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!
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Fun links
About Me
- IAMNOT933
- I am a Raytheon hourly employee who, like many others, would like to end the incompetence of the union "representing" us and negotiating our pay and benefits.
2 comments:
"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."
Why not ask your oust scab buddy Carlton? I bet he has a good reason for going salary. Probably part of the deal you guys made with the company!
Carlton? I have no idea about who that is or what his reason for going salaried was. However, if you are going to make such claims that there is some agreement between the compnay and any of us, then you better be damn ready to prove it. The only time I've talked to the company about anything is when I've gone to HR about harassment.
I know that facts are not something that agents of the union are fond of using, which explains why you make outlandish claims without anything to back them up.
Post a Comment