- Joined
- Aug 20, 2002
- Messages
- 7,319
- Reaction score
- 1,555
What is Article 38?
Democracy In Action
- Thread starter Ken MacTiernan
- Start date
Overspeed
Veteran
- Joined
- Jun 27, 2011
- Messages
- 3,245
- Reaction score
- 1,065
I do have my information straight. Only the items included in the TWU/AA agreement are paid for by your dues. You my dear man are incorrect. The thing you get by filing agency fee is a reduction of dues proportional to the amount spent on political action. License protection is a program started by the TWU outside the labor agreement therefore not required to be provided to you in the event you are agency fee.
Get some legal advice on that one. It is in the agency fee policy. See that's the problem with a lot of you on this BB, you act on heresay and rumor. That will get you in a lot of trouble.
Overspeed
Veteran
- Joined
- Jun 27, 2011
- Messages
- 3,245
- Reaction score
- 1,065
Union security. It defines the closed shop and what that means for you as a member. In regards to dues it speaks to how you pay dues and what happens if you don't.
Frank Szabo
Veteran
Yep. The security of the union is ensured by this article.
They made sure they collect dues from us even while they're in bed with the company, doing us more harm than good.
How about some "Pay for Performance", boys?
They made sure they collect dues from us even while they're in bed with the company, doing us more harm than good.
How about some "Pay for Performance", boys?
We can agree to disagree on this one. I am sure a person of your stature has consulted the TWU Internationals attorney before you decided to respond to my post. I believe you are just taking the "TWU standard guess" in your postr and have not spoken with an attorney. It has nothing to do with the labor agreement and everything to do with representation and the use of union dues in that effort. I think you will find under the Duty of Fair Representation laws that I am correct and the TWU Intl would quickly agree. Dues money is used to represent members at the license protection hearings or is AA paying the person representing on behalf of the TWU? Now that would fall into another question of legality. The TWU Intl would not even think of failing to provide representation at a license protection program hearing.
But Hey, you are entitled to you opinion and it seems you like to express what you think, as true, all over these pages.
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2002
- Messages
- 7,319
- Reaction score
- 1,555
Perhaps you were in a hurry when you read my post? I did not say anything about Article 38, I said "Article 28 para.
Tex-Mech
Veteran
Here's one for ya...
I met up with an old friend this past weekend who is now working in Austin. I asked him about all the hoopla surounding his locals election, and the claims of Petersen applying for management. He laughed because one of the candidates for chairman in Austin just got done interviewing for a management job. He didn't get the job, so he decided to run for chairman. Now that is screwed up.
I met up with an old friend this past weekend who is now working in Austin. I asked him about all the hoopla surounding his locals election, and the claims of Petersen applying for management. He laughed because one of the candidates for chairman in Austin just got done interviewing for a management job. He didn't get the job, so he decided to run for chairman. Now that is screwed up.
strikeforce
Veteran
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2011
- Messages
- 1,224
- Reaction score
- 253
toroshark
Senior
- Joined
- Mar 12, 2003
- Messages
- 266
- Reaction score
- 294
This information is %100 accurate. The poster known as Phat-Sappy has some explaining to do.
SkydrolJunkie
Senior
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2006
- Messages
- 274
- Reaction score
- 72
So, you gonna vote for the incumbent ???
Tex-Mech
Veteran
So Sappy---You want to explain this?
Tex-Mech
Veteran
When do they count the ballots?
So help me out here ... I didnt buy a program, and I cant follow these grade school tree fort nick names. Is this web site (or rather those who frequent this electronic "mensa society") in agreement? That a candidate for office in DFW (high office) and one in AUS did in fact seek a management position ?
KS
PS
I have attempted through 565's legitimate means (membership and E board meetings) to address the idiotic (lies) statement's made on this site with regards to the locals finances (2005 to 2008 VS 2008 to 2011) ...with success, in those venues.
Do you think for one moment the brave nameless Einsteins who typed that BS would care to retract that fiction ? ... or sign their name to slander ... NOT !!
KS
I have attempted through 565's legitimate means (membership and E board meetings) to address the idiotic (lies) statement's made on this site with regards to the locals finances (2005 to 2008 VS 2008 to 2011) ...with success, in those venues.
Do you think for one moment the brave nameless Einsteins who typed that BS would care to retract that fiction ? ... or sign their name to slander ... NOT !!
KS
How can they hold them accountable? Why should they have to ask them and not be able to verify the answer? Local 562 proposed a timely resolution to put in place electronic voting at all subsequent Conventions where the votes would be recorded and displayed, not determined by which side sounds louder to the person chairing at the time. That resolution was rejected by the Resolutions committee (who are chosen by the International) and never even given the ability to be brought forward for discussion because only the Resolutions recommended by the Committtee were brought forward for discussion and guaranteed acceptance.
