What's new

Fleet Service apathy

Sorry I misunderstood. T/A, I was thinking Transision

That's quite alright sir... actually, when I read your reply I had to back over my post to see where I may have worded it to be misconstrued. Sometimes acronyms are our friend... sometimes they aren't... but they do save keystrokes.

Anyway... please don't take the bickering between Tim & I personal... it's nothing to do with you or anyone on the ticket. It's just such a radical change... at such a critical time I think we need to fully review all of the ramifications of moving forward in this regard.
 
"33" I'm with you on this...

Remember how we fought in 08 just to get this point... right here on this site? We all believed in change... and we were able execute it. Remember who master minded the entire N/D platform? Remember how all of the focus was on Canale being inept?

Sounds familiar doesn't it? The folks we put into office on the US side have NOT even been given a chance to prove anything. All I hear... is Delaney this... and Delaney that...and what about HA! I'm sorry... but something just isn't right with this picture.

Further, starting completely over, and sending the occupy ticket through training will cost time... as well as Membership money! And... just to get things clarified... with the posters above... I'm not running for anything... I'm not even in a IAM position period. I'm a dues paying member who deserves to know the whole story.

In addition... I'm not supporting Delaney, but I'm not going to support megalomania and narcissism either. I've got way too much invested in this career. Which brings me to my next question... does the occupy president to be still support eliminating the IAM pension plan and replacing it with a 401k? I personally would like to keep the pension... I called the other day... and I'm up to almost $900.00 per month.

Hi ROA.....Nice to be in contact with you again.

Is it all rhetoric IDK... Im still thinking about it. Was actually very excited about the Negotiations till this.
Hey look.....i think about it this way!.... well sort of.

I Love Strawberry shakes ! One place makes it different from the other but that doesn't mean I'm gonna give up on any of them? But.....i'm more enclined to go with the original i bought into. For now anyway. Its got me this far ( i know it sounds stupid but lets keep it simple ), which i believe is a road to recovery. It's those fricken "Potholes" that keep screwing up a smooth ride. We just need to figure if they are big enough to fill so as to not damage the ride or repair them later and continue on to the light at the end of the tunnel?

Im Thinking................ But not that much!
 
Hmmmm....i've been reading and was wishing this would have never come about....BUT...it has. It's unsettling to say the least! But, it is what it is. ELECTION year. The surprise to me is that i never gave it a first thought that we could be changing horses in mid-stream of contract negotiations?...Makes me feel weak

I'm gonna have to think about this! Maybe have to regurgitate some past experiences. So ill start with just 1 question regarding giveback pay which i could give a rats arse about really. I consider it a campaign giveback.

How does one give part of ones salary back to ones employer without the tax consequences of the original Salary? Is there a non-profit organization hidden in all this Fricken mess?????????
The give back is post tax. Taxes are paid first then the give back. Its not tax deductible at the end of the year either. I understand the disbelief but I for one signed on and intend on keeping my promise to you and all the members of DL141.
 
That's quite alright sir... actually, when I read your reply I had to back over my post to see where I may have worded it to be misconstrued. Sometimes acronyms are our friend... sometimes they aren't... but they do save keystrokes.

Anyway... please don't take the bickering between Tim & I personal... it's nothing to do with you or anyone on the ticket. It's just such a radical change... at such a critical time I think we need to fully review all of the ramifications of moving forward in this regard.
None taken. I apreciate the intelectual conversation between you two. I'm pretty sure that you and I are a lot alike. You seem to be a strong union member and thats just what we need in all cities. Unfortunately I've been bounced around the system. I've been involved and engaged since before the 99 contract. I'll keep following the posts and I keep an open mind. I know MF and NH. I like them both.
 
The give back is post tax. Taxes are paid first then the give back. Its not tax deductible at the end of the year either. I understand the disbelief but I for one signed on and intend on keeping my promise to you and all the members of DL141.


This tactic of "pledge back" of your pay is silly.

How does it differ from companies "outsourcing" labor to someone who pledges to do the job for less? The concept your team is proposing goes against all that organized labor tries to achieve. Should the electorate "outsource" all the officers to people who are willing to "pledge back" more than you have agreed to already? Let's just get all the IAM officer slate from China and pay them five hundred dollars a year... it's a race to the bottom when you open this Pandora's box.

You would have more credibility to drop this superficial non issue and address the challenges your work group is facing. A detailed, comprehensive, ambitious agenda, with a PLAN. Demonstrate to the electorate you're gonna work your rear ends off to get them a real contract, and you will actually be EARNING the attractive compensation as opposed to the current regime.

If I were a member of your group, I would be insulted by this tactic.

