Fleet Service apathy

[pjirish317]

Ograc, we are on opposing tickets. It sounds like PJ just has a gripe against you or MW. Good luck with that conversation. Its obvious some here are diehards for the ND team. Thats cool since it shows no apathy. I support the Occupy ticket and I respect you Ograc for putting yourself out there and your views. No matter what happens in June I will still remain dedicated to the membership as I'm sure you will too. Fraternally TIM

I have a gripe with anybody that defends/endorses a candidate that was a lazy, inneffectual AGC, like MW. Refuses to acknowledge it. He was one of Canoli's boys, and was voted out for his performance, or lack thereof. Yourself and the other Tim, at least have said that the entire team needs to go, you didn't sugarcoat it, and you pulled no punches. While I disagree with that, I respect the position you took. Not necessarily the position of the other Tim, I truely believe that he is doing this because he has an axe to grind. To me, IMO, it is written all over his post's, with all the I's, me's and my's he puts in them. Little to no mention of the rest on the occupy ticket. I asked ocrac who, in his opinion, had poor performance. He chose not to answer, yet wants us, the members, to vote on this issue and for him, because he will have better performance, better that whom? How are we to do that, make a choice between the candidates, if we get non-answers from the people running? And look around, the ENTIRE SYSTEM is full of apathy, I have been involved, former GC/Committee person. And to some degree I still am involved in assisting the members in RDU. It is hard to engage the members when they don't want to be engaged or get involved. You, the other Tim, ograc, the ND, and anybody else running are not going to change this, you know this to be true. All that can be hoped for is that whoever is elected in June does the very best that he/she is able to do.

 

[ograc]

Lquote name='pjirish317' timestamp='1335748083' post='896265']
Didn't figure you would. At least Tim has the gumption to say they all need to go. Not you though. You just dance around the subject and bring up "past performance". That's all I need to know. And you are right, the members who vote in June will be the only ones that matter.
[/quote]

Why not let everyone run on their own record, history and past performance? In the end those who have done their best, have a history of productive involvement and have the best interests of the members in mind should accordingly receive the endorsement of the members. IMO... this applies to all of the candidates not just the incumbents.
ograc

 

[ograc]

I have a gripe with anybody that defends/endorses a candidate that was a lazy, inneffectual AGC, like MW. Refuses to acknowledge it. He was one of Canoli's boys, and was voted out for his performance, or lack thereof. Yourself and the other Tim, at least have said that the entire team needs to go, you didn't sugarcoat it, and you pulled no punches. While I disagree with that, I respect the position you took. Not necessarily the position of the other Tim, I truely believe that he is doing this because he has an axe to grind. To me, IMO, it is written all over his post's, with all the I's, me's and my's he puts in them. Little to no mention of the rest on the occupy ticket. I asked ocrac who, in his opinion, had poor performance. He chose not to answer, yet wants us, the members, to vote on this issue and for him, because he will have better performance, better that whom? How are we to do that, make a choice between the candidates, if we get non-answers from the people running? And look around, the ENTIRE SYSTEM is full of apathy, I have been involved, former GC/Committee person. And to some degree I still am involved in assisting the members in RDU. It is hard to engage the members when they don't want to be engaged or get involved. You, the other Tim, ograc, the ND, and anybody else running are not going to change this, you know this to be true. All that can be hoped for is that whoever is elected in June does the very best that he/she is able to do.

