Overspeed said:
Okay. I still stand by my original post. The ESOP was a big part of the reason why UA went in to BK near liquidation. The company was heavily leveraged, bankrolled by wage cuts and using the company as collateral (assets).
The fact is this is my opinion based on the facts as I see them. Plain and simple.
Remember you lived it as you said, I didn't because my union the TWU new it was a bad idea.
Now the members can see, should we follow the opinions of you who have been slammed once (ESOP), again in BK (1113e), and then finally by AMFA (rolling over after talking tough in the 1113c). UA has far more work outsourced than AA even after we went through BK. Flipped unions twice in the last twenty years to no avail.
Switching unions doesn't work. Membership involvement does. Why you guys argued about who gets to use the shovels in the sandbox, UA mgmt was having their way with you. I guess that's a win in your book.
Enjoy
You still pound the same stupid and tired drum of arguement, no matter how many times the "facts" are presented.
The AMFA idea still has not been tried, so you cannot possibly claim it has failed.
Changing Unions would work if ALL AMT's would change into the SAME union.
Your idea and belief is that just because in your view the TWU doesn't suck in this area or that area as bad as others then TWU is best. That BS, every AMT union is failing in one way or another, and stooges like you that pick the fly crap out of the pepper to see something good or better than the others is pure ignorance. The TWU has just taken a different path to failure, but has damn sure, not even close, succeeded.
The untried and best answer is clearly for ALL AMT's to get into ONE union together and stop being used by management against one another, and not have stooges like you claiming success when you are failing down a different path. And if ALL AMT's were to get into one union, HANDS DOWN the AMFA Constitution would be the best choice.
Why not try the idea first, then claim it doesn't work IF IT FAILS, instead of stupid continuation of the same FAILURE that is proven?
AS for your claim about invovlement.
When the TWU builds a new local building after membership voting NOT to three times.
When James C. Little proves in Federal Court that a "without further ratification" CBA is legal and binding under the TWU Constitution.
Then what you must mean by involvement is "come to the union meeting, so we can tell you what we decided is best for you"
I wont be wasting another minute being "involved" as the TWU involvement is proven worthless. You have to have a Consitution and Bylaws that clearly place the membership in control before invovlement means jack diddly squat. And the TWU doesn't pass that simple test. Proven Fact!
Now run back to the TWU alter and find another piece of fly crap in the failing representation pepper pile that you can justify your ingnorance upon.
