A Qeustion For The Twu

[Nightwatch]

Well with the TWU what the Inrternational opins is fact, at least as far as they are concerned.

Wait a few more weeks and I'll have a lot more. Would you like a copy of the transcript? Then you can see the caliber of the people the TWU International put in place to represent you.

[post="199933"][/post]​

Yeah, send me a copy if you would, always up to a good read, thx.

 

[Bob Owens]

I've had several requests for copies but so far only one person included an E-mail address to send it to. Right now I only have half of the Gless file available and until I figure out how to edit out his address, since International officers dont want their home addresses readily available to the members -despite the fact that the International doesnt seem to mind sharing our home addresses with whomever they fancy -if I do send it out I have to know where I'm sending it to. Of course I would expect that they not post that information. God forbid someone should do something to one of these guys, aided with information I put out, at least law enforcement would have a list of e-mails.

 

[Bob Owens]

Still no reply from the TWU.

 

[Bob Owens]

Still no reply from the TWU.

Still no reply from the TWU.

 

[TWU informer]

Can anyone from the TWU tell us why Bobby Gless was recently (since this thread started) removed from the headcount at JFK and why his dues are now submitted by a separate check from the TWU?

Could it be due to the OLMS?

You must have caught them with their pants down Bob.

But what is the penalty for corporate unionism?

 

[Man of the People]

Still no reply from the TWU.

This is my two cents on the whole issue. During the 2003 concessions, I do remember seeing a list that accounted for UBP. I believe the amount hovered around 3 million. Yes, this could've been conceded to the company. Bob, you know the maintenance locals started out with a small loan from the International to get off the ground. The numbers were too small to build up the treasury fast enough to save money. The other fleet locals refused to give us a send-off package. Oh well. So much for solidarity. Little and Gless were instrumental in the forming of the now locals, correct? Remember the 'grass roots?' When Schalk was being paid UBP, I didn't have a problem with it. I knew his character was such that his integrity could not be compromised. I do remember Joy Calloway taking issue with the fact the maintenance locals had smaller numbers to hit in order to get people off the floor that fleet. This led to a Baker letter outlining specific numbers for Locals to hit in order to have people off the clock. Local 521 didn't have the numbers, yet Jack Madish never went back to the floor. Should it have been questioned? What would that have solved for one local to squeal on another? Most locals are just getting by as it is. Local 562 has been one of the few locals to stand up for themselves. You guys have not taken the path of least resistance. You are to be applauded for that. It is sad not to see you involved anymore. You had a lot of good ideas. I still think your idea of putting all the respective groups in one union, under the AFL-CIO (AMTs-IBT, FSC-TWU, F/A & Gate Agents in the IAM) made the most sense. When I read this board and see your posts, I am saddened to see all your talent/ideas going to blast the TWU. You are and will always be, in my eyes, a very strong union man. You will have my admiration for defending the cause of organized labor. I wish you would get back in the fight, but I realize your anger towards the organization you feel hung you out to dry. It's a shame. Everybody in the union loses when another fighter hangs up their gloves. God Bless you.

 

[MCI transplant]

<_< Damn!!! Best Union a company can buy!!!!! :rant:

 

[Bob Owens]

This is my two cents on the whole issue. During the 2003 concessions, I do remember seeing a list that accounted for UBP.

If you could elaborate please do.

I believe the amount hovered around 3 million. Yes, this could've been conceded to the company. Bob, you know the maintenance locals started out with a small loan from the International to get off the ground.

Yes I remember. The International saw fit to loan us our own money.They should have given each Local start up funding, not a loan.Many of our members had paid dues for decades to the TWU.

The numbers were too small to build up the treasury fast enough to save money.

In hindsight what we should have done was form one large line local. Small locals only benifit the company and the International.One of the reasons why the International has not removed Toussaint is because they (the officers of Local 100) have the address list and proximity to the membership. If they tried to remove Toussaint he could easliy mount a successful decertification drive and start up a new union. However with several small locals under one contract none of those locals have any power, the International can remove any or all and it would still be hard to decertify the TWU.

The other fleet locals refused to give us a send-off package.

I believe that Dallas did.

Oh well. So much for solidarity. Little and Gless were instrumental in the forming of the now locals, correct?

Actually Massi did more than Gless from what we saw at JFK. Gless was the Section chairman for JFK at the time. I believe Little was working for Eagle at the time, Koziatek ran the AA system.

Remember the 'grass roots?'

Grass roots was a farce. The International was the drive behind "grass roots". What happened was there was a revolt in Miami because the E-board threw out the maintenance rep because he didnt wear a tie to the E-board meeting. All the mechanics in Miami stood behind their elected rep and the AMFA drive was starting to kick up. AMFA had made advances at NWA and the TWU was afraid that AMFA would take over at AA too. The idea of seperate Locals was brought forth by Sonny Hall to the Presidents council, they rejected the idea and said we would be stronger together. Many of these Locals, such as 501 were challenging the International, the seperate Locals served a dual purpose for the International, 1-impeade the AMFA drive, and 2, break up the Locals that are challenging the International and demanding more control of our contract.

When Schalk was being paid UBP, I didn't have a problem with it. I knew his character was such that his integrity could not be compromised.

Unfortunately the same can not be said for many others.

I do remember Joy Calloway taking issue with the fact the maintenance locals had smaller numbers to hit in order to get people off the floor that fleet. This led to a Baker letter outlining specific numbers for Locals to hit in order to have people off the clock.

