Fleet Service apathy

[Jester]

Why don’t you just come out and say, who you want me to come out and say, who I think you are... don't you already know who you are?

Man… I love this convoluted occupy alternate universe where all questions are answered with questions!

Hmmmm... who do I want to be today?

I would love a corner office and the ability to wear golf t-shirts and dockers while pulling down seven figures....

or maybe I could a left of center union organizer with the ability to annoy my former allies...

possibly even being a supply room clerk...

Come on, My Dear Mister Roabilly, it isn't as much fun playing the game by myself. I was expecting a robust chortle this morning from you, and you have let me down.

So Disappoints Jester.

 

[niblet]

Tim jr.,

Are you kidding me? If your lawyer said 98 out of 100 terminations should be withdrawn what would you do? Simple question which a true Union man should have a simple answer for. Ask Tim sr. what answer you should give. Get real.

Look I haven insulted you by calling you names. Your title says it all. Now you called me JR and Roabilly has called me a clown. I guess thats how you'all work. Insults? I would fight for all 100. If thats what they want. The 2% was a raise was it not? Its in the contract even if its not in the T/A. There are other instances of contractual language removed at print but was not negotiated out in the T/A. where did it go? Why cant it be grieved? We lose on both sides.

 

[roabilly]

Look I haven insulted you by calling you names. Your title says it all. Now you called me JR and Roabilly has called me a clown. I guess thats how you'all work. Insults? I would fight for all 100. If thats what they want. The 2% was a raise was it not? Its in the contract even if its not in the T/A. There are other instances of contractual language removed at print but was not negotiated out in the T/A. where did it go? Why cant it be grieved? We lose on both sides.

Mr. Niblet…

I did not call you a clown… I simply referenced an old adage used in many political observations. The term “Clown-Car” is widely used in this context when referring to floundering political campaigns. I could have just as easily used the term de-railed etc.

You are running for office… get used to criticism and requests for explanations. Actually... from my perspective you are not a Tim Jr…far from it... you actually attempt to answer questions with honest and sincere responses… Tim would simply circumnavigate the issues with additional questions and/or Red Herrings!

For example…Tim would have answered your question like this… “Clown Car? ... Cripes…you need to educate yourself… go ask so and so what it means… at any rate…what about so and so ?… I’m still waiting for your response from my last question about so and so”!

 

[Tim Nelson]

Why don’t you just come out and say, who you want me to come out and say, who I think you are... don't you already know who you are?

Man… I love this convoluted occupy alternate universe where all questions are answered with questions!

Roabily,

If you think Jester is me, and it seems that you do, you are 100% wrong. I am not Jester, and I have absolutely NO IDEA who Jester is although I have a feeling that I may have met him when I was in PHX earlier this month but I can not know for sure. That's my christian word, I am not Jester.

Onward!

 

[Jester]

Roabily,

If you think Jester is me, and it seems that you do, you are 100% wrong. I am not Jester, and I have absolutely NO IDEA who Jester is although I have a feeling that I may have met him when I was in PHX earlier this month but I can not know for sure. That's my christian word, I am not Jester.

Onward!

Actually, Tim, we have met, although rather briefly... in fact, I would describe it as being in passing.

However, it is a shame that our Dear Mister Roabilly seems to have forgotten that 4 years ago, when you and I battled within this forum about what the ND08 slate was promising vs. what they would deliver -- I think I was right, but that's beside the point.

If you and I were the same person using mutliple ISPs and PCs, I would need to give ourselves a great deal of credit in the creation of "Jester" 4 years ago to battle against then, in order to "reform" him to be a supporter of your cause now to remove RD from his position. I dare say we were BRILLIANT, if not for the fact we are still two different persons.

So Reasons Jester.

 

[saywhat]

Look I haven insulted you by calling you names. Your title says it all. Now you called me JR and Roabilly has called me a clown. I guess thats how you'all work. Insults? I would fight for all 100. If thats what they want. The 2% was a raise was it not? Its in the contract even if its not in the T/A. There are other instances of contractual language removed at print but was not negotiated out in the T/A. where did it go? Why cant it be grieved? We lose on both sides.

Niblet,

I apologize for being in attack mode but TN scares the s**t out of me because I think he is and has been very bad for this membership in the past. I don't trust him based on past practice. Does he make some valid points, yes he does.

In regards to the 2% raise, the LOA says that the terms are governed by the language in the LOA which states July 2012 a 2% raise. The contract has a typo in it which states 2% in January 2012. I don't think that it is grievable and I don't need a lawyer's worldly knowledge to understand either. If you guys need an in house lawyer for every issue under the sun plus step 3's, mediations, arbitrations, negotiations etc. then I think you need 2 or 3 or more lawyers which would be cost prohibitve. The AGC's have to be experienced to be able to make decisions on their own and not have to ask a lawyer before they answer any questions posed. BTW, I am not against having an in house lawyer, I just think that they can't be there every step of the way for AGC's.

