I'm really getting sick and tired of reading the bullshit that gets posted on the other blog. That's why I will not allow anonymous posts on this blog. If you have something to say in defense of the union, do it in a respectful manner without being so disrespectful. Even that doesn't stop some of them as a certain union official and his little buddy have shown.
However, there is something that I'd like to ask. According to Jim Watson, the growing movement against this do nothing union is being put on by "an insignificant few", yet the arguement that the mindless followers spew on the blogs is that it's our fault that the company has tried to feed us a crappy offer. Which is it? We are insignificant? You have once again failed at negotiations? Or perhaps your membership doesn't perform work to a standard that would demand more pay, benefits, and respect?
I'm going to say it's all three. I have no delusions that our group is insignificant in the scheme of negotiations. Compared to the number of hourly employees who are too lazy and don't give a damn, the employees too afraid to stand up for themselves, and the union, we are pretty insignificant. I'd say only a small percentage are actively working to make this a better place for the hourly to work.
But for the union to blame us for their failure. Well, I believe that was "predicted" over a year ago. How did we see that one coming? Because the union once again fails to take responsibility. If they have so much weight and what they say goes, then why is the company able to force them into crappy contract after crappy contract? And why does the union need more of your money to do nothing?
Or could it have something to do with the union's "work ethic"? Why does it take multiple attempts by some union laborers to correctly identify and repair a piece of equipment? Lack of education? Lack of pride in doing a job well? Or are they trying to "get at" the company? Whatever the reason, do you really think this is going to motivate the company to give you more? If I was in the position of making those decisions my answer would be "not interested" as well. When the union actually gets interested in earning respect and treating their fellow employees (hourly, salaried, and contractors) with some respect, they might get some in return. Until then, go pound sand.
Friday, October 30, 2009
Sunday, October 18, 2009
Accountability
I must say that I am impressed that the union is actually posting something resembling information regarding negotiations. However, I think that the info posted, shows the why this union has problems negotiating. Take for example, their stance on the health benefits. The company says that the hourly workforce use the benefits more than the salaried do, so rates need to go up. The union's response? Have you educated them on using their benefits? Is this going to be required training now? The facts are, too many hourly are using excessive benefits. Sit in the break rooms and see how many of them eat crap for lunch. How many of them smoke more than an industrial smokestack? How many don't get physicals, dental exams, eye exams, or other prevetative check-ups done? The company has programs through Falcon Field to help people be healthy and happy. But it seems that many of the hourly prefer to be unhealthy and unhappy. If you want the company to start "educating" the hourly employees on using their benefits an how to use them less, then you better not start crying foul when the company wants to start dictating what you do in your off time. Enjoy a few beers after work? On a weekday? Well, you need to go to alcohol counseling to comply with the required "education". Do you smoke? Do you eat fast food? Are you a lethargic couch potato? What a slippery slope you want to charge down! The resposibility for oneself begins with the individual. I know that personal accountability is not something that the union likes to promote, but with the alternative the union IS promoting, it seems like that would be the preferred option.
This leads into the union's comment about safety concerns being "required" and them fearing that this would lead to actions of discipline taken against employees. Isn't one of the biggest bragging points of this union (or any union for that matter) that current safety requirements only exist because of them? That workers would be forced to work in unsafe conditions if not for the union? So you would think that the company making it a requirement to report safety concerns would be something that the union could get behind. Why would the union possibly be against this? Oh, that's right, because the union employees are often disengaging, disabling, or otherwise trying to circumvent safety equipment or procedures. I've asked co-workers about why they would do this. Their response is that these measures get in their way and make their job more difficult. For people that are so worried about the company putting them in hazardouse positions, they sure put themselves in hazardous positions all on their own. Perhaps this is why they don't support this language change. They would actually be required to use the safety equipment and procedures that the company has implemented.
Again, this is about accountability. If a person wants to override safety procedures, then they should be expected to be disciplined for it. I know you can't operate the equipment until you are trained and aware of the safety procedures. So if you bypass them, you are making a conscience descision to violate the rules. The union needs to start holding themselves and their flock accountable. Reading the updates gives the impression that the union wants their cake and wants to eat it too. That doesn't happen in real life.
While we are talking about real life, why don't we mention the way the union constantly jabs at the company. Do they think this intimidates the company? Do they think it makes the company respect them? And what is that crap about telling your management...? I'm pretty sure that management could consider that harrassment. For starters, I know my management doesn't have jack squat to do with negotiations. I'm pretty sure than none of the management that interact with the hourly do. Second, the company probably has told all supervisors and managers to nod and walk away when a union member makes a stupid comment like that. So they don't give a crap when you say something like that. Third, every update from the negotiating committee ends with "...stay positive...". How is this positive? Aren't there more positive avenues that the union could be using to show the company that the union deserves to be respected and that we deserve a contract that reflects our relationship with the company? I mean, we don't have a transcript of what was said in regards to health benefits, but which option do you think is more likely to get you what you want?
Union's response #1:
"Hell no we don't want a premium increase!"
Union's response #2:
"We see your point. Our hourly employees appear to be over utilizing benefits and driving up costs. Let's work together and reduce costs all around. Let's only move a small amount of the cost to the employees and we work to make sure employees know how to live a more healthy lifestyle. Let's spend the next contract trying to reverse this trend."
It comes dow to accountability. But what do I know? I'm just a lowly hourly employee. However, which response would YOU want to be presented with?
This leads into the union's comment about safety concerns being "required" and them fearing that this would lead to actions of discipline taken against employees. Isn't one of the biggest bragging points of this union (or any union for that matter) that current safety requirements only exist because of them? That workers would be forced to work in unsafe conditions if not for the union? So you would think that the company making it a requirement to report safety concerns would be something that the union could get behind. Why would the union possibly be against this? Oh, that's right, because the union employees are often disengaging, disabling, or otherwise trying to circumvent safety equipment or procedures. I've asked co-workers about why they would do this. Their response is that these measures get in their way and make their job more difficult. For people that are so worried about the company putting them in hazardouse positions, they sure put themselves in hazardous positions all on their own. Perhaps this is why they don't support this language change. They would actually be required to use the safety equipment and procedures that the company has implemented.
Again, this is about accountability. If a person wants to override safety procedures, then they should be expected to be disciplined for it. I know you can't operate the equipment until you are trained and aware of the safety procedures. So if you bypass them, you are making a conscience descision to violate the rules. The union needs to start holding themselves and their flock accountable. Reading the updates gives the impression that the union wants their cake and wants to eat it too. That doesn't happen in real life.
While we are talking about real life, why don't we mention the way the union constantly jabs at the company. Do they think this intimidates the company? Do they think it makes the company respect them? And what is that crap about telling your management...? I'm pretty sure that management could consider that harrassment. For starters, I know my management doesn't have jack squat to do with negotiations. I'm pretty sure than none of the management that interact with the hourly do. Second, the company probably has told all supervisors and managers to nod and walk away when a union member makes a stupid comment like that. So they don't give a crap when you say something like that. Third, every update from the negotiating committee ends with "...stay positive...". How is this positive? Aren't there more positive avenues that the union could be using to show the company that the union deserves to be respected and that we deserve a contract that reflects our relationship with the company? I mean, we don't have a transcript of what was said in regards to health benefits, but which option do you think is more likely to get you what you want?
Union's response #1:
"Hell no we don't want a premium increase!"
Union's response #2:
"We see your point. Our hourly employees appear to be over utilizing benefits and driving up costs. Let's work together and reduce costs all around. Let's only move a small amount of the cost to the employees and we work to make sure employees know how to live a more healthy lifestyle. Let's spend the next contract trying to reverse this trend."
It comes dow to accountability. But what do I know? I'm just a lowly hourly employee. However, which response would YOU want to be presented with?
Sunday, October 11, 2009
Updates?
One week of negotiations and what updates do we have? Reading the union's website doesn't yield any results. This is not surprising as this union has repeatedly yielded no results. What is also not surprising is the union's posting about "rumors". I particularly enjoy the part about only listening to information disseminated through their channels. Yeah, we did that last time, remember? Does the phrase "Not Interested" ring any bells?
