1606 replies to this topic

[pjirish317]

pjirish317, on 16 April 2012 - 07:45 PM, said:

ograc,

Lets see if you can answer questions regarding the LfP platform.

Item 1. How will you reform the dues? Are the dues not governed by the GL? And I wish we had an electronic tracking system, and an AGC performance review

Item 3. What kind of salary restructuring? Pay cut or pay raise? What exactly are the realities of the industry? Are you saying that the pay for District Officers will be seniority based? Does there have to be a by-law change to accomplish this salary restrucuring?

Item 4. What is a premium contribution requirement?

Item 10. How exactly will you establish this? What would the structure and composition be exactly?

Item 12. How is this related to item 3? And if someone is appointed aren't they in office until the next election? So please explain how Item 3 would affect the appointee?

ograc,

I asked you these questions some time ago. They were questions about the platform that YOU chose to run on. You think I was "baiting" you so to speak, when I was asking question about changes to be made were your ticked to get elected. Do you not think we should ask these questions? And if you would reference item 1, you would see that I absolutely agree that there should be AGC accountability, and an electronic tracking system for grievances. But because I called MW out for his inability to represent the members, I am baiting you. So from now on I will leave MW out of our conversations, ok? And as you can see from the above qouted post of mine, I deleted the remark about MW. So I ask again, the above questions, will you answer them?

[pjirish317]

ograc, on 29 April 2012 - 10:08 PM, said:

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.
1
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. 2
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.
3
Your insinuation of ignorance is one example.
4
You can spin it any way you like, but I will not be drawn in.
ograc

1. Fair enough about that subject. I will drop it.
2. You view it as hostile, I view it as calling BS when I see it.
3. It was an ignorant statement you made. You made it not knowing the why's, or the how's of my involvement and my decision to not be on the committee anymore, nor if the members here are apathectic or not, also implying I am the cause of that apathy. I suppose I could have said uneducated about the situation.
4. Were you to be elected, you would absolutely be drawn in, you would have no choice but to sit in the breakrooms you serve and have to answer tougher questions than these, So if you can't handle the pressure on these web boards, you certainly can't handle the pressure of a hostile breakroom full of PO'ed fleet service members. All of them "baiting" you, as you put it.

[ograc]

pjirish317, on 30 April 2012 - 05:25 PM, said:

ograc,

I asked you these questions some time ago. They were questions about the platform that YOU chose to run on. You think I was "baiting" you so to speak, when I was asking question about changes to be made were your ticked to get elected. Do you not think we should ask these questions? And if you would reference item 1, you would see that I absolutely agree that there should be AGC accountability, and an electronic tracking system for grievances. But because I called MW out for his inability to represent the members, I am baiting you. So from now on I will leave MW out of our conversations, ok? And as you can see from the above qouted post of mine, I deleted the remark about MW. So I ask again, the above questions, will you answer them?

pjirish317,

Fair enough. I appreciative your understanding I cannot speak for others. I will try to answer your questions, related to the platform of the Leadership for Progress Team, to the best of my ability. First and foremost, I agree the platform for which each Team proposes should be subject to the scrutinity of the members. I believe, the issue of AGC accountability and an electronic tracking system for grievances, as proposed by the Leadership for Progress Team, we are in ageement on. Concerning your question of item 3, pay cut or pay raise, and what is meant by the realities of the industry I will attempt to answer. When the IAM first organized MTC. and Related the AGC salary was based on average wage of the said represented member. Through the years this salary has been the norm. Realities of the industry means this formula will be revisited, based on the salaries of those represented (UA ramp, PCE and US ramp). This proposal will require a proposed by law change subject to a referendum vote by the members. For the sake of length of post I will conclude.

ograc

[700UW]

You do realize the IAM organized maintenance in 1949?

[pjirish317]

ograc, on 30 April 2012 - 07:52 PM, said:

pjirish317,

Fair enough. I appreciative your understanding I cannot speak for others. I will try to answer your questions, related to the platform of the Leadership for Progress Team, to the best of my ability. First and foremost, I agree the platform for which each Team proposes should be subject to the scrutinity of the members. I believe, the issue of AGC accountability and an electronic tracking system for grievances, as proposed by the Leadership for Progress Team, we are in ageement on. Concerning your question of item 3, pay cut or pay raise, and what is meant by the realities of the industry I will attempt to answer. When the IAM first organized MTC. and Related the AGC salary was based on average wage of the said represented member. Through the years this salary has been the norm. Realities of the industry means this formula will be revisited, based on the salaries of those represented (UA ramp, PCE and US ramp). This proposal will require a proposed by law change subject to a referendum vote by the members. For the sake of length of post I will conclude.

ograc

Thank you for the answer. Although, will it be a "weighted" average for all AGC's, or will it be factored for each group?

[ograc]

uote name='pjirish317' timestamp='1335838313' post='896643']
Thank you for the answer. Although, will it be a "weighted" average for all AGC's, or will it be factored for each group?
[/quote]

I cannot give an authoritive answer to that question, but hopefully, I have provided insight into what is meant by " the realities of the industry." Again this is a proposal to reduce cost to the district and ultimately the membership.
ograc

[ograc]

Heard rumor this week that RD approached the International about moving the US members of District 141 to District 142. Not sure if there is any validity to this rumor. Does anyone have authoritive insight into this alleged request?
ograc