Why Is The Iam Violating Our Contract By Refusing

[pitguy]

There is no need to negotiate further on the farm out. We already negotiated it. We have the lowest mechanic wages already per the Wall Street Journal. There is no need to give the company a "sales pitch". If you negotiate further then you will lose more. That would be a very poor negotiating tactic and you would end up with nothing. Someone can always work for next to free in some third world country. (The company would even like to have our mainline pilots making express or MDA wages.) If the company wanted a sales pitch then they should have insisted on it during contract negotiations. The majority of the membership voted to approve the contract to protect the scope of the contract. The company and the union both told us that is why we should vote yes for it. You have to draw the line somewhere and stand up to the 'scoundrels as Sen. Spector refers to them.


--I was recently speaking to a pilot friend of mine who was telling me about a fellow pilot that used to work at Continental Express under the 'Dave" regime and how his pilot friend used to go and pick up his food stamps in his pilot uniform. Gosh that makes me sick.

 

[MarkMyWords]

I'll state again so there is no misunderstanding. I want this heavy maintenance done by our people at our facilities. My question remains, why hasn't the IAM or some of our people made a case for "we can do it better, safer and on time"? Practically all I've seen here is the usual chest beating we see in these kinds of disputes between management and one of the unions. We haven't had much luck in the courts or with arbitrators with the "what's mine is mine" argument. Todays managers only deal with efficiency and the bottom line. Surely we have the edge over independent contractors when it comes to maintenance on our jets...don't we?

I for one would love to here the rational for sending the heavy maintenance out on the Buses. With all of the contract enhancements, there must be some monetary advantage for keeping this in house...isn't there?? If there isn't, then there must be a bigger problem somewhere in our maintenance operation or I just flat out don't understand the issues.

For me there are more questions than answers regarding this whole mess, but I would put our maintenance department ahead of anything we could hope to contract with outside the airline.

A320 Driver :unsure:

First I would like to say to A320 Driver, Thank you. Your calm, rational and well thought out post was excellent. I get so sick and tired of hearing the same rants, raves and hysteria on here. I would much rather see things talked out more rationally then the screaming matches I have witnessed on all the threads that discuss this issue.

Before you guys start flamming away, let me say that I also agree that I want to see the airbus work done in house by the people that have put their blood, sweat and tears into making this airline great. In the 17 years that I have been with this company, I have always taken great pride in knowing that when one of our guys says the airplane is airworthy, it is a well maintained aircraft. I wish you all the best on your fight to keep the work that is yours and respect your united front on this issue.

That being said, I agree with A320 Driver when he says he would like to see the companies rationale for outsourcing the work. A side by side comparison of the company and the IAM's take on the issues, from finance to personnel and from training and to tooling. All the chest pounding and claiming the work is the IAM's means nothing if the company has a different take on the issue. Imagine a more compelling arguement being something like this. (This is a pretend scenario - so please do not quote anything here as fact) Let's say the company says that by outsourcing the Airbus checks they will be able to save 10 million dollars a year. The IAM reviews the data and retorts that some of the figures are not accurate and can prove that by keeping the work in house, the actual cost savings would only be 1-2 million dollars. When you take into account having to ferry airplanes the associated costs of crews, fuel, etc, that may help to tilt the scales in favor of keeping work in house. I would prefer to see factual data from the company and IAM that talks about what would/could be saved by outsourcing the work. Show me actual facts and figures and then let the analysts toss things around to see if the savings are real. Personally, I don't think they will be.

We ar 17 days away from the first airbus airplane requiring it's S check and the company still sits tight lipped about anything to do with the maintenance work. And they wonder why no one trusts them? 17 days! If the work was going to be done in house, there would have been training taking place, tooling and parts brought in, recalls to start the additional mtc track(s), airbus support staff here to help, hangar space being prepared, etc. Come clean with your reasons and arguements, don't just fly the first airplane to Alabama in the middle of the night and then wait for the sky to fall.

It seems to me that the folks in CCY are playing their little games, sneaking around behind everyones back, implimenting this master plan that no one has seen and changing the rules as we go along. So no one is sure what game we are playing anymore. To me, would it make a difference if we could save 1-2 million dollars a year by out sourcing the work? No. Keeping that work in house is what matters to me. Our mechaincs sacrificed a lot to keep that work as part of thier contract. They negotiated in good faith that the work would be theirs. I don't think there would be a heavy mechanic on the property that would have signed the contract if they didn't feel that the work was protected in the contract.