I noticed on the other blog that someone asked what it would take for the union to get the support of their detractors. I would like to point out that this is the first time someone has posted that question. It is the first time that someone has asked, without malice, what the union could do better. It may not get many people interested, but it got me interested. I just wonder why it took so long.
What would it take? I could probably make a list a mile long. But the first step would be respect. You were given the trust and respect of these people and you used and abused it. Once you abuse the trust of those you claim to represent, you lose their respect. That takes a while to earn back. It will take more than the three weeks of negotiations you have remaining. I am not willing to let the years of disrespect vanish overnight. You will have to show me that you are serious. From the comments left on the other blog (and even on this blog) I do not believe that the union is serious about engaging their detractors in a serious, respectful, or productive manner.
If the union cannot engage those that they claim to represent in a respectful and productive way, then how am I expected to believe that they engage the company in respectful and productive way? I find that almost impossible to comprehend. The union says negative things about the company every chance they get. I doubt that they suddenly have a change of heart once the doors close and start considering the company as an equal when negotiations begin.
It would be nice for the union to be forthcoming with the information from negotiations. Showing some transparency would be a step in the right direction. Instead, they put updates telling their membership to only listen to and believe what the union tells them. While I am all for getting accurate information, I am also in favor of verifying information that is given from a questionable source. The union has not shown me that they are a reliable source of information, so I will continue to question the "information" that they provide.
I noticed on the other blog that someone asked what it would take for the union to get the support of their detractors. I would like to point out that this is the first time someone has posted that question. It is the first time that someone has asked, without malice, what the union could do better. It may not get many people interested, but it got me interested. I just wonder why it took so long.
What would it take? I could probably make a list a mile long. But the first step would be respect. You were given the trust and respect of these people and you used and abused it. Once you abuse the trust of those you claim to represent, you lose their respect. That takes a while to earn back. It will take more than the three weeks of negotiations you have remaining. I am not willing to let the years of disrespect vanish overnight. You will have to show me that you are serious. From the comments left on the other blog (and even on this blog) I do not believe that the union is serious about engaging their detractors in a serious, respectful, or productive manner.
If the union cannot engage those that they claim to represent in a respectful and productive way, then how am I expected to believe that they engage the company in respectful and productive way? I find that almost impossible to comprehend. The union says negative things about the company every chance they get. I doubt that they suddenly have a change of heart once the doors close and start considering the company as an equal when negotiations begin.
It would be nice for the union to be forthcoming with the information from negotiations. Showing some transparency would be a step in the right direction. Instead, they put updates telling their membership to only listen to and believe what the union tells them. While I am all for getting accurate information, I am also in favor of verifying information that is given from a questionable source. The union has not shown me that they are a reliable source of information, so I will continue to question the "information" that they provide.
Sunday, October 4, 2009
Dollars and sense
So the union is going to begin "negotiations" this week. I can hardly wait to see how badly they screw it up this time. I say this because history has shown that this union doesn't understand the concept of negotiating. They make demands and when those demands aren't met, they throw a tantrum and expect the company to give in. Negotiating is give and take. It's give and take. Perhaps if they actually tried negotiating instead of acting like a bunch of 5 year olds, we might be able to get a decent contract. If you don't believe me, look at the last three contracts.
With so many contract negotiations conducted by the IAM, you think they could train their negotiating committees how to do it properly. After all, don't they send the members for training before every contract? Where does that money come from? Oh, that's right, that's what your monthly dues go towards. So are you getting your money's worth?
Speaking of union dues being squandered, have any of you ever stopped to think about how much money each of you pays per month to employ Mr. Watson and Mr. Taylor? Assuming about 1200 dues paying members, that is about 12 dollars a month per person. That is a lot of money for two people that aren't providing a whole lot of services in return. I know, Jim Watson sends out scathing letters every so often and has them posted in breakrooms, but other than that, what has he done to advance the standing of the average worker? Why is it that the business directors seem to keep getting pay raises (despite the workers not getting raises) and get promoted after years of failures (see: previous business director)?
I am also going to leave the comment on the previous post because I want everyone to see the type of response that the union has produced. Time after time the union officials post crap like that last response. These are your "leaders". Doesn't that just fill you with pride? Is that what you are showing pride in by wearing your union shirts everyday? Enjoy your rally tomorrow. I hope that it fills you with pride to stand outside of your employer protesting a contact that hasn't been negotiated yet. That makes sense, doesn't it? I'm sure it is really going to force the company to take you seriously and give you what you want. Good luck with that. Let me know how that works out for you.
With so many contract negotiations conducted by the IAM, you think they could train their negotiating committees how to do it properly. After all, don't they send the members for training before every contract? Where does that money come from? Oh, that's right, that's what your monthly dues go towards. So are you getting your money's worth?
Speaking of union dues being squandered, have any of you ever stopped to think about how much money each of you pays per month to employ Mr. Watson and Mr. Taylor? Assuming about 1200 dues paying members, that is about 12 dollars a month per person. That is a lot of money for two people that aren't providing a whole lot of services in return. I know, Jim Watson sends out scathing letters every so often and has them posted in breakrooms, but other than that, what has he done to advance the standing of the average worker? Why is it that the business directors seem to keep getting pay raises (despite the workers not getting raises) and get promoted after years of failures (see: previous business director)?
I am also going to leave the comment on the previous post because I want everyone to see the type of response that the union has produced. Time after time the union officials post crap like that last response. These are your "leaders". Doesn't that just fill you with pride? Is that what you are showing pride in by wearing your union shirts everyday? Enjoy your rally tomorrow. I hope that it fills you with pride to stand outside of your employer protesting a contact that hasn't been negotiated yet. That makes sense, doesn't it? I'm sure it is really going to force the company to take you seriously and give you what you want. Good luck with that. Let me know how that works out for you.
Sunday, September 20, 2009
I will not be going away
I really enjoy reading the trash that Jim Watson posts on the union's website and has his cronies spread throughout the plantsite. What I find particularly interesting is that he always knew that any effort to rid ourselves of this "glorious union" would fail, yet he has felt the need to personally show up at the house of individuals he thinks had something to do with the effort.
He claims that a small, insignificant group is all that we are. Really? Then why did he feel the need to kill so many trees to spread his propaganda? If we were so insignificant, why would he need to spend so much effort reassuring his flock? Oh, that's right, because he knows that the movement is not isolated to calibration technicians. He knows that there are people in EVERY occupation that are fed up with the lies and bullshit that comes from this union. The employees are tired of the attitudes towards fellow employees, the company, and the job that the union endorses.
Mr. Watson knows that without this union at Raytheon, he will not have a paycheck. For him and Mr. Martinez (how many times have you seen him since he got his pay raise and new job position?) it is not about the employees. It is not about making sure that we are taken care of. It is about getting what they can and moving on. Unlike them, I'm not here to make a paycheck off of anyone else. I simply want to do my job (free from harassment) and get paid (based on my skill and abilities). I know that these are not traits that the union leadership share with me, and for that reason, I will not be going away.
The rhetoric from the die hard union members is that we should enact change from within the union. Do they really believe that? Look at who the union stewards are. Look at who the union officers are. You'll see the same names time and again. When I tried to do it that way, I got the cold shoulder and ignored. That is not worth 3 hours of my paycheck each month. The union had its chance. I am NOT going to go away. I will not be giving up. Those of you that have signed petitions need to know that the effort was appreciated. We will not be silenced. The point of a union is supposed to be give the workers a voice. We have a voice and the union will not silence it. No matter how many trips they make to HR over T-shirts or stickers, they will not silence us or our legally protected rights.
I will not cower like the union wants and I will not go away. Most of all IAMNOT933!
