Change From Within?

[Rusty]

Why are all of the twu candidates running for office with a theme for Changing the twu, to be more like AMFA??? At least five candidates came by and all of them, no not just a few, all of them said we need to fix the twu. A couple of them thought they could change the International. BWAAAHAAHA We know that is not possible from past experiences yet, they continue to say the same things they always say. The faces change, the names change but, the theme is always the same!!!


The most catchy one "NO MORE CONCESSIONS"!!! Come on now, find a New freakin slogan, one has not been used for the last twenty years. How about "We are twu concession kings and damn proud of it". At least it would give them some credibility because we already know what would be in store if the twu were to stay!!!

Just trying to think of some New slogans for the twu, the old ones have inter-granular corrosion!!!

 

[Nightwatch]

I believe if you ask even Mr. Little he will admit the TWU needs and will change. As our industry changes so does our operations as a union. And they state "more like AMFA", do you mean they speak of outsourcing our work to Singapore, or perhaps changing to "only warranted concessions" from "NO CONCESSIONS".

I think if a union does not change then the world will pass them by. That goes for AMFA as well as the TWU.

 

[Buck]

The TWU only promises change. They will only change if forced to do so under threat of replacement.

 

[Stop the Bus..I Want Off!!]

The largest local in the twu has been trying for years. Check out the "New Directions" group of the Local 100. If they aren't able to do it, our little local 514 won't ever stand a chance. ANY local officer who makes any noise contrary to the international will be silenced by the international. "Change from Within" is as big a joke as our twu re-opener in 06!!

Keep the Faith........VOTE AMFA!!!!!!!!!!

 

[proAMFA]

Every four years there are promises of change and every four years things get worse. If you were part of an organization that had millions rolling in each month would you want change?

A. Only enough to keep the millions rolling in.


The local officers are not the problem. The problem is the TWU.

 

[amt for amfa]

Hey Nightwatch: Rusty said more like AMFA not IAM. I don't think lowering wages in America to match the Singapore workers is the right way to go either Twu clone.

 

[Nightwatch]

Hey Nightwatch: Rusty said more like AMFA not IAM. I don't think lowering wages in America to match the Singapore workers is the right way to go either Twu clone.

TWU clone? Was that meant as a derrogatory remark? Why is it most, not all, self professed AMFA supporters have such a short fuse and a limited vocabulary?

I fully understood what Rusty stated, did you? What ever platform the members are running on I wish them the best of luck, hopefully the "cream will rise to the top".

The largest local in the twu has been trying for years. Check out the "New Directions" group of the Local 100. If they aren't able to do it, our little local 514 won't ever stand a chance. ANY local officer who makes any noise contrary to the international will be silenced by the international. "Change from Within" is as big a joke as our twu re-opener in 06!!

Also Stop..every 4 years is a long time, our industry has been forced to change in less time, if all unions, even your blessed AMFA, do not change they will be left without members.

 

[Buck]

TWU clone? Was that meant as a derrogatory remark? Why is it most, not all, self professed AMFA supporters have such a short fuse and a limited vocabulary?

I fully understood what Rusty stated, did you? What ever platform the members are running on I wish them the best of luck, hopefully the "cream will rise to the top".


Also Stop..every 4 years is a long time, our industry has been forced to change in less time, if all unions, even your blessed AMFA, do not change they will be left without members.

if all unions, even your blessed AMFA, do not change they will be left without members.

Yes you are correct, the TWU has not changed since 1983. The concessionary contracts that have destroyed the mechanic craft and class. But change they did, the TWU use to stand up to American, why they even had a strike in 1968 or 1969 for two weeks and received nothing.

You are correct also about the membership, they are either not attending meetings or they are wanting to replace the TWU or both.

 

[Ken MacTiernan]

I believe if you ask even Mr. Little he will admit the TWU needs and will change. As our industry changes so does our operations as a union. And they state "more like AMFA", do you mean they speak of outsourcing our work to Singapore, or perhaps changing to "only warranted concessions" from "NO CONCESSIONS".

I think if a union does not change then the world will pass them by. That goes for AMFA as well as the TWU.

nw, little will tell you. or anyone that asks a question, what they want to hear. The twu proclaimed, "CHANGE FROM WITHIN!". That was a lie. Look at Bob Owens & Chuck Schalk as examples of what the twu international does not want.

You are correct about the twu not changing. The aviation world is passing it by and joining AMFA.