As for Strike Facts - cut the guy some slack already. Just because he doesn't conform with your line of thinking, doesn't make him management! You guys use that label almost as freely as you use the term scab. I believe that strike facts is more angry with his union representation then he is for the issue of out sourcing your work. Just like everyone else that comes on here to vent and blow off steam, give him his minute and if you don't agree, don't reply and let the thread die. By continuing to reply, you keep the topic at the top of the list and renew interest in it. Everyone talks about how stress and anger can make you sick and is unhealthy, well imagine you are strike facts and you are your families sole source of income, you are facing a strike by the mechanics and could be forced off your job involuntarily because someone elses fight. It is scary, for eveyone. Let the man vent and put your daggers away!

Best of luck to the MTC department in your fight to retain YOUR work. While the thought of a strike at this juncture in our financial turnaround scares the crap out of me, I completely understand the reason for the fight and the line in the sand.


PS ( I can already see PitBull's head spinning in amazement that I actually posted something in support of labor! )

 

[cavalier]

Why do you or anyone else even have to mention that the IAM needs to prove that it's more cost effective to keep the AB work? Dave stood there as big as life and told us all that signing the concessionary contract, TWICE, that we were guaranteeing our work and our futures. Then all of a sudden we have to PROVE, JUSTIFY that it's our work! This should not even be a discussion let alone on the minds of anyone, period! This is why you see people on here ranting and venting. People feel they are being abused with the lies, deceit and underhanded tactics of this management team, and they are! I personally am ready for the entire company to shut down and go out of business. I only pray there are enough like minded IAM members and union members system wide with the same mind set. Without this mind set anyone that is not a top tier member of this management team is going to continue to get screwed big time. It's time to make a stand against the kind of actions this management thinks nothing of implementing at their whim regardless of what they agreed to. I have ZERO respect for these people who call themselves labor friendly and only turn out to be union busting maniacal liars. I feel they all should be replaced so the employees can once again respect their leaders hence making this company function like it has the potential to. Dave blew it big time showing his immaturity with his actions including his rhetoric on these boards. I am NOT alone with these opinions and THANK God!

 

[PITbull]

Markmywords,

Frankly, I am not amazed that you would support Labor. I have seen you support Labor on these boards as it is the "rational" thing to do and you understand our plight even if times you don't agree, even if you are management.

You cite that IAM should discuss cost savings with this issue, and they have. They have presented the most compelling arguemnt to keep the work in house for all the safety reasons anyone can cite.

The company has already received the cost savings they needed from Labor...hell, they told us this when the unions sat at the table BOTH times. This management cannot take more than what was ratified. AGAIN, the problem with this mangement is their "misrepresentation", disingenuousness. Labor came to the tables outside of section 6 not once, but twice for this company's survival, did they forget? Did you forget? What's to discuss now? Management was at the table 8 months ago, why didn't they discuss it then? They have written out a couple of times that the work was the mechanics and would not be "farmed out", can we agree that mangement obviously has changed their minds and that management is a bunch of dishonest liars? I am sure if this issue goes to court these statement will be produced in court as evidence in addition to the contract language and past practice with all the other new equiptment brought in over the past 49 years.

Management is insane. Period. They are extremely divisive, and those types of management teams do not last long in a company. Either they decide to leave and move on, or the company going forward perishes.

With regard to "strike facts", don't insult our intellegence MMW. I have been PM by management. This poster is either management or AN AGENT OF MANGEMENT. Same difference. I have some other ideas of who I think is mangement posing as utility folks and ramp agents.

Management is out on these boards now, not as mangement, (they aren't that stupid) but posing as "rank and file" employees to present their argument and attempt to be convincing. I believe they are changing their "handle names" as well.

This issue for "outsourcing" is all about eliminating jobs. Most mechanics and related know this will ensue if they let this one go to mangement . They have nothing to lose, and for the rest of the groups, I believe most folks now feel this is a battle against the betrayal and lies from this mangement....and it is worth taking a stand over.

Cavalier is the sole supporter of his family; so am I, and your point again with "strike facts" is?

 

[delldude]

There is no reason for the IAM to do what you say, it is IAM covered work plain and simple. I do not understand why posters on this board cannot fathom that fact. No need to negotiate anything with the company when it is clearly covered in our contract and has been since 1949, that is a lot of history making it fact.

