Mechanics to get Hose Again!
- Thread starter Hopeful
- Start date
[blockquote]
----------------
On 2/8/2003 6:12:30 PM 410OhOne wrote:
Moderator please end this thread.
----------------
[/blockquote]
Why should we allow the children to cause deletion or ending of every thread because of those that cannot face the truth?
Intead, why not delete the postings of the offenders?
----------------
On 2/8/2003 6:12:30 PM 410OhOne wrote:
Moderator please end this thread.
----------------
[/blockquote]
Why should we allow the children to cause deletion or ending of every thread because of those that cannot face the truth?
Intead, why not delete the postings of the offenders?
[blockquote]
----------------
On 2/8/2003 4:56:06 PM NewHampshire Black Bears wrote:
RV4,
Dave;
Your right, some of these posts(mine included) are getting "stale".
But just as a reminder(not that you need it, because your(seriously) as "sharp as a tack", and don't forget ANYTHING), of some of my postings , here AND on PB/BB's.
1. I was a lone voice on PB, that supported you guys for AMFA.
2. I NEVER begrudge any union member who makes more $$ than me.(Because if I wanted to I 'could" have become a AMT, or a Pilot. I chose not to.)
3. I detest the "weak sister" TWU.
BUT,
4. No one,Including the BIG MAN in the sky, will ever convince me that Republicans are TRUE UNION MEN/Women.
Sorry Dave, no matter how you try and spin it, Republicans(OIL) and UNIONS(water) HAVE NEVER, DON'T NOW, and WILL NEVER---"MIX" !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Your 401K looked a hell-of-a-lot-better, when "Cigar" Bill was in office.
Sorry Dave, "It IS what it IS" !!!!!!!!!!
NH/BB's
----------------
[/blockquote]
I agree with you on the Republicans and I never claimed they were "pro-union".
My point is this:
The Democrats have done nothing to serve our needs as working men in exchange for the millions we have given.
We will get about as much from the coming concessions.
The Republicans are not the working mans friend either.
So it come downs to the least of the two evils. Since both political parties appear uninterested in helping the working man, and are funded 11 to 1 by the rich, I choose the moral issues instead of the "Government is King" liberals.
Give me a choice of a pro-working man party that doesn't cater to immoral issues and I bet we both end up voting for the same man!
If you can show me examples of how the Democrats have earned our millions and my vote to a level I should scarifice very important moral beliefs, I will read with an open mind.
----------------
On 2/8/2003 4:56:06 PM NewHampshire Black Bears wrote:
RV4,
Dave;
Your right, some of these posts(mine included) are getting "stale".
But just as a reminder(not that you need it, because your(seriously) as "sharp as a tack", and don't forget ANYTHING), of some of my postings , here AND on PB/BB's.
1. I was a lone voice on PB, that supported you guys for AMFA.
2. I NEVER begrudge any union member who makes more $$ than me.(Because if I wanted to I 'could" have become a AMT, or a Pilot. I chose not to.)
3. I detest the "weak sister" TWU.
BUT,
4. No one,Including the BIG MAN in the sky, will ever convince me that Republicans are TRUE UNION MEN/Women.
Sorry Dave, no matter how you try and spin it, Republicans(OIL) and UNIONS(water) HAVE NEVER, DON'T NOW, and WILL NEVER---"MIX" !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Your 401K looked a hell-of-a-lot-better, when "Cigar" Bill was in office.
Sorry Dave, "It IS what it IS" !!!!!!!!!!
NH/BB's
----------------
[/blockquote]
I agree with you on the Republicans and I never claimed they were "pro-union".
My point is this:
The Democrats have done nothing to serve our needs as working men in exchange for the millions we have given.
We will get about as much from the coming concessions.
The Republicans are not the working mans friend either.
So it come downs to the least of the two evils. Since both political parties appear uninterested in helping the working man, and are funded 11 to 1 by the rich, I choose the moral issues instead of the "Government is King" liberals.
Give me a choice of a pro-working man party that doesn't cater to immoral issues and I bet we both end up voting for the same man!
If you can show me examples of how the Democrats have earned our millions and my vote to a level I should scarifice very important moral beliefs, I will read with an open mind.
