What's new

2014 Fleet Service Discussion

Status
Not open for further replies.
T5towbar said:
Also, you got to remember, things have changed so much since you and I have been hired. People with low time feel that they aren't going to be around as long as we are, and some feel that they won't get the chance to top out, with all of the things like outsourcing, and the other things in the background. So they want to make as much as they can as fast as they can before being let go. In my case, even though I made less than my sUA counterparts before their BK, the job was a whole lot better, and my quality of life was great. The job was fun, and the people I worked with was great too. Plus, I came up post Lorenzo, so we were at the bottom already and had nowhere to go but up. All of worked hard to get where we were. Now those days are gone and apathy have set in for a lot of people. The blame the Union. But it is hard to get people involved. Fortunately there are some dedicated people in my LL and my hub that will try to do right by the members. It's just like national politics: people complain about their situations, but will not engage by voting.
Unfortunately, this sense of the job not being a career is prevelant throughout the workforce in America today. Not just the Fleet Service in the airline industry. As a result; there is no loyalty or concern for long term employment from either the employer or the employee. This is the environment organized labor must negotiate in nowadays.Until this trend changes... we will continue to see contracts ratified by self centered shortsighteness, such as money up front, and a subsequent continual decline in union represented jobs and the middle class. This deep rooted and complex problem will not be resolved simply by voting for new leadership candidates.We did that 6 years ago and yet the issue still exists.  
 
ograc said:
Unfortunately, this sense of the job not being a career is prevelant throughout the workforce in America today. Not just the Fleet Service in the airline industry. As a result; there is no loyalty or concern for long term employment from either the employer or the employee. This is the environment organized labor must negotiate in nowadays.Until this trend changes... we will continue to see contracts ratified by self centered shortsighteness, such as money up front, and a subsequent continual decline in union represented jobs and the middle class. This deep rooted and complex problem will not be resolved simply by voting for new leadership candidates.We did that 6 years ago and yet the issue still exists.  
The problem is definitely the leadership that brings nasty terrible contracts to members.  Something you fail to acknowledge by constantly blaming the membership as you fail to properly access the situation.  Quite a difference between me and you.   The leadership you ran against two years ago, I might say. 
 
Even through they sUA nc brought the contract back for the membership to vote and the membership passed it 70/30!
So, you can't blame the leadership for it passing Tim!
 
Rook said:
Even through they sUA nc brought the contract back for the membership to vote and the membership passed it 70/30!
So, you can't blame the leadership for it passing Tim!
Nelson used to attempt to argue that everything that happened during the bankruptcy years was the Leaderships fault. After he could no longer argue that... he switched to attempting to tie agreements from other Carriers to the current Leadership’s (supposed) inadequacies. As you stated, the UA agreement was overwhelmingly, supported by the Membership at UA.
 
Nelson is like someone grasping at straws, as they slowly drown in political quicksand!
 
Read this post, very well written and its reality:
 
 
TWU informer said:
 
 
Why have you and others been trained to speak of the "union" as if it were some seperate entity than "US"? What if the union membership took a vote, and the majority wanted to allow more outsourcing in exchange for higher wages and better benefits? Who would you blame? The membership, or the name of the "union"? The TWU is not succeeding, just taking a different path to failure. But WHO decides that path? How am I suppose to be responsible when the "union" is something other than me and my coworkers?
 
Modern day Unionist have been trained to believe and actually do believe that the "union" is something seperate from ourselves. Because that is what unions actually have become these days.
 
If you study labor history, the "union" is supposed to be "US", and the name of the "union" is a name, but more importantly a governing Constitution, a contract so to speak enforceable by law as to how the "union" leadership is to conduct business. The "union" isn't suppose to be a seperate entity from the dues payer, making all the decisions behind closed door, secret deals with management, and continuously deciding what is best for the membership without a vote.
 
This problem arose because the card carrying Communist took over the labor movement and now we have all of these leadership controlled dicatatorships with the leaders using what little political influence they have to protect themseleves from membership demand and control. The most un-American form of representation known to man,
 
The TWU has pulled every trick in the book of law to prevent a membership ballot to determine our direction and which Constitution we would like to be governed by. That is what a representatioanal election is supposed to be about, "which Constitution do you prefer to be governed by".
 
Why would any American Labor Leader want to deny the membership from getting a ballot on any issue?
 
How strong can a "union" be if they only exist on the property because the membership has been denied the right to vote? The majority of members have signed cards authorizing an election, and the TWU leadership has prevented that vote out of fear of what the voting results would be.
 
There can be nothing weaker than a labor organization representing your interest, when the majority seek and want change. The TWU leaders believe the members are fools and that we need to be saved from ourselves. This philosophy is as far off track as possible from the needed direction for a successful and strong union.
 
How would this forum read if everytime the name of a "union" was used, the word membership had to follow.
 
Instead of
AMFA
TWU
IAM
TEAMSTERS
did this or didn't do this, or that, the forum would read
 
AMFA membership
TWU membership
IAM membership
TEAMSTERS membership
 
Who is AMFA, TWU, IAM, TEAMSTERS, these days?
Because, I dont feel a sense of belonging or responsibility to any of those as it is today. I too speak of the "union" as something seperate from myself. Because that is exaclty what they have become and are.
 
 
If the membership is really in control of the union, we would all be on here blaming ourselves for every failure that has occurred and working diligently to correct those failures. Instead we have a leadership controlled union, that is operating with a flawed Constitution, on the property by undemocratic legal rangling, and the evidence is clear from this bulletin board forum that we have all been hoodwinked into a false understanding about unionsim should really look and feel like. And so, we spend our days, blaming union's by their name, instead of acknowledgement of a membership mistake, and our own responsiblity for weakness. We are not weak, we are not allowed to make the decisions. So we all get to blame something other than ourselves, and nothing ever changes.
 
