own output. As a manager, I am responsible for the quality of my entire team’s work. I am judged on the output of everyone who reports to me. As an owner, I am responsible for the quality of every manager in the company. My success or failure hinges on the quality of the entire company’s work.

As an employee, if the company fails, I have to find another job. As a manager, if even my team fails, I lose my job and have a harder time finding another job as a manager. As an owner, if any team in the company fails, I could lose every dollar I put into the company.

If someone wants a chance at greater reward than the going rate of labor, they’ve got to take some risk. If they want a share of the company’s success, beyond their wage, then they can put aside some of their wage and buy stock in the company they work for (or another company, if buying-in isn’t an option with their company).

What you’re describing is exactly _from each according to his means, to each according to his needs_.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

HDRider said:


> You missed the UBI part


No I didn't. Once AI gets smarter than us they may not even want us around. Why produce food or stuff that humans even need? Why pay us for doing nothing? They will be doing all the work including any check writing.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> Labor is a cost contributer


Management is a cost contributor.



GunMonkeyIntl said:


> By your rationale, there is “people” in that steel.


More nonsense


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

HDRider said:


> Management is a cost contributor.
> 
> 
> More nonsense


Yes. Management is also a cost contributor. Management also carries more risk and responsibility than each of the laborers that report to them. 

You’re willfully dodging my very specific question: should successful companies pay more for equal-quality raw materials than less successful ones? If Deere and Kubota both buy a ton of steel, should their price for that ton of steel be indexed to their EBIT?


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> Why can’t it just be a developed, informed opinion?


Simply because it is not. It is is an under developed and ill informed opinion. We need to evolve beyond the us and them of management and labor.

Everything has to work in unison, in harmony, to the benefit of all otherwise it will always be a win lose. Labor waiting until the time is right to strike, just like Deere employees are doing now. Then the worm will turn, and management will put the screws to labor. All this in a a never ending cycle of win/lose.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> You’re willfully dodging my very specific question: should successful companies pay more for equal-quality raw materials than less successful ones? If Deere and Kubota both buy a ton of steel, should their price for that ton of steel be indexed to their EBIT?


Steel is not people. It is an absurd question


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

mreynolds said:


> No I didn't. Once AI gets smarter than us they may not even want us around. Why produce food or stuff that humans even need? Why pay us for doing nothing? They will be doing all the work including any check writing.


I guess we can do a raffle, and decide who lives and dies.

The day is coming, and in some sense we are there now. We have more people than we have the need for labor.

We are going to sit stupidly and let the day come, and watch the Great Rest unfold with the global elite dictating terms, or maybe we contribute to how it all works out. 

Most likely we will hope to be the last one drug out of the room to our new reality.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

HDRider said:


> Steel is not people. It is an absurd question


It’s not an absurd question. The steel has _labor_ in it, too. Why don’t the _people_ who make that steel get to share in the success of Deere? Should the management and ownership at Deere reap all the rewards from the steel made by the steel plant’s labor pool?

If Deere has to pay the fruit of their success downward to the labor that makes their tractors, why are only some of those laborers deserving? If we’re indexing labor pay to the company’s EBIT, why doesn’t the steel plant get some of the extra money to pass down to its labor?


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> Why don’t the _people_ who make that steel get to share in the success of Deere?


The steel people reward the steel people. Deere rewards the Deere people


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

HDRider said:


> The steel people reward the steel people. Deere rewards the Deere people


How are the steel people supposed to adequately reward the steel people if they’re not getting to share in the success of the companies who make things with their product? Steel, being a commodity, does not have as much opportunity for large swings in margin like a durable good does. 

If the steel worker doesn’t have the same opportunity for trickle-down profits as the Deere worker, how is the steel plant supposed to retain good labor? Do they just have to avoid putting their foundries near to durable good manufacturers who have a shot at higher margins?


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> How are the steel people supposed to adequately reward the steel people if they’re not getting to share in the success of the companies who make things with their product?


I honestly cannot tell if you are joking or serious. That question carried one step beyond Deere on into their supply chain is absurd, and it has no end.

Assuming you are serious, like I said Deere rewards Deere. Each org stand on its own. It is very simple.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

HDRider said:


> I honestly cannot tell if you are joking or serious. That question carried one step beyond Deere on into their supply chain is absurd, and it has no end.
> 
> Assuming you are serious, like I said Deere rewards Deere. Each org stand on its own. It is very simple.


