IBJNews

Union workers at Goshen's Cequent plant take severance deal

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Union workers at a northern Indiana trailer-hitch manufacturer have voted to forego arbitration and accept a severance agreement that will pay the most senior employees $36,000.

Most of the 350 United Steelworkers Local 9550 workers at Cequent Performance Products in Goshen supported the package in votes tallied Friday night, Local 9550 Vice President Deb Hathaway said.

"No matter what they give us it's still not enough for us losing our jobs," she said.

Steelworkers Sub District 4 Director Mike O'Brien said 240 of the 350 union members at the plant voted. He didn't disclose vote totals.

"It was certainly not unanimous but it wasn't close," O'Brien said. "I think a lot of people looked at, 'Well, this is what the company is offering and we take a chance going to arbitration.'"

Cequent, a subsidiary of Bloomfield Hills, Mich.-based TriMas Corp., announced in November it would move operations from the 450-employee plant 25 miles southeast of South Bend to Reynosa, Mexico, to lower shipping costs.

Workers with less than a year's seniority will receive $500 while those with 30 years or more will receive $36,000. Workers also will receive company health benefits for at least a month after they are laid off. The total severance package is worth more than $3.5 million, O'Brien said.

Layoffs began Friday, but O'Brien said he didn't know how many workers lost their jobs.

More than half the employees are scheduled to remain on the job through the end of June, with the last due to be let go in December. 

ADVERTISEMENT

  • Cequent moves to Mexico
    Cequent moves to Mexico to save shipping cost. What a bunch of bull. It is all about labor cost. Pensions and insurance which don't factor in Mexico. I hope their business profits go south also.

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. By Mr. Lee's own admission, he basically ran pro-bono ads on the billboard. Paying advertisers didn't want ads on a controversial, ugly billboard that turned off customers. At least one of Mr. Lee's free advertisers dropped out early because they found that Mr. Lee's advertising was having negative impact. So Mr. Lee is disingenous to say the city now owes him for lost revenue. Mr. Lee quickly realized his monstrosity had a dim future and is trying to get the city to bail him out. And that's why the billboard came down so quickly.

  2. Merchants Square is back. The small strip center to the south of 116th is 100% leased, McAlister’s is doing well in the outlot building. The former O’Charleys is leased but is going through permitting with the State and the town of Carmel. Mac Grill is closing all of their Indy locations (not just Merchants) and this will allow for a new restaurant concept to backfill both of their locations. As for the north side of 116th a new dinner movie theater and brewery is under construction to fill most of the vacancy left by Hobby Lobby and Old Navy.

  3. Yes it does have an ethics commission which enforce the law which prohibits 12 specific items. google it

  4. Thanks for reading and replying. If you want to see the differentiation for research, speaking and consulting, check out the spreadsheet I linked to at the bottom of the post; it is broken out exactly that way. I can only include so much detail in a blog post before it becomes something other than a blog post.

  5. 1. There is no allegation of corruption, Marty, to imply otherwise if false. 2. Is the "State Rule" a law? I suspect not. 3. Is Mr. Woodruff obligated via an employment agreement (contractual obligation) to not work with the engineering firm? 4. In many states a right to earn a living will trump non-competes and other contractual obligations, does Mr. Woodruff's personal right to earn a living trump any contractual obligations that might or might not be out there. 5. Lawyers in state government routinely go work for law firms they were formally working with in their regulatory actions. You can see a steady stream to firms like B&D from state government. It would be interesting for IBJ to do a review of current lawyers and find out how their past decisions affected the law firms clients. Since there is a buffer between regulated company and the regulator working for a law firm technically is not in violation of ethics but you have to wonder if decisions were made in favor of certain firms and quid pro quo jobs resulted. Start with the DOI in this review. Very interesting.

ADVERTISEMENT