Fleet Service apathy

[700UW]

You know Tim, its nothing new that a candidate not from US Airways, doesnt get the nomination at a US Airways hub IAM local, been happening for years.

 

[Tim Nelson]

PJ...

Narcissism and megalomania are hard to suppress… I suppose everyone else on his ticket is just incidental. Niblet…how does that make you feel? Do you honestly think that anything "you" accomplish under his ticket will be accredited to you, or your team?

Roabily,

I am telling you that Rich Delaney is going to be in negotiaitons for a few years then toss everyone in transition talks because that is exactly what he did at UA. That is a pure management anti union move that means there won't be any pay raises for UA for the forseeable future and probably combined for 7 years. Same with US AIRWAYS. Regardless of who buys who, if there is a merger, the same thing applies. The AFA at airtran told southwest that they were going to insist on finishing a "Airtran Only" contract then go into transitions. They finished their airtran only contract last year then finished a transition agreement a few months ago. Win Win.

That's exactly what the IBT and AFA did with the UA/CO merger also. Delaney opted out and supported management and refused to get any considerations for his members at UA. That's what he will do at US AIRWAYS. Do you support that, Yes or No? Because if Delaney is lucky enough to get in, I'm going to come back to this post and see your response.

Put your loyalties aside and think about the membership. It makes no sense to be #3 in Delaney's Firing squad. Unfortuantely, Hawaiian was first off and got shot. Then UA/CO merger and they all got shot up in the New DIrection firing squad.....US AIRWAYS still has time. Your members can get out of his fire or continue standing there after seeing how the New Direction leadership blew up the other two memberships beforehand.

regards,

 

[pjirish317]

Roabily,

I am telling you that Rich Delaney is going to be in negotiaitons for a few years then toss everyone in transition talks because that is exactly what he did at UA. That is a pure management anti union move that means there won't be any pay raises for UA for the forseeable future and probably combined for 7 years. Same with US AIRWAYS. Regardless of who buys who, if there is a merger, the same thing applies. The AFA at airtran told southwest that they were going to insist on finishing a "Airtran Only" contract then go into transitions. They finished their airtran only contract last year then finished a transition agreement a few months ago. Win Win.

That's exactly what the IBT and AFA did with the UA/CO merger also. Delaney opted out and supported management and refused to get any considerations for his members at UA. That's what he will do at US AIRWAYS. Do you support that, Yes or No? Because if Delaney is lucky enough to get in, I'm going to come back to this post and see your response.

Put your loyalties aside and think about the membership. It makes no sense to be #3 in Delaney's Firing squad. Unfortuantely, Hawaiian was first off and got shot. Then UA/CO merger and they all got shot up in the New DIrection firing squad.....US AIRWAYS still has time. Your members can get out of his fire or continue standing there after seeing how the New Direction leadership blew up the other two memberships beforehand.

regards,

Tim,

Lets address the bolded statements from you again one at a time shall we?

So you can predict the future. You have no idea how long US will be negotiating. And you know as well as I do, the company is in no real hurry, so place blame where it belongs ok. With the company.

Hawaiian, lets see, the members ratified the agreement, and unless only full time voted, I would say that, thats a dead horse you are beating. Nuff said about that.

UA/CO, again, were you privy to ALL of the discussions that pertained to their negotiations? And how to procede? I doubt it. Nuff said there also.

And you are selling our NC short. I believe that they will do what is best for the membership. I believe that ALL of them will agree that staying in Section 6 is the way to go.

So go ahead and continue with the Delany will do this, and Delany will do that campaigning, most of us see through it. Because the FACT is you really do not know what will or will not happen. You do not know what Delany will or will not do. Those are the facts. The rest is just your convoluted opinion.

 

[ograc]

The membership can only vote on what the leadership delivers to them.....
Dont bring back a t/a with outsourcing language, and perhaps it can be avoided....

That's a tall order for any leadership or negotiating team. In the end it's up to the membership to ratify or reject. My point was if you choose to ratify don't turn around and blame the leadership for your action as a member. If the members want to send a message to the company and their negotiating team that outsourcing is unacceptable language then vote to reject. A vote to ratify sends the message you are OK with the outsourcing.
ograc

 

[Jester]

I have presented my case for retaining the existing Leadership for at least another 4 years. I see no need to go back over my reasons in detail, as they have been covered more than thoroughly for weeks.

My Dear Mister Roabilly,

As general malfeasance and dereliction of duty appears to an inadequate cause to remove Car 54 from his entrusted leadership position, what event(s) might lead you to retract support? Would would it take? He would need to be a registered Republican? Not pay his union dues? Support a Right-to-Work ballot initiative?

I am not hearing what is good about Car 54, so I am questioning how low he needs to go before the New Direction zombies end their indirect attack on the Membership.

So Targets Jester.