Basically the only accountability is word of mouth, who saw and remembered how who voted. I attempted to bring the Resolution for electronic voting up for discussion, was not permitted to say what the intent of the Resolution was and was denied, Tulsa did not support us, probably had something to do with the fact that Luis got an International appointment, because when I brought it up to him months before the Convention he gave no indication he was against it.
If passed that Resolution would not have structurally changed anything, the authority would still lie within the International but the members would be able to see more of what goes on, it would have provided some transpanancy. It would lend some credibility to the claim that change from within is possible. Instead they squashed it.
As far as the electoral college, which I oppose, thats only for the President. One office. The Congress, all of whom are directly elected can overrule him if they have enough of a majority. The entire governing branch of the TWU is elected in a one party system in a way that the membership has no direct input and no means of even verifying how their elected representatives voted. Thats indefensable. On top of that, in the AA system, authority is delegated out of this body to unelected people who have authority over those that are elected. People who enjoy perks from management in connection with their assignment to those positions in the union. Who elected Bobby Gless? Bobby Gless as the AA system Co-ordinator has excercised the authority given to him to alter the contract through letters of agreement, like the one that removed the experience requirement for Line Maintenance and making DWH a Base. Where is the Democratic accountability there? In order to hold Bobby Accountable for parochial issues in the AA system the members have to hope the people they elect can and will get enough support to hold Jijm Little accountable and they only get one shot at that every four years, since recall, another one of our proposals was also scrapped by the International appointed Resolutions Committee. The whole thing makes a joke out of the claim that the TWU is Democratic.
In the AA system the International chairs all meetings of all committees, and none of those committees has any enforcable authority, they exist at the behest of the International, that includes the Presidents Council and the Negotiating committee. Its simply wrong to have guys making upwards of $150k/year with no accountability whatsoever in control of our futures. Look at the pattern of elections, the fact is the members do and are holding their elected leaders accountable. Since the TA was rejected every person who voted in favor of it has been removed. This has been the pattern for at least the 25 years that I've been in this Union. Look at the churn in AA system elections and compare that to Locals in the TWU where the entire contract falls within one locals jurisdiction. The fact is the membership at AA does hold their elected leaders accountable, the churn is proof of that, the results remain the same. The problem is they have no way within the TWU of holding the appointed leaders above their elected leaders accountable. Thats why we have guys who have gone as far as starting a drive for a new union, ever wonder why we dont hear about drives at Southwest, Local 100 or most other TWU Locals and there is almost always a drive at AA? Those memberships have the ability to hold the person who controls their agreement accountable, most AA/TWU members do not. With us the membership has the ability to shoot the messenger not the people who crafted the message.
You imply that the members need to hold their elected leaders accountable despite the fact that all the elected representatives who were in favor of the TA where removed. However the people who have the authority in negotiations, the International, remain. Bobby Gless has voiced his opinion and so have several other International officials. Well if they feel the TA should have been accepted how can we have any faith in them supporting our objective for a better agreement? The only one with clean hands at this point is Gary Drummond. He has never publically or privately to my knowledge questioned the membersips decision. Never thew out doom and gloom. How can the membership hold people accountable and expect a different result from the TA when the appointed people who have authority favored the TA? Allowing something to be brought back that's substantially better would only prove that they were wrong about the TA, those who were in favor of the TA have nothing to gain by bringing back something better and much to lose if we do.
Thats why the 565 election is pivotal and why this upcoming week will be critical. With our structure ir takes up to three years for the accountability to be exacted at the local level. Even then there is no clear leader who can be held accountable. The Flight attendants at SWA have Thom McDaniel, Local 100 has John Samuelson, the dispatchers have John Plowman. Who does M&R have? Is it Don Videtich, or Bobby Gless, or is it Gary Drummond? Members are told its either the Negotiating Committee or the Presidents council, but show me where either of those bodies has any real authority, I can show court tesimony by the TWU that says they dont. In fact all one needs to do is look at Article 47 and see for themselves, Local representatives are "witness" to the signing of the agreement.
In most unions what normally happens after a TA is rejected?
The committee is replaced.
IMO what was done here was those who were against the TA were given limited authority to get an agreement within narrow parameters put in place by the majority who favored the TA. However the top dog, the only one with the authority to sign off on a TA, a guy who had worked tirelessly to lower expectations and claimed the TA would pass by 70% remained in place.
The fact is that at any time, the International can dismiss the entire committee and negotiate with the company without our input, I feel that the only reason why they dont is because then they could not say to the members, as you did, that if they are unhappy with the agreement they need to hold their local leaders accountable, all the blame would undeniably lie with the International. The charade would be over.
Similar threads
