1. What is the ratio of Step II grievances (the ones that make it out of the station, and, one would assume, have a reasonable basis for going forward)resolved in the employees' favor?
2. Are like grievances (assume PHL and CLT have the same basic grievance on the same issue) coordinated, so that the same ground is not constantly re-plowed? For instance, once the ruling is made on the PHL grievance, is the language immediately applied to the CLT situation, or does the IAM fight it all over again? Does District 141 coordinate communications and activities amongst the grievance chairs? Is the SEA chair aware of the latest grievances and their resolutions in PIT?
3. Are the results of the first two questions communicated to the membership, so that they have an understanding of what protections their contract does, and does not, offer? This would be the way to build consensus for the next contract.
4. Does the membership have basic confidence they are well represented in initial discussions and step I grievances, and is that representation backed by timely information provided by District 141?
If so, those guys are worth every $$$. If not.......
Now let's go to Double Jeopardy, where the scores can really change.
What educational background and body of experience (outside of the IAM) does this group bring to the membership?