Fleet Service apathy
- Thread starter ograc
- Start date
Tim Nelson
Veteran
How many hubs are at US AIRWAYS? 3
Each of those hubs are associated with a local and can only endorse one Presidential candidate. When all Hubs have the same endorsement, then it is often called a unanimous endorsement when one makes the claim that "All US AIRWAYS Hubs endorsed me". Key word, 'hub'. If I only got two of the three hub endorsements then it wouldn't have been unanimous.
And yes, I was honored to have the unanimous hub endorsements from the US AIRWAYS hubs.
I'm not sure why we have to keep talking about this but if you can't seem to understand this then oh well.
Onward!
Tim Nelson
Veteran
It means exactly what it says Mike, ie, I'm happy any way this goes. I'm drunk on life! Thus, I am not afraid of losing so I don't have to kiss your rear end everytime you mention that you have a vote.
And I'm sure not going to give Delaney a free pass like you did at Hawaiian and United and I won't be dogging the membership and blaming them for voting in a terrible contract. It's all about leadership.
You can say you don't want change all day but what you can't say is that Delaney did the Hawaiian airline members and the United airline members right. Bottom line.
Onward!
Jester
Veteran
Tim,
You won't get an answer from any of them... I have asked My Dear Mr. Roabilly, at least, a half dozen times to provide some rationalization to his continued support of Car 54, and he continues to dodge an answer, but will go into some tirade about how you are unstable and dangerous. How long have you known each other, and only recently he made this observation? I hope his process of discovery wasn't over 28 years like this guy... http://www.nylawsuitreform.org/2012/04/man-sues-over-circumcision-after-28-years-tort-reform-lrany/ But I disgress...
"The Golden Rule" or empathy should be an important consideration when attempting to manage the affairs of other people, as should be the case with those who manage our union. I cannot get an answer, once again, about how ND's supporters would react in being forced to work under an agreement in which given their years of service, pays them at a rate half of other people in the union. I have a suspicion if Mr. Roabilly, Mike 33, and others felt the brunt of being one of those PT HAL employees at half pay, they too might have a "Moment of Clarity" from the intoxicating effects of Car 54's brew of discord -- but they will never admit to it here.
Sadly, and like the guy that consumes far too much booze everyday, but continues to deny that he will get the DUI, will get fired from his job for drinking, or will get contracts cirrhosis, because he's "different"... just as much as US Airways fleets service agents are "different" and won't get screwed by Car 54 as did the "other guys" UA and HAL in their CBAs.
So Mr. Roabilly, Mike 33, et al... belly-up to the bar because Car 54 has a new and improved snake oil whiskey elixir that won't give you the nasty CBA hangover and lightness in the wallet as others have experienced because he will treat you "different" than the other patrons to the New Direction Saloon and Brothel.
So Cheers Jester!
Tim Nelson
Veteran
Jester,
I've known him for quite a while. And he 'took my word for things' this fall [read his post this past September] and he even pointed out some other useful ideas UNTIL he got a phone call and rented out his brain. That is plainly evident when he, PJ, and Mike refuse to discuss how Delaney and the New Direction toasted HAL and UA. Instead they blame the memberships for voting on 2nd T/A's when the leadership tells the membership that if it votes down the 2nd T/A then the 3rd one will be worse! At any rate, Roabily stopped receiving my calls and I went from someone how he did work for, to a moron, deceiver, BSer, devil.
Same with others in the New Direction. After I questioned Delaney and then declared I was running against him, it was like I went against the annointed High Priest. But that's politics and since I knew they all turned into bobbleheads after they got their $100,000+ I knew my days were numbered with the New Direction and that I would be fired so I decided to clean out my office about two months before I got whacked. The New Direction simply became the "Good Ole Boy" club just like Canale. And nobody wanted them to succeed more than myself. After the treason from the New Direction against our members, I had no choice but to stand against them. And I owe it to myself [since I know how to finish the job] and the membership to run for President and finish the job right.
Of course, many New Direction guys talked to me and tried to get me to stand down, complained that I was not committed or loyal and screwed them all over. But, as Delaney said in 08, ""Commitment" means commitment to Members, not to the incumbent and not to the good ole boy network."
Onward!
mike33
Veteran
- Nov 7, 2007
- 2,252
- 1,128
Ha Ha Jester...i like how you've gone from the bagroom couch to the spoken one in 4 yrs . Guess all you want but i only drink beer. Like i've said many times.......Different circumstance / Different vote maybe.
Nothing has changed my mind. Its not for debate !
