Question:
Hi Bob! Heard you went fishing last weekend. Did you catch anything?
Answer:
Well,Lets reverse roles for a moment. Suppose you guys were represented by AMFA and you just found that many jobs were being sacrificed for the good of the brotherhood. This doesn''t sit well with you, as you have been a dues paying member for years and cannot believe that the union didn''t fight any harder for all employees...after all, strength in numbers you know. Meanwhile, a rather vocal coworker kept complaining about AMFA and was spreading the word that TWU was the way to go. His complaints have piqued your interest - do you accept his word as facts, and blindly follow, or do you do a little digging on your own to see the entire view of the TWU? And if in your digging, you find that things over at ABC airlines (who is represented by TWU) are not that much better than they are at XYZ airlines - when you see that the members at MNO airlines (a smaller airline represented by the same union) got an increase thru arbitration that was LESS than management origianlly offered, because the union leadership was going to stand as one against a sh*tty offer, then maybe you start to think that just maybe the things that are being spouted by this vocal organizer are not really as good as he''d like you to believe. But when he posts anything he finds that is the least bit negative, he is a liar or uninformed.One of the suggestions I forwarded to Jim Little months ago was a job sharing program similar to that used by trades here in NY. Instead of just throwing out the Junior guys all workers would take the hit in the form of a layoff. The workers would pick the period in which they wanted to be laid off by seniority.They dont accept pay cutsto keep people working. The concept of keeping as many people producing as possible is the responsibility of the government, not unions. Companies use the arguement of lower wages as a means to full employment not unions. Following this logic of less pay for more jobs then why do unions support raising the minimum wage? Everyone would have a lower yearly income but they would also collect unemployment and have the opportunity to sell their labor somewhere else until they are called back. This would allow those who were on layoff to potentially offset their losses while still working the same amount of hours. We will now in effect be working from October till December for free.Isnt the whole idea to work less hours for more pay so you can have more time to have a life outside of work?Instead we agreed to lowering everyones yearly income by more than 20% while increasing the amount of hours worked in that year, and we are still putting Junior workers on the street.
Hi Bob! Heard you went fishing last weekend. Did you catch anything?
Answer:
Well,Lets reverse roles for a moment. Suppose you guys were represented by AMFA and you just found that many jobs were being sacrificed for the good of the brotherhood. This doesn''t sit well with you, as you have been a dues paying member for years and cannot believe that the union didn''t fight any harder for all employees...after all, strength in numbers you know. Meanwhile, a rather vocal coworker kept complaining about AMFA and was spreading the word that TWU was the way to go. His complaints have piqued your interest - do you accept his word as facts, and blindly follow, or do you do a little digging on your own to see the entire view of the TWU? And if in your digging, you find that things over at ABC airlines (who is represented by TWU) are not that much better than they are at XYZ airlines - when you see that the members at MNO airlines (a smaller airline represented by the same union) got an increase thru arbitration that was LESS than management origianlly offered, because the union leadership was going to stand as one against a sh*tty offer, then maybe you start to think that just maybe the things that are being spouted by this vocal organizer are not really as good as he''d like you to believe. But when he posts anything he finds that is the least bit negative, he is a liar or uninformed.One of the suggestions I forwarded to Jim Little months ago was a job sharing program similar to that used by trades here in NY. Instead of just throwing out the Junior guys all workers would take the hit in the form of a layoff. The workers would pick the period in which they wanted to be laid off by seniority.They dont accept pay cutsto keep people working. The concept of keeping as many people producing as possible is the responsibility of the government, not unions. Companies use the arguement of lower wages as a means to full employment not unions. Following this logic of less pay for more jobs then why do unions support raising the minimum wage? Everyone would have a lower yearly income but they would also collect unemployment and have the opportunity to sell their labor somewhere else until they are called back. This would allow those who were on layoff to potentially offset their losses while still working the same amount of hours. We will now in effect be working from October till December for free.Isnt the whole idea to work less hours for more pay so you can have more time to have a life outside of work?Instead we agreed to lowering everyones yearly income by more than 20% while increasing the amount of hours worked in that year, and we are still putting Junior workers on the street.