I am dead serious, and that is the point. At the P&L level, labor is just another item in the cost column. The Deere employee is someone who sells their labor to the company. If Deere decides not to buy it, or someone else offers them more, they’re free to (and often do) sell it to someone else. The steel plant is exactly the same, in that regard.

If Deere is supposed to pay more for its labor, indexed to its EBIT, then every other cost that has a person on the other end should receive more, too. The line employee at Deere is no more or less a contributor to Deere’s success, in that sense, than the line worker in the steel plant that Deere buys from. Your saying “Deere takes care of Deere, and steel takes care of steel” is an arbitrarily drawn line, if we’re really talking about being “fair” to labor.


Don’t mistake my position for being pro-management and anti-worker. Support and appreciation of the two is not mutually exclusive. I’ve had to invest in my people, to ensure my own success, for the much bigger part of my career. When bonuses were possible, appropriate, and right for the company, I paid bonuses. In fact, one year, I had a six-figure bonus coming to me that I reallocated down to four and five-figure bonuses for me and all of my people. At the time, my preferred people-investment tactics weren’t an option for me, and I knew that the company was at risk of losing some very important talent. I didn’t do it because it was “right”, I did it because I knew it was what was best for the company. Part of my job, after all, was making sure that the company stayed healthy in order to ensure that my folks had a job.

I always much preferred to invest in my reports through raises and promotions. It’s kind of a gift a fish vs. fishing pole approach. In my entire career, I’ve only once hired someone from the outside to be paid more than anyone but the bottom 5 or 10% of my team, and my ongoing investment in that 5-10% was giving them yet another chance to develop before letting them find somewhere else to work. If I’ve ever had a bad reputation for anything in business, it was for trying too long to develop employees who weren’t working out- so I’m definitely not an anti-labor type of manager.

For a significant part of my career, I had both white collar and blue collars reporting to me. For the blue collars, blanket bonuses were almost never the right approach for the company or those employees. On any shop floor, especially a union one or one I hold reports on, and it’s more difficult to fire someone, there are performers and underachievers, and everyone knows who each are. Giving blanket bonuses actually disincentivizes the performers more than not giving them bonuses does.

I always found the better incentive and reward for the real performers was to give them something more long term, like promotions, additional responsibilities and elective training. I helped them raise the value of their commodity that way, and it resulted in higher pay throughout the rest of their working years way more than a one-time bonus ever could. Sometimes, I even eventually lost them to competitors attracted to their new resume. That’s life.


So, bottom line, if we’re talking about whether or not labor is valuable and deserves to be rewarded, you’ll get no argument out of me. I’ve come to learn that good labor MUST be invested in, if you want a good product. But, if we’re talking about whether or not companies should be forced to give back profits to their labor base, based on what they make in any given year, I couldn’t disagree with you more. Labor is a commodity, and forcing EBIT-indexed labor costs is a direct market manipulation that will be just as disastrous as preffered-industry subsidies and artificial minimum wages.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

I notice the word “fair” keeps popping up in these discussions. We all need to grow up and realize there ain’t no such thing.


----------



## Danaus29 (Sep 12, 2005)

mreynolds said:


> No I didn't. Once AI gets smarter than us they may not even want us around. Why produce food or stuff that humans even need? Why pay us for doing nothing? They will be doing all the work including any check writing.


We need to protect Sarah Connor.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> At the P&L level, labor is just another item in the cost column.


So are management costs - One shares in the profit directly, one most often does not.


----------



## Riverdale (Jan 20, 2008)

HDRider said:


> Is it wrong to want to share in the profit?


Not at all. Maybe they should by stock in Deere.
My question is, will they give back if Deere starts LOSING money?


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Riverdale said:


> My question is, will they give back if Deere starts LOSING money?


That has to be part of the equation. Just like management.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

HDRider said:


> So are management costs - One shares in the profit directly, one most often does not.
> 
> 
> View attachment 101049


I acknowledged that management is also a cost. You keep ignoring one significant difference between leadership and labor, though. The bottom-rung is only responsible for their own output. Leadership is responsible for the output of everyone that reports to them. A manager can actually be fired for the lack of performance of their team. A manager carries risk and investment in the team that the general laborers do not.

Also, in many cases, the labor pool is unionized and the management is not. The laborers collectively bargain for their compensation, while management does so individually. In a union shop, laborers are seen as interchangeable- but that’s because the union DEMANDS that it is that way. Non-unionized management positions can have perks given and perks taken away, at will, in ways that wouldn’t be allowed in a union contract.