Is the pledge conditional upon being able to hire a full time attorney? I'm sure the IAM will gladly accept your gifts, but they would have to be with no strings attached. They'll be laughing at anyone foolish enough to further fund their excessive lifestyles.

Tying your election chances to a gimmick is foolish, and doomed to failure. A better approach would be initiate the changes to tie officers pay to the people they represent... example... salary pegged at 50% above the highest contract pay rate + expenses. That's what unions are supposed to do, create a rising tide that lifts all boats, not cater to a selective elite and throw crumbs at the peons.
 
The give back is post tax. Taxes are paid first then the give back. Its not tax deductible at the end of the year either. I understand the disbelief but I for one signed on and intend on keeping my promise to you and all the members of DL141.


Isn't that what i was saying?... They should use the " taxed first " issue as seen as more than $1200.

How Long is your promise good for? Most marriages are "Till Death do us part" but guess what?......Things happen!

Im not taking sides because I'm already on this side.
 
This tactic of "pledge back" of your pay is silly.

How does it differ from companies "outsourcing" labor to someone who pledges to do the job for less? The concept your team is proposing goes against all that organized labor tries to achieve. Should the electorate "outsource" all the officers to people who are willing to "pledge back" more than you have agreed to already? Let's just get all the IAM officer slate from China and pay them five hundred dollars a year... it's a race to the bottom when you open this Pandora's box.

You would have more credibility to drop this superficial non issue and address the challenges your work group is facing. A detailed, comprehensive, ambitious agenda, with a PLAN. Demonstrate to the electorate you're gonna work your rear ends off to get them a real contract, and you will actually be EARNING the attractive compensation as opposed to the current regime.

If I were a member of your group, I would be insulted by this tactic.

Is the pledge conditional upon being able to hire a full time attorney? I'm sure the IAM will gladly accept your gifts, but they would have to be with no strings attached. They'll be laughing at anyone foolish enough to further fund their excessive lifestyles.

Tying your election chances to a gimmick is foolish, and doomed to failure. A better approach would be initiate the changes to tie officers pay to the people they represent... example... salary pegged at 50% above the highest contract pay rate + expenses. That's what unions are supposed to do, create a rising tide that lifts all boats, not cater to a selective elite and throw crumbs at the peons.
Well first off I did not sign on for money. I did sign on to help make some changes at the district. I'm known for my work ethic and dilligence. I fight for the membership 24/7. My phone rings from members from other states and locals. I dont know all the answers but i do research until I get them. Sometimes they are not what I like but that will happen from time to time. I work two jobs and put in at least 90 hours a week. If elected This will be the only job and it will be 24/7. As for the negotiations the only player change would RD.
 
Well first off I did not sign on for money. I did sign on to help make some changes at the district. I'm known for my work ethic and dilligence. I fight for the membership 24/7. My phone rings from members from other states and locals. I dont know all the answers but i do research until I get them. Sometimes they are not what I like but that will happen from time to time. I work two jobs and put in at least 90 hours a week. If elected This will be the only job and it will be 24/7. As for the negotiations the only player change would RD.


Niblet,

Not sure how your reply applies to my previous statement that you quoted, but let me clarify just a bit.

Many union reps are overpaid. They provide little if any economic value to the membership. The good ones are vastly underpaid for the representation they provide. I wasn't implying you (or your team) were after the big salary, I'm saying pledging back your pay as a campaign item is foolish and insulting. If you are doing the job right, you are definitely underpaid for what you will go through. I don't think most members begrudge a union guy making some good money, they just resent it if the rep isn't earning it and busting his hump defending the members and fighting for them. Bringing the "pay pledge back" into an election is a loser idea. To me, it's a bribe for a vote... but I see things in my own unique perspective 🙂

On the other hand, those that install putting greens at the membership's expense and are non responsive to the membership should be held accountable. If someone is working on their golf game when they are supposed to be working on my behalf, it's unacceptable and wreaks of elitism.

As far as contract negotiations go, I never mentioned it, but since you brought it up, no "one" is irreplaceable. Changing the people does not revert back to day one of negotiations, it's just a scare tactic of IAM and their lackeys.

By the way, I commend you for helping out members other than in your local.
 
Roabilly ,
it seems you have an attachment to some ND members but just remember some of RD's campaign promises back in 08
1 attendance policy was going to be arbitrated , but once in office decided not to. understandably because months later
he agreed with UA management to incorporate that on there property. Hard to argue fault with it on one property and then
agree with it on another .

2 was going to give US more resources not that they (us AGCs) weren't busy enough the first 2 yrs but with the illness of another
really overloaded them. what did Rich do ? answer: nothing . and now on this years slate he has removed another source of representation
by taking away a VP slot and giving one of the busiest GC a trustee job . really Rich that makes a lot of sense.

