A Qeustion For The Twu
- Thread starter Bob Owens
- Start date
- Thread Starter
- Thread starter
- #17
Come on TWU. Tell us how you told us to give away pay, holidays, sick time, vacation, IOD and scores of other concessions from the "Vermont PLan" but you managed to save your paychecks from the company that are in addition to what you make from the TWU!
Tell us how you saved jobs when in fact you saved your own excessive salaries!
Dont you feel that getting a paycheck from the company for doing UB is a conflict of interest? Didnt Dennis Burchette bring this up way back when the whole seperation thing was going on?
Why would an airline pay out millions in wages for union officers on UB? Because they probably got the best ROI on that investment than any other in their history! $3 million for $660,000,000+ in concessions! If only they could do as well on their other deals!!!!
We need a union that will work for the members-not for the company! We are forced to fork over our $9 million/yr, they dont have to do anything for it, but the $3 million that goes into their pockets-and is not reported on the LM-2, they have to work for. And they sure did a good job for the company didnt they? And the only way to get rid of these guys is to vote out the entire TWU. So what are you waiting for-AMFA and the AGW now!
Tell us how you saved jobs when in fact you saved your own excessive salaries!
Dont you feel that getting a paycheck from the company for doing UB is a conflict of interest? Didnt Dennis Burchette bring this up way back when the whole seperation thing was going on?
Why would an airline pay out millions in wages for union officers on UB? Because they probably got the best ROI on that investment than any other in their history! $3 million for $660,000,000+ in concessions! If only they could do as well on their other deals!!!!
We need a union that will work for the members-not for the company! We are forced to fork over our $9 million/yr, they dont have to do anything for it, but the $3 million that goes into their pockets-and is not reported on the LM-2, they have to work for. And they sure did a good job for the company didnt they? And the only way to get rid of these guys is to vote out the entire TWU. So what are you waiting for-AMFA and the AGW now!
TWU informer
Veteran
- Nov 4, 2003
- 7,550
- 3,731
IT'S ALL AMFA'S FAULT...EVERYTHING!
I am so glad that you have come around Informer. It took a while but I knew you would see the light!!!TWU informer said:
Wanna go have a beer later to celebrate your new found knowledge?? I'm buyin'!!
I want to make sure you don't rebound so repeat after me. . .amfa doesn't care about me, amfa doesn't care about me. . . I can't hear you Informer. . .amfa doesn't care about me, amfa doesn't care about me. . .LOUDER. . .amfa doesn't care about me, amfa doesn't care about me. Good job!!
Come on everybody, give ole' Informer a big internet hug!! ((((((Informer))))))
- Thread Starter
- Thread starter
- #21
Well the difference is that when the union was paying me I was doing work directly for the local, when the company was paying me I was working my job as a mechanic.mojo13 said:
Why would the company pay union officials, who are not even on the property, 40 hours a week unless they were getting something out of it? The company does not have to pay this, its not in the contract. However despite all the drastic cost cutting the company still pays out millions of dollars a year to TWU officials. These millions do not show up on the LM-2 either. Did our officials make us give up additional benifits just so they could keep their unreported paychecks from the company? Couldnt this be interpreted as a bribe? A few million to union officials in exchange for $660 million in concessions?
I dont know of any other union in this industry where the company pays union officials who strictly do union business off company property.
- Thread Starter
- Thread starter
- #23
I dont recall the abbreviations. There is Union Business where union rep is at a meeting at the request of the company, where the company pays, and there is Union Business pay Continuence where the union official gets paid by the company while on union business however the union reimburses the company plus 9% to cover SSI and benifits. Then there is the Presidents and apparently other union officials who get paid by the company forty hours a week while doing union business that does not fall into the Union Business Company category. The union used to reimburse the company for the Presidents however in 1999, in order to facilitate the smaller locals as a result of separation an agreement was made where the union no longer reimbursed the company.mojo13 said:Is UBC what you are referring to?
Is that how you did it at the IAM?
Johnny Lunchbox
Advanced
- Feb 28, 2004
- 159
- 0
*checking stats*...who's ahead here?
- Thread Starter
- Thread starter
- #28
I know that the President of Local 562 got this.mojo13 said:
I know that Bobby Gless, as International rep still had his dues deducted and displayed on the company generated payroll checkoff form.
I know that some of my coworkers have said that Gless claims that he took a paycut also.
If Bobby was no longer getting paid from AA then why are his dues still coming in from a company generated form? Why did he say that he took a paycut also?
I think there are 23 Presidents that the company pays a 40 hour paycheck to them without being reimbursed by the local as was the practice before 1999.
The company listed ceasing these payments as one of the concessions they were going to seek in the vermont plan.
Why would they agree to make such payments in the first place?
One of the very few concessions on the Vermont Plan that the International did not get for the company.
The question is are these TWU officials, still getting paid monies that are not outlined in the contract? Are Jim Little, or Bobby Gless, Gary Yingst, John Conley, Gary Drummond, John Orlando, all recieving paychecks from AA in addition to their union salaries?
If they are does that not present a serious conflict of interest since these monies are in effect outside of the contract? Similar in nature to a bribe?Isnt it true that the company could cease these payments at any time and use that as a means of pressuring the International and the Presidents into cheating the members by selling the most concessionary contract in the history of the labor movement?
Isnt it true that while the company could cease these payments at any time, that the members could not cease paying the union and those who made the decisions at the top could not be held accountable by the members?