As for outsourcing why do you imply that AMFA is outsourcing work to Singapore? It was the iam that allowed this outsourcing to begin with. The ibt at SWA allowed it domestically. AMFA has repeatedly stated they are against outsourcing. I know, I have been to two AMFA rallys/pickets against Part 145.

Why does little now admit that the twu change now? (As you suggest.) What happened when he said to, "Change from within."?

 

[Nightwatch]

Ken, I am genuinely appreciative of your attendance against Part 145, thank you. I attempt to do my share through letters to my Congress.

Your issues with Mr. Owens and Mr. Schalk are apples and oranges. That was not, in my humble opinion, a mission of "change from within". I will not dwell nor get in discussion with that issue, our opinions differ and no "good" would derive from further discussion.

Mr. Little has expressed ,and admitted to necessary change, not due to an AMFA confrontation, but from the continuing change to our industry. No AMFA supporter cares to give him a chance, this is sad, he genuinely cares. I have spoken with Art Luby many times by phone, he also cares. That man could be generating more $$$$ elsewhere with his name and ability, but he cares enough to stay and assist the TWU, you have to question, WHY?

I truely believe that our goals run side by side, our agendas do not.

 

[Checking it Out]

Okay, change from within? Many have chosen to put forth the effort to make some changes. If anyone knows me they understand my passion runs deep. I probably hold the record for making more motions from the floor than anyone else in the last couple of years. The members do have the power to make changes. Do all my motions get adopted? No! Have I been discouraged? Yes! Has this stopped me from going forward? No!

I believe we have a larger selection of members running now than we have had in the last couple of elections, one theme I hear repeatedly is out with the old and in with the new! Or Back to Basics. One of the other themes, only elected members who hold licenses.

We also have seen an upswing in stock clerks running this time. Most want to get their names out in the event an election is to be held between the TWU and Amfa.

One thing I will predict, we will have a new president, vice-president, secretary, chairman of maintenance and several new executive board members at large.

One thing is for sure, the majority in Tulsa believes in the TWU and believes they do represent the member’s best interest! They also firmly believe Amfa's track record is poor and they will for sure lead us down the path of self destruction.

 

[Decision 2004]

I believe if you ask even Mr. Little he will admit the TWU needs and will change. As our industry changes so does our operations as a union. And they state "more like AMFA", do you mean they speak of outsourcing our work to Singapore, or perhaps changing to "only warranted concessions" from "NO CONCESSIONS".

I think if a union does not change then the world will pass them by. That goes for AMFA as well as the TWU.

Maybe you should relieve yourself of another "ignorant" zone and read the proceedings (minutes), of the 1989, 1993, 1997, and 2001 TWU Constitutional Convention.

That is where real "change" must occur, and that is real rejection of change has been documented for the 15 years.

And we are not talking about disgrunted mechanica about concessions here, we are talking about Local 100 Bus Drivers and Subway Workers. They refer to them themselves as "New Directions".

Here is some documented data about TWU Change and what happens...

The Plaintiffs-Appellees are workers and elected officials of their local who tried to bring a new direction to their union. In response to the Plaintiffs' reform efforts the Defendants, who are also union officers, used the full weight of their positions to obstruct the Plaintiffs' efforts, eventually trying them on charges of disorder and issuing union reprimands against them. As a result of the officers' actions, Plaintiffs commenced two actions in the district court asserting that the officers' actions violated several provisions of the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959 ("LMRDA" or "Act"), 29 U.S.C. §§ 401-531 (1994). After a jury trial and a bench trial of the two cases respectively, the jury and district court concluded that the Defendants' conduct violated sections 101(a)(2) and (a)(5) of the LMRDA, 29 U.S.C. § 411(a)(2) and (a)(5). The district court issued two judgments which, inter alia, (1) granted the Plaintiffs the jury's award of nominal damages, (2) granted the Plaintiffs permanent injunctive relief, and (3) voided the union reprimands. See Schermerhorn v. Hall, 150 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2238 (S.D.N.Y. 1995), and Schermerhorn v. Local 100, Transport Workers Union of Am., 150 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2246 (S.D.N.Y. 1995). Because the district court's judgments are fully supported by the record and are proper as a matter of law, we affirm.
Background

A.Underlying Events

The Defendant-Appellant Local 100, Transport Workers Union of America ("Local 100" or "Union") represents over 30,000 employees of the New York City Transit Authority ("TA") and the Manhattan and Bronx Surface Transit Operating Authority ("MABSTOA"). As an affiliated local of the Transport Workers Union of America (TWU"), Local 100 is governed by TWU's constitution as well as its own by-laws. Because of its enormous membership, Local 100 is divided into 15 "Divisions" which reflect the subway and busline operating divisions of the TA and MABSTOA. Each Division must have a minimum of 100 members. Some Divisions are further subdivided into "Sections."