LF says hello btw
Jester
Veteran
Tim,
And this is why there to be such animosity toward labor unions, in general, in the US... in fact, the only real growth for unions have been in government sectors. When the IAM loses NWA after Delta FSAs narrowly voted against the union on their own separately, might I conclude that the NWA agents voted against the IAM representation in a joint election??? Did they see the ineptitude and cronyism for decades and choose to forgo the union protections? That's a scathing indictment of the organization, and makes me wondering if US merged with DL instead of NWA would the FSA election results be any different?
The problem with all of this cronyism is that the benefactors of such a relationship think they are doing no harm other than perhaps less than ideal service to the Membership, as "someone would need to collect the $100,000 otherwise" and why not them? However, what they fail to realize that an ineffective union leads to Membership apathy, even to the point of indifference to keeping the union during a vote of representation, but milk that six-figure cow for all it is worth, and think about retirement afterwards, right?
Could you imagine if there was a new Federal law which required a "Vote of Confidence" no fewer than every 5 years that by simply majority of a union's Membership to continue to be represented under a CBA and the results? I have a feeling, we would be seeing even less unionize workers in the United States.
So Ponders Jester.
Tim Nelson
Veteran
Jester,
unions are diminishing not because of Republicans [who by the way been around for years], but because of cronyism and ineptitude. Working families still want representation against corporate greed but when it is hard to tell where the union begins and management ends, they dial out. Consider the IAM. Even with my organizing victories winning 17,000 members, the IAM INTL still lost 15,000 more members, or another 5% membership in the last 12 months. For the first time in 50 years, the active membership is now under 350,000 and sitting at 345,000. Another problem is that there are 150,000 retirees who represent a greater portion of this union and that puts them at risk and the actives at risk since the proportion contributing to the IAM pension plan is ponzie in nature.
At any rate, I think the Occupy 141 team is set to win this election but alot of hard work to do. Those who support delaney have the same characteristic, ie., pay no attention to the last 4 years! They refuse to talk about it because it is a fatal flaw in the "Support Rich Delaney" regime.
Looking forward, we will have a sense of urgency, get the membership involved, gain respect from management. Only when management respects us will we be able to take an industry leading contract. I think a new contract for UA/CO can be had fairly quickly and it can be solid. We must also focus on gaining a US AIRWAYS contract before transitions like every other union does. And, unlike the IAM, I am coming out rejecting the AMR merger and will NOT be neutral or supportive of the AMR merger unless and UNTIL US AIRWAYS fleet service gains a contract with dignity and respect. It's a true shame that Delaney is standing with the INTL and staying neutral on the matter. Nothing against AMR but forget AMR until we get a contract with dignity and respect. The IAM Bull Crap machine has already started up with the official announcement that they are neutral on any merger until they know more info. Screw that! All we need to know is that our members are getting hosed over and NOT UNTIL OUR MEMBERS GET A CONTRACT WITH DIGNITY AND RESPECT SHOULD ANY OF US SUPPORT A MERGER OR BE NEUTRAL. If US AIRWAYS has $5 billion to pick up a bankrupt airline then fine but not on the backs of our members! Case Closed!
Onward!
Ok Tim here you go, you asked for me to quote you!! If you'll notice a few sentences down in your quote you say that the US Airways hubs no longer support Delaney AND the ND guys. That's completely false. Yes they nominated you. However in phl and clt I'm pretty sure most of the ND guys also won nominations. So I'll ask you for the 3rd time. Will you tell the members on here who won nominations in phl and clt hubs? Or will you continue to deliberately deceive the membership with half truths? People!! BEWARE WHAT YOU WISH FOR!!!!
pjirish317
Veteran
- Sep 21, 2007
- 1,240
- 743
Tim,
It is evident that you are running only for yourself and not the entire occupy ticket, nor for the betterment of the membership, what with all the I's, me's and my's in all of your posts. You have said numerous times that "I won the endorsements of all 3 hubs", I, not we. Not the entire occupy ticket. There is no "I" in team is there? Wht is that? Self promotion maybe?
Jester,
We have gone over the issue of HAL numerous times. The exact same thing happened at US that happened at HAL. THE MAJOTITY VOTED IN THE CBA! PERIOD! END OF STORY! You were part of the majority in 2008 were you not. Our NC, did not negotiate the HAL CBA. I understand why you voted the way you did. And I don't begrudge anybody for voting the way that they chose. The fact is that the MAJORITY at US, and at HAL voted in favor for a sub-par CBA. Yet you get up on your high horse and cry foul about HAL, yet you praised this CBA just for your raise. What exactly is the difference. You voted to put fellow employees out of work, HAL voted to give P/T half pay. I fail to see the difference here.