The members throughout our system will voice their opinion on past performance in June. They, throughout both the US and UA systems, are the only ones who's definitive opinion on job performance really matters. With this in mind, why should I be drawn into bashing incumbent candidates? Why should I be drawn into allowing a platform for you to bash MW? It is obvious to me this is what you seek. It is apparent your opinion on MW influences your judgement, however once again, I cannot speak for anyone other than myself. You're right I am asking the members to consider a candidate's past performance, history and involvement before deciding who to vote for. This should be inclusive of, not only the candidates holding office, but those seeking office. I'm sorry you find this proposal so intimidating. I respectfully disagree with your bleak assessment of membership engagement. IMO... this too can and must be improved. Of course when former GC Committee persons, are "to some degree" still involved in assisting members, this level of apathy from the members should be expected.

ograc

 

[pjirish317]

The members throughout our system will voice their opinion on past performance in June. They, throughout both the US and UA systems, are the only ones who's definitive opinion on job performance really matters. With this in mind, why should I be drawn into bashing incumbent candidates? Why should I be drawn into allowing a platform for you to bash MW? It is obvious to me this is what you seek. It is apparent your opinion on MW influences your judgement, however once again, I cannot speak for anyone other than myself. You're right I am asking the members to consider a candidate's past performance, history and involvement before deciding who to vote for. This should be inclusive of, not only the candidates holding office, but those seeking office. I'm sorry you find this proposal so intimidating. I respectfully disagree with your bleak assessment of membership engagement. IMO... this too can and must be improved. Of course when former GC Committee persons, are "to some degree" still involved in assisting members, this level of apathy from the members should be expected.

ograc

You don't need to allow a platform for me to "bash" MW. He did that all by himself. And with that you are guilty by association. You have refused to answer legitimate question about the platform of your ticket, you vaguely state of past and poor performance, yet refuse to say who and why. I am glad you think I am intimidated, it is really funny to me, in so much that I think it is you, who is in fact, the one who is intimidated. Intimidated by those who question you, question your team that you chose to run with, and question the platform which you chose to endorse. And you have no idea about why I chose not to remain on the Committee, nor why I am still involved to some degree. That shows ignorance on your part.

 

[Jester]

Jester,

We have gone over the issue of HAL numerous times. The exact same thing happened at US that happened at HAL. THE MAJOTITY VOTED IN THE CBA! PERIOD! END OF STORY! You were part of the majority in 2008 were you not. Our NC, did not negotiate the HAL CBA. I understand why you voted the way you did. And I don't begrudge anybody for voting the way that they chose. The fact is that the MAJORITY at US, and at HAL voted in favor for a sub-par CBA. Yet you get up on your high horse and cry foul about HAL, yet you praised this CBA just for your raise. What exactly is the difference. You voted to put fellow employees out of work, HAL voted to give P/T half pay. I fail to see the difference here.

Tell you what, PJ... why don't you go to the P/T agents in RDU, and tell them that as you would adhere and fully support majority rule, even if it meant them being paid half the hourly rate of the F/T agents doing the same work and years of service? I am willing to bet you wouldn't be around for the post-election Beer and Brat party in the IAM headquarters.

Furthermore, it is an intellectually dishonest dodge to say, "Our NC, did not negotiate the HAL CBA," but ignore Car 54 signing-off on the T.A. Where was Car 54 in this process, and yes, he is up for re-election.

And what's the difference you ask? Let's see... 2008 majority provided upwards of $5,000 to $10,000 annual raises for nearly all full-time West employees, even those people who were subject to being displaced, and provided a pension for the first time for West agents. The HAL deal? Where was the P/T pay raise? Oh yeah... it limited them to half the full-time hourly rate ceteris paribus. I never said that the 2008 CBA was perfect, but I also realized that most people would rather have $15,000 - $30,000 in extra money over the 3 additional years it would have taken to iron-out a deal, and I doubt it would have prevented the downsizing of stations like LAS or PIT, along with the associated furloughs. I am sure the hundreds of furloughed LAS guys were very happy to have had the extra pay, if for no other reason than their unemployment benefits were substantially higher (as I predicted 4 years ago, by the way).

So the options were to have much higher pay for 3 years with the ability to transfer during the following 4 years vs. being P/T with HAL and taking a pay cut while living in one of the most expensive cities in the US? Now do you understand the difference?

So Clarifies Jester.