Same as deicing, the company saying they were gonna farm out deicing, it is also covered under the scope language as mechanic work, they even asked for it in negotiations during the concessions and were unsuccessful in obtaining it.

This regime does not care one thing about its employees nor have any creditability when it comes to honoring any labor groups contract.

Mark, if any labor group took your scenario that would leave with the ability to farm out any groups work, they signed the contracts they have to honor them one way or another or this place will fall apart at the seams.

 

[strike facts]

Thanks for the sanity Mark My Words.

If anyone has been hearing me then all they will hear is that I want information from OUR UNION. I want the union to be accountable before I make a decision to back a strike. Management is whorish and liers. But the IAM has done nothing to enhance an image of trust either. Personally I don't thin the company is interested in saving money. They think the employee is the enemy and even if the IAM could show that it is more productive to have its own employees do the job I don't think the company is interested. I think we all know that the company doesn't want ANY of us around.

But the IAM should have already been forthcoming with the legal ramifications of striking and crossing a line. They need to come clean on the force majeure clause.

One of our union brothers ( I would mention his name but I think it would be deleted by the moderator) told us the other day that we will shut this company down because management don't know who they are messing with. This isn't the type of counsel I want to hear...I want facts not garbage.
He said if the strike is settled then all of those who struck will be guaranteed their job back.
I asked him (And he may know who I am now) what about the force majeure clause where it is possible for the company to claim this strike will cause 9 months of damage and pull the force majeure leaving all those who struck looking in even if they have more seniority? He told me I was a management spy and he didn't know who the hell I was listening to but that I should listen to what the union tells me. Then said we will kick managements a$$ if they do that. Oh boy that statement really encouraged me to listen and follow him.

Even on this board, it seems nobody here is willing to address this force majeure clause 'In cases of acts of God, terrorism, STRIKES'. I need to know if the IAM can guarantee me that if I play follow the leader out the door that they will take care of me and guarantee that if the company pulls another force majeure (isn't that a guarantee?) that I will be able to come back. All the union wants to talk about is that I can legally strike and the ramp can legally sympathize but we already know that don't we? I just want to know what happens next after the company pulls a force majeure (remember 911?)

 

[PITbull]

If the company pulls a "force majeure", the doors will shut. RSA members will not get a return on their investment, the reputations of this mangement will go straight down the "drain" permanently. I would venture to say that no corporation would hire these senior execs if they put on their resumes USAirways. No one wants to hire any Corporate execs who had everything they needed to make a go of a company and pulled a stupid blunder that caused the "fall" of a great great company. I believe if you polled all of the "rank and file" if they want to work under a distrusted management for the rest of their careers, I think that the majority would say "NO".

 

[pitguy]

Ok! It appears to me that we will have two guys that will cross the line.

Normally though, I notice the 'weaker ones' tend to be the ones that 'do not' earn their money here though, so the company may not be getting a great bargain.

 

[delldude]

:

Thanks for the sanity Mark My Words.

If anyone has been hearing me then all they will hear is that I want information from OUR UNION. I want the union to be accountable before I make a decision to back a strike. Management is whorish and liers. But the IAM has done nothing to enhance an image of trust either. Personally I don't thin the company is interested in saving money. They think the employee is the enemy and even if the IAM could show that it is more productive to have its own employees do the job I don't think the company is interested. I think we all know that the company doesn't want ANY of us around.

But the IAM should have already been forthcoming with the legal ramifications of striking and crossing a line. They need to come clean on the force majeure clause.

One of our union brothers ( I would mention his name but I think it would be deleted by the moderator) told us the other day that we will shut this company down because management don't know who they are messing with. This isn't the type of counsel I want to hear...I want facts not garbage.
He said if the strike is settled then all of those who struck will be guaranteed their job back.
I asked him (And he may know who I am now) what about the force majeure clause where it is possible for the company to claim this strike will cause 9 months of damage and pull the force majeure leaving all those who struck looking in even if they have more seniority? He told me I was a management spy and he didn't know who the hell I was listening to but that I should listen to what the union tells me. Then said we will kick managements a$$ if they do that. Oh boy that statement really encouraged me to listen and follow him.