He claims that a small, insignificant group is all that we are. Really? Then why did he feel the need to kill so many trees to spread his propaganda? If we were so insignificant, why would he need to spend so much effort reassuring his flock? Oh, that's right, because he knows that the movement is not isolated to calibration technicians. He knows that there are people in EVERY occupation that are fed up with the lies and bullshit that comes from this union. The employees are tired of the attitudes towards fellow employees, the company, and the job that the union endorses.
Mr. Watson knows that without this union at Raytheon, he will not have a paycheck. For him and Mr. Martinez (how many times have you seen him since he got his pay raise and new job position?) it is not about the employees. It is not about making sure that we are taken care of. It is about getting what they can and moving on. Unlike them, I'm not here to make a paycheck off of anyone else. I simply want to do my job (free from harassment) and get paid (based on my skill and abilities). I know that these are not traits that the union leadership share with me, and for that reason, I will not be going away.
The rhetoric from the die hard union members is that we should enact change from within the union. Do they really believe that? Look at who the union stewards are. Look at who the union officers are. You'll see the same names time and again. When I tried to do it that way, I got the cold shoulder and ignored. That is not worth 3 hours of my paycheck each month. The union had its chance. I am NOT going to go away. I will not be giving up. Those of you that have signed petitions need to know that the effort was appreciated. We will not be silenced. The point of a union is supposed to be give the workers a voice. We have a voice and the union will not silence it. No matter how many trips they make to HR over T-shirts or stickers, they will not silence us or our legally protected rights.
I will not cower like the union wants and I will not go away. Most of all IAMNOT933!
Monday, September 7, 2009
Something to be proud of
While collecting signatures, it was expressed to me that employees wanted to sign, but they feared retaliation from the union. Wow! That's an organization that I'd be proud to have as my representative to the company. No matter how much I or others tried to soothe those fears, it was of no use. They've been in this organization too long and listened to the hate spew forth for so long that they believe that the union will make good on their threats.
How much pride does that give you?
I will tell you what I am proud of...the "insignificant" group of employees that filed a petition with the NLRB. Because so many people were afraid to stand up for a better workplace, this group took it upon themselves to start a fire under the union. Now it does give me a warm fuzzy to see that Jim Watson took time to not only write, but also distribute, a response to the small group of individuals that he says is going to give the other 1700+ employees a bad contract. Not only is that laughable, but since negotiations haven't started, shouldn't they be focusing on getting the best contract possible instead of blaming their future failure on someone else? I guess that is the difference in the union's idea of pride and mine.
Speaking of the union's idea of pride, perhaps "Wal-Mart Manager" needs a reality. Posting spam and links to YouTube videos is not mature, professional, or something to have pride in. I understand that the union leadership has nothing better to do than to search YouTube all day for videos to link to the blogs, but wouldn't that time be better spent focusing on the upcoming negotiations?
How much pride does that give you?
I will tell you what I am proud of...the "insignificant" group of employees that filed a petition with the NLRB. Because so many people were afraid to stand up for a better workplace, this group took it upon themselves to start a fire under the union. Now it does give me a warm fuzzy to see that Jim Watson took time to not only write, but also distribute, a response to the small group of individuals that he says is going to give the other 1700+ employees a bad contract. Not only is that laughable, but since negotiations haven't started, shouldn't they be focusing on getting the best contract possible instead of blaming their future failure on someone else? I guess that is the difference in the union's idea of pride and mine.
Speaking of the union's idea of pride, perhaps "Wal-Mart Manager" needs a reality. Posting spam and links to YouTube videos is not mature, professional, or something to have pride in. I understand that the union leadership has nothing better to do than to search YouTube all day for videos to link to the blogs, but wouldn't that time be better spent focusing on the upcoming negotiations?
Sunday, August 23, 2009
Crying Wolf
It seems that the union leadership has a set of talking points that they just can't get away from. How many times do we have to hear how horrible it would be without the union? Without a union, the company is going to force you to work in unsafe conditions. Without a union, the company will force you to work overtime. Without a union, blah...blah...blah. We've heard how evil the company would be to us without a union, yet there are several thousands of employees that seem to do just fine without a union.
By no means am I saying that the company is a saintly organization. However, if the working conditions are so horrible, would so many people still be working here? I mean, they are "at will" employees, only employed at the whim of the company.
This little fact doesn't seem to keep the union from crying wolf. They continue to recycle these lines over and over.
Speaking of recycling their lines, it appears that their methods continue to be recycled. I have noticed that whenever information is posted on the other blog (which allows anonymous posts) the response from those claiming to be union supporters is quite often rude, vulger, and threatening. A great deal of the responses are beyond insulting. They try to derail the conversation with things that have nothing to do with the debate. They make personal attacks against people that they suspect of having anything to do with a decertification effort.
Wouldn't it be wonderful for these hate filled people to be out of the workplace? Don't you want to have a workplace free of these attitudes? It can happen, but it takes work. It takes work from all of us to stand up and say that we aren't going to tolerate it anymore. It's not something that one person can do as an individual. It doesn't take an organized group to make it happen. It merely takes all of us refusing to stand by and not allow it. If this anger, vulgarity, threats, and hate filled rhetoric is what union representation is about, then we don't need it. I have more pride in myself than that and that is why IAMNOT933!
By no means am I saying that the company is a saintly organization. However, if the working conditions are so horrible, would so many people still be working here? I mean, they are "at will" employees, only employed at the whim of the company.
This little fact doesn't seem to keep the union from crying wolf. They continue to recycle these lines over and over.
Speaking of recycling their lines, it appears that their methods continue to be recycled. I have noticed that whenever information is posted on the other blog (which allows anonymous posts) the response from those claiming to be union supporters is quite often rude, vulger, and threatening. A great deal of the responses are beyond insulting. They try to derail the conversation with things that have nothing to do with the debate. They make personal attacks against people that they suspect of having anything to do with a decertification effort.
Wouldn't it be wonderful for these hate filled people to be out of the workplace? Don't you want to have a workplace free of these attitudes? It can happen, but it takes work. It takes work from all of us to stand up and say that we aren't going to tolerate it anymore. It's not something that one person can do as an individual. It doesn't take an organized group to make it happen. It merely takes all of us refusing to stand by and not allow it. If this anger, vulgarity, threats, and hate filled rhetoric is what union representation is about, then we don't need it. I have more pride in myself than that and that is why IAMNOT933!
Sunday, August 2, 2009
More harassment
It would appear that the union continues to try to harass and try to coerce those that don't agree with them. Emails were sent out to individuals private email addresses. These emails contained addresses. Evidently the union representatives feel that your personal information, such as your address, phone number, etc. is only personal as long as you are obeying their rules.
Besides being threatening and illegal, the use of such information is unethical and wrong. And we are supposed to trust these same pieces of crap to fight against the evil company in our best interest? I find this not only impossible to believe, but I find it impossible for the union to execute. At this point, they have shown such contempt for anyone that does not buy into their lies, that they cannot and will not negotiate on our behalf in a fair manner.
The only thing they are going to negotiate for is what gives their bank account the largest boost so that Jim and Steve get their raises next year. Bobby used to do the same thing. When we went year after year without a raise, Bobby was getting raises every year. How is this even close to being fair? Would Bobby Martinez like to explain himself? Oh, that is right, he's moved on. After using the employees of Raytheon for his own gain, he moved on.
I'm not going to be a stepping stone for the union's inner circle any longer. Are you?
Besides being threatening and illegal, the use of such information is unethical and wrong. And we are supposed to trust these same pieces of crap to fight against the evil company in our best interest? I find this not only impossible to believe, but I find it impossible for the union to execute. At this point, they have shown such contempt for anyone that does not buy into their lies, that they cannot and will not negotiate on our behalf in a fair manner.
The only thing they are going to negotiate for is what gives their bank account the largest boost so that Jim and Steve get their raises next year. Bobby used to do the same thing. When we went year after year without a raise, Bobby was getting raises every year. How is this even close to being fair? Would Bobby Martinez like to explain himself? Oh, that is right, he's moved on. After using the employees of Raytheon for his own gain, he moved on.