 

[Jester]

That's a tall order for any leadership or negotiating team. In the end it's up to the membership to ratify or reject. My point was if you choose to ratify don't turn around and blame the leadership for your action as a member. If the members want to send a message to the company and their negotiating team that outsourcing is unacceptable language then vote to reject. A vote to ratify sends the message you are OK with the outsourcing.
ograc

Ograc,

Respectfully, you demonstrate no leadership with that post, and I question your abilities in an executive position. "Passing the Buck" and blaming the Membership for a vote on a T.A. which was approved by the Negotiating Team is a complete cop-out. I will repeat myself in what I have said on this forum for years now... One of the advantages of a union is that it allows experts to advise the Membership on legal and financial matters, where it would be impractical for an individual worker to do so on their own. You have basicially said that the Leadership punts its obligations and blames the Membership who are not the experts on such matters. Shameful.

You claim it is a "tall order" for the Negotiating Committee to reject further contracting of stations, as if you have already surrendered to Management on the matter and a gumbling whimper would be as much protest as you are willing to offer. How do you know, as you are not on the Negotiating Committee? Memberships begin to suffer from Tentative Agreement fatigue and the uncertainty of working without a contract, and vote "Yes" time goes on. The Membership assumes that the Negotiating Committee have honestly placed not only a good faith professional effort, but believe it is the best they can do, especially when the phrase "last, best final offer" are being flung around as a warning from a trusted advisor. Are you suggesting that our Negotiating Committee are a bunch of lazy, uneducated, untrustworthy sycophants who are willing to declare victory upon the passage of a T.A., regardless if it is very suspect agreement and blame the Membership in the process?

Ograc, you may be a very well-meaning and decent enough person, but your ideas of the union Leadership's responsibilities and quickness to assign blame to the Membership is a very dark, depressing vision of our future.

So Evaluates Jester.

 

[Jimmy Neutron]

That's the whole point here in a nut-(SAK) shell.....To further that argument, I know in my station, the AGC's were combing the break-rooms telling all that this is a good deal and they fully endorsed it!!!!! Also saying it was the best that we were going to get, and the next one may (will probably) be worse!!!

Now to even further that argument- In the newly (about to get hosed) west (PHX)-(LAS) they held these votes in the break-rooms as they knew the young, hungry for a raise membership would leap on board for a yes vote!!! couple that raise along with the UNION AGC's preaching how good of a deal it was and BINGO, the membership was DUPED into voting for one of the worst agreements , possibly in our airline history ever!!!

Now no matter how you shake that down, it wasn't right and it should have never happened, PERIOD!!!!!

I have a hard time sitting here listening to people defend what the prior negotiating team did, and blaming the membership.....

Whether or not you like it, what happens in June will tell just how pissed off this membership is, I for one can't tell you one person I know and work with that is one bit happy with our situation and where we sit right now, and how the company continues to come at us with full guns blazing mowing us down like un-prepared soldiers on the battlefield....

Funny how the (Canale) defenders talk about the need for patients, and say it was a Transition agreement, not Section 6 negotiations that got us here, but they sure had no problem giving more away the kitchen sink without getting much of anything in return!!!!

 

[wings396]

That's a tall order for any leadership or negotiating team. In the end it's up to the membership to ratify or reject. My point was if you choose to ratify don't turn around and blame the leadership for your action as a member. If the members want to send a message to the company and their negotiating team that outsourcing is unacceptable language then vote to reject. A vote to ratify sends the message you are OK with the outsourcing.
ograc

Are you really that clueless? I don't know of anyone who voted in favor of a T/A that was going to lead to the outsourcing of their own job. It was the rest of their "brothers & sisters" in the hubs that threw them under the bus. You are starting to sound like 700 with that line. Just to review, those who voted in favor of a contract that permitted outsourcing, were NOT going to be a victim of it.
Nobody gave a rats arse about those in the outstations, until they started showing up in their own backyards that is. It is your line of thinking on a subject like this that would make me question your integrity as a leader. Bring crap to the membership, and see if they will go for it. Sad, very Sad....

 

[ChockJockey]

Well if there's anything I've come to appreciate from following this thread and it's 1478 posts, it's the wisdom of apathy. I'd like to be able to maintain a clean conscience and the easiest way to do that is to vote for none of you. If this thread is just a preview of the reasoning and rhetoric we can expect from the lot of you once elected, I'd just assume throw it to fate and let her decide. Maybe she can tell you apart one from another, because from here you all sound the same to me.

Good luck, solidarity, etc....

 

[BLUTO]

Ograc, you may be a very well-meaning and decent enough person, but your ideas of the union Leadership's responsibilities and quickness to assign blame to the Membership is a very dark, depressing vision of our future.

