Fleet Service apathy

[Tim Nelson]

Mr. Nelson
By your numbers there are around 25,000 members if my math is right. US Airways members dont constitute a quarter of that. Knowing that around 75% of the membership is CO/UA I think you have a much higher mountain to climb if you think you can compete with two United Candidates. All they have to hear is "some dude from Useless Air is going to negotiate OUR CONTRACT!!! BULL PUCKY!!!"(Sorry, New England term)

After a union meeting, I picked the brain of a International Rep who had been present at the meeting. I asked him: 1. Why there not AGC positions designated for each airline? and 2. Who determines the number of AGC's the district could have?

The answer that he gave me was that within the Internationals Districts and Territories, the Business Representatives (formal name for AGC, GC etc...) can cover multiple contracts. Some Locals have their own Business Rep. Our district covers major airlines and only deals with the RLA. That is why historically we have had reps covering each contract. The large groups can accommodate it. If we want reps for each group, it would require a change in the District bylaws. As for the second question, he said that the International determines the number of AGC's they would support. By support, he defined that the Constitution dictates that they pay half of a Business reps salary. They determine how many AGC's they will support according to the membership numbers. If the District decides that they want to add 8 AGC's like Mr. Nelson stated he would, the District would have to pay the full amount: 100k for each.

Mr. Nelson, if you are not elected and only 1 US person makes it. "It is what it is" I believe that after the 2010 election, we had more spots on the eboard than we had in a long time. I don't know what our numbers were when our mechanics were there, but I can see those numbers fizzle away with the perfect storm.

If you don't get "your" full slate in, I don't see how you are going to get everyone to fall in line with giving up pay for attorneys. I don't see how you can afford an entire firm. UA wont give up their salary to pay for US attorneys. If you plan on including UA, US, and HI for attorney representation at negotiations and with grievances, A small firm will not be able to keep up.

I am but one vote, but I do have an opinion

UnitedWeStand,

you are being presumptuous to say that the District decided to add 8 AGC's after this June election. It was the INTL's decision that was based on winning organizing drives and bringing in 15,000 new members. Regardless, of who gets President, there will be 8 spots that need to be filled. The District will only be paying half of the amount, the INTL pays the other half. I have made it clear to all that Mitch Buckley and Bruce Davis will by my first two appointments that will be subject to election.

Also, who said anything about giving up pay for attorneys? That is entirely incorrect. Kindly review our platform, particularly #2.

At any rate, the district has legal services right now and is blowing $196,000 on this outsourcing, and that's so pricey that an those attorneys can't even be present in negotiations or arbitration. What I am going to do is insource our legal services and save about $50,000 a year of our members cost, and by doing so, actually increasing our resources. Win Win.

Other comparable unions only have one attorney so I'm not sure why it would be so difficult for some to understand that we really need to have an attorney assisting the AGC's in arbitrations and assisting me in negotiations. As I have maintained, the AGC's will still be doing the legwork and research and handling the arbitration. There aren't as many arbitrations as you must think. At any rate, the ND is currently paying hundreds of thousands for legal services and that means ZERO attorney's in negotiations and zero in arbitration. Of course, the current leadership enjoys the perks from having an outside law firm, i.e., limo rides, executive suites, sports tickets, etc.

Whoever wins AGC is going to continue to get eaten alive by a "Top" Corporate attorney if our AGC's go in without one themselves. There is a reason why 2% doesn't mean 2%. There is a reason why your contract has enough gray in it that you can paint a USS battleship with it. We have AGC's and Presidents who think they can match up legally with someone who has spent his/her whole life being equipped at "Top" schools for the job. Just because someone wins an election doesn't mean his/her 'certiicate of participation' for a 3 day AGC class is going to stack up against a professional with 10-15 years of legal schooling from a "Top" law school. I could have more education than anyone running on any ticket but that just means that I realize I need to surround myself with a professional and not pound my chest like the other two Prez candidates who claim they don't need an attorney present. The membership deserves professional service and strong representation and I reject the unacademic thinking that somehow concludes that we ought not to bother having a "Top" labor attorney present in negotiations. We can fix stupid.