I'm not going to be a stepping stone for the union's inner circle any longer. Are you?
Sunday, July 26, 2009
There's lies and there's damned lies
On www.iam933.net, there was an interesting link to some articles about lies that unions, in general, use to get into a workplace and then retain their grip on the workers. I thought it was interesting that our own beloved Local Lodge 933 has continued to use some of these lies. That they continue to use the lies after being called on them shows that they do not listen and they do not learn. They like to use the saying from Lie #3 that you are the union. We all know that this is a lie of epic proportions.
They claim that if we are so intent on changing the union [read: getting rid of the union], then we should effect the change from the inside the union to get the results we wat out of the union. That has been tried. However, unless you are in the good ol' boys club, your voice doesn't count. How many times have employees (both non-union and union) gone to an officer or steward of the union and had their comments completely ignored? I know of many, many instances of this and I'm sure that you can think of several examples yourself.
Lie #4 concerned respect. This one is quite laughable if you remember that after the contract was ratified by the union in 2007, Tom Hacker of the negotiations committee was quoted in the paper as saying that the union won the right to be taken seriously. The spin masters in Washington D.C. couldn't even say that with a straight face. The attitudes that these employees showed towards their coworkers, supervisors, and every other person within the company earned them respect in what way?
Why would the company respect them? Why should I respect them? Better yet, why should you respect them? Respect is earned, not give.
They claim that if we are so intent on changing the union [read: getting rid of the union], then we should effect the change from the inside the union to get the results we wat out of the union. That has been tried. However, unless you are in the good ol' boys club, your voice doesn't count. How many times have employees (both non-union and union) gone to an officer or steward of the union and had their comments completely ignored? I know of many, many instances of this and I'm sure that you can think of several examples yourself.
Lie #4 concerned respect. This one is quite laughable if you remember that after the contract was ratified by the union in 2007, Tom Hacker of the negotiations committee was quoted in the paper as saying that the union won the right to be taken seriously. The spin masters in Washington D.C. couldn't even say that with a straight face. The attitudes that these employees showed towards their coworkers, supervisors, and every other person within the company earned them respect in what way?
Why would the company respect them? Why should I respect them? Better yet, why should you respect them? Respect is earned, not give.
Sunday, July 19, 2009
Equality
Evidently the union's idea of equality is vastly different from the dictionary's definition of equality.
The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines equality as "the quality or state of being equal." It then goes on to define equal as "regarding or affecting all objects in the same way."
How many of you found it interesting that certain occupations got targeted raises above and beyond the GWI? I had wondered why this was and evidently it appears that the negotiating team comes clean about why that is. They have to protect their most fanatical supporters.
This is odd because for months, all I heard from these two faced liars was about equality and fairness for everyone. Remember the droning on and on about red-circled employees and how they should get raises like everyone else? Remember how it wasn't about giving one group of people within the union more, it was about fairness and equality for everyone in the bargaining unit? Apparently, the union's idea of equality and fairness is quite different from the popularly accepted definitions for those words.
Now I know that the person on the negotiating team that said this will deny, deny, deny. That's why NO ONE from the union has even attempted to engage in dialogue in a public forum. No, they would rather show up on your doorstep, stop you in the hallway, or tell you to come see them on their time. Notice a pattern? No one else would be around and the words exchanged would not be out there for all to see.
I've also had conversations with Tom Hacker. And if it was indeed Tom Hacker that said these things to this individual regarding, I expect nothing less than for him to lie and deny. He, like so many of the fine representatives of the union, tell you one thing privately, but sing quite a different song publicly. That's why Jim Watson and Steve Taylor won't debate our points in a manner that cannot be changed later.
Perhaps one of the union's fine leadership team would like to come here and answer why they talk a good game, but can't seem to deliver. Of course, that would mean that they would have to possess some integrity...which that have shown they don't. And that is why IAMNOT933!
The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines equality as "the quality or state of being equal." It then goes on to define equal as "regarding or affecting all objects in the same way."
How many of you found it interesting that certain occupations got targeted raises above and beyond the GWI? I had wondered why this was and evidently it appears that the negotiating team comes clean about why that is. They have to protect their most fanatical supporters.
This is odd because for months, all I heard from these two faced liars was about equality and fairness for everyone. Remember the droning on and on about red-circled employees and how they should get raises like everyone else? Remember how it wasn't about giving one group of people within the union more, it was about fairness and equality for everyone in the bargaining unit? Apparently, the union's idea of equality and fairness is quite different from the popularly accepted definitions for those words.
Now I know that the person on the negotiating team that said this will deny, deny, deny. That's why NO ONE from the union has even attempted to engage in dialogue in a public forum. No, they would rather show up on your doorstep, stop you in the hallway, or tell you to come see them on their time. Notice a pattern? No one else would be around and the words exchanged would not be out there for all to see.
I've also had conversations with Tom Hacker. And if it was indeed Tom Hacker that said these things to this individual regarding, I expect nothing less than for him to lie and deny. He, like so many of the fine representatives of the union, tell you one thing privately, but sing quite a different song publicly. That's why Jim Watson and Steve Taylor won't debate our points in a manner that cannot be changed later.
Perhaps one of the union's fine leadership team would like to come here and answer why they talk a good game, but can't seem to deliver. Of course, that would mean that they would have to possess some integrity...which that have shown they don't. And that is why IAMNOT933!
Sunday, July 5, 2009
Deserters
It comes as no surprise to me that the union would keep a list of those that went back to work during the strike. After the behavior that has been exhibited by the union "leadership", nothing comes as much of a shock. What does come as a shock is the fact that they call those of use that made the decision to go back "deserters".
This was shocking to me because it was not us that were deserters. The union had deserted us long before I made the decision to go back to work. They deserted the membership well before the 2006 negotiations. They failed in 2006; they failed in 2003, and they continue to fail.
My question is why have they kept this list for so long? What possible purpose do they have to keep this? With the way that this union treats people they claim to represent, it makes me wonder, what other lists are they keeping? Do they have lists of current dues paying members that they think aren't being loyal to their cause? Are they going to show up at your house?
This was shocking to me because it was not us that were deserters. The union had deserted us long before I made the decision to go back to work. They deserted the membership well before the 2006 negotiations. They failed in 2006; they failed in 2003, and they continue to fail.
My question is why have they kept this list for so long? What possible purpose do they have to keep this? With the way that this union treats people they claim to represent, it makes me wonder, what other lists are they keeping? Do they have lists of current dues paying members that they think aren't being loyal to their cause? Are they going to show up at your house?
Sunday, June 21, 2009
Finger on the pulse
It appears that the union is continuing to waste money by sending out applications to hourly employees. The employees I have talked to that have received these applications have not expressed interest in joining the union. So basically, the union is sending out unsolicited mailings in hopes of getting some additional revenue. At no time has any official from the union talked to any of these individuals to ask them if they would like to join.
So it is obvious that the union has no interest in the concerns of the average employee that they claim to represent. They just want to increase their numbers with "free" memberships and mailing out applications. Perhaps if they spent more time listening to the people they claim to represent and less time trying to demonize anyone with a different point of view, then they might have increasing membership numbers instead of declining numbers.
Having looked at the application sent out, it is obvious to me that the union is indeed a business and nothing more. I have a cell phone contract that has fewer restrictions on termination of the agreement. I suppose the difference between the two businesses is that my cell phone company is confident that they offer a product I need. The union knows they offer nothing in return and therefore must lock you into a contract that is heavily weighted in their favor.
Perhaps that is why they had to increase the union dues. Between the declining memberships and the high salaries needed to retain such competent "leadership", the only option is to squeeze those poor souls they've locked into contracts.
If you have a good product or service, then people will flock to your business. When you have horrible customer service (the attitudes we've all been subjected to over the last 2 1/2 years is not exactly great customer relations), inept leadership (we don't need to re-hash that, do we?), and one-sided contracts, then it is no wonder that people are trying to jump ship. The union will do whatever they can to stay in business, but it's too late. They will not have our support until they can prove that they are on our side. They can't do that because they don't have a clue what the average worker is experiencing on the floor. And that's why IAM (NOT) 933!