But let’s do a soft reset on this discussion. I may be making some assumptions about your position that are incorrect.

Are you arguing for mandatory profit sharing with labor, or are you arguing that it is good and more companies should?

Regardless of the position on #1, if labor can expect better compensation when profits are strong, do you also believe that they should see pay cuts when profits are poor?


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> The bottom-rung is only responsible for their own output. Leadership is responsible for the output of everyone that reports to them.


Are you familiar with self directed work teams? They are exactly like the name implies. They work very well.



GunMonkeyIntl said:


> in many cases, the labor pool is unionized and the management is not.


In 2020, the percent of wage and salary workers who were members of unions—the union membership rate—was 10.8 percent,


https://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/union2.pdf





GunMonkeyIntl said:


> Are you arguing for mandatory profit sharing with labor, or are you arguing that it is good and more companies should?


No. I have said multiple times in this thread. I am not advocating for any new laws or regulations.

I see profit sharing and stock grant as creating a more invested labor force.



GunMonkeyIntl said:


> Regardless of the position on #1, if labor can expect better compensation when profits are strong, do you also believe that they should see pay cuts when profits are poor?


I have also said many times in this thread it is risk sharing. You do well when things are good, and less well when things are bad.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Let me tell you a little story.

I worked at a small manufacturing company in Michigan. It was unionized. It was losing money,

The market sets the price. The cost of a product does not have any influence on the price. The company entered into new markets. They could not produce them in a manner that was profitable.

My job there was process reengineering both in the office and on the shop floor.

In manufacturing you have a Bill of Material and a Routing. The routing tells each labor step and how long if should take. The BOM and the routing are used to produce a standard cost.

The time it takes on the routing is sometimes viewed as a secret.

I took the routing to the union steward and explained that if each station could meet or beat the allotted time we would make money. We had already instituted self directed work teams. These guys knew their job. They just need the work presented to them, usually by a scheduler or a planner. 

How do you think the story ends?


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

HDRider said:


> ..No. I have said multiple times in this thread. I am not advocating for any new laws or regulations…
> 
> I have also said many times in this thread it is risk sharing. You do well when things are good, and less well when things are bad.


In that case, we have no disagreement. If you made those points previously, and I missed them, that is my mistake. I made the incorrect assumption that someone arguing in favor of those points must be arguing in favor of mandates of them, as those sorts of policies are already in use in many places.

I agree that those specific sorts of investment in your workforce can be valuable, but I don’t think they are universally applicable, either. I see it like any other investment in your company: some investments are right and pay off, some are not.

In my industry, there are two very distinct types of talent in the labor category. There are true “button pushers” who load materials into machines and remove finished parts. There are also manufacturing professionals who you you can trust to make sure that the more complex parts, assemblies, and even finished or near-finished firearms are right and reflect well on their company.

At my last company, we had both unionized and non-union gun plants. In the union shop, our hands were largely tied as to how we could reward performers who were actually personally invested in the company. One of our few options was to promote those individuals up and out of the union. That is a limited set of opportunities, though, so only the best of the best we’re able to climb up out of the cattle line.

In the non-union shop, we had a lot more leeway with being able to reward the performers, with smaller, incremental steps toward advancement. In the end, that was a better recipe for retention of the good talent. We could keep the good ones via bonuses, raises, and more frequent promotions.

In the union shop, we were only able to reward so few, that many of the good ones ended up moving laterally to another company before we could find a more rewarding slot for them.

In my experience, giving blanket rewards to large labor forces is not what is best for the company. Spending those dollars on everyone reduces the leverage you have to keep and develop the ones who earned it. The larger the work force, the more this becomes true.

In the case of Deere, I don’t think you could get to what you’re suggesting because they are unionized. The contract may allow for blanket bonuses, but there’s no way they’re going to negotiate to accept less in leaner times.


----------



## rbelfield (Mar 30, 2015)

bringing a little humanization to the thread....i have 2 close friends who work at the waterloo deeres plants. they dont know each other. they have both told me they dont know how much money they make per hour. they dont get a paper check stub. the only way to access your pay stub is to log on to a company computer and look it up online. apparently that is not an easy thing to do. i feel like thats kind of scary. today is the first day they are bringing the scabs in to work. might be interesting stories about that later. so far the strikers i have seen in person are upbeat and hoping for the best. the union delivered them wood piles and burn barrels to keep warm around. the union hall is serving hot soup to all members . it all sounds so 1940ish..


