Nightwatch
Veteran
- Jun 8, 2004
- 888
- 2
I was referring to Sackman you dummie...he's your girl isn't he?
Gless Speaks
- Thread starter Bob Owens
- Start date
NightWatch, you have been asking for answers about Gless, now that you are getting those answers you have no comment on them??? Just like the answers to the 3.1 million paid to the union officers from American Airlines, you seem to avoid the issues!!! Why is that???
- Thread Starter
- Thread starter
- #20
Here is more. This is from a document produced by Robert Gless and given to the members of Local 562 in July of 2001.
To the members of Local 562
When I was elected into office I had visions of change for the TWU. I felt that my visions were realistic based upon self determination and the changing of leadership of the TWU ATD division.
After being part of the process I see that change is slow and that a few people cannot make changes to practices that have been in place for over 50 years.
In entering into the negotiating process an agreement was made to bring back an Industry Leading Contract was signed by the Presidents Council.After leaving negotiations this weekend I am disturbed with the committee to bring back a contract for the members to vote on that is clearly not an "Industry Leader".
Compensation is the only leader in this package, although with the United contract not far behind this could be short lived.
The must have items-Scope(more importany than any dollar amount), 8 hour workday, company payment for medical, geographic pay(for locals like us) and removal of part time are not addressed. The lack of Scope alone can be devastating to our livelyhood.
The unhappiness that you are feeling is being felt by many of your fellow brothers and sisters in high cost of living areas and is shared by myself. Although this agreement will undoubtably ease some of our financial burden, we were promised an "Industry Leading Contract". This agreement will not fulfill that commitment.
Attached is the contract highlights for your review until the full text tentative agreement is proofread and sent off to the printer. THis is expected to be in the next few weeks, but the finalizing of the letters of agreements (to be incorporated into the book) might take a few additional days.
I know that this tentative agreement is not what I promised to the members of local 562. You need to understand, I do not support this agreement. I ask for your patience and allow me to meet with the Board and Shop Stewards and then we will schedule membership meetings to discuss a strategy for rejecting this agreement.
Signed
Robert Gless
So here we have Robert Gless saying he does not support the 2001 agreement however he ran around the system supporting the 2003 concessions. Could it be that back in 2001 that his pay was directly affected by the contract but in 2003 he was an "International" employee who was getting $120,000 a year to do exactly as he was told by the International? How can the members trust anything that these people have to say when they know that they are bought off and not accountable?
To the members of Local 562
When I was elected into office I had visions of change for the TWU. I felt that my visions were realistic based upon self determination and the changing of leadership of the TWU ATD division.
After being part of the process I see that change is slow and that a few people cannot make changes to practices that have been in place for over 50 years.
In entering into the negotiating process an agreement was made to bring back an Industry Leading Contract was signed by the Presidents Council.After leaving negotiations this weekend I am disturbed with the committee to bring back a contract for the members to vote on that is clearly not an "Industry Leader".
Compensation is the only leader in this package, although with the United contract not far behind this could be short lived.
The must have items-Scope(more importany than any dollar amount), 8 hour workday, company payment for medical, geographic pay(for locals like us) and removal of part time are not addressed. The lack of Scope alone can be devastating to our livelyhood.
The unhappiness that you are feeling is being felt by many of your fellow brothers and sisters in high cost of living areas and is shared by myself. Although this agreement will undoubtably ease some of our financial burden, we were promised an "Industry Leading Contract". This agreement will not fulfill that commitment.
Attached is the contract highlights for your review until the full text tentative agreement is proofread and sent off to the printer. THis is expected to be in the next few weeks, but the finalizing of the letters of agreements (to be incorporated into the book) might take a few additional days.
I know that this tentative agreement is not what I promised to the members of local 562. You need to understand, I do not support this agreement. I ask for your patience and allow me to meet with the Board and Shop Stewards and then we will schedule membership meetings to discuss a strategy for rejecting this agreement.