Even on this board, it seems nobody here is willing to address this force majeure clause 'In cases of acts of God, terrorism, STRIKES'. I need to know if the IAM can guarantee me that if I play follow the leader out the door that they will take care of me and guarantee that if the company pulls another force majeure (isn't that a guarantee?) that I will be able to come back. All the union wants to talk about is that I can legally strike and the ramp can legally sympathize but we already know that don't we? I just want to know what happens next after the company pulls a force majeure (remember 911?)

MESSAGE TO STRIKE FACTS:
dude say-you just blew your cover my friend....if you were a member of the IAM as you claim...you would know about the letters that IAM has sent to each and every member(except you)...you would also be aware of the updates and bulletins provided for members by the education committees who do take the time to educate the membership....you'd also be aware of the steward meetings,airbus rallies,regular union meetings and the like.
its quite apparent to me that either IAM doesn't have your address(dave isn't on our mailng list) or you are a management lackey bent on distributing bias and misinformation.i have a pretty good idea its the latter.
if the company violates our contract(not yours)we will be forced into a job action by the COMPANY.i'm not sure if your misinformation as to force majure qualify's.i will find out for the rest of the posters here.
YOU HAVE A GREAT IAM DAY MY FRIEND!

 

[MarkMyWords]

First of all Cav and Dell, I am not relaly asking the IAM to prove anything, Ias I siad i know the work is yours and has been yours, and I want it to continue to be yours. What I am looking for is a more compelling arguement if I am going to risk putting my job on the line supporting your strike. To say the work has been ours since 1949 doesn't do it for me. Would you garner more support if you said that the company claims it will save XX millions of dollars by contracting the work out, but we feel, and can prove, that the cost savings is much less, or not even there? I realize that the scope clause is there, and has been there since 1949, but obviously Jerry and Dave feel there is a loophole there big enough to drive the bus work to Alabama. I am just looking for a more fact filled arguement, and not just from the IAM. I want to know what the company is thinking with this issue. 1- what do they think they are going to save? 2 - What is the plan for work when the boeings start to retire? 3 - a true financial break down of what the costs are in house versus out sourcing. My question of proof was more directed at the company proving its case.

Some of the most troubling statements I read on these threads are the "shut it down", "we will put the company out of business and show Dave he screwed with the wrong people" and "we'll put the screws to Dave and his boys". Those kind of statements just seem like union posturing to me. Nice threats, but who will ultimately pay the laregest price? Dave and Company? Please, once we go into Chapter 7, they will sit there and collect their administrative salaries while they liquidate the company. Then it will be off to the next corporation with the bags of money they collected from US. You think RSA will suffer? They will be able to get some of their money back through the asset sale. They are first in line to get paid. Who is going to suffer? The mechanic who will now have to find a job at 1/2 what they used to make. The F/A that will have to find a job in another industry that may not be as flexible with their schedule and making a lot less then what they make now. The Gate agent, ramp agent, res agent, analyst, trainer, dispatcher, utility, secretary, scheduler, pilot, etc that will all be severly impacted while trying to find a new job making no where near what they make now. I understand your need to take a stand and use what ever tools necessary to ensure the work that is yours, remains yours. I support the process that will take place if the work is farmed out. But if you think for one moment that by striking you are proving anything to Dave and Dave, then you are fooling yourself. The effects on them will be minimal, it is the effects on the other 28,000 employees that will be the greatest. If you are striking to ensure the work stays in house as the contract states it should be, then you have my support. If you are striking because you think you are going to teach Dave a lesson, I think you will be learning more then he will.

Again, those are my opinions...

 

[delldude]

First of all Cav and Dell, I am not relaly asking the IAM to prove anything, Ias I siad i know the work is yours and has been yours, and I want it to continue to be yours. What I am looking for is a more compelling arguement if I am going to risk putting my job on the line supporting your strike. To say the work has been ours since 1949 doesn't do it for me. Would you garner more support if you said that the company claims it will save XX millions of dollars by contracting the work out, but we feel, and can prove, that the cost savings is much less, or not even there? I realize that the scope clause is there, and has been there since 1949, but obviously Jerry and Dave feel there is a loophole there big enough to drive the bus work to Alabama. I am just looking for a more fact filled arguement, and not just from the IAM. I want to know what the company is thinking with this issue. 1- what do they think they are going to save? 2 - What is the plan for work when the boeings start to retire? 3 - a true financial break down of what the costs are in house versus out sourcing. My question of proof was more directed at the company proving its case.