I believe in slate voting and having a group of members with equally yoked beliefs. Our give backs will be posted on the webpage the first of each month when the check arrives. If an AGC who wasn't on the occupy ticket gets in, then he/she will be asked to join in solidarity to sacrifice also. His/her givings will be posted on the web, even if it is 0. If the current S/T gets in, I will have the eboard vote to force him to ORD to have him quit running his meter and blowing money just to do his job. I will be shutting down the other offices since it makes no sense to spend thousands and thousands of dollars on two buildings when the one in ORD has plenty of space. I will also be laying off the two $50,000 bookkepers who are presently doing the S/T job. There is a total of $2 million that we easily targeted. Getting rid of all the dead weight people who are 'off the job' because of favors will also be eliminated. The wasteful spending is actually incredible.

Onward!

 

[roabilly]

What false campaign promises are you referring to? Just because you don't believe them doesn't make them false. They all will happen. All of them.

Onward!

Tim...

Maybe you should ask Jester to "Stand Down"... he is sounding like a parrot...

As for your statement above... If you click your heels together three times... it will all happen!

 

[Tim Nelson]

Not to take anything from the ACGs or others, but where did the buck stop for Car-54 with the NC's decision to offer the HAL TA to the membership? Do you think Tim would have approved that deal? Personally, I don't think so...

And while you are talking about the AGCs, as there are some good ones, Car-54 does not seem to be pushing those who are not carrying their weight for the Membership. I do not know if Tim would have those abilities to "fix" those lazy AGCs, but we know that Car-54 has not demonstrated any such abilities.

This is one of those situations where the Devil you know isn't more appealing, than the unknown, because as I have outlined, Car-54 has presented poor judgment with HAL TA and a lack of leadership with substandard AGCs.

I am not going to say that Tim is the right person, but clearly Car-54 needs to be replaced.

So Expresses Jester.

It all comes down to leadership, everything rises and falls on leadership. The Hawaiian members voted down a contract by a wide margin, then Delaney did the same thing that Canale did, he recircled and gave them a 'take it or leave it' option and wore them down. The Hawaiian members had little choice, none of them wanted part timers to get paid half pay as full time but they were given no other choice. Many have had enough of IAM 141 but Delaney made sure he collared them by signing over language that keeps them fearful of bringing in the IBT. Thus, Delaney can take someone under the contract, who is 'undermining' the union, straight to the chief operating Officer for the manager to make a decision that is final without any grievance procedure. The paternalism from Delaney is off the charts and we don't need those sorta witch hunts anywhere. Piss off Delaney at Hawaii and he can place a phone call on your rear end and actually become the snitch himself straight to management. Folks, only an anti union manager would sign such a clause where the General Chairman can bring someone to the CEO for discipline. Is that how we want our union leadership to act? I don't think so. Again, very few want to piss off the General Chairman when he himself can have the power to bring an employee to the CEO for discipline if he determines that you have been 'indulging in ANY activities 'tending' to undermine the union'.

Hawaiian contract: Union Security Clause

In the interest of harmonious relations and the maintenance of
a stable and responsible Union, the Company will not permit
any employee covered by this Agreement not a member of the
Union to indulge in any activities tending to undermine the
Union and will enforce its policy in this matter with proper
disciplinary action. Any grievance arising under this Article of
the Agreement may be taken by the System General
Chairman or his representative directly to the Chief Operating
Officer or his designee for final action.

Onward!

 

[Tim Nelson]

Tim...

Maybe you should ask Jester to "Stand Down"... he is sounding like a parrot...

As for your statement above... If you click your heels together three times... it will all happen!

Roabily,

What changed you from what you posted below to where your position has shifted now.

"Tim… I like what you are saying in regards to salaries etc. It almost reminds me of our own US Government. Everyone talks the talk, but once they get on, and ride the gravy train… it gets quiet!

As far as AGC’s handling arbitration, maybe Jester is right… we should have professionals. The problem is they are not cheap. That could be where the “give backs” from the officers come in. Create a fund for negotiating teams, and member cases that require expert legal council.

I wish you luck in your endeavor; I’m out of the loop on almost everything now… so I know very little about the inner workings at the top of the organization. But, I’ll take your word for it that something needs to change. Please contact me when your ticket is final.