 

[mike33]

Let you what, PJ... why don't you go to the P/T agents in RDU, and tell them that as you would adhere and fully support majority rule, even if it meant them being paid half the hourly rate of the F/T agents doing the same work and years of service? I am willing to bet you wouldn't be around for the post-election Beer and Brat party in the IAM headquarters.

Furthermore, it is an intellectually dishonest dodge to say, "Our NC, did not negotiate the HAL CBA," but ignore Car 54 signing-off on the T.A. Where was Car 54 in this process, and yes, he is up for re-election.

And what's the difference you ask? Let's see... 2008 majority provided upwards of $5,000 to $10,000 annual raises for nearly all full-time West employees, even those people who were subject to being displaced, and provided a pension for the first time for West agents. The HAL deal? Where was the P/T pay raise? Oh yeah... it limited them to half the full-time hourly rate ceteris paribus. I never said that the 2008 CBA was perfect, but I also realized that most people would rather have $15,000 - $30,000 in extra money over the 3 additional years it would have taken to iron-out a deal, and I doubt it would have prevented the downsizing of stations like LAS or PIT, along with the associated furloughs. I am sure the hundreds of furloughed LAS guys were very happy to have had the extra pay, if for no other reason than their unemployment benefits were substantially higher (as I predicted 4 years ago, by the way).

So the options were to have much higher pay for 3 years with the ability to transfer during the following 4 years vs. being P/T with HAL and taking a pay cut while living in one of the most expensive cities in the US? Now do you understand the difference?

So Clarifies Jester.

Jester do you know anyone that is based in Hawaii?.....no F..cking way you know!.......ur talking out ur arse........and everyone is reading ! ur a fake jester and I'm calling you out! No more Bull S..t from you !




Follower is all you are!

Man Up!

I Love This Board!

 

[pjirish317]

Let you what, PJ... why don't you go to the P/T agents in RDU, and tell them that as you would adhere and fully support majority rule, even if it meant them being paid half the hourly rate of the F/T agents doing the same work and years of service? I am willing to bet you wouldn't be around for the post-election Beer and Brat party in the IAM headquarters.

Furthermore, it is an intellectually dishonest dodge to say, "Our NC, did not negotiate the HAL CBA," but ignore Car 54 signing-off on the T.A. Where was Car 54 in this process, and yes, he is up for re-election.

And what's the difference you ask? Let's see... 2008 majority provided upwards of $5,000 to $10,000 annual raises for nearly all full-time West employees, even those people who were subject to being displaced, and provided a pension for the first time for West agents. The HAL deal? Where was the P/T pay raise? Oh yeah... it limited them to half the full-time hourly rate ceteris paribus. I never said that the 2008 CBA was perfect, but I also realized that most people would rather have $15,000 - $30,000 in extra money over the 3 additional years it would have taken to iron-out a deal, and I doubt it would have prevented the downsizing of stations like LAS or PIT, along with the associated furloughs. I am sure the hundreds of furloughed LAS guys were very happy to have had the extra pay, if for no other reason than their unemployment benefits were substantially higher (as I predicted 4 years ago, by the way).

So the options were to have much higher pay for 3 years with the ability to transfer during the following 4 years vs. being P/T with HAL and taking a pay cut while living in one of the most expensive cities in the US? Now do you understand the difference?

So Clarifies Jester.

I have always understood the difference. Yet you refuse to see the similarities. Why don't you go to the affected cities that were either downsized, and or outsourced outright and explain to them because you wanted a raise, they got furloughed. How about that. Hypocrisy ring a bell. You can call it what you will, but the fact is, our NC, you know the US guys in negotiations right now, did not negotiate that HAL CBA did they? And make no mistake, I am not condoning the HAL cba, I am pointing out, that the majority voted in favor. For whatever reason. Now they all have to live with it. Just like we do now.

 

[Jester]

Jester do you know anyone that is based in Hawaii?.....no F..cking way you know!.......ur talking out ur arse........and everyone is reading ! ur a fake jester and I'm calling you out!