Some of the most troubling statements I read on these threads are the "shut it down", "we will put the company out of business and show Dave he screwed with the wrong people" and "we'll put the screws to Dave and his boys". Those kind of statements just seem like union posturing to me. Nice threats, but who will ultimately pay the laregest price? Dave and Company? Please, once we go into Chapter 7, they will sit there and collect their administrative salaries while they liquidate the company. Then it will be off to the next corporation with the bags of money they collected from US. You think RSA will suffer? They will be able to get some of their money back through the asset sale. They are first in line to get paid. Who is going to suffer? The mechanic who will now have to find a job at 1/2 what they used to make. The F/A that will have to find a job in another industry that may not be as flexible with their schedule and making a lot less then what they make now. The Gate agent, ramp agent, res agent, analyst, trainer, dispatcher, utility, secretary, scheduler, pilot, etc that will all be severly impacted while trying to find a new job making no where near what they make now. I understand your need to take a stand and use what ever tools necessary to ensure the work that is yours, remains yours. I support the process that will take place if the work is farmed out. But if you think for one moment that by striking you are proving anything to Dave and Dave, then you are fooling yourself. The effects on them will be minimal, it is the effects on the other 28,000 employees that will be the greatest. If you are striking to ensure the work stays in house as the contract states it should be, then you have my support. If you are striking because you think you are going to teach Dave a lesson, I think you will be learning more then he will.

Again, those are my opinions...

mark my words:why do we need to 'prove this to the company'??sometimes our checks go beyond the alotted turn time,usually do to heavy finds,going beyond what was anticipated...when this happens,as you may be aware at a third party Vendor,there's financial penalties.... this happens at U,we go into high gear to return the aircraft back into the revenue mode safely and as quickly as possible.all pull together to achieve these goals.
MARK,you want to know what they will save...at this juncture,they are going to save hourly wages as they do not want to increase payroll...this is the major reason,don't let anyone tell you different...as to farmout...sure they have a lower wage structure...but you get what you pay for,ask anybody who lost a loved one on any of the crashes recently that had links to 3rd party maintenence.
as to the plan for work after the boeings,dave is on record as saying the 170's and 190/195's would probably go mainline....and under our existing contract,if it goes mainline,it is our work...however around the same time they plan to do this,is around the same time our existing contract becomes amendable...so i expect a farmout fight most likely leading to a strike around 2008/2009 unless dave runs this comapny into the ground by then.
as to proving a cost break down,i do not have that info...however,as i said before ..as far as an agreed to contract between the company and the IAM ,it's our work unequivocably.the company agreed to this and had a chance to amend this when in bankruptcy,so ,if they had the opportunity and did not elect to exercise their option...who's at fault then? and if they are pushing the issue now which by contract,is our work.....why didn't this come up then and not now?and who's wrong here?
why can't anyone grasp this?the company had the best opportunity to address this and let it pass...they agreed to the contract as amended.....why is this an issue at all.YOU SIGNED THE AGREEMENT KNOWINGLY THEN AND NOW YOU ARE ASKED TO ABIDE TO WHAT YOU AGREED TO.LIVE UP TO IT.
when you sign your lending agreement for your house,you are required to live up to that,correct?why is cost or whatever an issue here then?did you call your mortgage company to abrogate your contract when you took a paycut?i doubt it.they signed on the dotted line just as you and i have for other things,we are expected to live up to these agreements ,so are they.END OF DISCUSSION....CAN'T WE AGREE HERE?
MARK,as to your request as to why you or your group should put it on the line for us?it is very apparent that this management has no civil regard as to contracts and loyalty.with this said,the best thing that has happened here at U is that for the most part,all labor groups on the property are on the same page due to these blatant disregards for what was signed and agreed to by ALL PARTIES,ALL LABOR GROUPS AND MANAGEMENT.
thank you for your detailed request for information,if needed i will try to find out any other things you need to know.
in solidarity,
delldude
MARK,THINK IN THIS REGARD...TODAY THEY ARE MESSING WITH THE IAM...TOMORROW IT MAY BE YOUR GROUP!....this is why we ask for your support...someday soon you may need our suport.
SUPPORT IS LIKE RESPECT,IT MUST BE GAINED!
again,in solidarity....we look for your support and i thank you.
delldude

 

[PITbull]

Mark,

Make up your mind if you support this action by the mechanics or not...you are showing that you are all ove the page with this issue.