It is evident that you are running only for yourself and not the entire occupy ticket, nor for the betterment of the membership, what with all the I's, me's and my's in all of your posts. You have said numerous times that "I won the endorsements of all 3 hubs", I, not we. Not the entire occupy ticket. There is no "I" in team is there? Wht is that? Self promotion maybe?
Jester,
We have gone over the issue of HAL numerous times. The exact same thing happened at US that happened at HAL. THE MAJOTITY VOTED IN THE CBA! PERIOD! END OF STORY! You were part of the majority in 2008 were you not. Our NC, did not negotiate the HAL CBA. I understand why you voted the way you did. And I don't begrudge anybody for voting the way that they chose. The fact is that the MAJORITY at US, and at HAL voted in favor for a sub-par CBA. Yet you get up on your high horse and cry foul about HAL, yet you praised this CBA just for your raise. What exactly is the difference. You voted to put fellow employees out of work, HAL voted to give P/T half pay. I fail to see the difference here.
pjirish317
Veteran
- Sep 21, 2007
- 1,240
- 743
ograc,
So we should go on past performance? What about MW's past performance? You fail to address his poor performance in his last 2 years as an agc. You defend him in fact. Why is that? Are we supposed to disregard his past performance? And someone correct me if I am wrong, isn't it the responsibilty of the Grievance Chair(s)/Comittee(s) to schedule and hear the Step 2's? The AGC's do not get involved until Step 3, right? Even for terminations? So, if I am correct in this, it appears that the Grievance Chair(s)/Committee(s) have dropped the ball and not the AGC's as you implied. So, ultimately, who is at fault for the Step 2's not being heard? The AGC's or the Local Grievance Chair(s)/Committee(s)?
OP
ograc
Veteran
- Jan 30, 2012
- 1,868
- 1,624
- Thread Starter
- Thread starter
- #1,543
pjirish317,
Please remember these were "Discharge Grievances". The Committee Chair appealed to a Step 2 hearing / decision. No hearing was scheduled within 10 days of the grievance filed. Subsequently, no decision in writing was issued within 10 days of the non existent hearing. As outlined in the contract "thereafter Steps 3 and above shall apply". As outlined in the contract, if no satisfactory adjustment is reached at step 2, the decision may be appealed "with or through the Assistant General Chairman" for a step 3 hearing / decision. This was never done by our ND AGC. With all due respect, in this case you are wrong. It was without a doubt the AGC's responsibilty. On another note. Are you suggesting that past performance of Officers should not be considered in the coming election?
ograc
pjirish317
Veteran
- Sep 21, 2007
- 1,240
- 743
So you are telling me that the local Committee(s)/Chair(s) filed the initial grievance and failed to schedule a hearing for these grievances? If this is actually the case, then it is still the responsibility of the local Committee(s)/Chair(s), to ensure that a hearing be scheduled and held. Sounds like the local committee(s)/Chair(s) dropped the ball, not the AGC. IMO, it is still the responsiblity of the local Committee(s)/Chair(s) to ensure that a hearing and decision get resolved, and not blaming the AGC's for not being able to schedule/hear the step 2's, or in this case the initial grievance. And on another note, you suggested we go by past performance, not I, you cited poor performance also, not I, well I did in MW's case. So are you going to endorse/defend MW for his past poor performance? Or turn a blind eye?
OP
ograc
Veteran
- Jan 30, 2012
- 1,868
- 1,624
- Thread Starter
- Thread starter
- #1,545
pjirish317,
The initial grievance was filed and faxed, with confirmation of receipt, to the Customer Service Director. Phone calls were made and voice mails were left. None of them were responded to. It was apparent the Customer Service Director, based on the inaction, was choosing to have the grievance proceed to Step 3 as outlined in the contract. Keep in mind the grievance and appeal for step 2 was also faxed, with confirmation of receipt, to the AGC at the time. Phone calls to him were never returned. Hell, at one point you couldn't even leave voice mail because his mailbox was full. Please refrain from deflecting blame on the committee. They did everything they could do. I suppose you would suggest the inability to leave voicemail messages with your AGC, or his failure to return phone calls, is the fault of the local committee as well... really? To your second point, I certainly did suggest we consider past performance. I believe the membership should do this as well. IMO... this is already the issue being considered in this election. I can only speak for my own past performance, dedication, involvement and credentials. Again, are you suggesting past performance should not be considered?
ograc