So it is obvious that the union has no interest in the concerns of the average employee that they claim to represent. They just want to increase their numbers with "free" memberships and mailing out applications. Perhaps if they spent more time listening to the people they claim to represent and less time trying to demonize anyone with a different point of view, then they might have increasing membership numbers instead of declining numbers.
Having looked at the application sent out, it is obvious to me that the union is indeed a business and nothing more. I have a cell phone contract that has fewer restrictions on termination of the agreement. I suppose the difference between the two businesses is that my cell phone company is confident that they offer a product I need. The union knows they offer nothing in return and therefore must lock you into a contract that is heavily weighted in their favor.
Perhaps that is why they had to increase the union dues. Between the declining memberships and the high salaries needed to retain such competent "leadership", the only option is to squeeze those poor souls they've locked into contracts.
If you have a good product or service, then people will flock to your business. When you have horrible customer service (the attitudes we've all been subjected to over the last 2 1/2 years is not exactly great customer relations), inept leadership (we don't need to re-hash that, do we?), and one-sided contracts, then it is no wonder that people are trying to jump ship. The union will do whatever they can to stay in business, but it's too late. They will not have our support until they can prove that they are on our side. They can't do that because they don't have a clue what the average worker is experiencing on the floor. And that's why IAM (NOT) 933!
Sunday, June 7, 2009
Executive Pay
Recently, there has been a lot of public outrage regarding the compensation that company executives receive. Why should these executives get so much for poor decisions and leadership, when the average worker gets the shaft? How is this fair?
Well, then why is the union membership so content to pay so much money to their executives? According to the union's LM-2 filing, there are two individuals raking in far more money than any of us working stiffs. Why? What are they delivering that warrants more than twice the average hourly employee's yearly wages?
Shouldn't the union be run by the individuals doing the work? Shouldn't those in charge of the union be the union? Why are they adopting the same practices that they are supposed to be protecting workers from? I suppose it is just my "ill-informed" ideology, but shouldn't the union be run by the workers? I would expect those individuals to do the work of the union with minimal outside help and for minimal cost. This isn't the national union we are talking about, this is a local lodge. Shouldn't it be local workers making decisions for us?
Is this why dues had to be increased? Is a pay increase needed for the business representatives? Shouldn't pay be tied to the success of the "business" that they work for? I know that the union members are not blind to the problems these individuals have brought to all of us. But what is the reason? Is it to have a sense of belonging? An identity? There are 10,000 other employees and many groups both within the company and within the community to belong to. Believe it or not, you have an identity outside of this toxic union.
Executive pay is not going to be changed by grumbling. It is not going to change until we demand that it change. The only way to get the message to those in their ivory towers is to cut off their bank accounts. Your money belongs to you. Shouldn't you expect to get something in return for your investment?
Well, then why is the union membership so content to pay so much money to their executives? According to the union's LM-2 filing, there are two individuals raking in far more money than any of us working stiffs. Why? What are they delivering that warrants more than twice the average hourly employee's yearly wages?
Shouldn't the union be run by the individuals doing the work? Shouldn't those in charge of the union be the union? Why are they adopting the same practices that they are supposed to be protecting workers from? I suppose it is just my "ill-informed" ideology, but shouldn't the union be run by the workers? I would expect those individuals to do the work of the union with minimal outside help and for minimal cost. This isn't the national union we are talking about, this is a local lodge. Shouldn't it be local workers making decisions for us?
Is this why dues had to be increased? Is a pay increase needed for the business representatives? Shouldn't pay be tied to the success of the "business" that they work for? I know that the union members are not blind to the problems these individuals have brought to all of us. But what is the reason? Is it to have a sense of belonging? An identity? There are 10,000 other employees and many groups both within the company and within the community to belong to. Believe it or not, you have an identity outside of this toxic union.
Executive pay is not going to be changed by grumbling. It is not going to change until we demand that it change. The only way to get the message to those in their ivory towers is to cut off their bank accounts. Your money belongs to you. Shouldn't you expect to get something in return for your investment?
Sunday, May 31, 2009
A question
After the previously mentioned incident, it has been difficult for me to post anything regarding the union and maintain a civil tone. I apologize to anyone visiting this site regularly for updates. I am going to be attempting to update this weekly from now until the decertification vote.
Speaking of such a vote, it would appear that several union members are saying one thing while doing another. I know many that have been applying for salaried positions. My question is, why would they apply for salaried positions if the union is so great? If the union is why they are living in the lap of luxury with a great job, why would they need a salaried position where they are employed only at the whim of the evil company? I've been trying to process this for many months and I can't find a reason for this.
The only thing that I can think of is that they realize the union is weighing them down. They know that they are talented and skilled. They know that they can do better than what the union is feeding them. I know some of them are going to school and getting a higher education. They want more than this union has "fought" for. They want to be and do more. I can respect that. But I can't figure out why they would continue to support this union. Is it a fallback position? Like a safety school?
It makes me wonder about those that are so bent on defending this union. What are they afraid of? Why are they even afraid to let the employees (you know, the ones they claim to represent) vote on it? Is it because they know that they have no skills? That they do the bare minimum to stay employed? That they would actually be forced to earn their pay?
I am not afraid of doing work. I feel that the reward for doing good work should be good pay. How many times have you had to correct something that a coworker did incorrectly? You have more knowledge and skills, but get compensated the same. This is the union's idea of fairness? For those at the bottom of the talent barrel, it makes sense to support this union with every bit of energy they have because without the union they wouldn't have a job. But I know that the majority of hourly workers do good work. The union is right when they say that the hourly workers at Raytheon are some of the best around. I do believe that. We have skill sets that most other factory workers can't even begin to touch. So why aren't we being treated as such by the company and the union?
Because the company would be charged with showing certain employees favoratism. However, when the union shows preferential treatment, that is acceptable. Perhaps that is why so many hourly are trying to break free of this union. They see how the company treats the salaried employees. Those with talent and a good work ethic succeed. And then they see how the union treats employees. Those with loyalty and a monthly check to the union succeed.
I strive for more. My co-workers strive for more. We might not always see eye to eye, but we know that this is not benefitting everyone as the union claims. I know it, you know it, and all those hourly applying for salaried positions know it. That's why IAMNOT933!
Speaking of such a vote, it would appear that several union members are saying one thing while doing another. I know many that have been applying for salaried positions. My question is, why would they apply for salaried positions if the union is so great? If the union is why they are living in the lap of luxury with a great job, why would they need a salaried position where they are employed only at the whim of the evil company? I've been trying to process this for many months and I can't find a reason for this.
The only thing that I can think of is that they realize the union is weighing them down. They know that they are talented and skilled. They know that they can do better than what the union is feeding them. I know some of them are going to school and getting a higher education. They want more than this union has "fought" for. They want to be and do more. I can respect that. But I can't figure out why they would continue to support this union. Is it a fallback position? Like a safety school?
It makes me wonder about those that are so bent on defending this union. What are they afraid of? Why are they even afraid to let the employees (you know, the ones they claim to represent) vote on it? Is it because they know that they have no skills? That they do the bare minimum to stay employed? That they would actually be forced to earn their pay?
I am not afraid of doing work. I feel that the reward for doing good work should be good pay. How many times have you had to correct something that a coworker did incorrectly? You have more knowledge and skills, but get compensated the same. This is the union's idea of fairness? For those at the bottom of the talent barrel, it makes sense to support this union with every bit of energy they have because without the union they wouldn't have a job. But I know that the majority of hourly workers do good work. The union is right when they say that the hourly workers at Raytheon are some of the best around. I do believe that. We have skill sets that most other factory workers can't even begin to touch. So why aren't we being treated as such by the company and the union?
Because the company would be charged with showing certain employees favoratism. However, when the union shows preferential treatment, that is acceptable. Perhaps that is why so many hourly are trying to break free of this union. They see how the company treats the salaried employees. Those with talent and a good work ethic succeed. And then they see how the union treats employees. Those with loyalty and a monthly check to the union succeed.