Do you think I need to be on the wrong side of a whip to know that it hurts like Hell? Do you think I need to be some poor schlub working P/T for HAL under this agreement do know that it sucks? Do you think I need to know someone working for HAL in Hawaii to know that this steaming piece of crap CBA stinks for P/T HAL agents? Common sense! Try it, Mike! It doesn't hurt nearly as much as you think!

Also, tell LF that the next time we go to Mexico, he needs to buy the beer, especially as he speaks the language.

So Chuckles Jester.

 

[mike33]

Do you think I need to be on the wrong side of a whip to know that it hurts like Hell? Do you think I need to be some poor schlub working P/T for HAL under this agreement do know that it sucks? Do you think I need to know someone working for HAL in Hawaii to know that this steaming piece of crap CBA stinks for P/T HAL agents? Common sense! Try it, Mike! It doesn't hurt nearly as much as you think!

Also, tell LF that the next time we go to Mexico, he needs to buy the beer, especially as he speaks the language.

So Chuckles Jester.

he is too cheap to buy the beer!...like you!

 

[mike33]

Do you think I need to be on the wrong side of a whip to know that it hurts like Hell? Do you think I need to be some poor schlub working P/T for HAL under this agreement do know that it sucks? Do you think I need to know someone working for HAL in Hawaii to know that this steaming piece of crap CBA stinks for P/T HAL agents? Common sense! Try it, Mike! It doesn't hurt nearly as much as you think!

Also, tell LF that the next time we go to Mexico, he needs to buy the beer, especially as he speaks the language.

So Chuckles Jester.

He is in denial!

Now i know ur a fack!

i'll be calling you out from now on ........Faker!

 

[Jester]

I have always understood the difference. Yet you refuse to see the similarities. Why don't you go to the affected cities that were either downsized, and or outsourced outright and explain to them because you wanted a raise, they got furloughed. How about that. Hypocrisy ring a bell. You can call it what you will, but the fact is, our NC, you know the US guys in negotiations right now, did not negotiate that HAL CBA did they? And make no mistake, I am not condoning the HAL cba, I am pointing out, that the majority voted in favor. For whatever reason. Now they all have to live with it. Just like we do now.

I obtained a memo from Car 54 to his sycophantic minions, and it is brief...
"DANCE, PUPPETS, DANCE!"
Certainly brevity would be the soul of wit in his case.

I guess you don't want to talk about Car 54 signing off on the HAL deal, do you?

I guess you don't want to talk about how LAS and PIT downsizing would have provided no protections for furloughed workers, regardless of CBA passed, do you?

I guess you don't want to tell the P/T agents in RDU what you would continue to blindly support Car 54 even if he signed-off on a HAL like agreement that limited their pay to half of F/T agents, do you?

I guess you don't want to recognize that having a large pay raise is much better deal than have a pay cut, do you?

PJ, I wouldn't elect you to check the air pressure in my car's tires... I don't think I could trust your judgment to handle that simple assignment, and I hope the agents in RDU are paying attention to your lack of ethics and rationalizations in this forum.

So Hopes Jester.

 

[pjirish317]

I obtained a memo from Car 54 to his sycophantic minions, and it is brief...
"DANCE, PUPPETS, DANCE!"
Certainly brevity would be the soul of wit in his case.

I guess you don't want to talk about Car 54 signing off on the HAL deal, do you?

Sure, what shall we say? It was signed off on. The members voted, and ratified it.

I guess you don't want to talk about how LAS and PIT downsizing would have provided no protections for furloughed workers, regardless of CBA passed, do you?

Are you using the HAL agreement here, because this really makes no sense.

I guess you don't want to tell the P/T agents in RDU what you would continue to blindly support Car 54 even if he signed-off on a HAL like agreement that limited their pay to half of F/T agents, do you?

If an agreement was signed off at US like the one at HAL, I would be against it, just like I was against our 2008 transition agreement. And would suggest a no vote.