 

[IAM Informer]

Niblet,

I apologize for being in attack mode but TN scares the s**t out of me because I think he is and has been very bad for this membership in the past. I don't trust him based on past practice. Does he make some valid points, yes he does.

In regards to the 2% raise, the LOA says that the terms are governed by the language in the LOA which states July 2012 a 2% raise. The contract has a typo in it which states 2% in January 2012. I don't think that it is grievable and I don't need a lawyer's worldly knowledge to understand either. If you guys need an in house lawyer for every issue under the sun plus step 3's, mediations, arbitrations, negotiations etc. then I think you need 2 or 3 or more lawyers which would be cost prohibitve. The AGC's have to be experienced to be able to make decisions on their own and not have to ask a lawyer before they answer any questions posed. BTW, I am not against having an in house lawyer, I just think that they can't be there every step of the way for AGC's.

Exactly what has TN done while working as a District Officer did he do to scare the S*it out of you . While on your dime what did he do? I do recall He organized 3600 airtran employees might
I add that was a first for the IAM in a decade. And if you are going to hold him to past practice how about you hold Rich Delaney to the same wouldn't that be fair. I won't mention all of his
short comings and blunders as they have been posted numerous times.

 

[roabilly]

Niblet,

I apologize for being in attack mode but TN scares the s**t out of me because I think he is and has been very bad for this membership in the past. I don't trust him based on past practice. Does he make some valid points, yes he does.

In regards to the 2% raise, the LOA says that the terms are governed by the language in the LOA which states July 2012 a 2% raise. The contract has a typo in it which states 2% in January 2012. I don't think that it is grievable and I don't need a lawyer's worldly knowledge to understand either. If you guys need an in house lawyer for every issue under the sun plus step 3's, mediations, arbitrations, negotiations etc. then I think you need 2 or 3 or more lawyers which would be cost prohibitve. The AGC's have to be experienced to be able to make decisions on their own and not have to ask a lawyer before they answer any questions posed. BTW, I am not against having an in house lawyer, I just think that they can't be there every step of the way for AGC's.

I hear yahh saywhat…

Tim scares the hell out me as well… I am witness to his ideology, and his perception of reality. The problem is this… he has an uncanny gift to influence others into believing, and following him!

I should know… I fell for his charm “hook line and sinker” in 2008! I stayed up night, after night promoting Tim’s agenda, and even doing political illustrations for him. I don’t consider myself to be brilliant, but I’m not stupid either... but Tim was still able to blindly convince me of the concept that if we got rid of the then President (Canale)… all would be well… and Fleet would be the strongest group on the property.

In 2008… I became involved in the N/D IAM as a steward, I made every effort to learn as much as possible about how our contracts were negotiated, what laws governed negotiations (RLA), and Labor Law. I was even sent to UNC Wilmington by the IAM for a Labor Law course sponsored by the AFL-CIO. And yes… there were actual Labor Attorneys there to instruct us. That is when I began to learn and realize that no “one person” can go into this Labor/Corporate Machine and make any huge differences in the way it operates.

The reality is this... there are simply too many regulations and laws that restrict certain aspects of labor disputes to make them resolvable in the short term with rhetoric about leverage. All anyone has to do to confirm this… is to go the Pilot’s thread on this site… educate yourself in the division between east and west, and the failed “safety campaign” as a leverage tool. The Pilots have always been the strongest group on the property, and they have thus far been unable to achieve an agreement since merger. Further, they are bound by the very same laws and regulations as fleet… the Railway Labor Act. In addition, their union (USAPA) was involved in litigation with the Company for illegal job actions and they lost! This represents tons of financial and legal resources expended... and their so called “leverage” that has now been drained from their union’s ability to negotiate in the future.

Honestly, this is the main reason I do not agree with Tim on this new “gutting” of our leadership… I’ve already been through this once! Even "IF" we were to place Tim into the Presidency… what could "HE" as an individual actually do… other than claim he got revenge on Delaney?

Please educate yourself and read the article about the Pilots... and USAPA by going to this link...

 

[roabilly]

Roabily,

If you think Jester is me, and it seems that you do, you are 100% wrong. I am not Jester, and I have absolutely NO IDEA who Jester is although I have a feeling that I may have met him when I was in PHX earlier this month but I can not know for sure. That's my christian word, I am not Jester.

Onward!

Tim…

I hate to deflate you ego but… It is completely irrelevant to me if you are double posting under any other names… I really don’t care… the message would still be the same anyway wouldn’t it?