The Plaintiffs-Appellees Tim Schermerhorn ("Schermerhorn"), Corine Scott ("Scott"), Cecile Clue ("Clue"), Clarence Little ("Little") and Frank Neal Whitted ("Whitted") (collectively "Plaintiffs") at all pertinent times were members of Local 100 holding elected office in the Union: Schermerhorn and Scott are Vice-Chairpersons of the Train Operators Division; Clue and Whitted are Local 100 Executive Board members, elected to that office by the Conductor/Tower Division; and Little is a Local 100 Executive Board member, elected to that office by the Train Operators Division. The Plaintiffs are also members of a reform caucus within Local 100 known as "New Directions." Founded in 1986 by rank-and-file members of Local 100 who believed that their Union was in need of reform, New Directions published newsletters and fielded candidates for offices within the Union. In the December 1991 elections, candidates running on the New Directions slate won ten of Local 100's thirty-three Executive Board positions, as well as other officer positions in several of the Divisions.

The principal events underlying the instant case concern: (1) the Plaintiffs' efforts to gain admittance to Division and Section meetings during 1991-1992 in order to discuss various matters, including obtaining a better bargaining agreement; and (2) the actions undertaken by other Union officials to prevent the Plaintiffs from appealing to a wider audience among union members.

Between January and May of 1991, several of the Plaintiffs tried to enter various Division and Section meetings in order to hand out flyers or raise issues of concern to the Union, but were precluded from doing so by the presiding chairpersons of the respective Divisions and Sections. In response to the Plaintiffs' efforts to enter meetings, on May 23, 1991, Local 100's Executive Committee issued a written policy which limited attendance at Division and Section meetings to members of the Division or Section that was meeting, unless the meeting's participants voted to invite a member not in that particular Division or Section to a subsequent meeting to speak about a particular subject (the "Attendance Policy"). Around the same time, the Executive Committee also issued a policy providing that: (1) the distribution of flyers to Union members was limited to the placement of flyers on a table outside of Division or Section meetings; (2) members had to request that a Union officer place the flyers on the table; and (3) the Union officer could refuse to place any flyer on the table that did not relate to the operation of Local 100 (the "Flyer Distribution Policy"). Both policies were subsequently adopted by the Local's Executive Board.

In light of plaintiff Whitted's repeated efforts to gain access to Division and Section meetings both before, as well as after, the Union's adoption of the two Policies, he was charged by Union officials with disrupting meetings and was called to appear before a trial committee to answer the charges. Trial committees are Local 100's disciplinary bodies. According to Articles XIX and XX of the TWU Constitution, a union member may charge another member with violating the TWU constitution or of engaging in conduct unbecoming a TWU member. Those charges are then either rejected by the Local Executive Board as improper, or accepted and referred to trial. Trials are conducted by a trial committee of three members elected by the Executive Board. After the hearing, the trial committee reports its findings to the Executive Board, which can then take such action as it deems proper.

For example, Whitted was charged on March 29, 1991 by Dennis Williams ("Williams"), the chairperson of the Tower Section, and Martin Muller ("Muller"), the former Vice-Chairperson of the Tower Section, with disrupting a February 27, 1991 Tower Section meeting. According to Whitted, Williams unsuccessfully attempted to prevent him from entering the meeting; once Whitted was inside, Williams refused to recognize him as a speaker or permit a motion from the floor to allow Whitted to speak. After a hearing on the charges, the Executive Board issued a warning to Whitted.

Several months later, on September 5, 1991, Whitted was again charged with disrupting an August 14, 1991 meeting of the Conductor/Tower Division by Robert Littles ("Littles"), the Division's former Chairperson. A trial committee found that Whitted and Littles were equally at fault, and recommended that the Union's then-Vice-President speak with both Whitted and Littles. During this same period in which he faced repeated charges, Whitted sought several times to bring charges against Littles and Williams for refusing to let him speak at meetings. Each time, however, the Executive Board rejected Whitted's charges.

