When you have a turnout for an election of 36% like the F/A's did in PHL, the other 64% deserve what they get.
The IAM is the same in that regard, if the worker won't stand up for him/her self through the union they chose then they too get EXACTLY what they deserve.
I had opportunity to meet over the years several US Local Presidents and frankly Tim if the rank and file shared their dedication and passion the workers at US would not be where they are today.
I have little sympathy for the worker union or non union who won't take charge of their career and is expecting someone else to watch over it.
I disagree wholeheartedly and I find your position that workers deserve injustice because of their silence to be unsubstantiated. Justice itself isn't a respector of a person's participation in any phase of life. Delldue's attitude does harm to justice by his statements of error that people deserve to be treated injust.
Justice isn't conditioned on participation. It's not a respector of persons. Someone is either treated rightly or wrongly. Further, don't assume that a worker can take charge of his career by joining a union.
At any rate, this whole matter is deeper than the Local or a particular union. There's a good article in the Chicago Tribune's Sunday Business section where the article talks about how unions have become just another company appendage [article's word not mine].
Earlier in this thread, 700 talked about training. Unfortunately, the training seems to be one of the biggest problems according to UAW activist Paul Baxtor who said, "We've trained a generation of union leaders to be cooperative and they don't know how to fight back." I would second that because everyone I saw that came back from the IAM's indoctrination got IAM'd with techniques that are not 'known' to the blue collar man. The techniques they teach castrate since they are techniques used by white collar.
Baxtor went on to say that "Such cooperation supposedly aimed at saving jobs has become a one way street that erodes union jobs...we're actually cooperating in our own demise...whatever the company says we need to do, the union goes along with it. We've become an enabler, like someone who enables an alcoholic to keep drinking."
The article goes on to say how the Union Bosse$ talk big and stir up all the executive compensation talk, but it's just rhetoric. And how the Unions go into negotiations in a concessionary mode. Todd Jordan added, "They're[union] like the human resources office for the company."
IMO, the translation of all this is simple. The change of control grievance is something IAM members already have according to the union and that is why they are grieving it. It is owed the members. Today, I heard an IAM loyalist say that the company will not hire the 1,000 workers it has said it will hire if it loses the change of control grievance. He also said, other jobs would be lost so it may be better to concede the change of control for lessor pay but perhaps more scope.
Here's my spin, the change of control has already been bought with sweat by IAM members so let them get what they already negotiated. Also, let the company do its business, whether that means hiring an extra 1,000 workers or not. That's their call and that's what the company does.
A couple years ago, the IAm fell for something called MDA in which the company said it would create a new airline with thousands of jobs [dues payers since it involved automatic recognition]. Guess what, it didn't happen.
Company's do what company's do, and it's time that the unions stop worrying about what the company says its going to do, and start doing what unions are suppose to do.
I imagine once the IAM is successful in the change of control grievance, the IAM will enter breakrooms and tell the workers that they had to settle the change of control in concessionary fashion, otherwise the company will start laying people off.
regards,