3 Rich threw your brothers and sisters in those 5 cities under the bus by again promising to arbitrate and then pulling out at the last minute
and where was our voice at when he did that. Did the US AGC's band together and tell Rich "hell no that ain't right we need to arbitrate"
the answer there would also be no.
So even though the US AGC's may be nice fellas the bottom line is when the membership needed them to stand up to Rich they didn't
that to me is unacceptable. It's obvious that US is still the red headed step child and always will be under UA leadership. Something I don't think
anyone really wants to be with a possible merger down the road. Heck he didn't care about 250 members , I bet if the international could horsetrade
the ramp with mtc with the twu he would jump all over it.
 
A clearer way of putting it would be..... if i were giving back 1200 a month and i had whittled my taxes down to the 20% tax bracket? Wouldn't i be giving back actually $1440 ?
The giveback is an after tax charitable contribution. Much like if one gives to the MNPL, guide dogs, or their local church. All are free to give. The difference is that if you give to a labor organization, it is not tax deductable as your church would be.

As far as changing horses in the middle of a race, that metaphor fails. If you want to further that metaphor then the horse isn't even out of the stall. If you stick with a sports metaphor, this is the equivalence of changing pitchers during the first inning since we have a pitcher who can't get out of the first inning at all. To fully understand that metaphor, one would have to make themself familiar with the ND negotiations over the past 4 years at other airlines. One word: Disaster.

Also, with a merger approaching, we should focus on how the ND botched the UA/CO negotiations. At any rate, the US AIRWAYS negotiations are at snails pace for sure but even if you change out pitchers, the game doesn't start back in the first inning.

Video: Why is Tim Nelson Running for President?

Onward!
 
"33" I'm with you on this...

Remember how we fought in 08 just to get this point... right here on this site? We all believed in change... and we were able execute it. Remember who master minded the entire N/D platform? Remember how all of the focus was on Canale being inept?

Sounds familiar doesn't it? The folks we put into office on the US side have NOT even been given a chance to prove anything. All I hear... is Delaney this... and Delaney that...and what about HA! I'm sorry... but something just isn't right with this picture.

Further, starting completely over, and sending the occupy ticket through training will cost time... as well as Membership money! And... just to get things clarified... with the posters above... I'm not running for anything... I'm not even in a IAM position period. I'm a dues paying member who deserves to know the whole story.

In addition... I'm not supporting Delaney, but I'm not going to support megalomania and narcissism either. I've got way too much invested in this career. Which brings me to my next question... does the occupy president to be still support eliminating the IAM pension plan and replacing it with a 401k? I personally would like to keep the pension... I called the other day... and I'm up to almost $900.00 per month.
Roabily,

I am very clear about your IAM pension and mine, I'm not eliminating it, what are you talking about? What I said is that I think the current contribution rate should stay the same but I would rather put additional monies into other items like wage, etc., before I up the contribution rates in the IAM pension plan. You have been hammered by the IAM pension trustees when they pulled a 'robin hood reversed' and stole 40% of your future defined. It's better to stick any increases into wage and other benefits.

All you hear is what you want to hear Roabily. I have told you to educate yourself on the whole story but you refuse to do so. You refuse to answer any questions. When you educate yourself, you will find out that something is very right about what I am trying to do. And, if you are concerned about the memberships money, I have targeted over $2 million in 'deadwood' to eliminate and cut because it is fat. I'm going to line item this after the nominations so everyone can be fully informed. For instance, why do we have bookkeepers at $50,000 a pop doing the S/T job? Why is the meter running everytime the S/T goes to his office? Why do we have two offices? Why do we contract out our legal expenses to the tune of $196,000 with the last LM'2???

At any rate, nobody is starting over with anything. Negotiations don't start over, nothing starts over. I have no idea what you are talking about. Also, what training classes are you talking about? The one where the AGC goes to a two week kool aid training where they learn how the INTL is paying their salary and how to string cases along to avoid DFR's ? The AGC's couldn't wait to get out of that session quick enough. Please elaborate on all this fine training that the AGC's have supposedly received! The fact is that the AGC's are all over their heads when dealing with company attorneys. All AGC's are, no matter which ticket they are on. That's why we have to upscale this District to a professional level of competence like other unions do. And, we actually save money in doing so.

