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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)