TWU negotiations.........what?
- Thread starter Chuck Schalk
- Start date
Isn't this just normal company protocol during the TWU Annual President's Council Meeting that is being held next week?
From my understanding this has been a fairly standard practice where the Company will make some sort of a presentation for the Local Union President's during the TWU President's Council? I realize that we are in negotiations but from my understanding this is not anything different from past practice. Correct me if I am wrong.
Why can't the union hire the Boyd group, or whoever, to make a compelling presentation to the compAAny complete with graphs, charts, and spirited background music that represents our best interests?
Probably because the union leadership is collecting perks like apartment, union vehicles. The same people are more interested in slandering management and presenting unreasonable proposals rather than make a compelling case for a reasonable proposal.
Josh
- Banned
- #2,210
Typical slander from a union hater. Do you know every penny a union spends is public knowledge and available online per the Landram-Griffith Act, cant say the same for AA now can you?
And AA would have to release their books, something they wont do even now as the TWU has requested the data.
And are you in negotiations? You claim you just passenger, yet your sticking your nose in business that you wouldnt know about and should be concerned with.
I smell a management plant.
And AA would have to release their books, something they wont do even now as the TWU has requested the data.
And are you in negotiations? You claim you just passenger, yet your sticking your nose in business that you wouldnt know about and should be concerned with.
I smell a management plant.
??? What are you babling about, I clearly posted this was for the Presidents, I ran the letter past our lawyer last time and he recommended that I dont sign it. Have you seen the letter?
You need to read the letter, in addition to what I've already stated its demeaning and degrading, it makes us subordinate to the company, we pretty much have to ask their permission to say anything that could concievably be related to whatever it is they say. I'd post it but for some reason it says I've used up 399.5K of my 400K global update and its in PDF.
High Speed Steel
Veteran
- Feb 14, 2004
- 1,375
- 136
I'm not babbling about anything, only trying to figure out why you would bring notice to a suggested sensitive meeting on a public forum. If what you posted was for the Presidents only, then why are you posting it here for the whole world to see?
The last time I seen such a stubborn stance within this round of M&R negotiations was when the negotiating committee refused to bring back to the membership the offer the company made about 3 years ago. That was the whole committee making that decision, not just the stubbornness of one Local President....
Most on this site ignore "Josh", he rarely says anything worth commenting on and he even embarrasses the pro-mangement side here with his nonsensical posts.
will fix for food
Veteran
- Aug 20, 2002
- 664
- 50
I guess I would have to read it. I have read and signed some confidentiality agreements before and never saw any language that got me that upset. After all, it IS a confidentiality agreement.
At any rate, even if they just wanted you there to blow smoke up your ass, the local presidents should be intelligent enough to recognize that. If they were to let something slip that would allow you to make some progress then you are better off for being there. I guess I always figured more knowledge was better than less. The trick is to interpret what you learn correctly.
You support total blackout of information of any kind when it's related to negotiations? :blink: I've got to ask why? Are you one of the "Trust Your Leadership" minions? I see no difference in Carty withholding information about their secret bonus plan and secret meetings with the negotiators.
High Speed Steel
Veteran
- Feb 14, 2004
- 1,375
- 136
Birdman, I do trust those elected to negotiate for me with what ever information they can obtain and I will continue to trust them until they prove otherwise. Seems we are on a need to know bases right now anyway, so what is the harm in those negotiating for us poking their noses into every opportunity that arises.....
Ken MacTiernan
Veteran
We'll just have to disagree on our philosophies. What harm is there in knowing what the union is proposing and what the compAAny counters with and vise versa? Management and union at WN seem to have no problem with open negotiations.
TWU informer
Veteran
- Nov 4, 2003
- 7,550
- 3,731
Company says they told the TWU Negotiators about the S.E.R.P (Pensions that caused the problem after ratification of Restructuring Agreement). Jim Little claimed otherwise. The Negotiators were under confidentiality agreements at that time so we don't know who told the truth and who lied. But simply look at the outcome for clues, to wiggle out of the problem, James C. Little signed your agreement without further ratification because you were given stock options and early opener option as an added sweetener to pacificy the membership. How much did you get for your stock? How's that Early Opener Option working for you these days?
In 1989, the TWU Negotiators called the Flex Benefits Program "Improved Medical", How is that improved medical working out for these days?
The last time the Negotiators signed confidentiality agreements, you ended up with the concessions you still working under today.
In my opinion it has been proven that Negotiators signing confidentiality agreements leads to fear that they cannot share with us, and that fear leads to agreement and ratification of less of an agreement not more of an agreement.
This is going to keep evolving and you and me will both be telling everyone we told you so about voting yes on the T/A. I would prefer it to be the other way around and the we get proven wrong and a much superior agreement come about. I don't believe that placing our negotiators under confidentiality agreements will help in proving us to be wrong for voting yes.
I believe the only purpose is to shut up Bob Owens during the next ratification, and in the end you and I will have less information to make our decisions. You know Bob Owens' and I disagree on many issues. But that doesn't change the facts about how much I appreciate the information he shares. Think about it High Speed, if Bob Owens was muzzled we wouldn't even be debating the pros and cons of confidentiality agreements. Because we wouldn't even know it was asked of the Presidents. Or maybe you have a one track and secret need to know basis with Sam Cirri and instead of learning of this from Bob here on the Forum, you actually already knew. But what about the rest of us? I say NO MUZZLE for Bob!