And, FWIW: MB as a trustee is a total joke. He is overqualified for that and it's going to cost CLT its Local Chairman one week a month, if he wins, as he flies one week a month to SFO to go over expense checks, etc. I don't have a problem with MB and we even asked him to be a AGC candidate on the occupy ticket. I don't have a problem with MF either but both him and the other AGC's don't advocate for US AIRWAYS members as well as they should. They should be more forceful on Delaney but they aren't. The new ND ticket reflects that, as Delaney took one more US AIRWAYS position off of US AIRWAYS and put it on United. THen he refused to listen to MB and MF, among others and stuck PR on the ballot against the wishes of the entire negotiations team and everyone else other than FO I believe. So, the US AIRWAYS representation is getting worse as a result of less resources given to the US AIRWAYS members, should Delaney get in.

Video: Why is Tim Nelson Running for President

Onward!
 
Is that ok with TN?....Does he back you on that? After all, he would be the new boss?
I have been very clear mike33, the negotiations team would stay in tact, whether United's or US AIRWAYS. Why wouldn't it? The difference would be that I would eliminate one AGC from negotiations and insert two more Local Chairpersons. I communicate to most of the negotiations team on a regular basis and I don't have a problem with any of them. The only other difference would be that an observer would be included, much like a few other unions do. IMO, it makes no sense having multiple AGC's in negotiations because when they are in negotiations, grievances have to sit an entire week. One AGC for each group [UA ramp, UA PCE, US ramp, etc].

Video: Why Does Tim Nelson Want to Run For President?

Onward!
 
Niblet,

Not sure how your reply applies to my previous statement that you quoted, but let me clarify just a bit.

Many union reps are overpaid. They provide little if any economic value to the membership. The good ones are vastly underpaid for the representation they provide. I wasn't implying you (or your team) were after the big salary, I'm saying pledging back your pay as a campaign item is foolish and insulting. If you are doing the job right, you are definitely underpaid for what you will go through. I don't think most members begrudge a union guy making some good money, they just resent it if the rep isn't earning it and busting his hump defending the members and fighting for them. Bringing the "pay pledge back" into an election is a loser idea. To me, it's a bribe for a vote... but I see things in my own unique perspective 🙂

On the other hand, those that install putting greens at the membership's expense and are non responsive to the membership should be held accountable. If someone is working on their golf game when they are supposed to be working on my behalf, it's unacceptable and wreaks of elitism.

As far as contract negotiations go, I never mentioned it, but since you brought it up, no "one" is irreplaceable. Changing the people does not revert back to day one of negotiations, it's just a scare tactic of IAM and their lackeys.

By the way, I commend you for helping out members other than in your local.
Dilligas,

You have missed the entire point of the pledge back of monies. The pledge back of monies is a very big part of the socializing process that we need to build trust. It was incorporated into the platform with the assumption that nobody would believe it. Given the present predicament of how the membership is a beaten dog, how can they?

The reason for the giveback is an academic one based on my education in the field of the process of socialization. Unions and union leaders are almost educationally bankrupt on culture and social construction.

When approaching the question of what I want to accomplish as President, I suppose the answer is much of the same one as any President, i.e., a leading industry contract. But, the path to gaining a leading industry contract is one that involves the buildup of leverage through items such as solidarity. Knowing the structure of this union tells me 100% that the present environment contained in the union's structure simply will not allow the sorta solidarity that is needed to attain our goals. Our union is essentially stuck in the enlightenment era, hasn't entered modernity, and won't even bother with post modernism. And its 'juice' is fading as the newer generations are simply not connected with the paternal structure.

Whether intended or not, the lack of adaptation into this brave new world has breeded a deep distrust and disconnect from our members. Anyone who understands the process of socialization will clearly see the symptons, which are glaringly obvious from an academic side. The witness to this is that one can shoot a cannon off in a Local hall and not hit a soul. The union deals with this by saying "Members are apathetic". IMO, and I may be wrong on this, I think the union wants that. With apathy, the establishment within the union wins. If the union leadership genuinely cares [again, I don't think it does but I could be wrong], then they should have approached the problem with case study and brought in social scientist who could unpack the question and help facilitate things. I'm not a full blown sociologist but my training does give me a very clear window to see what is going on.

At any rate, my assessment is that the membership is a 'beaten dog'. They don't trust any union person. And that isn't what I need as President. I need trust. You need trust. And the clearest way to trust is sacrifice. Sacrifice and trust are not part of this society therefore I wouldn't expect anyone to believe 'give backs'. When we do the givebacks, we aren't doing so because we are nice fellas or because we think the pay is too high, we are doing so to smash down the disbelief. In fact, the more disbelief now, the more belief afterwards. I'm not even going to bother trying to convince anyone that we are straight up going to sacrifice thousands of dollars, because I can't convince anyone of that since the present environment precludes that.