Mechanics don't have to prove anything to this mangement. Management already knows. We will not be the one who put U out of business....it will be the decision of mangement. If there is a strike, and all will honor this, the bookings will decrease as a consequence to management taking the risk to "farm out " this work.

Stupid on mangement's part, and they will pay the ultimate price. As far as f/as flexibility in the job...you are definitely makinga big funny here. Since the winter conessions, the flexibility has evaporated, trips are set for "burn out" and the f/as are starting to become very ill. Its time for many to move on. You know, mangement knows it and we know it. That is the new reality.

 

[delldude]

OK

If Strike Facts says he is a IAM member that's good enough for me. I'll take him at his word for now.

The IAM is IMO a poor excuse for a union. However it is the union you're stuck with fhat countsor now.

If was the IAM leadership, NO WAY Would I agree to arbitration. WHY? Because I have an issue here I can win with. Frankly screw the contract, it's what I can get away with and what is in the best interests of the IAM mambership. Management uses less than fair tactics so why not IAM?

This isn't counting freaking straws, this is my safety your talking about and I for one think this is an issue worth fighting over. You want to throw this into the hands of Government appointed arbitraror???? Why so some adlebrained functionary can put a price on Safety?

no reason for arbitration until the corporate lackeys chance a contract violation,bob.word is spreading of an impending job action through the public and it may hurt tickets sales and revenue in the long run...but as i stated before...they signed it,live by it.
there isn't anyone who wants revenue to drop....but as they play their games,so shall it be.may the best man win?
if you go to the website jerold glass is from,they have a saying...."when they roar,we pounce"...cool.
pounce on this,dude...........like to see their face a couple weeks from now if it all goes to hell in a hand basket.
remember what the fox said to the squirrel, "why don't you climb up that tree and show me your nuts".
as for our corporate lunatics,hey whats wrong with a little craziness?
any insanity in your family,dude?

 

[strike facts]

OK

If Strike Facts says he is a IAM member that's good enough for me. I'll take him at his word for now.

The IAM is IMO a poor excuse for a union. However it is the union you're stuck with fhat countsor now.

If was the IAM leadership, NO WAY Would I agree to arbitration. WHY? Because I have an issue here I can win with. Frankly screw the contract, it's what I can get away with and what is in the best interests of the IAM mambership. Management uses less than fair tactics so why not IAM?

This isn't counting freaking straws, this is my safety your talking about and I for one think this is an issue worth fighting over. You want to throw this into the hands of Government appointed arbitraror???? Why so some adlebrained functionary can put a price on Safety?

Delldude claims I am not an iam member now, fair enough. But I am. But WHO CARES ANYWAYS????????? I am not impressed with any IAM rhetoric so far and I have seen nothing that the IAM PUT OUT THAT ANSWERS THE FORCE MAJEURE CLAUSE because they don't want to take you to that clause.

The point isn't whether I am a member or not but what happens when the company will pull a force majeure?

And my arbitration point was only to set up my force majeure point. Arbitration, as you all agreed has a judge abritrating the case in the company's favor. So you go on strike and wave the pickets....don't we still all agree that the company will go to the judge and get the exact same ruling? Who here thinks that a judge will rule in the IAM's favor???????????
But in the meantime a force majeure keeps out those who were striking. Maybe not all of them but a good many of them.

Why won't the IAM tell the truth about your force majeure clause in our contract????? Why won't anyone here address it? Who here doesn't remember 911? Do you think the company won't push for a force majeure and make it stick for several months? Who is kidding who?

Do what you wish but I can tell you this much. After all the chest pounding, the company will get exactly what it wanted by way of a Judge but it will be all so excited to pull a force majeure and go down to well below 279 aircraft. And an action like that may well leave all those who chest pounded on the outside regardless of seniority. And I'm sure you will be able to count on the IAM to hand out new job applications to those who got screwed again while they continue to collect my dues.
What is even more sad is that the IAM may finally be the one to close the door like they did Eastern. And all the good union guys can feel proud of themselves for tossing 25,000 more jobs out on the street.

 

[pitguy]

Let me say this real S-L-O-W for some people.


If we don't strike we will be replaced by third party vendors. So we have no choice. Give up the IAM thing. This is about us.





--It really is simple. Duh!

* ANNOYING FONT EDITED BY MODERATOR