[blockquote]
----------------
On 2/8/2003 5:30:11 PM bagsmasher wrote:
But I have a feeling you would like us "NON-PROFESSIONALS" to recieve minumum wage, so the company would have more dollars to inflate your wages to the pilots range. Am I wrong?
----------------
[/blockquote]
You are wrong, not minumum wage, just what you can negoiate on your own. If you can get $100.00 an hour on your own, then more power to you. The point is that with the "grease monkeys" in your union you can use our skill to negotiate with.
By the way, the Republican PEB ended with the mechanics at NWA, represented by the AMFA a very large increase in salary. The TWU and AA had to match these wages to stay competitive. I reveived a 22% increase after little or nothing for the previous 6 years. Also being a B-scale mechanic I have lost years of topped out wages that I will never see.
----------------
On 2/8/2003 5:30:11 PM bagsmasher wrote:
But I have a feeling you would like us "NON-PROFESSIONALS" to recieve minumum wage, so the company would have more dollars to inflate your wages to the pilots range. Am I wrong?
----------------
[/blockquote]
You are wrong, not minumum wage, just what you can negoiate on your own. If you can get $100.00 an hour on your own, then more power to you. The point is that with the "grease monkeys" in your union you can use our skill to negotiate with.
By the way, the Republican PEB ended with the mechanics at NWA, represented by the AMFA a very large increase in salary. The TWU and AA had to match these wages to stay competitive. I reveived a 22% increase after little or nothing for the previous 6 years. Also being a B-scale mechanic I have lost years of topped out wages that I will never see.
Grease Monkeys????
Go back to the playground!
Then learn to read and check this:
http://www.amfanatl.org/Pages/08_NWA_Archi...xh/peb320nw.PDF
Go back to the playground!
Then learn to read and check this:
http://www.amfanatl.org/Pages/08_NWA_Archi...xh/peb320nw.PDF
[blockquote]
----------------
On 2/8/2003 5:32:59 PM RV4 wrote:
[blockquote]
----------------
On 2/8/2003 4:56:06 PM NewHampshire Black Bears wrote:
RV4,
Dave;
Your right, some of these posts(mine included) are getting "stale".
But just as a reminder(not that you need it, because your(seriously) as "sharp as a tack", and don't forget ANYTHING), of some of my postings , here AND on PB/BB's.
1. I was a lone voice on PB, that supported you guys for AMFA.
2. I NEVER begrudge any union member who makes more $$ than me.(Because if I wanted to I 'could" have become a AMT, or a Pilot. I chose not to.)
3. I detest the "weak sister" TWU.
BUT,
4. No one,Including the BIG MAN in the sky, will ever convince me that Republicans are TRUE UNION MEN/Women.
Sorry Dave, no matter how you try and spin it, Republicans(OIL) and UNIONS(water) HAVE NEVER, DON'T NOW, and WILL NEVER---"MIX" !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Your 401K looked a hell-of-a-lot-better, when "Cigar" Bill was in office.
Sorry Dave, "It IS what it IS" !!!!!!!!!!
NH/BB's
----------------
[/blockquote]
I agree with you on the Republicans and I never claimed they were "pro-union".
My point is this:
The Democrats have done nothing to serve our needs as working men in exchange for the millions we have given.
We will get about as much from the coming concessions.
The Republicans are not the working mans friend either.
So it come downs to the least of the two evils. Since both political parties appear uninterested in helping the working man, and are funded 11 to 1 by the rich, I choose the moral issues instead of the "Government is King" liberals.
Give me a choice of a pro-working man party that doesn't cater to immoral issues and I bet we both end up voting for the same man!
If you can show me examples of how the Democrats have earned our millions and my vote to a level I should scarifice very important moral beliefs, I will read with an open mind.
----------------
[/blockquote]
Well Dave, I probably can't show you the "perfect party".
BUT,
Now that you've jogged my memory, mabey the closest thing(person) that you and I share a bit of common ground on , would be ol' Pat Buchanan.
I like Pat for 3 reasons
1. (somewhat) PRO union.(NO NAFTA)
2. Put US soldier's shoulder to shoulder from San Diego, to Brownsville TX. to keep illegals out of the USA(you know, the one's that are being lured towards the Republican *******s that own the companys, that want the illegals to work for "slave wages"
AND(most importantly)
3. ol' Pat QUIT the GOP !!!!!!!!!!