What I DO care about is this… Are you willing to give me your "Christian Word" that you were wrong in dismissing AGC qualifications and education? If not…we both have a lot of praying to do…

 

[roabilly]

Actually, Tim, we have met, although rather briefly... in fact, I would describe it as being in passing.

However, it is a shame that our Dear Mister Roabilly seems to have forgotten that 4 years ago, when you and I battled within this forum about what the ND08 slate was promising vs. what they would deliver -- I think I was right, but that's beside the point.

If you and I were the same person using mutliple ISPs and PCs, I would need to give ourselves a great deal of credit in the creation of "Jester" 4 years ago to battle against then, in order to "reform" him to be a supporter of your cause now to remove RD from his position. I dare say we were BRILLIANT, if not for the fact we are still two different persons.

So Reasons Jester.

Mr. Jester...

We will share the "secret handshake"... and exchange "book numbers" AFTER the election...

P.S. I've got a BBQ plate in deep freeze that is almost 4 years old... me 'n you are gonna thaw that bad-boy out!

 

[Tim Nelson]

Tim…

I hate to deflate you ego but… It is completely irrelevant to me if you are double posting under any other names… I really don’t care… the message would still be the same anyway wouldn’t it?

What I DO care about is this… Are you willing to give me your "Christian Word" that you were wrong in dismissing AGC qualifications and education? If not…we both have a lot of praying to do…

Roabily,

I'm afraid that I'm never prayed up and in any case I always got alot of praying to do. Nobody dismissed qualifications, I asked for a clarification of terms from PJ because as part of his self imposed qualifications he included step 3's so I asked him what the difference was between step 2's and step 3's. He hasn't responded. IMO, he seems to be reducing AGC's to a sorta glorified local chairman. And you included 'special training' as part of your qualifications and I asked you to please list for me all the special training that MF had in his 1.5 years so that I could better understand exactly what training you are talking about. I believe you called me a liar or said something like I said something untrue about training, so I asked you to put up. You are the one that made the remark so the onus is upon you to support it. Again, neither of you bothered to respond to my clarification of the terms you both used. Instead you started calling folks names and started playing guessing games on who Jester is. BTW, I'll ask again, is an AGC qualified at any point if they go solo without an attorney, when they are sitting across the table from an expert RLA corporate attorney?

And someone above asked a question. If I scare the crap out of you and SayWhat, then please let me know exactly what scares you when you should be judging me based on my experience as a District leader on your dime. Did I not deliver for you exactly what I said I was? You even worked on those campaigns with me with your professional services. Did I not deliver? And I do think it is fundamentally unfair that you give Rich Delaney a 'free pass' and separate him from the HAL talks and UA/CO talks. WHen choosing a president, one should judge folks based on the leadership they have displayed in a District leadership role; their ideas. Since you can't deny that I came through on your dime, my presumption is that you are in disagreement with the occupy 141 platform? Am I correct in assuming this? If so, what's your fuss?

Onward!

 

[saywhat]

Roabily,

I'm afraid that I'm never prayed up and in any case I always got alot of praying to do. Nobody dismissed qualifications, I asked for a clarification of terms from PJ because as part of his self imposed qualifications he included step 3's so I asked him what the difference was between step 2's and step 3's. He hasn't responded. IMO, he seems to be reducing AGC's to a sorta glorified local chairman. And you included 'special training' as part of your qualifications and I asked you to please list for me all the special training that MF had in his 1.5 years so that I could better understand exactly what training you are talking about. I believe you called me a liar or said something like I said something untrue about training, so I asked you to put up. You are the one that made the remark so the onus is upon you to support it. Again, neither of you bothered to respond to my clarification of the terms you both used. Instead you started calling folks names and started playing guessing games on who Jester is. BTW, I'll ask again, is an AGC qualified at any point if they go solo without an attorney, when they are sitting across the table from an expert RLA corporate attorney?

And someone above asked a question. If I scare the crap out of you and SayWhat, then please let me know exactly what scares you when you should be judging me based on my experience as a District leader on your dime. Did I not deliver for you exactly what I said I was? You even worked on those campaigns with me with your professional services. Did I not deliver? And I do think it is fundamentally unfair that you give Rich Delaney a 'free pass' and separate him from the HAL talks and UA/CO talks. WHen choosing a president, one should judge folks based on the leadership they have displayed in a District leadership role; their ideas. Since you can't deny that I came through on your dime, my presumption is that you are in disagreement with the occupy 141 platform? Am I correct in assuming this? If so, what's your fuss?

Onward!

Tim,

You have been claiming how wonderful of a job you did on our dime in organizing Airtran and CO. The reality of the situation is that you filed short of cards with Airtran which in the end screwed them out of being Union for more than a year. Plus, anyone could have organized them with how beaten down they were especially if you add the fact that the LUV merger was looming and they knew they needed protection. Now regarding CO, that was a no brainer when comparing contracts. Common man, let's get real here.

