Can anyone defend the IAM crossing the mechanic's picket line?

[insp89]

Many of them are, in DCA and PHL. Go look at the seniority list, a lot of very senior mechs have utility time.

700, Please answer my question,

Are these employees presently employed with USAIRWAYS ?

Please read Post # 152.

 

[700UW]

Can you not read?

I said many are.

Some are some aren't.

 

[insp89]

dell, Can you put a number on what you mean by "many" ?
During my years here at Usairways, I can count the number of utility that held an A&P license,[and waiting for a mechanic's job to open up], on one hand.

Even the ones that have A&P's, that were employed here before the company furloughed them, [and replaced them with contract utility workers], obviously do not have the seniority to hold a mechanic's job.

Even if the company decided to rehire mechanics, These guys would not have the seniority for those positions, beacuse if they did, they would of been in mechanic's job before they were furloughed as a utility..

Bottom Line, People that no longer are on the property and have a slim to none chance of ever returning, should not have a vote in this matter.

700,
I took the liberty to post # 152 AGAIN, just for you.

The Mechanics that have utility time are not the issue here. They OBVIOUSLY have enough MECHANIC seniority to still be employed here at Usairways..

I have seen very few people working as Utility holding an A&P mechanics license. They moved up into the A&P mechanic's job as soon as they could..

Last I've heard, there are 50 Utility left on the property.
I do not know how many of them hold an A&P license. Do You?

It doesn't matter anyway.

What matters is who is qualified and not qualified to vote.

 

[Kev3188]

.

What exactly do you want the members to get involved in? Technically every member gives at least two hours a month to the union.

At this point, any involvment would be welcome. Asking questions, demanding accountability from their union leadership, you name it...The fact that everyone gives roughly 2 hours worth of pay to their union, should be enough to warrant these actions.

Union officers, who are getting paid to conduct meetings complain about the lack of attendance but I know from experience that a lot of these same officials who complain about the members want to be compensated for every minute of their time.

In my case, my "pay" consisted of having my dues reimbursed, and that was it. I also made it clear that if we didn;t work the same shift that people could either E-mail me or call with any questions/problems they had. I also know people like the ones you cited, and think that some of that mentality is what is driving people away.

The fact is that most union meetings are a waste of time, especially if all the members are from the same company.

Most of them are rather boring, but it's your (in a general sense) money they're dealing with/spending.

These guys would go and see the same people that they work with everyday. I feel that union meetings should be done electronically, like this BB. Then members can discuss issues easily and share them with people from other shifts, stations shops etc.

While on the E-board, I tried to get all of our votes to be done electronically. It was much more convenient, quicker, and maybe most importanly-cheaper. Needless to say, my idea was shot down, even though our local had a website, and the guy that maintained the site said that my request could be easily accomplished (technology-wise).

Your idea for a "forum" is a great idea, and one I wish would have been implemented a long time ago (I don't know how it is at AA, but at NW, there is a lot of transferring around the system. As such, the "biggest" source of info between stations is from people talking to others at their former stations...obviously, it's not a universal source of info....). Since it hasn't been, my next best option was the one I mentioned above-namely having an "open" phone, and people knew they could call (or e-mail) anytime.

Just because someone doesnt attend it doesnt mean they dont care. When I was an officer coworkers who did not go to meetings would often ask what was going on. I really feel that the use of technology could enable more people to take an active part in their union, but in reality most leaders really dont want that. A meeting with 2 or three people is a lot easier to handle and the lack of attendence gives them a handy excuse for doing nothing.

I agree on all the above points. The problem in my case is that people really weren't asking me what was happening at the meetings. I think posting the minutes on line would have helped as well. By the way, the most ardent objections to my "plan" to have everything on line were the local's President and VP......

On the last point, having 2 or 3 people in attendance usually had the opposite effect. Instead of doing nothing, the board usually got to push through whatever they wanted. Having better attendance and/or E-voting would have brought some checks and balances into the mix.

 

[Hawkhunter]

AWA employess did scab in Austraila??????? :huh:
America west airlines???????? :huh:
LET ME SAY THIS, WE AS TEAMSTERS 104 HAVE NOT CROSSED ANY LINES. WE ARE TRUE UNION BROTHERS.
WE LET THE IAM DO THAT!!

Hawkhunter I Think You Need To CK Your Facts. B)

Sorry, I should of been more clear. In 1989 pilots from AWA scabbed in Austrailia. Anset Airlines(spelling). I do not know if any other group scabbed as well.

 

[Bob Owens]

At this point, any involvment would be welcome. Asking questions, demanding accountability from their union leadership, you name it...The fact that everyone gives roughly 2 hours worth of pay to their union, should be enough to warrant these actions.

The fact is that the membership(of all the airline unions) feel defeated and leaderless, which they are.

In my case, my "pay" consisted of having my dues reimbursed, and that was it.

In the TWU they pay very well.

I also know people like the ones you cited, and think that some of that mentality is what is driving people away.

Most definately.

Most of them are rather boring, but it's your (in a general sense) money they're dealing with/spending.

Boring and unproductive, especially since we work shifts in this industry. How can a productive union meeting be held when the membership is all divided into seperate meetings at seperate locations?

While on the E-board, I tried to get all of our votes to be done electronically. It was much more convenient, quicker, and maybe most importanly-cheaper. Needless to say, my idea was shot down, even though our local had a website, and the guy that maintained the site said that my request could be easily accomplished (technology-wise).

Bravo! Why do you think it was shot down? I'll give you my feelings. It was shot down because those in control really dont want too much "particiapation". Participation is their great excuse for doing nothing.

By the way, the most ardent objections to my "plan" to have everything on line were the local's President and VP......

The leaders do not really want to lead, they just want the perks and priviledges that go with the title.

On the last point, having 2 or 3 people in attendance usually had the opposite effect. Instead of doing nothing, the board usually got to push through whatever they wanted. Having better attendance and/or E-voting would have brought some checks and balances into the mix.

Exactly. What I meant by "doing nothing" is not doing what the members wanted or thought was important, "doing nothing for the members".

Thats why despite all the BS from these guys about how the members dont particpate the truth is they dont really want participation, they wouldnt know what to do with it. Without participation they can do as they please then blame the members.

The fact is that the first thing that is needed to be a leader is faith in those you are to lead. If the "leaders" have no faith in their members they can not lead, and they are unfit to lead, thats not the members fault. I'm sure when these people ran for office they did not run around and say that if everyone did not attend every union meeting they were going to use that as an excuse to do nothing. What I've heard from most union leaders indicates that, even though they may have started with the best of intentions, they have no faith in the members, so they are not leaders, they just hold titles.