NH/BB's
----------------
On 2/8/2003 5:32:59 PM RV4 wrote:
[blockquote]
----------------
On 2/8/2003 4:56:06 PM NewHampshire Black Bears wrote:
RV4,
Dave;
Your right, some of these posts(mine included) are getting "stale".
But just as a reminder(not that you need it, because your(seriously) as "sharp as a tack", and don't forget ANYTHING), of some of my postings , here AND on PB/BB's.
1. I was a lone voice on PB, that supported you guys for AMFA.
2. I NEVER begrudge any union member who makes more $$ than me.(Because if I wanted to I 'could" have become a AMT, or a Pilot. I chose not to.)
3. I detest the "weak sister" TWU.
BUT,
4. No one,Including the BIG MAN in the sky, will ever convince me that Republicans are TRUE UNION MEN/Women.
Sorry Dave, no matter how you try and spin it, Republicans(OIL) and UNIONS(water) HAVE NEVER, DON'T NOW, and WILL NEVER---"MIX" !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Your 401K looked a hell-of-a-lot-better, when "Cigar" Bill was in office.
Sorry Dave, "It IS what it IS" !!!!!!!!!!
NH/BB's
----------------
[/blockquote]
I agree with you on the Republicans and I never claimed they were "pro-union".
My point is this:
The Democrats have done nothing to serve our needs as working men in exchange for the millions we have given.
We will get about as much from the coming concessions.
The Republicans are not the working mans friend either.
So it come downs to the least of the two evils. Since both political parties appear uninterested in helping the working man, and are funded 11 to 1 by the rich, I choose the moral issues instead of the "Government is King" liberals.
Give me a choice of a pro-working man party that doesn't cater to immoral issues and I bet we both end up voting for the same man!
If you can show me examples of how the Democrats have earned our millions and my vote to a level I should scarifice very important moral beliefs, I will read with an open mind.
----------------
[/blockquote]
Well Dave, I probably can't show you the "perfect party".
BUT,
Now that you've jogged my memory, mabey the closest thing(person) that you and I share a bit of common ground on , would be ol' Pat Buchanan.
I like Pat for 3 reasons
1. (somewhat) PRO union.(NO NAFTA)
2. Put US soldier's shoulder to shoulder from San Diego, to Brownsville TX. to keep illegals out of the USA(you know, the one's that are being lured towards the Republican *******s that own the companys, that want the illegals to work for "slave wages"
AND(most importantly)
3. ol' Pat QUIT the GOP !!!!!!!!!!
NH/BB's
The problem remains: If there are concessions to be had among all the contract groups; how are they to be apportioned?
The only way to determine the cost basis is for there to be a good and true accounting for the components of cost, by contract group, for both the direct and indirect costs that each contract group creates.
The costs, both direct and indirect, are the result of both the negotiated agreements that each group maintains with the company and trend that can be defined based on the costs paid by the company.
Deriving the total costs by contract group and dividing them into the the ASMs should give the percentages of the ASM cost which each group drives and the relative rate at which concessions should be requested.
The only way to determine the cost basis is for there to be a good and true accounting for the components of cost, by contract group, for both the direct and indirect costs that each contract group creates.
The costs, both direct and indirect, are the result of both the negotiated agreements that each group maintains with the company and trend that can be defined based on the costs paid by the company.
Deriving the total costs by contract group and dividing them into the the ASMs should give the percentages of the ASM cost which each group drives and the relative rate at which concessions should be requested.
I was also following Pat and thought highly of his message.
The question is, why didn't Labor put our money on that horse? (Metaphor of course)
Up until Perot chose his V.P. running mate, I also favored his message. But I never received any political propaganda in the mail from our union about him either?
The question is, why didn't Labor put our money on that horse? (Metaphor of course)
Up until Perot chose his V.P. running mate, I also favored his message. But I never received any political propaganda in the mail from our union about him either?
RV4,
Dave.
The power brokers(DEMS & GOP) will never allow a viable 3rd party "into the dance"
Oh how I yearn for the good ol' days.
I'm gonna pop in the vcr, my tape of Jack Nicholson, in "HOFFA".
I do it every time I need a "fix"
It would'nt bother me a bit, if the late John Gotti, was "investing" our pension money. It sure as HE** would be in safer hands, than the present system !!!!!