Did I just say Jester may be right?
So…realizes…

Roabilly "


I mean, the things I said sounded like good ideas to you, like having professionals, etc, and when you were unbiased, you saw the reasoning of the 'give backs'. Cripes, you even furthered the idea! Now, what makes you say I have to click my heels three times for it to happen?

BTW, why would you take my word for anything if I'm just a slick talking stooge that is all out for myself?

Onward!

 

[mike33]

Thus, Delaney can take someone under the contract, who is 'undermining' the union, straight to the chief operating Officer for the manager to make a decision that is final without any grievance procedure. The paternalism from Delaney is off the charts and we don't need those sorta witch hunts anywhere. Piss off Delaney at Hawaii and he can place a phone call on your rear end and actually become the snitch himself straight to management. Folks, only an anti union manager would sign such a clause where the General Chairman can bring someone to the CEO for discipline. Is that how we want our union leadership to act? I don't think so. Again, very few want to piss off the General Chairman when he himself can have the power to bring an employee to the CEO for discipline if he determines that you have been 'indulging in ANY activities 'tending' to undermine the union'.

Hawaiian contract: Union Security Clause

In the interest of harmonious relations and the maintenance of
a stable and responsible Union, the Company will not permit
any employee covered by this Agreement not a member of the
Union to indulge in any activities tending to undermine the
Union and will enforce its policy in this matter with proper
disciplinary action. Any grievance arising under this Article of
the Agreement may be taken by the System General
Chairman or his representative directly to the Chief Operating
Officer or his designee for final action.

Onward!

Hmmm ... Thats not quite what i get out of it Tim?.....I believe it says " Not a member of the union "...in other words....... he is covered by the agreement but doesn't pay the member portion of his union dues that allow him 100 % membership. Sounds more like its protecting the union from being undermined by someone who doesn't believe in unionism but still has to pay a portion of dues or be walked off the property.

I think you spun this the wrong way!......enough of the scare tactics already.

Maybe we should get a lawyer to insert a couple comas for punctuation purposes since they left out a few after the word Agreement (,) not a member of the union (,)

 

[Tim Nelson]

Hmmm ... Thats not quite what i get out of it Tim?.....I believe it says " Not a member of the union "...in other words....... he is covered by the agreement but doesn't pay the member portion of his union dues that allow him 100 % membership. Sounds more like its protecting the union from being undermined by someone who doesn't believe in unionism but still has to pay a portion of dues or be walked off the property.

I think you spun this the wrong way!......enough of the scare tactics already.

Maybe we should get a lawyer to insert a couple comas for punctuation purposes since they left out a few after the word Agreement (,) not a member of the union (,)

Sorry Mike, I really wish I was spinning this. So, you have someone who is paying his/her dues, a dues objector due to a personal belief of whatever sort, who is doing something that is 'tending' to undermine the union, for instance trying to get a contract rejected that sucks, and you have no problem with the General Chairman going directly to the CEO for a 'final action"? Can you not see the intimidation and witch hunt? It's just wrong that a union Boss can go to the CEO to get discipline over someone who isn't undermining but 'tending' to undermine. It's purely subjective and could happen against a dues payer. I actually can't even believe the language. Tell all of us Mike, do you support the following language? I think our audience needs to know.

In the interest of harmonious relations and the maintenance of
a stable and responsible Union, the Company will not permit
any employee covered by this Agreement not a member of the
Union to indulge in any activities tending to undermine the
Union and will enforce its policy in this matter with proper
disciplinary action. Any grievance arising under this Article of
the Agreement may be taken by the System General
Chairman or his representative directly to the Chief Operating
Officer or his designee for final action.

 

[700UW]

The spin never ceases

"may be taken"

Do you realize in the US IAM CBAs, there is a process to get a employee fired if they fail to pay dues?

Very similar language.