So Evaluates Jester.

pointed hat dude drink koolaid spiked wth nelson dna
nelsom wil lose in june because he thinks he is #1
he hate Delaney for firing him for scewing up a lot
joke is on you an nelsin

 

[saywhat]

Tim,

I unserstand that some of your guys on the occupy ticket could not follow simple instructions to accept their nomination. Is this true? It couldn't be. Not Tim Nelson's hand picked bunch of winners. Not on your watch. OMG, what ever are we to do now. (Sarcaism intended here) These are the people that Tim wanted us to vote for to represent us, both UA/CO, and US. It really does not inspire confidence now does it Tim. People who you hand picked, endorsed, and said that they were better suited to represent us over the ND guys. Well your guys either have a reading comprehension problem, or just could not follow simple instructions as to accept their nomination. Kind of tells alot about the people running on your entire ticket now doesn't it. Everybody, wake up and open your eyes. occupy is not the way to go. They couldn't follow simple instructions to accept their nomination for pete's sake.

If true, what a classic turn of events. I do believe that if their lawyers were in place that this would not have happened and would have been squashed by his lawyers if it did. Funny stuff, do tell me some more.

 

[Jimmy Neutron]

pointed hat dude drink koolaid spiked wth nelson dna
nelsom wil lose in june because he thinks he is #1
he hate Delaney for firing him for scewing up a lot
joke is on you an nelsin

If you haven't noticed, this has absolutely nothing to do with Nelson here!!!! Can you explain to me and the rest of us what exactly you are happy with in our situation right now and in the last few years, because I'd like to know the flavor of your kool-aid so I can stay far far away from it!!!!

Give us the details of your happiness here, please, cause I'm having a real hard time finding anything to be happy about!!! So let's here it!!!!

 

[ograc]

Ograc,

Respectfully, you demonstrate no leadership with that post, and I question your abilities in an executive position. "Passing the Buck" and blaming the Membership for a vote on a T.A. which was approved by the Negotiating Team is a complete cop-out. I will repeat myself in what I have said on this forum for years now... One of the advantages of a union is that it allows experts to advise the Membership on legal and financial matters, where it would be impractical for an individual worker to do so on their own. You have basicially said that the Leadership punts its obligations and blames the Membership who are not the experts on such matters. Shameful.

You claim it is a "tall order" for the Negotiating Committee to reject further contracting of stations, as if you have already surrendered to Management on the matter and a gumbling whimper would be as much protest as you are willing to offer. How do you know, as you are not on the Negotiating Committee? Memberships begin to suffer from Tentative Agreement fatigue and the uncertainty of working without a contract, and vote "Yes" time goes on. The Membership assumes that the Negotiating Committee have honestly placed not only a good faith professional effort, but believe it is the best they can do, especially when the phrase "last, best final offer" are being flung around as a warning from a trusted advisor. Are you suggesting that our Negotiating Committee are a bunch of lazy, uneducated, untrustworthy sycophants who are willing to declare victory upon the passage of a T.A., regardless if it is very suspect agreement and blame the Membership in the process?

Ograc, you may be a very well-meaning and decent enough person, but your ideas of the union Leadership's responsibilities and quickness to assign blame to the Membership is a very dark, depressing vision of our future.

So Evaluates Jester.

Jester,
With all due respect, i'll call em as I see em. You can blame whomever you wish for the TA but in the end the membership ratified it. Accountability by the previous RC leadership team has already been served by the members. Now the ND team is in the same arena with a company who refuses to negotiate in good faith. What has changed?
When I started this topic it was about Fleet Service apathy. IMO... Apathy among the members, is one of the root causes, of where we are today. It leads to ineffective leadership and subsequently ineffective negotiating committees. With this in mind, a leadership and negotiating team is only as strong as the support provided by the members they serve. Our last strike vote was obscene. It sent the company the message we were divided and they laughed all the way to the bank. IMO...We need to find a leadership team who can start the process of building solidarity and engagement of the members. A team that encourages and promotes putting members' self interests aside for the long term good of the entire membership. Until this can be accomplished we are destined for the same outcome. You may question my leadership all you want but I believe to effectively kill the weed you must address the root.
ograc

please visit: http://lfp12.com

 

[700UW]

Jester just feels guilty cause he voted for the money and he threw his fellow brothers and sisters under the bus who got outsourced.

So he deflects and talks about HA who has nothing to do with US and blames RD for it all.

Yet he refuses to look in the mirror and accept responsibility that all those who voted for the raise screwed their coworkers at the smaller stations.

 

[ograc]

Jester just feels guilty cause he voted for the money and he threw his fellow brothers and sisters under the bus who got outsourced.

So he deflects and talks about HA who has nothing to do with US and blames RD for it all.

Yet he refuses to look in the mirror and accept responsibility that all those who voted for the raise screwed their coworkers at the smaller stations.

My point exactly. We need to start with the man in the mirror before we blame any respective leadership team. As Wings stated earlier the hubs will continue to throw the outline stations under the bus. DP preys on this. He's played this card with us in previous negotiations and continues this strategy with the AA proposal. The man in the mirror needs to engage, get involved, participate in the process and support the elected leadership candidates for office. IMO...Until this happens it will be more of the same. Apathy is the root of the weed that divides us as I see it. What will the members in the hubs do when there are no longer any outline station members to sacrifice?
ograc