My issue with the R & D is that it was fought for so hard by the union, and it was valued at $2 an hour by the Company (per Dave Seigel's roadshow in CLT). Then they gave it up in round two. In hindsight, they should have caved on it first, it was doomed not to survive long term. By them fighting for it, the Company got exactly what they wanted, a lower hourly rate across the board, and they got rid of the workrule.
From the IAM 141m web site
- Thread starter LavMan
- Start date
- Thread Starter
- Thread starter
- #62
628, do you believe everything Dave tells you? One of the reasons for the second vote is because of Dave's $2 an hour statement, he knew it was false and was afraid he violated one of the nine steps in the abrogation process with it.
Smartest Loser
Senior
- Jun 20, 2003
- 313
- 0
Lav,
How do you know what was on the A&P test..??? The lost of R&D is nothing but a lost of JOBS...!! My Union, giving up its members like they feed chicken to alligators...!!
There is no worse tyranny than to force a man to pay for what he does not want merely because you think it would be good for him. -- Robert Heinlein
How do you know what was on the A&P test..??? The lost of R&D is nothing but a lost of JOBS...!! My Union, giving up its members like they feed chicken to alligators...!!
There is no worse tyranny than to force a man to pay for what he does not want merely because you think it would be good for him. -- Robert Heinlein
----------------
On 8/8/2003 12:12:01 PM LavMan wrote:
628, do you believe everything Dave tells you? One of the reasons for the second vote is because of Dave's $2 an hour statement, he knew it was false and was afraid he violated one of the nine steps in the abrogation process with it.
----------------
On 8/8/2003 12:12:01 PM LavMan wrote:
628, do you believe everything Dave tells you? One of the reasons for the second vote is because of Dave's $2 an hour statement, he knew it was false and was afraid he violated one of the nine steps in the abrogation process with it.
----------------
Give it up lav
I heard an agc admit that the second vote should have never have happened.
57% said no the first time and that should have stood.
The leadership crumbled and now we must pay for it.
----------------
On 8/8/2003 1
35 PM LavMan wrote:
AV, I agree with you, but the International stepped in when Dave informed the IAM he was going to hold his own ratification vote after he mailed the letters to all of our houses when we voted it down.
----------------
Lav, How can Dave legally hold his own ratification vote ?? What's the use in having a union if the company is able to circumvent a legally binding ratification vote ?On 8/8/2003 1
35 PM LavMan wrote: AV, I agree with you, but the International stepped in when Dave informed the IAM he was going to hold his own ratification vote after he mailed the letters to all of our houses when we voted it down.
----------------
- Thread Starter
- Thread starter
- #68
Well people need to get active and make changes with the current leadership, because changing organizations won't change the lack of involvement by the members. The membership's apathy is the cause of most of the problems.
The union is not five AGCs, it is every single member. If you have a problem with your wife, do you divorce her right away instead of trying to work it out?
The union is not five AGCs, it is every single member. If you have a problem with your wife, do you divorce her right away instead of trying to work it out?
----------------
On 8/8/2003 12:53:46 PM av60 wrote:
Give it up lav
I heard an agc admit that the second vote should have never have happened.
57% said no the first time and that should have stood.
The leadership crumbled and now we must pay for it.
----------------
av60, You're right, the union leadership did crumble. Sad to say,, Just enough "jelly fish" rank & file members ALSO crumbled..
On 8/8/2003 12:53:46 PM av60 wrote:
----------------
On 8/8/2003 12:12:01 PM LavMan wrote:
628, do you believe everything Dave tells you? One of the reasons for the second vote is because of Dave's $2 an hour statement, he knew it was false and was afraid he violated one of the nine steps in the abrogation process with it.
----------------
On 8/8/2003 12:12:01 PM LavMan wrote:
628, do you believe everything Dave tells you? One of the reasons for the second vote is because of Dave's $2 an hour statement, he knew it was false and was afraid he violated one of the nine steps in the abrogation process with it.
----------------
Give it up lav
I heard an agc admit that the second vote should have never have happened.
57% said no the first time and that should have stood.
The leadership crumbled and now we must pay for it.
----------------
The union is not five AGCs, it is every single member. If you have a problem with your wife, do you divorce her right away instead of trying to work it out?
----------------
Actually too many do just that. Marriage has no meaning in today’s world where divorce is the norm and marriage in the long term the exception. So with this attitude it makes perfect sense that people want to throw out the union blaming others and not themselves for the apathy you mentioned. Another union will not bring back the jobs, the pay cuts, or fix the slaughter that has occured. People are angry and this is a vent, just an illusion.
Similar threads