Signed
Robert Gless
So here we have Robert Gless saying he does not support the 2001 agreement however he ran around the system supporting the 2003 concessions. Could it be that back in 2001 that his pay was directly affected by the contract but in 2003 he was an "International" employee who was getting $120,000 a year to do exactly as he was told by the International? How can the members trust anything that these people have to say when they know that they are bought off and not accountable?
Decision 2004
Veteran
- Mar 12, 2004
- 1,618
- 0
I wonder what our flaming friend CIO has to say about the International Representative admitting we have NO SCOPE language?
That must be why we had to spread and take the industry leading concessions.
Our only scope language appears to be lowest pay in the industry in exchange for jobs.
Oh and don't forget your "improved" flex benefits out-of-paycheck premium increase coming to payday near you soon.
I do wonder how Gless was able to "Not Support" the agreement given this language in the Presidents Council By-Laws:
That must be why we had to spread and take the industry leading concessions.
Our only scope language appears to be lowest pay in the industry in exchange for jobs.
Oh and don't forget your "improved" flex benefits out-of-paycheck premium increase coming to payday near you soon.
I do wonder how Gless was able to "Not Support" the agreement given this language in the Presidents Council By-Laws:
TIME FOR CHANGE
Veteran
If any one is an idiot it has to be you nightwatch. With the answers that Gless gave the lawyer anyone who wants that kind os representation is truly an idiot. And since you are pro twu that makes you the idiot.
Gless is proof that the twu cares about nothing more than the dues it gets from the membership. Dues money which pays thier overinflated salaries. If I was in his position making 120K I would sell you down the river also. After all I would be held accountable to no one. That is the twu way
- Thread Starter
- Thread starter
- #23
G. Collective bargaining agreements shall be signed by the full committee subject to membership ratification. All members of the negotiating committee shall support the decision of the majority vote of the committee.
Please take a moment to analyze this statement.
"All members of the negotiating committee shall support the decision of the majority vote of the committee."
So all Jim Little has to do is keep the committee going until he gets what he wants and everyone is compelled to support the decisions of Jim Littles "Committee".
The members were never given the opportunity to approve, reject or modify these bylaws and Little retained the right to exclude any local representative who would not agree to those bylaws from negotiations.
In other words if every Local did not agree to Littles rules they could not even take part in the sham that they call "negotiations". Thats because even though it was a sham it was important that Little retained complete control while making it look like it was the "committee" that came up with the result and not Jim Little.
While centralizing control is not all that unusual or even not always undesireable it is completly unacceptable when that power is placed in the hands of someone who is unaccountable-ie Jim Little.
Please take a moment to analyze this statement.
"All members of the negotiating committee shall support the decision of the majority vote of the committee."
So all Jim Little has to do is keep the committee going until he gets what he wants and everyone is compelled to support the decisions of Jim Littles "Committee".
The members were never given the opportunity to approve, reject or modify these bylaws and Little retained the right to exclude any local representative who would not agree to those bylaws from negotiations.
In other words if every Local did not agree to Littles rules they could not even take part in the sham that they call "negotiations". Thats because even though it was a sham it was important that Little retained complete control while making it look like it was the "committee" that came up with the result and not Jim Little.
While centralizing control is not all that unusual or even not always undesireable it is completly unacceptable when that power is placed in the hands of someone who is unaccountable-ie Jim Little.
Decision 2004
Veteran
- Mar 12, 2004
- 1,618
- 0
How about this one from the:
I never recieved a copy of the industry leading concessions for a 30 day review, nor did I receive a "secret MAIL ballot" either.
I never recieved a copy of the industry leading concessions for a 30 day review, nor did I receive a "secret MAIL ballot" either.
- Thread Starter
- Thread starter
- #25
More;
Lawyer: Was Mr Yingst involved in negotiations?
Gless: No
Lawyer : Was Mr Little involved in negotiations?