 

[saywhat]

Sorry Mike, I really wish I was spinning this. So, you have someone who is paying his/her dues, a dues objector due to a personal belief of whatever sort, who is doing something that is 'tending' to undermine the union, for instance trying to get a contract rejected that sucks, and you have no problem with the General Chairman going directly to the CEO for a 'final action"? Can you not see the intimidation and witch hunt? It's just wrong that a union Boss can go to the CEO to get discipline over someone who isn't undermining but 'tending' to undermine. It's purely subjective and could happen against a dues payer. I actually can't even believe the language. Tell all of us Mike, do you support the following language? I think our audience needs to know.

In the interest of harmonious relations and the maintenance of
a stable and responsible Union, the Company will not permit
any employee covered by this Agreement not a member of the
Union to indulge in any activities tending to undermine the
Union and will enforce its policy in this matter with proper
disciplinary action. Any grievance arising under this Article of
the Agreement may be taken by the System General
Chairman or his representative directly to the Chief Operating
Officer or his designee for final action.

Tim,

Does this language upset you because a guy (hint, hint, wink, wink) couldn't try to get AGW, IBEW, IBT or to try and decertify if he doesn't win district elections?

 

[700UW]

Dont forget FSU or whatever the union he made up, I believe there was two of them.

 

[mike33]

Sorry Mike, I really wish I was spinning this. So, you have someone who is paying his/her dues, a dues objector due to a personal belief of whatever sort, who is doing something that is 'tending' to undermine the union, for instance trying to get a contract rejected that sucks, and you have no problem with the General Chairman going directly to the CEO for a 'final action"? Can you not see the intimidation and witch hunt? It's just wrong that a union Boss can go to the CEO to get discipline over someone who isn't undermining but 'tending' to undermine. It's purely subjective and could happen against a dues payer. I actually can't even believe the language. Tell all of us Mike, do you support the following language? I think our audience needs to know.

In the interest of harmonious relations and the maintenance of
a stable and responsible Union, the Company will not permit
any employee covered by this Agreement not a member of the
Union to indulge in any activities tending to undermine the
Union and will enforce its policy in this matter with proper
disciplinary action. Any grievance arising under this Article of
the Agreement may be taken by the System General
Chairman or his representative directly to the Chief Operating
Officer or his designee for final action.

Unless you can give me a better example ( or hows about a real event ) and not some generic one i say undermining the union is just that and yes i would agree with the language. I can't even imagine what a person could do to undermine a union .....can you?
My response is that ur on a personal "witch hunt" and using examples that may not even exist.

Please give me an example of someone being covered by this agreement and not a member of the union ?

 

[necigrad]

What false campaign promises are you referring to? Just because you don't believe them doesn't make them false. They all will happen. All of them.

That would be a great example. You will NOT win an entire slate. Therefore your promise that all AGCs will give back is a... Wait for it... False Promise. You're just like all the other craptastic politicians that we vote for in November that promise all sorts of things, then when they get into office they decide not to follow through or find out that they can't do what was promised.

If the current S/T gets in, I will have the eboard vote to force him to ORD

I left the situation in to make it a bit more grammatically proper, so please leave that proposed situation out of this. You're going to FORCE the EBoard to vote your way? How? What happened to democracy? What about if it's something else that you and the EBoard disagree on? Are you going to force a vote there somehow as well? Goodbye democracy, hello fascism.

 

[roabilly]

Roabily,

What changed you from what you posted below to where your position has shifted now.

"Tim… I like what you are saying in regards to salaries etc. It almost reminds me of our own US Government. Everyone talks the talk, but once they get on, and ride the gravy train… it gets quiet!

As far as AGC’s handling arbitration, maybe Jester is right… we should have professionals. The problem is they are not cheap. That could be where the “give backs” from the officers come in. Create a fund for negotiating teams, and member cases that require expert legal council.

I wish you luck in your endeavor; I’m out of the loop on almost everything now… so I know very little about the inner workings at the top of the organization. But, I’ll take your word for it that something needs to change. Please contact me when your ticket is final.

Did I just say Jester may be right?
So…realizes…

Roabilly "


I mean, the things I said sounded like good ideas to you, like having professionals, etc, and when you were unbiased, you saw the reasoning of the 'give backs'. Cripes, you even furthered the idea! Now, what makes you say I have to click my heels three times for it to happen?

