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?