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.
Sunday, July 26, 2009
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?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)