Fleet Service Profit Sharing

[stormchaser]

Back to the subject. Heard there was a Fleet Union meeting in PIT thursday. A unanimous vote to pledge monies to take legal action if members are not permited to vote on the 30% profit share to West. Sounds like things are heating up!

 

[crushed]

Sounds like things are heating up!

Curious.
How many total votes in PIT?

 

[700UW]

You can't spend union dues to sue your own union.

 

[700AW]

You can't spend union dues to sue your own union.

who said anything about suing?????

maybe they want to get the attention of the leaders, i guess they ( the leadership) have not been going to pit, they are sure not coming to phx either

 

[700UW]

who said anything about suing?????

maybe they want to get the attention of the leaders, i guess they ( the leadership) have not been going to pit, they are sure not coming to phx either

Take the time to read a post instead of trying to criticize me.

Back to the subject. Heard there was a Fleet Union meeting in PIT thursday. A unanimous vote to pledge monies to take legal action if members are not permited to vote on the 30% profit share to West. Sounds like things are heating up!

 

[700AW]

Take the time to read a post instead of trying to criticize me.

there you go again, no where di it say sue, your loose interpretation of legal action is sue, maybe they want to get an intervention to slow down the decision until all parties are heard.. after all, you have said countless times that the members ARE the union, that the leadership does not make the decisions, here is a chance for them to let the rank and file have there voice to be heard on the subject, not make want they want and tell the rank and file that there was nothing they could do about it

push back from the puter at the local and breath some " unfiltered IAM air" for once

 

[700UW]

Once again you try to attack me instead of sticking to the topic at hand.

They can only sue the union to stop the issue if they seek legal action. Too easy for you to figure that out?

 

[BoeingBoy]

Obviously I wasn't there and have no idea what was voted on, but I did notice that stormchaser's post didn't say dues monies, it just said monies. That could be something as simple as each member pledging $5 or $10 per paycheck ("pledging monies") to a fund for whatever purpose they have in mind.

Maybe someone will clairify exactly what was voted on....

Jim

 

[700UW]

Well if it was a vote at a union meeting it would have to involve dues money, voting on spending your own money is out of order and would not require a vote and would have nothing to do with the business at a union meeting.

 

[BoeingBoy]

You're reading what you want into the post.

There was a union meeting. There was a vote to pledge monies. Monies pledged for legal action.

Where in the original post did it say that the vote happened while the union meeting was in session?

Where did it say dues money?

Where did it say sue?

You may be entirely right - as I said, I wasn't there. But I suspect you weren't either. So until someone posts more definitive info, everybody is interpreting the post to suit their purposes.

Jim

 

[700UW]

Being a former recording secretary of an IAM local, I am telling you a vote would be ruled out of order for a few reasons, one you can't use dues money to sue the district or international, you would have to file a protest with the IAM or file a charge with the DOL. Two, a motion to vote to use members's own money is out of order as it is not union business and would not be allowed.

 

[barbeetantrums]

Being a former recording secretary of an IAM local, I am telling you a vote would be ruled out of order for a few reasons, one you can't use dues money to sue the district or international, you would have to file a protest with the IAM or file a charge with the DOL. Two, a motion to vote to use members's own money is out of order as it is not union business and would not be allowed.

 

[BoeingBoy]

Being a former recording secretary of an IAM local, I am telling you a vote would be ruled out of order for a few reasons,

Read what I wrote....

Suppose, for example, the union meeting adjourned - over, ended, kaput. Then someone jumps up and says something like "Hey guys, let's fund some sort of legal action if the IAM doesn't let us vote on ____ (fill in the blank)". So a vote is taken after the union meeting is over.

Explain exactly how that would be ruled out of order. It didn't happen during the union meeting so what would be out of order?

Again, not saying that this is what happened, but it does fit the facts as posted.

Jim

 

[700UW]

Because a vote would not be necessary for people to want to pool their money together to take legal action against the IAM.

If people choose to fund something a vote is not required nor is it legal and binding.

 

[BoeingBoy]

And just because something is not required, or even legal and binding, means it didn't happen - right?

As I keep saying, you may be entirely right - an illegal (oops- our of order) vote was taken during a union meeting and the officers in charge of the meeting violated union rules by not ruling it out of order. Or that the vote didn't happen because it would have been out of order. Whatever...

Now it's your turn - admit that something else could have happened that fits what was said in the post. That your interpretation of the post might - just might - be wrong.

Jim

ps - your argument does present some interesting possibilities. You're saying that the IAM never assesses the membership for anything besides dues? Interesting, since ALPA does pretty regularly.