There is no other way...NONE to build trust other than sacrifice. Monetary sacrifice is one way. We will also be sacrificing our time and the scoreboard already shows that when I was already in a leadership position within the District. Of course, the added benefit from the sacrificed monies is that it will dump into education for our 'broke' locals. We have to edify our locals. Actually, our union gets a big fat HUGE F- for violating all the principles of socialization. And it's even worse with mergers. over at United, just because the airline has 'one name', the union operates like its one culture. It's academically insulting. Continental has different sacred things than United members. Yet, the union just pisses all over the sacreds and walks all over them stepping on them. And, it's a shame since we have a great opportunity to construct an internalizing sociological process that could further the IAM legitimation within the culture. But so far, I give the IAM 141 a big fat F, and there is no skill set, no education, no consciousness by any of our AGC's that they even know that they are violating many sacreds from other cultures. And, BTW, there is still a west and an east culture and anyone who doesn't recognize that isn't understanding that it takes YEARS to bring two cultures together.

Video: Platform "What's up with the Give Backs???"

Onward!
 
Dilligas,

You have missed the entire point of the pledge back of monies. The pledge back of monies is a very big part of the socializing process that we need to build trust. It was incorporated into the platform with the assumption that nobody would believe it. Given the present predicament of how the membership is a beaten dog, how can they?

The reason for the giveback is an academic one based on my education in the field of the process of socialization. Unions and union leaders are almost educationally bankrupt on culture and social construction.

When approaching the question of what I want to accomplish as President, I suppose the answer is much of the same one as any President, i.e., a leading industry contract. But, the path to gaining a leading industry contract is one that involves the buildup of leverage through items such as solidarity. Knowing the structure of this union tells me 100% that the present environment contained in the union's structure simply will not allow the sorta solidarity that is needed to attain our goals. Our union is essentially stuck in the enlightenment era, hasn't entered modernity, and won't even bother with post modernism. And its 'juice' is fading as the newer generations are simply not connected with the paternal structure.

Whether intended or not, the lack of adaptation into this brave new world has breeded a deep distrust and disconnect from our members. Anyone who understands the process of socialization will clearly see the symptons, which are glaringly obvious from an academic side. The witness to this is that one can shoot a cannon off in a Local hall and not hit a soul. The union deals with this by saying "Members are apathetic". IMO, and I may be wrong on this, I think the union wants that. With apathy, the establishment within the union wins. If the union leadership genuinely cares [again, I don't think it does but I could be wrong], then they should have approached the problem with case study and brought in social scientist who could unpack the question and help facilitate things. I'm not a full blown sociologist but my training does give me a very clear window to see what is going on.

At any rate, my assessment is that the membership is a 'beaten dog'. They don't trust any union person. And that isn't what I need as President. I need trust. You need trust. And the clearest way to trust is sacrifice. Sacrifice and trust are not part of this society therefore I wouldn't expect anyone to believe 'give backs'. When we do the givebacks, we aren't doing so because we are nice fellas or because we think the pay is too high, we are doing so to smash down the disbelief. In fact, the more disbelief now, the more belief afterwards. I'm not even going to bother trying to convince anyone that we are straight up going to sacrifice thousands of dollars, because I can't convince anyone of that since the present environment precludes that.

There is no other way...NONE to build trust other than sacrifice. Monetary sacrifice is one way. We will also be sacrificing our time and the scoreboard already shows that when I was already in a leadership position within the District. Of course, the added benefit from the sacrificed monies is that it will dump into education for our 'broke' locals. We have to edify our locals. Actually, our union gets a big fat HUGE F- for violating all the principles of socialization. And it's even worse with mergers. over at United, just because the airline has 'one name', the union operates like its one culture. It's academically insulting. Continental has different sacred things than United members. Yet, the union just pisses all over the sacreds and walks all over them stepping on them. And, it's a shame since we have a great opportunity to construct an internalizing sociological process that could further the IAM legitimation within the culture. But so far, I give the IAM 141 a big fat F, and there is no skill set, no education, no consciousness by any of our AGC's that they even know that they are violating many sacreds from other cultures. And, BTW, there is still a west and an east culture and anyone who doesn't recognize that isn't understanding that it takes YEARS to bring two cultures together.

Video: Platform "What's up with the Give Backs???"

Onward!


Let me just say tim, that you make a lot of sense but I'm still thinking !....Thats what i do ! I rode in on this horse from yours and my stable ! Shall i walk out?
I know for a fact that United Brothers think they are the chosen....it's always been that way, you know that..That part of the equation is not going to change! Question is?
Is this the right time? Damn Dude ! I like my representation......it's the corporate side that *F'n* sucks
 
Back
Top