Is the Baker letter in the contract? Can the company and the union come to an agreement that violates the law? The LMRDA was written to protect workers from corrupt unions like the TWU. If union officials are accepting paychecks from the company without actually performing their normal work for the company (selling out the members doesnt count)its illegal. Agreeing to free up people off the floor is not the same as agreeing to pay them. Without this agreement the company could claim that their operational needs require that officials from these small locals work a regular 40 hour week which could interfere with their obligations to run the local.

My understanding of agreements such as the Baker letter is that it simply allows the TWU to set up smaller Locals where the Local had the right to get their President on union leave. I think before that the company would only allow 1 representative per 1500 members or something to that effect.

They can also go on UBC. Union leave such as this is covered under Article 17(B)

Local 521 didn't have the numbers, yet Jack Madish never went back to the floor.

Jack had a nice deal, and as long as he did as he was told he was allowed to keep that deal.

Should it have been questioned?

Yes, I did, but with everything else that was going on I never pursued it, until now. The International left me a little more free time and I'm putting it to good use. If I wasnt doing this I probably would have been pushing for electronic voting at the Conventions-so the members could see how things went, who voted how, etc, and other democratic reforms and along with Local 100 getting rid of the likes of Little, Gless and Yingst.

What would that have solved for one local to squeal on another? Most locals are just getting by as it is.
Local 562 has been one of the few locals to stand up for themselves. You guys have not taken the path of least resistance.

Well the explanation that was given to me was that all the locals were under the same deal. It was only later that I found out that each Local had their own deal. Local 501 still paid the company back, 562 had Gless, Local 565 had several people off the floor getting company pay. If I had known that I would have been more concerned at the time because basically it amounts to a buyoff. The more cooperative the Local is the more company funding they get, thats wrong.

You are to be applauded for that.

Thanks.

It is sad not to see you involved anymore.

I'm still involved.

You had a lot of good ideas. I still think your idea of putting all the respective groups in one union, under the AFL-CIO (AMTs-IBT, FSC-TWU, F/A & Gate Agents in the IAM) made the most sense.

Its a good thing you use a moniker, because if you talk like that the International will be after you too.

When I read this board and see your posts, I am saddened to see all your talent/ideas going to blast the TWU.

When I was in office I constantly pushed for change from within, you saw where that got me. The fact is that I always felt the TWU/ATD was one screwed up union, I had hoped to change that. The International will not change. They have no incentive to. Where else could someone with a Masters Degree from columbia STATE university get a job making $200+K a year?

My biggest transgression was going after Little Gless and the other unelected pukes that sold us out. They could tolerate anything but my challenging them. That was the last straw for them. They were already unhappy with the stuff I had been sending out as far as reforming and making the Conventions Democratic, the alliance with the Leaders of Local 100 I had formed, the letter that we wrote and put in the Tulsa World and sent to every one of our members, the lawsuit we initiated against the International after Littles "without further ratification", and the call for industry unity in the face of the allied attack on airline workers that was being waged against us by the airlines and the courts.

The fact is they wanted me out because they were afraid that people were actually listening. I was a threat to them because I exposed them for what they were.

You see they never gave me an ultimatum like Chuck. Chuck could have simply signed the letter they wanted him to sign and kept his position, but to his credit he didnt. The letter was simply a means to show that he would back down to them, they never even used the letters, its no coincidence that the two of us were removed on the same day.

Me, they wanted out, between all the stuff about electronic voting at the Convention, the calls for democratic reform, the criticism of the structure because of its lack of democracy, accountability and transparancy, the alliance with Local 100 and finally the call for the removal of Little, Gless and Yinst. They couldnt use any of that to get me out so they said that my criticism of them was support for AMFA. Well if the truth supports AMFA whose fault is that? They had it within their power to address all my complaints, they instead chose to remove me. I feel that through Gless they were already in contact with and felt that once we were out of the way those left behind would no longer give them any trouble, and they were right.A few guys from the board stood behind us, others couldnt wait to jump into the vacancies we left behind. In fact they rejected a motion by the members to pursue a lawsuit against the International for removing us.But thats the way things go.

So since I cant push for change from within I will push for external change. This is their doing, not mine.They are the ones who say I cant hold any union position.

You are and will always be, in my eyes, a very strong union man.

Thanks

You will have my admiration for defending the cause of organized labor.

Thanks again.

I wish you would get back in the fight, but I realize your anger towards the organization you feel hung you out to dry.

I never left. Perhaps you fail to realize that people like Jim Little with their lies and deceptions are the real danger to labor. Labor can take on the government, they can take on greedy corporations, but when they have to face those two opponents with a corrupt leadership that has nothing but contempt for the very members they claim to represent Labor is doomed.

The fact is that getting booted from my union position was minor compared to what they did to my profession. I went into the union to try and make things better, not to start a new career. By removing me the International violated the members, not just me. I served at the members behest, by removing me they just proved that the TWU is not the members, its the International. Members can pick their Local leaders but the International can and will remove them whenever they see fit. I admit, I did enjoy serving and I saw it as a priviledge and was thankful for the opportunity that my coworkers gave to me. Unfortunately thats not how the International feels. I cant tell you how many times I've heard Hall, Little, Gless, Bakala and any other International officer I came across refer the members negatively. They blame the members for everything, its sickening. The only time they ever refer to the members positively is in a speach, never in informal or closed(officers only) discussion. They fear democracy because they feel they are entitled to their positions and should not have to answer to the members.

It's a shame. Everybody in the union loses when another fighter hangs up their gloves. God Bless you.

The Intnl may have thrown me out of the ring but they're not hung up yet.