I strive for more. My co-workers strive for more. We might not always see eye to eye, but we know that this is not benefitting everyone as the union claims. I know it, you know it, and all those hourly applying for salaried positions know it. That's why IAMNOT933!
Sunday, March 29, 2009
Disturbing
I have been told that there is a union employee in Bldg 847 that made a comment regarding the misfortune of a fellow employee that is not union. This employee (I'll call him "Al") said, "Well, that's one less scab," when referring to the attack on the non union employee. I am usually not into calling names, but this sorry excuse for a human has not only crossed the line of decency, I feel he's crossed the line of legality. Unfortunately, since I did not hear it directly from his mouth, I can not go to HR myself and expect anything to happen.
This, ladies and gentlemen, is what your union dues are supporting. Oddly enough, a union steward defended this asshole by saying, "He doesn't speak for the union." Excuse me? He doesn't speak for the union? But your message has been one of "united we stand". So which is it? You are united in your ideology and hate of others, or you show us that you actually have the moral courage to do what is right and throw this hateful piece of shit out of your union and out of the plantsite. The choice is simple. He stays and you show how hypocritical your little gun club is or you get rid of him and show the hourly employees (and the company) that you want to be taken seriously.
Sadly, I know the answer that this band of cowards will choose. In fact, in the propoganda mailed directly to union members, the president of the union, has the audacity to call us naive and selfish. He then finishes with "In Solidarity." So these are the words the union is sending out, but when some low life piece of crap repeats them, he's not representing the union?
As a group that represents itself as a united front, all members speak for you, not just your officials. Which, while I'm on the topic, seriously need to invest in a spell checker and a grammar checker before posting things on the message boards reserved for "official" union postings. It reinforces the perception that you are an unprofessional, ignorant group.
If you are reading this and paying union dues, then I have one question for you: "Why?" At this point, all that I can assume is that you support these craven bastards in their quest to run this company into the ground. Yeah, I'm pissed off this time and I'm probably being a little more vocal than I should. But this is what YOUR money goes towards.
That is why IAMNOT933!
This, ladies and gentlemen, is what your union dues are supporting. Oddly enough, a union steward defended this asshole by saying, "He doesn't speak for the union." Excuse me? He doesn't speak for the union? But your message has been one of "united we stand". So which is it? You are united in your ideology and hate of others, or you show us that you actually have the moral courage to do what is right and throw this hateful piece of shit out of your union and out of the plantsite. The choice is simple. He stays and you show how hypocritical your little gun club is or you get rid of him and show the hourly employees (and the company) that you want to be taken seriously.
Sadly, I know the answer that this band of cowards will choose. In fact, in the propoganda mailed directly to union members, the president of the union, has the audacity to call us naive and selfish. He then finishes with "In Solidarity." So these are the words the union is sending out, but when some low life piece of crap repeats them, he's not representing the union?
As a group that represents itself as a united front, all members speak for you, not just your officials. Which, while I'm on the topic, seriously need to invest in a spell checker and a grammar checker before posting things on the message boards reserved for "official" union postings. It reinforces the perception that you are an unprofessional, ignorant group.
If you are reading this and paying union dues, then I have one question for you: "Why?" At this point, all that I can assume is that you support these craven bastards in their quest to run this company into the ground. Yeah, I'm pissed off this time and I'm probably being a little more vocal than I should. But this is what YOUR money goes towards.
That is why IAMNOT933!
Sunday, March 15, 2009
Lead by Example
So, it would appear that the union really does take the position of leading from the top down. It appears that the union president has a habit of not following rules. Obviously, he feels he is above these rules and they only apply to non-dues paying employees. This is the example that I'm supposed to follow? This is what I'm supposed to give 2.5 hours a month to? And next year you want more?
I find it absolutely pathetic that the union claims the dues are to help ALL workers get a better contract. Let me get this straight, dues are going up NEXT YEAR (which, even in the new calendar system is AFTER negotiations) to better enable the union to deal with the contract negotiations THIS YEAR?
This is what your union does, ladies and gentlemen. They lie to their membership as well as fellow employees, supervisors, and the public. They feel they are above such petty things as rules, policies, and laws. Unless of course, those particular rules, policies, or laws are ones that they feel they can benefit from. This is not what leadership is about.
This organization is so corrupt at the top, so full of spite towards the company and fellow employees (both hourly and salaried), that I can't come to any other conclusion except that the rest of it must be the same. Just recently there was a study released on how likely people would be to cheat. They were more likely to cheat when someone they identified with cheated than they were if someone they considered a rival were to cheat. By doing their damnedest to create a strong "identity" this union has promoted the bad behavior of the leadership among the common union employees.
What baffles me even further is that the regional and national offices of the IAMAW have not stepped in to deal with this. I can only come to the conclusion that they endorse this kind of behavior as well. If they cared about their reputation as a group working for the betterment of all employees, then they should have removed the officials of this local and started over.
They obviously don't care. Just like the leadership doesn't care. Just like most of the membership doesn't care. How many of you have employees in your area that seem to own nothing but union shirts? They can wear a shirt, but they evidently don't take those words to heart, do they? "What part of union made don't you understand?" I have seen several of my fellow employees wearing these shirts...as they stand in hallways, breakrooms, and with their backs to their work areas. The part of that sentence I don't understand is how does anything get made by the union at all?
It's all about having pride in yourself and the organization you claim to be a part of. I would NEVER be proud to say that I was a member of this group. NEVER! Just as I would never say that I was proud to be a member of the mob. These are not things that people should feel pride in. They should feel pride in knowing that they have done an honest day's work for a company that makes weapons to support our men and women in the field. How come none of you wear shirts showing that pride? Just your "union" pride? That's not something to be proud of. If you had any pride, you would seek to have your elected officials lead by example. You'd make them be the best employee they can be. You'd require them to be leaders.
I find it absolutely pathetic that the union claims the dues are to help ALL workers get a better contract. Let me get this straight, dues are going up NEXT YEAR (which, even in the new calendar system is AFTER negotiations) to better enable the union to deal with the contract negotiations THIS YEAR?
This is what your union does, ladies and gentlemen. They lie to their membership as well as fellow employees, supervisors, and the public. They feel they are above such petty things as rules, policies, and laws. Unless of course, those particular rules, policies, or laws are ones that they feel they can benefit from. This is not what leadership is about.
This organization is so corrupt at the top, so full of spite towards the company and fellow employees (both hourly and salaried), that I can't come to any other conclusion except that the rest of it must be the same. Just recently there was a study released on how likely people would be to cheat. They were more likely to cheat when someone they identified with cheated than they were if someone they considered a rival were to cheat. By doing their damnedest to create a strong "identity" this union has promoted the bad behavior of the leadership among the common union employees.
What baffles me even further is that the regional and national offices of the IAMAW have not stepped in to deal with this. I can only come to the conclusion that they endorse this kind of behavior as well. If they cared about their reputation as a group working for the betterment of all employees, then they should have removed the officials of this local and started over.
They obviously don't care. Just like the leadership doesn't care. Just like most of the membership doesn't care. How many of you have employees in your area that seem to own nothing but union shirts? They can wear a shirt, but they evidently don't take those words to heart, do they? "What part of union made don't you understand?" I have seen several of my fellow employees wearing these shirts...as they stand in hallways, breakrooms, and with their backs to their work areas. The part of that sentence I don't understand is how does anything get made by the union at all?
It's all about having pride in yourself and the organization you claim to be a part of. I would NEVER be proud to say that I was a member of this group. NEVER! Just as I would never say that I was proud to be a member of the mob. These are not things that people should feel pride in. They should feel pride in knowing that they have done an honest day's work for a company that makes weapons to support our men and women in the field. How come none of you wear shirts showing that pride? Just your "union" pride? That's not something to be proud of. If you had any pride, you would seek to have your elected officials lead by example. You'd make them be the best employee they can be. You'd require them to be leaders.