NH/BB's
Dave.
The power brokers(DEMS & GOP) will never allow a viable 3rd party "into the dance"
Oh how I yearn for the good ol' days.
I'm gonna pop in the vcr, my tape of Jack Nicholson, in "HOFFA".
I do it every time I need a "fix"
It would'nt bother me a bit, if the late John Gotti, was "investing" our pension money. It sure as HE** would be in safer hands, than the present system !!!!!
NH/BB's
RV4,
I don't have time to read all 143 pages of your link to the AMFA site. Could you please give me the jist of what's there? Also I am confused at your strategy. I guess you would rather belittle me by calling me "childish", instead of reasoning and debating rational points?
I don't have time to read all 143 pages of your link to the AMFA site. Could you please give me the jist of what's there? Also I am confused at your strategy. I guess you would rather belittle me by calling me "childish", instead of reasoning and debating rational points?
[blockquote]
----------------
On 2/8/2003 7:24:48 PM bagsmasher wrote:
RV4,
I don't have time to read all 143 pages of your link to the AMFA site. Could you please give me the jist of what's there? Also I am confused at your strategy. I guess you would rather belittle me by calling me "childish", instead of reasoning and debating rational points?
----------------
[/blockquote]
That makes me laugh! You have time to read this bulletin board, type responses, call us names, but you dont have time to read the link?
Unless you are making an admission that you cannot face the truth, I did not call you "childish". What are you trying to tell us?
----------------
On 2/8/2003 7:24:48 PM bagsmasher wrote:
RV4,
I don't have time to read all 143 pages of your link to the AMFA site. Could you please give me the jist of what's there? Also I am confused at your strategy. I guess you would rather belittle me by calling me "childish", instead of reasoning and debating rational points?
----------------
[/blockquote]
That makes me laugh! You have time to read this bulletin board, type responses, call us names, but you dont have time to read the link?
Unless you are making an admission that you cannot face the truth, I did not call you "childish". What are you trying to tell us?
Hey guys I'm in for a 3rd party I can't stand the dem or rep and it would mean alot less strange looks at the voting both as I flip that half dollar in the air!!!
Ha ha ha!!!!
GO AMFA
Ha ha ha!!!!
GO AMFA
[blockquote]
----------------
On 2/8/2003 8:17:16 PM NewHampshire Black Bears wrote:
RV4,
Dave.
The power brokers(DEMS & GOP) will never allow a viable 3rd party "into the dance"
Oh how I yearn for the good ol' days.
----------------
[/blockquote]
That is correct! And this is why Labor needs to mobilize the third party. Perot got Free Trade Zone on Jr's Airport.
Labor would have both Donkeys and Elephants eating from our palms. The Dems money would be in jeopardy and the Republican union members would take votes on moral issues and scare the Elephants into capitulation on issues.
Based on current surveys that indicate 40% of union members vote Republican, both parties have much to lose. This is verification in my mind, that this plan would succeed!
Get it? To stop this third party, Labor would acquire great political gains from the two party system. It would be the only way to stop us!
Why on earth nobody seems to think this way is beyond my brain cells?
I fear it may be due to Labor's inability to produce and ethical candidate due to out of control curruption within our organizations, especially the AFL-CIO.
----------------
On 2/8/2003 8:17:16 PM NewHampshire Black Bears wrote:
RV4,
Dave.
The power brokers(DEMS & GOP) will never allow a viable 3rd party "into the dance"
Oh how I yearn for the good ol' days.
----------------
[/blockquote]
That is correct! And this is why Labor needs to mobilize the third party. Perot got Free Trade Zone on Jr's Airport.
Labor would have both Donkeys and Elephants eating from our palms. The Dems money would be in jeopardy and the Republican union members would take votes on moral issues and scare the Elephants into capitulation on issues.
Based on current surveys that indicate 40% of union members vote Republican, both parties have much to lose. This is verification in my mind, that this plan would succeed!
Get it? To stop this third party, Labor would acquire great political gains from the two party system. It would be the only way to stop us!
Why on earth nobody seems to think this way is beyond my brain cells?
I fear it may be due to Labor's inability to produce and ethical candidate due to out of control curruption within our organizations, especially the AFL-CIO.
