Anonymous 10
Guest
To wipe your ass & nose??My feelings exactly!
To wipe your ass & nose??My feelings exactly!
To wipe your ass & nose??
Stonefish,
No excuse just reality.
In your view what is Union Leadership responsible for?
Sincerely,
I
That would be fantastic. But if all of us stood together and worked like a well oiled, fine tuned machine, WE WOULDN'T HAVE ANY NEED FOR THE UNION.
I respectfully disagree with you. The International didn't or has not to my knowledge decided we wouldn't strike. If the members voted down the first, second or third time i'm sure there would be a strike vote taken. My opinion is the IBT has obligations and one of them is making sure they do the right thing and sometimes not everyone agrees on what is right but they were elected to do a job and they are doing it. Some people are happy, some are not. As far as striking in January or any other month it is a last resort and shouldn't be taken lightly because no one really wins in that scenario. We do agree on the issue of neither the company or union not wanting to see a strike. You should also include our co workers in that if we are being honest with each other.(My last post was on a phone and came out wrong)
I'm not sure about what you consider the cold reality (ie The cold reality is the vast majority of our coworkers wouldn't strike). I'll just say maybe it's accurate, but maybe not. It was not up to the International to decide in advance if we probably wouldn't strike or not. It should have been the RESPONSIBILITY of the international to allow the members to decide if we chose to strike or not. In addition, the International should have had the sense to think ahead and provide it's members with the best possible climate to strike. Striking in January is the WORSE possible time to strike, and that is very much what was presented to us. Anyone who has been with this company more than a couple of years knows, To strike in January is about as stupid a move as could ever be made - and it was totally irresponsible of the international to put us in that situation.
I for example would be willing to strike, BUT NOT IN JANUARY!! Personally, I believe this was planned to detour us from striking. Nobody willing to strike? I'm not as sure as you are about that, but I am positive, the company and the Union didn't want to see a strike and did everything in their power to see that didn't happen. This I can blame on the Union
As for your second opinion. "In 97 when we were on strike people were close to crossing and both sides knew it". I don't know what you consider close. a couple of days? If that's the case, I think the company would have held out if it were just a couple of days more. I don't know, how long till enough people would have started crossing, and I doubt you do either. I believe, if it would have been close, the company would have held out. The main damage had already been done. Difficult for me to opine on the second part.
Read more: http://www.browncafe.com/community/...n-broken-rip-2013.350924/page-7#ixzz2pRnuHph6
I agree there won't be a national strike because the national master passed.The Union will never authorize a national strike based on a few rogue locals.
Can you imagine the PR if we were strike after a Peak in which parts of the country were less than perfect?
I respectfully disagree with you. The International didn't or has not to my knowledge decided we wouldn't strike. If the members voted down the first, second or third time i'm sure there would be a strike vote taken. My opinion is the IBT has obligations and one of them is making sure they do the right thing and sometimes not everyone agrees on what is right but they were elected to do a job and they are doing it. Some people are happy, some are not. As far as striking in January or any other month it is a last resort and shouldn't be taken lightly because no one really wins in that scenario. We do agree on the issue of neither the company or union not wanting to see a strike. You should also include our co workers in that if we are being honest with each other.
As far as 1997 I was on the line I saw what was going on so what i saw is reality. You don't have to agree with me honestly I could care less I don't have feelings to hurt like others do.
WOW you really don't get it.
Look up the definition of a union.
It was a joke son. Most members think the union should do everything. They don't understand that they are indeed the union and the people we elect to represent it need our help as well.My feelings exactly!
Im down to my last 6 pack, of Great Lakes Christmas Ale! Do you like any of their other beers? My local beer store carries several other of their flavors. Its not cheap , but I really enjoyed ItIt was a joke son. Most members think the union should do everything. They don't understand that they are indeed the union and the people we eit!ect to represent it need our help as well.
You probably didn't understand my humor or wit. Instead you through insults. I'm fine with that. Have a good day.
Dourghtmunger gold is very good.Im down to my last 6 pack, of Great Lakes Christmas Ale! Do you like any of their other beers? My local beer store carries several other of their flavors. Its not cheap , but I really enjoyed It
Ill give It a tryDourghtmunger gold is very good.
I think I misspelled it. But it's something like that.Ill give It a try
If I dont like It.....can I file a grievance??...lolI think I misspelled it. But it's something like that.
NoIf I dont like It.....can I file a grievance??...lol
It was a joke son. Most members think the union should do everything. They don't understand that they are indeed the union and the people we elect to represent it need our help as well.
You probably didn't understand my humor or wit. Instead you throw insults. I'm fine with that. Have a good day.
The Union will never authorize a national strike based on a few rogue locals.
Can you imagine the PR if we were strike after a Peak in which parts of the country were less than perfect?
You stated "but if all of us stood together and worked like a well oiled, fine tuned machine, we wouldn't need a union". Your definition is what a union is and you still don't get it. That's what you should do because you are the union. When you don't stand together you/we are like a chicken without a head. Management in my opinion does so well because they stand together at least outside of the offices. Where we fall short is when we disagree with them people say they are only look out for what is best for the "Union Heads". We can disagree with each other on issues and that is fine at least with me (I hope with you also). I don't feel it is members vs Company/Union as you state. We as union members need and should stick together and what the majority decide should be the end of it.Definition of UNION? One is "the action or fact of joining or being joined", another more in context, "an organized association of workers formed to protect and further their rights and interests; a labor union".
How does this conflict with so terribly with what I said "But if all of us stood together and worked like a well oiled, fine tuned machine, we wouldn't need a union"?
The purpose of Union is ORGANIZATION. You know that. It's what results out of organization, that we really want. That is way we unionize - for organization. Without it, we are like a chicken without a head. Why do you think management does so well? Management doesn't have all sups and mgrs screaming their wants and dislikes at the same time. They have a few at the top, who organize and decide what they FEEL is best for the company. A good functioning Union has a few at the top, who decide what is best for it's membership and how to go about it _ and put it to the members to decide. Where we are falling short, is the debate if our union is sincerely looking for what is best for it's members, or what is best for the Union heads. They are no longer one of the same. This is where things have gone bad. Let's be honest and face facts here. The Union and the Company were working together to get the minimum past in this last contract. This was not Union vs Company, this was members vs Company/Union.
What are the issues your Local has that isn't already covered in the NM or in your Supplement? Just for the record from my perspective a Local shouldn't be shunned and the Union never played the east against the west or part-time against the full-time as least from what I saw. Strength is in numbers but numbers at least as far as voting in Ohio were 24% in a few Locals. You can not blame that on the Union. It isn't just in union's look at the turn out in all elections. It can't be blamed on unions either. Union's are probably less than 10% at this point. People just don't care and when they do it could be too lateFor some people, when member vote like us, it's reasonable. When they don't vote like us, they are Rogue Locals. I couldn't disagree with you more. If some "rogue locals" had issues that needed addressing, well so be it! We should be backing them, instead of shunning them. That division is what tears us down. That is why the company and union were playing the east against the west! The full timers, against the part timers. To divide us. The strength is in the numbers, you know that. I know you do!