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

rbelfield said:


> it all sounds so 1940ish..


Because it is


----------



## Danaus29 (Sep 12, 2005)

Sounds like Walmart. The only way to access your pay stub is to log onto the company computer while you are on the clock. Then you have to take a picture with your phone because there are no functioning printers available.


----------



## Redlands Okie (Nov 28, 2017)

rbelfield said:


> bringing a little humanization to the thread....i have 2 close friends who work at the waterloo deeres plants. they dont know each other. they have both told me they dont know how much money they make per hour. they dont get a paper check stub. the only way to access your pay stub is to log on to a company computer and look it up online. apparently that is not an easy thing to do. i feel like thats kind of scary. today is the first day they are bringing the scabs in to work. might be interesting stories about that later. so far the strikers i have seen in person are upbeat and hoping for the best. the union delivered them wood piles and burn barrels to keep warm around. the union hall is serving hot soup to all members . it all sounds so 1940ish..


So it might be a good idea to buy tractors currently in the lot or wait a year or so to allow those soon to come of the production line to be sold to those that do not know any better.


----------



## barnbilder (Jul 1, 2005)

Redlands Okie said:


> So it might be a good idea to buy tractors currently in the lot or wait a year or so to allow those soon to come of the production line to be sold to those that do not know any better.


I have found "union made" to be synonomous to "junk that is way more expensive than equal junk made in China". That is what I read when I see the sticker. When a company has to cut enough corners to satisfy unions, they aren't usually left with a very good product.


----------



## Fishindude (May 19, 2015)

rbelfield said:


> bringing a little humanization to the thread....i have 2 close friends who work at the waterloo deeres plants. they dont know each other. they have both told me they dont know how much money they make per hour. they dont get a paper check stub. the only way to access your pay stub is to log on to a company computer and look it up online. apparently that is not an easy thing to do. i feel like thats kind of scary.


Not questioning your character, but I'd bet John Deere has a very good system. I find it pretty hard to believe that they can't easily find out what their pay rate is, how many hours they worked, straight time -vs- overtime, what deductions are being taken out, etc., etc. Many companies have gone to paperless payroll documentation like this and it's simply a matter of getting online, logging into your personal account and reading the details. 

I betting these two just haven't taken time to learn how to use the system, which is pretty foolish.


----------



## rbelfield (Mar 30, 2015)

Fishindude said:


> Not questioning your character, but I'd bet John Deere has a very good system. I find it pretty hard to believe that they can't easily find out what their pay rate is, how many hours they worked, straight time -vs- overtime, what deductions are being taken out, etc., etc. Many companies have gone to paperless payroll documentation like this and it's simply a matter of getting online, logging into your personal account and reading the details.
> 
> I betting these two just haven't taken time to learn how to use the system, which is pretty foolish.


You could be right. But one of my friends has been there 10 years. I would think she would have figured it out by now. The other guy is under a year, so i could understand that. The way they tell it, they only have a small amount of time to access the computers that have the program with the pay stubs and its difficult for people to use. Just saying what they told me. I dont believe Deeres is the great place to work that some think it is.


----------



## edjewcollins (Jun 20, 2003)

There was a time you could have been a consultant to businesses that travelled around giving workshops. Now, no one would listen much less implement your teachings. Large corporations have really dug a hole for themselves by catering to an ever-increasing slice of the mentally-ill American Pie. It's now more important to worry about people's bedroom and social practices than producing a good or service well. This is why so many people are done with these corporations and unfortunately while so many embrace them.



GunMonkeyIntl said:


> I am dead serious, and that is the point. At the P&L level, labor is just another item in the cost column. The Deere employee is someone who sells their labor to the company. If Deere decides not to buy it, or someone else offers them more, they’re free to (and often do) sell it to someone else. The steel plant is exactly the same, in that regard.
> 
> If Deere is supposed to pay more for its labor, indexed to its EBIT, then every other cost that has a person on the other end should receive more, too. The line employee at Deere is no more or less a contributor to Deere’s success, in that sense, than the line worker in the steel plant that Deere buys from. Your saying “Deere takes care of Deere, and steel takes care of steel” is an arbitrarily drawn line, if we’re really talking about being “fair” to labor.
> 
> ...


----------



## edjewcollins (Jun 20, 2003)

How long have you had that new job?



HDRider said:


> Let me tell you a little story.
> 
> I worked at a small manufacturing company in Michigan. It was unionized. It was losing money,
> 
> ...


