TWU one line local for maint.

[WNMECH]

I will answer your question, even if it wasn't directed to me. Hell yes I would condone an elected acting international representative supporting another. We had this happen here at SWA, which is exactly why the teamsters were fired. When the existing union (teamsters at the time) are doing all kinds of questionable representation as well as back door deals, lieing, steeling, and cheating the members is more than enough for a good union man or leader to support another union that has better morals and representation to better represent the members for the betterment of each and every member. You damn right I would say that is OK.
As a matter of fact, this shows the best HONOR to the group as possible. It shows that he is willng to go against the existing union for the betterment of the membership, which is what the freakin union is suppose to do. WOW. Your question speaks volumes on where you stand. In other words; would you support your union if they were not looking out for the betterment of the membership? Just because they are your representational union? How freakin pathetic. You really are a true teamster and you can have them. Nuff said...

I also believe you missed the point.

I do not give any truth to anomaly's claims but if the scenario he described happened at SWA, that leader would be removed from office by a membership vote promptly.

SWAMT, if our ALR started working to bring the IBT back, what would you do?

I think you misinterpreted that post.

 

[Anomaly]

I also believe you missed the point.

I do not give any truth to anomaly's claims but if the scenario he described happened at SWA, that leader would be removed from office by a membership vote promptly.

SWAMT, if our ALR started working to bring the IBT back, what would you do?

I think you misinterpreted that post.

Well said

 

[swamt]

Evidently you also missed the point of the question. The point of the question was an Elected officer for AMFA pushing for another Union while on the AMFA salary, nothing to do with Teamsters or any experiences you had with them.

And I answered the question. I did not miss the point. With AMFA the membership has avenues to replace an officer at ANY level for not doing his job, therefore you would not have to replace the entire union, just fire the officer not doing his job, and elect another officer to take his place. You see with AMFA the officers are always in the lime light, they know if they do not perform well for the membership they will be removed.
I have to use the teamsters as the example because we have had 1st hand experience with them. As well as a teamsters supporter asking the question, therefore it is a "perfect" example to use. Some out here just don't like the fact that it did happen with the teamsters. I still stand behind my original answer, YES I would condone it. Only difference is with AMFA we have procedures in place to remove officers when neccessary, you do not have these tools in place at the teamsters or the TWU...

 

[swamt]

I also believe you missed the point.

I do not give any truth to anomaly's claims but if the scenario he described happened at SWA, that leader would be removed from office by a membership vote promptly.

SWAMT, if our ALR started working to bring the IBT back, what would you do?

I think you misinterpreted that post.

Have him fired and replaced ASAP... With AMFA we wouldn't have to replace the entire union, just the problem child.

 

[swamt]

Not positive here, maybe WNMECH can help verify. I believe this tool was used at SWA in PHX. Where an officer was replaced. Or it may have been someone vacating a position outside of the election year.

I apologize to you all if I did take the original question wrong. At least with AMFA we have proccesses we can, and will, use to hold our Union leadership accountable.

 

[WNMECH]

Not positive here, maybe WNMECH can help verify. I believe this tool was used at SWA in PHX. Where an officer was replaced. Or it may have been someone vacating a position outside of the election year.

I apologize to you all if I did take the original question wrong. At least with AMFA we have proccesses we can, and will, use to hold our Union leadership accountable.

I don't know if it was used anywhere at SWA before.

 

[Anomaly]

Not positive here, maybe WNMECH can help verify. I believe this tool was used at SWA in PHX. Where an officer was replaced. Or it may have been someone vacating a position outside of the election year.

I apologize to you all if I did take the original question wrong. At least with AMFA we have proccesses we can, and will, use to hold our Union leadership accountable.

Not sure where you stand on this swamt? Not that it really matters to anyone, but on post #328 you wrote "Hell yes I would condone an elected acting international representative supporting another (union)."

Unless it is amfa, then you change your position to (post 334) "Have him fired and replaced ASAP... With AMFA we wouldn't have to replace the entire union, just the problem child."

So by this I gather it is OK to speak out against an industrial union, but in your eyes, you should be throw out of the union and loose your job if you speak out against amfa? Did I get this right?

My position is simple. Any union member should be able to speak out against their leadership without penalty. Speaking out against the leadership is how the unions were created. An elected leader, also has the right to speak up and they too should do this. But to actively support another union while in office is another issue entirely. An elected representative, especially one receiving ANY type of pay from the membership has an obligation to the membership. All the membership, not just the ones who support or elected him. He should resign his position first, or risk charges according to each unions constitution. IBT and AMFA both have language in their Constitution which enforce this.

 

[TWU informer]

Here is the recorded and without advertisements version of the TRUTH

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OgpdxTFZvVE&feature=player_embedded

 

[Bob Owens]

My position is simple. Any union member should be able to speak out against their leadership without penalty. Speaking out against the leadership is how the unions were created. An elected leader, also has the right to speak up and they too should do this. But to actively support another union while in office is another issue entirely.

Agreed

An elected representative, especially one receiving ANY type of pay from the membership has an obligation to the membership.

Agreed, and I was thrown out of office for stating that back in 2003. more specifically I stated that my loyalty to the membership takes precidence over loyalty to the International. The International claimed that my loyalty had to be to the International, not the members. They claimed that criticism of the leadership is the same as supporting another union. I do not agree with that.

All the membership, not just the ones who support or elected him.

Explain what you mean by that. All the members in his Local or all the members in the Union?

 

[Tex-Mech]

Word in Miami is that former president Todd W is running for VP of local 591. I hear the betting line has the over/under at 50 votes systemwide. I will take the under.

 

[1AA]

Word in Miami is that former president Todd W is running for VP of local 591. I hear the betting line has the over/under at 50 votes systemwide. I will take the under.

Is that the same Woodward on the video at the pancake house selling us out to the Teamsters?
If so that man has some balls.