And they call us humans the intelligent species on earth.
I think lower forms of a life are smarter.
 
I can't argue with the 70/30 vote on the UA agreement but shouldn't the leadership bear at least some responsibility for even bring such a pos contract up for a vote ? Not only that two of them in particular who I have named many times some on this site but mostly in social media calling dues paying members names such as stupid and dumb for not seeing it as the greatest contract of all time which now I think most of us can agree it clearly is a pos. I found that very offensive at the time and still do.
Personally I'll never vote for either one of them.
 
The UA membership voted down the first TA.
 
Did you ever think that was the best they could get from UA?
 
None of us were in the room and dont know what occurred,  but a 70% yes vote is an overwhelming majority.
 
Fairbanks and Baskett were in PHL the other day briefing Fleet about negotiations.
 
700UW said:
The UA membership voted down the first TA.
 
Did you ever think that was the best they could get from UA?
 
None of us were in the room and dont know what occurred,  but a 70% yes vote is an overwhelming majority.
No I don't think that is the best they could get.
 
No But I did see how it was publicly presented as and likewise defended as.
 
Rook said:
Even through they sUA nc brought the contract back for the membership to vote and the membership passed it 70/30!
So, you can't blame the leadership for it passing Tim!
Yes we can.  The leadership brought a terrible contract back.  And the leadership sent out an anti union letter stating that it was the best it could do and that congress would impose a contract if TA2 didn't pass. Basically said the union was powerless. Also, in the explanation meetings, they flat out lied about the commitment language, timetables, and many other things.  I don't blame the membership for what it knew about the contract as they asked very specific questions about the language and were lied to.   Even so, it was appalling for any labor man or woman to bring back the contract.  Never mind to say it was monumental.   What the leadership did was wrong, you don't agree? 
 
Tim Nelson said:
Yes we can.  The leadership brought a terrible contract back.  And the leadership sent out an anti union letter stating that it was the best it could do and that congress would impose a contract if TA2 didn't pass. Basically said the union was powerless. Also, in the explanation meetings, they flat out lied about the commitment language, timetables, and many other things.  I don't blame the membership for what it knew about the contract as they asked very specific questions about the language and were lied to.   Even so, it was appalling for any labor man or woman to bring back the contract.  Never mind to say it was monumental.   What the leadership did was wrong, you don't agree? 
tim,
 
Here is where you stretch the truth to suit your needs. I know for a FACT, that in RDU, the members were informed as to EXACTLY what could/would happen should the T/A get voted in. It was made abundantly clear, yet RDU voted in favor for it, it wasn't even close. Kind of like the over all avg, say 70% yes to 30%no or somewhere around there. So to say the leadership is at fault is a half truth. The members that were FULLY AWARE of the ramifications of the T/A voted for the cash. PERIOD.
 
cltrat said:
I can't argue with the 70/30 vote on the UA agreement but shouldn't the leadership bear at least some responsibility for even bring such a pos contract up for a vote ? Not only that two of them in particular who I have named many times some on this site but mostly in social media calling dues paying members names such as stupid and dumb for not seeing it as the greatest contract of all time which now I think most of us can agree it clearly is a pos. I found that very offensive at the time and still do.
Personally I'll never vote for either one of them.
What is not understood here is the process of COLLECTIVE bargaining...
 
The word “collective” refers to the Negotiators, as well as the Membership aggregate.
“Collectively”, agreements are reached per the Railway Labor Act with the final “collective” decision resting on the shoulders of the Membership. This is where the Membership is in the driver’s seat as to what type(s) of agreements they are ultimately willing to accept -- It’s called a Ratification Vote!
 
The way people like Nelson, twist this around to suit their own needs, is to refer to this process as a dictatorship, whereas a corrupt Leadership goes in and cuts deals, and consequently FORCES the agreement down the Memberships throat. This is far from reality -- The Membership’s involvement in ratification, IS part of the negotiating process.
 
The Leadership CANNOT ratify any agreement for you... period! 
 
pjirish317 said:
tim,
 
Here is where you stretch the truth to suit your needs. I know for a FACT, that in RDU, the members were informed as to EXACTLY what could/would happen should the T/A get voted in. It was made abundantly clear, yet RDU voted in favor for it, it wasn't even close. Kind of like the over all avg, say 70% yes to 30%no or somewhere around there. So to say the leadership is at fault is a half truth. The members that were FULLY AWARE of the ramifications of the T/A voted for the cash. PERIOD.
Regardless of those members which fully consented, the leadership is still to blame for recommending acceptance and building fear with anti union letters. You and 700 like blaming the members and freedom while at the same time allowing the leadership a pass.
That wasnt the case in 2008 when you were blaming the leadership. Ironically the same leadership that was part of that 2008 contract that you now support.
 
tim,

in 2008, canoli was ripe to get the boot, between UA and US he made himself the perfect target and he deserved it, he lost touch with the members. Lets also not forget that in 2008 tim, you convinced the system to reject T/A1 and subsequently the membership settled on LESS, in part because of your campaigning against T/A1, do not deny this. So you have a hand in this POS agreement also now don't you? And it is not the EXACT same leadership today as it was in 2008, as you like to imply now is it, so stop trying to spin it. Are you just bitter because 70% of UA/CO folks ignored you about their T/A? And out of those 70%, at least half to 3/4 knew full well what they were voting for. Just stop already, you had a very good network in place to campaign against the UA T/A, and many were informed, yet voted in favor. It was not just RDU and you know this. You gave it a good try to educate them, and the chose to ignore what you were saying and grabbed the cash. Has to sting a little, now you are preying on them to get you elected to a position that, IMO, you, artie, and carl have no business holding.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top