Gless: No
Ok, so let me understand this. The Gless is claiming that Jim Little was not involved in negotiations? Little had no involvement in the contract he signed. Little did not implore that they come up with a concessionary deal to "save the copmpany"? Little did not deliver any doom and gloom propaganda? Did lLittle even bother, as head of the ATD to produce a plan of action for rejection? He certainly "took" control after the executive perks were revealed didnt he?
The fact is that with the TWU "negotiations" is a two step process. The locals negotiate between themselves and the International and the International negotiates with the company. The Negotiating committee did not sit across from the table from the company and hammer out an agreement, instead, with heavy influence from the International they were pressured into agreeing to what the International wanted. If they could not come to agree upon that the proposal was given to Little who sight unseen may have presented it to the company then turned around a ttold the committe of the companys rejection. That is not real negotiations. Its a farce and a lie. For all we know, and what is highly likely is that long before the "negotiations" statred Little and the company already had it all worked out. The deal was done way before March of 2003, all Little had to do was find a way to pin it on someone else.
Lawyer: Was Mr Yingst involved in negotiations?
Gless: No
Lawyer : Was Mr Little involved in negotiations?
Gless: No
Ok, so let me understand this. The Gless is claiming that Jim Little was not involved in negotiations? Little had no involvement in the contract he signed. Little did not implore that they come up with a concessionary deal to "save the copmpany"? Little did not deliver any doom and gloom propaganda? Did lLittle even bother, as head of the ATD to produce a plan of action for rejection? He certainly "took" control after the executive perks were revealed didnt he?
The fact is that with the TWU "negotiations" is a two step process. The locals negotiate between themselves and the International and the International negotiates with the company. The Negotiating committee did not sit across from the table from the company and hammer out an agreement, instead, with heavy influence from the International they were pressured into agreeing to what the International wanted. If they could not come to agree upon that the proposal was given to Little who sight unseen may have presented it to the company then turned around a ttold the committe of the companys rejection. That is not real negotiations. Its a farce and a lie. For all we know, and what is highly likely is that long before the "negotiations" statred Little and the company already had it all worked out. The deal was done way before March of 2003, all Little had to do was find a way to pin it on someone else.
Decision 2004
Veteran
- Mar 12, 2004
- 1,618
- 0
Bob,
Where are these testimony clips coming from?
What case and what is going on there?
Where are these testimony clips coming from?
What case and what is going on there?
- Thread Starter
- Thread starter
- #27
More;
Q=Question from Lawyer
Q. Isn't it true that while Chuck Schalk was President of Local 562 that he was a popular President, he was well liked by the members?
Gless; I dont know personally.
Q. You dont know personally even though you were an International representative that was responsible for Local 562, you dont have any personal knowledge as to whether or not Chuck Schalk was well liked by the members?
Gless; If he was well- liked I dont have any personal knowledge.
Q. Nobody ever told you that they we like Chuck Schalk, he's good for the local?
Gless: I heard pros and cons.
So Gless claims he had no knowledge but then claims he heard "pros and cons". So he did hear things. Why did he have to be asked three times?
Q=Question from Lawyer
Q. Isn't it true that while Chuck Schalk was President of Local 562 that he was a popular President, he was well liked by the members?
Gless; I dont know personally.
Q. You dont know personally even though you were an International representative that was responsible for Local 562, you dont have any personal knowledge as to whether or not Chuck Schalk was well liked by the members?
Gless; If he was well- liked I dont have any personal knowledge.
Q. Nobody ever told you that they we like Chuck Schalk, he's good for the local?
Gless: I heard pros and cons.
So Gless claims he had no knowledge but then claims he heard "pros and cons". So he did hear things. Why did he have to be asked three times?
Decision 2004
Veteran
- Mar 12, 2004
- 1,618
- 0
Bob Owens said:
Because is a liar, and he does not want to admit under oath that Chuck would still be President if it were up to the members.