Monday, February 23, 2009
Not an isolated ideology
It is interesting to note that many unions of late seem to be in a destructive mode. In these tough and uncertain financial times, many of them would rather see the companies that employ them go under and everyone lose their job than accept some cuts and save jobs. Isn't the point of the unions to keep the jobs?
The one I absolutely could not fathom was UAW at the end of the year. The government was willing to give money to keep the automakers afloat, but they wanted concessions across the board. Would UAW? No. Wait a second! If the companies don't get the money and go under, doesn't EVERYONE lose their job? That seems quite the opposite of what unions claim to stand for.
I mention this because our own beloved IAM seems to have a history of self-destructive behavior. Red-circled employees, health care, relations with the employees and company are all things that this union has shown they are not capable of handling. A previous employer of mine had been unionized just before I hired on. The relationships between the union, company, salaried and hourly were about a thousand times better than they are here. While no one side particularly liked the other, they at least respected the other's presence. Maybe after so many years here, the IAM has lost sight of that. When you treat a company as an adversary and do not respect their responsibilities, what do you think the company is going to do? The company is going to have disdain for the union.
I still find it odd that the union claims how much they do to promote workplace safety. Oddly enough, most of the "accidents" that I've seen in my work areas are caused by individuals bypassing the safeguards that are in place. It's that complacency that the union seems to have lately. When you get into a rut, things are overlooked. Perhaps it is time to give the union the boot and, once the dust has settled, bring another that would better represent us. The only other alternative would be to completely remove every "elected" union official and replace them with someone new. However, the nepotism that I've seen would not allow that to happen.
This is not said out of anger, but out of disappointment. The union claims to listen to its members, but when those members express their concerns, the union ignores them. When they can no longer support an organization that does not support them, the union ignores them with a vengence. All the while claiming to represent these employees. Well, which is it, IAM933? Are you listening to those you represent? Or are you still being a childish, slow acting, ignorant machine? You can't have it both ways. That is why this petition is going to be filed. One way or another, the union will listen to those it claims to represent. If they won't listen now, they will listen when those petitions come around.
The one I absolutely could not fathom was UAW at the end of the year. The government was willing to give money to keep the automakers afloat, but they wanted concessions across the board. Would UAW? No. Wait a second! If the companies don't get the money and go under, doesn't EVERYONE lose their job? That seems quite the opposite of what unions claim to stand for.
I mention this because our own beloved IAM seems to have a history of self-destructive behavior. Red-circled employees, health care, relations with the employees and company are all things that this union has shown they are not capable of handling. A previous employer of mine had been unionized just before I hired on. The relationships between the union, company, salaried and hourly were about a thousand times better than they are here. While no one side particularly liked the other, they at least respected the other's presence. Maybe after so many years here, the IAM has lost sight of that. When you treat a company as an adversary and do not respect their responsibilities, what do you think the company is going to do? The company is going to have disdain for the union.
I still find it odd that the union claims how much they do to promote workplace safety. Oddly enough, most of the "accidents" that I've seen in my work areas are caused by individuals bypassing the safeguards that are in place. It's that complacency that the union seems to have lately. When you get into a rut, things are overlooked. Perhaps it is time to give the union the boot and, once the dust has settled, bring another that would better represent us. The only other alternative would be to completely remove every "elected" union official and replace them with someone new. However, the nepotism that I've seen would not allow that to happen.
This is not said out of anger, but out of disappointment. The union claims to listen to its members, but when those members express their concerns, the union ignores them. When they can no longer support an organization that does not support them, the union ignores them with a vengence. All the while claiming to represent these employees. Well, which is it, IAM933? Are you listening to those you represent? Or are you still being a childish, slow acting, ignorant machine? You can't have it both ways. That is why this petition is going to be filed. One way or another, the union will listen to those it claims to represent. If they won't listen now, they will listen when those petitions come around.
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
Rumors and Karma
It has been mentioned in passing that the union is trying to stir things up by pointing out misdeeds by non-dues paying employees while not reporting those by dues-paying members. While I have not been told exactly what was said by whom and when it was said, I have a piece of advice:
Those that live in glass houses should not throw stones.
By no means am I saying that employees that do not perform their jobs in a satisfactory manner should be kept on. Quite the contrary. What I am saying is that if this is the work environment the union wishes, then so be it. All of us can start recording every miniscule item of note when someone does something inappropriate and turn it in. We can go around and around and do this all day. And at the end of the day, no one will have a job. Is that what the union would like?
During these times of economic uncertainty, the union raises dues. Instead of "protecting" those it says it represents, it is on a witch hunt to get them fired. Again, I am not in favor of protecting those that break the rules, but the union seems to have a double standard when it comes to the employees it likes, and the ones it doesn't like. I have heard from union members, stewards, and other union elected officials that the union represents all hourly employees whether we like it or not. But their actions do not indicate such. They expect our support, but give no support to the employees that they say they represent.
The fact is, the union is on the brink of decertification. They are here because of their own mismanagement. They continue to blame everyone else for their failures. They have already started to blame us for a bad contract in November. WHAT? They haven't even began negotiations yet and they are admitting failure and placing the blame on someone other than themselves. Is this an organization you want representing you? No number of union pride shirts could replace that. Perhaps that is what all those increased dues are going to.
We do not collect dues because we don't need to. Everything that we do is funded by the employees that are interested in a chance for a better workplace. The working relationship with the company has been fractured for the past several years. We want the opportunity to try something better. That opportunity doesn't take money, just your signature. When the decertification petitions begin, please take a moment and sign it. Talk to the person with the petition if you have any questions. We can't promise what the workplace will be like without the union, but every one of us already knows what it is like with the union.
Those that live in glass houses should not throw stones.
By no means am I saying that employees that do not perform their jobs in a satisfactory manner should be kept on. Quite the contrary. What I am saying is that if this is the work environment the union wishes, then so be it. All of us can start recording every miniscule item of note when someone does something inappropriate and turn it in. We can go around and around and do this all day. And at the end of the day, no one will have a job. Is that what the union would like?
During these times of economic uncertainty, the union raises dues. Instead of "protecting" those it says it represents, it is on a witch hunt to get them fired. Again, I am not in favor of protecting those that break the rules, but the union seems to have a double standard when it comes to the employees it likes, and the ones it doesn't like. I have heard from union members, stewards, and other union elected officials that the union represents all hourly employees whether we like it or not. But their actions do not indicate such. They expect our support, but give no support to the employees that they say they represent.
The fact is, the union is on the brink of decertification. They are here because of their own mismanagement. They continue to blame everyone else for their failures. They have already started to blame us for a bad contract in November. WHAT? They haven't even began negotiations yet and they are admitting failure and placing the blame on someone other than themselves. Is this an organization you want representing you? No number of union pride shirts could replace that. Perhaps that is what all those increased dues are going to.
We do not collect dues because we don't need to. Everything that we do is funded by the employees that are interested in a chance for a better workplace. The working relationship with the company has been fractured for the past several years. We want the opportunity to try something better. That opportunity doesn't take money, just your signature. When the decertification petitions begin, please take a moment and sign it. Talk to the person with the petition if you have any questions. We can't promise what the workplace will be like without the union, but every one of us already knows what it is like with the union.
Sunday, February 1, 2009
A Different Rant
Normally, we like to take a look at the things the union has done that are unfair, immoral, and, at times, illegal. It has been brought to my attention that some may read this to mean that I find the company to be the greatest thing since sliced bread. That is far from the truth. The last two years have proven more than anything that this union/company relationship is broken and one step to resolving that is getting the union out of the workplace.
How many of you take pride in your work? How many of your coworkers do? Do they take pride in their work or their union? And does management make these workers do their job effectively, or do they sweep it under the rug? It would appear that many of the supervisors and managers that deal with hourly employees have taken their leadership training from this union.