Following the Union-wide elections in December of 1991, on January 28, 1992, Local 100's leadership entered into a tentative three year bargaining agreement with the TA and MABSTOA subject to ratification by the Union membership. New Directions immediately commenced a campaign to persuade Union members to reject the tentative agreement. In support of that goal, New Directions held a rally against ratification on February 12, 1992. After the rally hundreds of union members marched from Manhattan to Brooklyn and entered a meeting of the Conductor/Tower Division to challenge the leadership concerning the tentative bargaining agreement. As a result of the presence of members from other Sections of Local 100, the meeting was adjourned.

According to the Plaintiffs, on February 19, 1992, a motion was made at the Train Operators Division meeting to hold a special meeting open to all union members, pursuant to the Local's by-laws, to discuss the tentative agreement and any alternatives. Although the motion was properly passed to hold the special meeting on March 25, 1992, Local 100 President Sonny Hall ("Hall") and Vice President Herbert Jones ("Jones") posted notices cancelling the meeting. Despite Hall's and Jones's actions to counteract New Directions's opposition to the agreement, on March 18, 1992 the membership of Local 100 rejected the tentative agreement by a margin of approximately two to one.

As a result of their actions opposing ratification, on March 24, 1992, Schermerhorn, Scott, Whitted and Clue were charged by Vice-President Jones with, inter alia, bringing non-Conductor/Tower Division members of Local 100 to the Conductor/Tower Division meeting held on February 12, 1992, and "kidnapping," Tony Dandridge ("Dandridge"), the Chairperson of the Conductor/Tower Division, and Joseph Continanzi ("Continanzi"), the Local's staff representative, by refusing to allow them to leave the Union hall upon adjournment of that meeting. Dandridge filed similar charges on March 25, 1992, against Scott, Whitted, Clue, and Little, alleging, inter alia, that they "storm[ed]" the Conductor/Tower Division meeting on February 12, 1992, engaged in abusive language, and disturbed the peace. On March 27, 1992, Jones also charged Schermerhorn, Scott, and Little with violating the Local's by-laws by supporting the February 19, 1992 motion calling for a special meeting, and with making malicious accusations against him and his staff. These charges by Jones and Dandridge were referred to a trial committee, and tried during sessions held in November and December of 1992, and January of 1993. At the conclusion of the trial, the trial committee recommended that the Whitted, Clue, and Scott be reprimanded. The recommendation was adopted by the Local's Executive Board.

Finally, from April through June of 1992, the Plaintiffs brought repeated charges against several Union officials for disregarding their duties, and the officials continued filing counter-charges against the Plaintiffs for disrupting meetings and bringing personal attacks upon them.

REFERENCE = TWU Local 100 - Change From Withn Thwarted

Maybe your "ignorant zone" is much broader than you realize or admit?

 

[Rusty]

While we are on the topic of Change, would the twu advocates please ask the afl-cio to remove the language to squelch competition of their affiliate unions??? I believe competition would make these dictatorship unions do an about face and actually try to get the best contracts. Would one of you send an email and get that taken care of please. LMFAO

 

[Bob Owens]

TWU clone? Was that meant as a derrogatory remark? Why is it most, not all, self professed AMFA supporters have such a short fuse and a limited vocabulary?

I fully understood what Rusty stated, did you? What ever platform the members are running on I wish them the best of luck, hopefully the "cream will rise to the top".


Also Stop..every 4 years is a long time, our industry has been forced to change in less time, if all unions, even your blessed AMFA, do not change they will be left without members.

Sometimes its not just the cream that rises to the top, just go to you local pond and have a look, sometimes its the scum, thats the case with the TWU.

 

[Bob Owens]

Mr. Little has expressed ,and admitted to necessary change, not due to an AMFA confrontation, but from the continuing change to our industry. No AMFA supporter cares to give him a chance, this is sad, he genuinely cares.

Jim Little said the same things four years ago. I think we gave him a chance, he blew it. As bad as Koziatek was, Little is worse.

I have spoken with Art Luby many times by phone, he also cares. That man could be generating more $$$$ elsewhere with his name and ability, but he cares enough to stay and assist the TWU, you have to question, WHY?

Yes we do have to ask ourselves WHY? He has done a great job at destroying our profession. Maybe he is on someone elses payroll?

I truely believe that our goals run side by side, our agendas do not.

Tell us what your goals are, and how your actions support such goals.