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Experts are predicting more actions to come but whether “Striketober” can lead to permanent change remains an open question.

The scale of industrial action is truly remarkable. Ten thousand John Deere workers have gone on strike, 1,400 Kellogg workers have walked out, as well as a walkout threatened by more than 30,000 Kaiser Permanente workers, all inflamed by a profound disconnect between labor and management.

Kaiser Permanente, a non-profit, has amassed $45bn in reserves proposed hiring new nurses at 26% less pay than current ones earn. Kaiser said that its employees earn 26% more than average market wages and that its services would become unaffordable unless it restrains labor costs. 

Sixty thousand Hollywood production employees threatened to go on strike last Monday, unhappy that film and TV companies were not taking their concerns about overwork and exhaustion seriously. But seeing that the union was serious about staging its first-ever strike, Hollywood producers flinched, agreed to compromises, and the two sides reached a settlement.

Many non-union workers – frequently dismayed with low pay, volatile schedules and poor treatment – have quit their jobs or refused to return to their old ones after being laid off during the pandemic. In August, 4.2 million workers quit their jobs, part of what has been called the Great Resignation. Some economists have suggested this is a quiet general strike with workers demanding better pay and conditions. 










‘Striketober’ is showing workers’ rising power – but will it lead to lasting change?


A post-pandemic labor shortage has given workers leverage but experts doubt it will lead to a sustained rise in union membership




www.theguardian.com


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

edjewcollins said:


> How long have you had that new job?


What new job?


----------



## edjewcollins (Jun 20, 2003)

You asked how I think the story ends. My guess was with you finding a different job.



HDRider said:


> What new job?


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

edjewcollins said:


> You asked how I think the story ends. My guess was with you finding a different job.


That was back in 1993ish. I got a big bonus.


----------



## nchobbyfarm (Apr 10, 2011)

Let's see how this vote turns out. I believe union leadership and John Deere thought they had an agreement the first time also. But membership thought otherwise....









John Deere reaches agreement with labor union following strike


Following a strike from employees, John Deere has announced it has reached a tentative agreement with the United Auto Workers (UAW) for a new labor contract.




www.foxbusiness.com


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

MOLINE, Ill. (KWQC) – United Auto Workers union members voted not to accept a contract agreement with Deere & Co. Tuesday, continuing their strike against the company.









UAW votes down contract extension with Deere & Co., strike continues


55% of participating members voted against accepting the latest offer from Deere & Co.




www.kwqc.com


----------



## rbelfield (Mar 30, 2015)

My friend who works there says she heard there was another offer ready to go if they didnt accept this one. but she also heard that if they didnt accept this one, they would not offer another til after the first of the year.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

“That’s more than a lot of people make at Deere. Their offer is a slap in the face.”

It’s true, the per-hour rate at JB ranges at from $24 to $31 an hour, significantly higher than the $20-to-$25 rate most make at Deere. “I make $20.92 after 19 years,” says Laursen. “I could go slaughter pigs and get a raise.”










'A Way of Life Is At Stake.' Striking John Deere Workers Defy the Company, and Their Union, to Tell Their Stories


For the first time in generations, workers at John Deere have the upper hand. But they’re struggling to figure out how to make it count, and whom they can trust




www.rollingstone.com


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

HDRider said:


> “I make $20.92 after 19 years,” says Laursen. “I could go slaughter pigs and get a raise.”


I have heard that very statement for decades from best friends to perpetual lazy whiners. I had the same thought for all of them, as well as for myself-
"Why aren't you/I?"


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

GTX63 said:


> I have heard that very statement for decades from best friends to perpetual lazy whiners. I had the same thought for all of them, as well as for myself-
> "Why aren't you/I?"


I can't think you are sincere in your question if you consider pension vesting, number of vacation days earned and anything else that might go along with seniority


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

HDRider said:


> “That’s more than a lot of people make at Deere. Their offer is a slap in the face.”
> 
> It’s true, the per-hour rate at JB ranges at from $24 to $31 an hour, significantly higher than the $20-to-$25 rate most make at Deere. “I make $20.92 after 19 years,” says Laursen. “I could go slaughter pigs and get a raise.”
> 
> ...


Laursen should sharpen his knives and slaughter pigs.


----------



## nchobbyfarm (Apr 10, 2011)

Looks like they finally have an agreement. 









John Deere strike over after workers agree to 3rd contract offer


Striking John Deere workers have voted to approve the company's latest offer, ending a month-long strike




www.foxbusiness.com


----------