Most of the hourly management is so poorly equipped to promote their employees to succeed that they reward mediocre performance. What is the incentive going to be to get that lazy substandard employee in your area to do a better, more reliable job? He or she is going to be paid the same regardless. They aren't going to be fired. So what is the motivation? This isn't something that the union can control, but it is a side effect of the union being here. Management has failed in coming up with ways to make every employee as productive as possible. This problem will not suddenly disappear once the union is gone, but the system can begin to be repaired.
Would you reward your kids equally with the same allowance if one of them does all of their chores while the other one does only half of them? No, I didn't think so. So why should grown adults expect that treatment? It's time to cut some of the dead weight.
Management also had a gigantic failure in the way it allowed attitudes to be carried over from the last two contract negotiations. The attitudes have created such a pleasant working environment that several salaried people don't even want to come to work and deal with the union. Not only did the management fail the hourly workers in mending relations, they failed the salaried that work with the hourly. This causes a serious ripple effect. It demotivates workers, making them less productive, and puts a strain on employees.
I don't believe that once this union is gone everything will suddenly be roses and sunshine. That is foolhardy. But with the current set-up we can not even hope to have a better work environment. We can not hope to be treated as a valuable employee instead of a piece of equipment. Without this union, we can work towards bridging the chasm that has been created between employee and employer. That is why I AM NOT 933!
How many of you take pride in your work? How many of your coworkers do? Do they take pride in their work or their union? And does management make these workers do their job effectively, or do they sweep it under the rug? It would appear that many of the supervisors and managers that deal with hourly employees have taken their leadership training from this union.
Most of the hourly management is so poorly equipped to promote their employees to succeed that they reward mediocre performance. What is the incentive going to be to get that lazy substandard employee in your area to do a better, more reliable job? He or she is going to be paid the same regardless. They aren't going to be fired. So what is the motivation? This isn't something that the union can control, but it is a side effect of the union being here. Management has failed in coming up with ways to make every employee as productive as possible. This problem will not suddenly disappear once the union is gone, but the system can begin to be repaired.
Would you reward your kids equally with the same allowance if one of them does all of their chores while the other one does only half of them? No, I didn't think so. So why should grown adults expect that treatment? It's time to cut some of the dead weight.
Management also had a gigantic failure in the way it allowed attitudes to be carried over from the last two contract negotiations. The attitudes have created such a pleasant working environment that several salaried people don't even want to come to work and deal with the union. Not only did the management fail the hourly workers in mending relations, they failed the salaried that work with the hourly. This causes a serious ripple effect. It demotivates workers, making them less productive, and puts a strain on employees.
I don't believe that once this union is gone everything will suddenly be roses and sunshine. That is foolhardy. But with the current set-up we can not even hope to have a better work environment. We can not hope to be treated as a valuable employee instead of a piece of equipment. Without this union, we can work towards bridging the chasm that has been created between employee and employer. That is why I AM NOT 933!
Sunday, January 18, 2009
Have you witnessed this behavior?
There was an interesting article that someone forwarded me from MSNBC.com.
Hubristic Group Pride May Indicate Insecurity
This was very interesting because this union makes a lot of boastful statements that are pretty empty. Remember the flyers they put up all over the place extolling the way they secured about $70,000 for roughly 50 employees? What about the other 1800 hourly employees? Or how about how they took big, bad Rayteon to task over health care for retirees? Something that they had very little to do with other than send a few representatives to the courthouse to make an appearance. What about during the strike? Holy cow!!! There were too many claims made to post them all here.
These all show that they are insecure, scared, and know that they have an organization that does not deserve the respect of the workers it claims to represent, the company it fights against, or the public in general. These are claims that a schoolyard bully tries to make to drum up respect for himself once he realizes that no one takes him seriously. It doesn't work there, and it won't work here. How many heard during the last negotiation cycle about how great and grand the union was? They had over 75% representation of the bargaining unit. Yeah, but how many of those were "free" memberships? Put all the facts out and let the validity of your organization speak for itself.
This type of behavior is so deeply ingrained within this organization, that they don't even realize the doubletalk that comes out of their mouths. I, as well as several other workers that I know, have been told by numerous agents of this union (i.e. elected officials such as stewards and officers) that the efforts to collect enough votes through a petition will fail and they give their various reasons why they believe that. Then, in the next breath, they tell us that if it comes to a vote, they will win. Um, wait. A vote only comes after a successful petition. If the petition is doomed to fail, why worry about a vote? I know the boy scouts motto, but if they are so confident that the petition will fail, then why do they need a back-up plan?
Speaking of back-up plans, the secretary/treasurer has made it known to certain individuals that should a vote come to pass and it not be at an easily accessible location such as the airport plantsite, the union would be providing bus service for union members so they can vote. No such option for non-dues paying members of the bargaining unit will be provided. Are these the actions of a truly confident organization? Was the elected official making grandiose statements not yet approved by the organization? Is my source lying? All or any one of these could be the case, but I have confidence in the person relating this information and if the secretary/treasurer would like to dispute this, he is more than welcome to. I've been asking for someone to deliver their side for some time.
Please do not take my comments to mean that the company is completely innocent and pure. Quite the contrary. The company performs so many surveys to prove that the employees are happy, upbeat, and dedicated to their jobs, but if they spent time actually talking to the employees, they would find that the picture isn't as rosy as they think it is. Maybe that is why these two groups have such a difficult time reaching an agreement on ANYTHING. Each one thinks the other is beneath them. Meanwhile, the hourly employees are trapped in the middle. Well, soon we will have an option to correct that. In the meantime, IAMNOT933!
Hubristic Group Pride May Indicate Insecurity
This was very interesting because this union makes a lot of boastful statements that are pretty empty. Remember the flyers they put up all over the place extolling the way they secured about $70,000 for roughly 50 employees? What about the other 1800 hourly employees? Or how about how they took big, bad Rayteon to task over health care for retirees? Something that they had very little to do with other than send a few representatives to the courthouse to make an appearance. What about during the strike? Holy cow!!! There were too many claims made to post them all here.
These all show that they are insecure, scared, and know that they have an organization that does not deserve the respect of the workers it claims to represent, the company it fights against, or the public in general. These are claims that a schoolyard bully tries to make to drum up respect for himself once he realizes that no one takes him seriously. It doesn't work there, and it won't work here. How many heard during the last negotiation cycle about how great and grand the union was? They had over 75% representation of the bargaining unit. Yeah, but how many of those were "free" memberships? Put all the facts out and let the validity of your organization speak for itself.
This type of behavior is so deeply ingrained within this organization, that they don't even realize the doubletalk that comes out of their mouths. I, as well as several other workers that I know, have been told by numerous agents of this union (i.e. elected officials such as stewards and officers) that the efforts to collect enough votes through a petition will fail and they give their various reasons why they believe that. Then, in the next breath, they tell us that if it comes to a vote, they will win. Um, wait. A vote only comes after a successful petition. If the petition is doomed to fail, why worry about a vote? I know the boy scouts motto, but if they are so confident that the petition will fail, then why do they need a back-up plan?
Speaking of back-up plans, the secretary/treasurer has made it known to certain individuals that should a vote come to pass and it not be at an easily accessible location such as the airport plantsite, the union would be providing bus service for union members so they can vote. No such option for non-dues paying members of the bargaining unit will be provided. Are these the actions of a truly confident organization? Was the elected official making grandiose statements not yet approved by the organization? Is my source lying? All or any one of these could be the case, but I have confidence in the person relating this information and if the secretary/treasurer would like to dispute this, he is more than welcome to. I've been asking for someone to deliver their side for some time.
Please do not take my comments to mean that the company is completely innocent and pure. Quite the contrary. The company performs so many surveys to prove that the employees are happy, upbeat, and dedicated to their jobs, but if they spent time actually talking to the employees, they would find that the picture isn't as rosy as they think it is. Maybe that is why these two groups have such a difficult time reaching an agreement on ANYTHING. Each one thinks the other is beneath them. Meanwhile, the hourly employees are trapped in the middle. Well, soon we will have an option to correct that. In the meantime, IAMNOT933!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)