BTW, why would you take my word for anything if I'm just a slick talking stooge that is all out for myself?

Onward!

I won’t deny I wrote that, and there are probably a few more that were similar in theme.
If I recall the context and the time frame… this was a correspondence during the initial “seed planting” phase of your idea for “occupy”.

What “changed” since that original contact is simple… I learned the details and decided not to just "take your word for it"!

At the time…I was under the impression (because of you) that the give-back issue was legal, regulated, and enforceable by IAM by-laws. Further I was under the impression that we (FS) were not being afforded legal council in a balanced manner with other unions and labor groups. As time went on… I began to research all of these claims, and I ultimately found them not to be factual or credible.

And the “BIG kicker” in my final decision to not support your ticket was this… I learned you actually wanted to oust every singe member of the N/D team that did not agree with you! Including MF… MB… and some of the best leaders we have ever had the privilege to serve us... the very same ones we fought to get elected less than four years ago! You know the people I’m speaking of… they are the very same folks that are working their butts off for the Membership even as we speak… the ones who haven’t even had time to prove their abilities in Section Six Negotiations… the ones you want to flush down the toilet to further your agenda!

The fact is this… I realized that the process of replacing everyone in office now would cost time and money… all on the Membership’s dime, and we may end up with some that are not as competent, educated, and talented as those we have now. And the final coup de grâce… we may end of with who knows who in critical leadership positions… since at least two on your ticket are not even eligible to serve!

 

[Tim Nelson]

The spin never ceases

"may be taken"

Do you realize in the US IAM CBAs, there is a process to get a employee fired if they fail to pay dues?

Very similar language.

700,

The language incorporated in the Hawaiian contract makes it possible for the general chairman to go to the CEO and claim such individual should be disciplined for actions 'tending' to be subversive to the union and 'harmony'. WTH is that? It's not at all talking about the failure to pay dues. It's wrong, flat out wrong. What it does is collar and intimidate individuals who may disagree with the union. Does it 'tend' to cause problems if there is a concerted effort on a few individuals to shut down a contact? All this language does is build fear and uses management against an employee with the unions blessing. Any fair minded person would find such language restrictive and bothersome to a difference of opinion. Paternalism at its best and that is what we are going to smash down when the Occupy platform gets installed.

Onward!

 

[Tim Nelson]

Tim,

Does this language upset you because a guy (hint, hint, wink, wink) couldn't try to get AGW, IBEW, IBT or to try and decertify if he doesn't win district elections?

The language is inherently wrong. If an individual wanted to get another union, yes it targets them and there shouldn't be any target on someone's back if they disagree. It also targets someone who may be acting in concert with a group of other employees to shut down a contract. And that is the context of my post. Mike wanted to know why Hawaiian airlines finally accepted the recycled rejected contract. Through intimidating language, anyone who acts in concert to coordinate a contract rejection could be subjectively ruled as 'tending' to be subversive to the benefit of the union/management relations. Take me out of the equation and it still isn't right.

Onward!

 

[Tim Nelson]

That would be a great example. You will NOT win an entire slate. Therefore your promise that all AGCs will give back is a... Wait for it... False Promise. You're just like all the other craptastic politicians that we vote for in November that promise all sorts of things, then when they get into office they decide not to follow through or find out that they can't do what was promised.




I left the situation in to make it a bit more grammatically proper, so please leave that proposed situation out of this. You're going to FORCE the EBoard to vote your way? How? What happened to democracy? What about if it's something else that you and the EBoard disagree on? Are you going to force a vote there somehow as well? Goodbye democracy, hello fascism.

Once again, you take everything I say and 'quote mine' it. Yes, I will want the eboard to 'vote' my way on my proposal that the S/T needs to move to his office instead of blowing thousands of dollars with a running meter every time he goes to his office. Key word 'vote'. I thought that is what an Eboard does, ie. vote? What's your fuss with this? And yes, why wouldn't I want them to vote my way on that?? Cripes, I would think that the membership would be 100% in agreement with it! And I would have no problem 'forcing' a vote on it. Again, what's the fuss? Would you rather me just chat about it and not take any action on cleaning that and many other overspending things to the Eboard?

Onward!