I guess you don't want to recognize that having a large pay raise is much better deal than have a pay cut, do you?

I bet it is. And I do recognize it is better than a pay cut. But at what price. The price of furloughing fellow employees? I do not think so. Remember I am in a class 2 city. I also recieved a sizable raise with the 2008 T/A. Yet I voted no.

PJ, I wouldn't elect you to check the air pressure in my car's tires... I don't think I could trust your judgment to handle that simple assignment, and I hope the agents in RDU are paying attention to your lack of ethics and rationalizations in this forum.

If you can't check your own tires, you have bigger issues. And thank god you are not in RDU, because I don't think I could stand your grandstanding, whining, pissing and moaning, all the while not wanting to get involved. Typical armchair quarterback or backseat driver, you pick. Apparently I have a better set of ethics than you. I voted to keep jobs at US, while you voted them away for your 3 pieces of silver.

So Hopes Jester.

 

[ograc]

You don't need to allow a platform for me to "bash" MW. He did that all by himself. And with that you are guilty by association. You have refused to answer legitimate question about the platform of your ticket, you vaguely state of past and poor performance, yet refuse to say who and why. I am glad you think I am intimidated, it is really funny to me, in so much that I think it is you, who is in fact, the one who is intimidated. Intimidated by those who question you, question your team that you chose to run with, and question the platform which you chose to endorse. And you have no idea about why I chose not to remain on the Committee, nor why I am still involved to some degree. That shows ignorance on your part.

I am not intimidated by you and your leading questions by any means. PJ, I have been around and involved long enough to know whem I am being baited. Past performance is an issue that will be considered in this election regardless of your objections. I don't need to mention names of those I feel have not performed. The membership will decide. I believe the platform of the Team I'm running with is pretty clear. AGC accountability and electronic tracking of grievances are soley needed. I suppose you are opposed to such a concept. You do not question the team I'm running with as much as you obviously have an axe to grind with one person on the team. You are right, I do not know why you chose to not remain on the Committee, nor why you choose to be involved "to some degree"... whatever that means. What I do know is your posture on this thread has been consistently hostile and defensive toward anyone who has an opposite view point of yours. Your insinuation of ignorance is one example. You can spin it any way you like, but I will not be drawn in.
ograc

 

[mike33]

I obtained a memo from Car 54 to his sycophantic minions, and it is brief...
"DANCE, PUPPETS, DANCE!"
Certainly brevity would be the soul of wit in his case.

I guess you don't want to talk about Car 54 signing off on the HAL deal, do you?

I guess you don't want to talk about how LAS and PIT downsizing would have provided no protections for furloughed workers, regardless of CBA passed, do you?

I guess you don't want to tell the P/T agents in RDU what you would continue to blindly support Car 54 even if he signed-off on a HAL like agreement that limited their pay to half of F/T agents, do you?

I guess you don't want to recognize that having a large pay raise is much better deal than have a pay cut, do you?

PJ, I wouldn't elect you to check the air pressure in my car's tires... I don't think I could trust your judgment to handle that simple assignment, and I hope the agents in RDU are paying attention to your lack of ethics and rationalizations in this forum.

So Hopes Jester.

Ha Ha faker..PJ is sleeping son .......come to me faker ! You don't know Sh.t!

 

[mike33]

Jester


A jester, joker, jokester, fool, wit-cracker, prankster, or buffoon was a person employed to tell jokes and provide general entertainment, typically for a European monarch. Jesters are stereotypically thought to have worn brightly coloured clothes and eccentric hats in a motley pattern. Their hats were especially distinctive; typically made of cloth, they were floppy with three points, each of which had a jingle bell at the end. The three points of the hat represent donkey's ears and nose and tail worn by jesters in earlier times. Other things distinctive about the jester were his laughter and his mock sceptre, known as a "bauble" or marotte

Perfect!!!!!!!