IBJNews

Allison negotiators extend contracts until next week

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Negotiators at Allison Transmission Inc. and a union representing 1,500 of its workers gave themselves another week to hammer out details of a labor agreement after the initial Wednesday deadline passed with no deal.
 
In a statement sent just before 1 a.m. Thursday, company spokeswoman Melissa Sauer said negotiators extended existing, five-year contracts until noon Nov. 21.
 
The late-night agreement should buy the two parties time before a potential walkout. The collective bargaining agreements signed in 2007 were to have expired at 11:59 p.m. Wednesday.
 
Leadership at United Auto Workers Local 933 held meetings Monday to update members on the talks and tell them what to do if the union declared a strike.
 
Contract talks began Sept. 4. A Nov. 6 letter from the union’s negotiating committee chairman indicated broad differences remained between the company’s and union’s proposals.
 
It is unclear what those differences are.
 
“Both parties continue to work toward a new labor agreement,” Sauer said in the statement. “However, we will have no further comments regarding these sensitive negotiations.”
 
Local 933 officers have not responded to messages seeking comment this week.

ADVERTISEMENT

  • UAW
    Nothing good comes from current unions. Just fire them all and hire people that actually want to work and EARN their pay.

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
 
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. John, unfortunately CTRWD wants to put the tank(s) right next to a nature preserve and at the southern entrance to Carmel off of Keystone. Not exactly the kind of message you want to send to residents and visitors (come see our tanks as you enter our city and we build stuff in nature preserves...

  2. 85 feet for an ambitious project? I could shoot ej*culate farther than that.

  3. I tried, can't take it anymore. Untill Katz is replaced I can't listen anymore.

  4. Perhaps, but they've had a very active program to reduce rainwater/sump pump inflows for a number of years. But you are correct that controlling these peak flows will require spending more money - surge tanks, lines or removing storm water inflow at the source.

  5. All sewage goes to the Carmel treatment plant on the White River at 96th St. Rainfall should not affect sewage flows, but somehow it does - and the increased rate is more than the plant can handle a few times each year. One big source is typically homeowners who have their sump pumps connect into the sanitary sewer line rather than to the storm sewer line or yard. So we (Carmel and Clay Twp) need someway to hold the excess flow for a few days until the plant can process this material. Carmel wants the surge tank located at the treatment plant but than means an expensive underground line has to be installed through residential areas while CTRWD wants the surge tank located further 'upstream' from the treatment plant which costs less. Either solution works from an environmental control perspective. The less expensive solution means some people would likely have an unsightly tank near them. Carmel wants the more expensive solution - surprise!

ADVERTISEMENT