High Speed Steel
Veteran
- Feb 14, 2004
- 1,375
- 136
CIO;
One of the most annoying things I hear from some in the labor movement is when leaders try to blame the members for their unwillingness to lead. It reinforces the perception that labor leaders are in it just for the fringe benifits and to get out of working under union negotiated terms.
I believe Informer is a dues paying member, a Grievance has been filed and he asked you a valid question, why not just answer him?
What actions other than what he has done should he do? Chain himself to the engines so they cant ship them out? Should every member be on every committee?
Why not just follow Linda Dills guidance and say "I dont know, I'll get back to you"?
Informer, I dont know the status of that grievance but I can say that the Docket is huge. Not making excuses, it is what it is. You can see the Docket and see where the Grievance is on the list off our local website twu562.org, scroll down on the RH side and click on "Arbitration Dockets". This will show you whats ahead of it but a definite timeline of when it would be heard cant be given unless its at the top of the list.
Bob, What can you tell us about what generated the CFM56 grievances since you are on the Negotiating Committee. With looking at our current agreement Article #1 has been unchanged since 2001 and there has not been any problem with retaining our OH work here in Tulsa. I've always been of the opinion that our Scope language is strong and superior to that of the Industry even after the 2003 concessionary agreement that allowed us to keep our work in house. What was the trigger for the outsourcing of the CFM56 from Tulsa? The only thing that comes to mind for me was the "June 2009 proposal" from the Union to the Company. What can you tell us about the Union Negotiating Committees position on their version of Article #1....The Unions former position on Article #1 reminded me of the NW/AMFA agreement and we all know what happened to them don't we.....With you as a negotiator from the line I can see that you would have preferred this instead of the current ASM letter percentage adjustment that was part of the TA. The former position of the Union on Article 1 has been retracted and is now only viewed upon as a supposal from the Union to the Company... I was against this proposal because I was of the opinion it could have been used for "location specific targeting for outsourcing", specific to OH....What was your position on this Bob? Did this create the outsourcing of the CFM56?