 

[Jester]

Mr. Jester...

We will share the "secret handshake"... and exchange "book numbers" AFTER the election...

P.S. I've got a BBQ plate in deep freeze that is almost 4 years old... me 'n you are gonna thaw that bad-boy out!

Sometime when I get through CLT, we will need to meet somewhere over a beer and BBQ, and you will clearly see that Tim and I are not the same person. I probably have about 8 inches of height and about 80 pounds of weight over him, we aren't likely to be confused in person.

I'll PM you, but you will need to buy, if I gotta do the traveling.

So Offers Jester.

 

[pjirish317]

Roabily,

I'm afraid that I'm never prayed up and in any case I always got alot of praying to do. Nobody dismissed qualifications, I asked for a clarification of terms from PJ because as part of his self imposed qualifications he included step 3's so I asked him what the difference was between step 2's and step 3's. He hasn't responded. IMO, he seems to be reducing AGC's to a sorta glorified local chairman. And you included 'special training' as part of your qualifications and I asked you to please list for me all the special training that MF had in his 1.5 years so that I could better understand exactly what training you are talking about. I believe you called me a liar or said something like I said something untrue about training, so I asked you to put up. You are the one that made the remark so the onus is upon you to support it. Again, neither of you bothered to respond to my clarification of the terms you both used. Instead you started calling folks names and started playing guessing games on who Jester is. BTW, I'll ask again, is an AGC qualified at any point if they go solo without an attorney, when they are sitting across the table from an expert RLA corporate attorney?

And someone above asked a question. If I scare the crap out of you and SayWhat, then please let me know exactly what scares you when you should be judging me based on my experience as a District leader on your dime. Did I not deliver for you exactly what I said I was? You even worked on those campaigns with me with your professional services. Did I not deliver? And I do think it is fundamentally unfair that you give Rich Delaney a 'free pass' and separate him from the HAL talks and UA/CO talks. WHen choosing a president, one should judge folks based on the leadership they have displayed in a District leadership role; their ideas. Since you can't deny that I came through on your dime, my presumption is that you are in disagreement with the occupy 141 platform? Am I correct in assuming this? If so, what's your fuss?

Onward!

Tim,
What "self-imposed" qualifications are you talking about. You yourself started the step 2 and 3 argument in your post #731 by implying that AGC's handle both Step 2 and Step 3. You and I both know that there really is no difference in the steps, just who hears them. Heck, IMO, the whole grievance process is tainted with bias on the company side anyway. And as far making the AGC's glorified local chairmen, that is YOUR idea, in having an attorney assist in EVERY step 3, thats exactly what you reduce them to. Because the attorney's argument isn't gonna change from the step 3 hearing to arbitration is it? Seems like the great and powerful OZ, aint so great and powerful once his curtain is pulled away and his "magic" is proved to be nothing more than parlor tricks. Now you can put your "snake-oil" spin on it Tim, because thats what you do, you spin.

 

[roabilly]

Roabily,

If I scare the crap out of you and SayWhat, then please let me know exactly what scares you when you should be judging me based on my experience as a District leader on your dime. Did I not deliver for you exactly what I said I was? You even worked on those campaigns with me with your professional services. Did I not deliver? And I do think it is fundamentally unfair that you give Rich Delaney a 'free pass' and separate him from the HAL talks and UA/CO talks. WHen choosing a president, one should judge folks based on the leadership they have displayed in a District leadership role; their ideas. Since you can't deny that I came through on your dime, my presumption is that you are in disagreement with the occupy 141 platform? Am I correct in assuming this? If so, what's your fuss?

Onward!

Tim…

It is clear to anyone reading here that you attempt to wear your opponents down with mental/verbal attrition, and Red Herrings. I’ve know of you for almost 20 years and you have always been obsessed with turning the Membership against the Leadership. It’s just that simple… you will never give-up until you are in charge will you?

Further, I think the AGC education issue has been argued long enough… you know what I said… you know what I presented to substantiate my case… and you also know why you don’t want to admit it. It simply did not FIT your political agenda to concur that educating your entire team would chronologically set us back, and consume financial resources!

You will never admit this will you? Further, I want you, and everyone reading that I do not hate you-- nor I do not love Delaney etc. I’m a dues paying member that will get involved if I perceive a threat to our focus, and that is what you have accomplished… you have diverted focus from the objective at hand...

P.S. Do you realize you answered my question with more questions... again? I find it almost humorous... and I say "almost" because of the ramifications. If I were an outside observer with no interest in this... it would be hilarious... I have a character in mind for future creative work... if nothing else you have served as a muse.