The reality is that you are completely wrong. What you have attempted to do is create several Tim Nelson's by quote mining me, using my name and attaching something I didn't say, or you interpret something I have said without getting a clarification from the original author. For instance, you said that I said "I always vote No anyway". I never said that. What I said was that I haven't voted yes yet. Big difference as I never tell anyone to always vote no, although some say you should always vote no on the first contract.
At any rate, there is only one Tim Nelson and that is represented by the fact that I post under my own name. There isn't any more credibility than that. I'm the only one that does that. I do that to keep accountability and to have more credit than all others [whether they love me or hate me]. I can do that because I am free and authentic. The real thing.
In politics, it's political suicide to do this as folks can use anything, [or twist things that I have said like you do], I have said over the past 12 years on this forum against me. I'm fine with that. I love my life and I'm a happy person so if I win an AGC election or lose it, I'm still fine. An AGC job, if done right, is a huge sacrifice of self and any personal relationships. It is worth it only if one has passion to do it as I do. If I lose, then I'll continue enjoying my life otherwise and continuing trying to figure out how best to catch a walleye or trout. Never mind the pleasurable traveling I have been doing by being a ramper that puts in his 8 hours and goes back home.
If I win AGC, then there isn't going to be any secrets. No "Can't tell ya" negotiations. Isn't going to happen with me. The membership will be fully informed. Grievances will not be waived off with management deals that waive time limits, without member consent. I want to bring in choices, i.e., pension choices like in the Alaska agreement. Choice is big with me. For instance, regarding the retirement, some like the IAMPF while others like the 401k. Why should a union keep them from choosing which they like? Especially when the TWU members get grafted into the association. When the company agrees to contribute a certain amount to retirement, why should I or any AGC decide for a member to automatically stick all of it in a IAMPF? or 401 like at TWU? In any joint contract, I will PRESS for choice, i.e., give everyone at least a one time choice of either/or with maybe consider some sorta yearly option if practical. People's lives change, markets change, union membership changes, thus give our members the option. This isn't the 1900's where choices were not option so we should make the best of it and respect choice. Who says that our NC should automatically put any enhanced retirement benefits in the IAMPF without considering a 3 prong by putting such enhancements in the current 401k? Gosh forbid I make any choices for someone over their own retirement, choice is sacred and our members shouldn't have to fret about which retirement option is better. That question washes away if members have a personal choice over which one they feel is better to suit their present predicament.
Well, I'm rambling. Isn't the Daytona 500 today? Go Danica! Stewart! and Gordon!
