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!
Sunday, July 19, 2009
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!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
