It seems that the union leadership has a set of talking points that they just can't get away from. How many times do we have to hear how horrible it would be without the union? Without a union, the company is going to force you to work in unsafe conditions. Without a union, the company will force you to work overtime. Without a union, blah...blah...blah. We've heard how evil the company would be to us without a union, yet there are several thousands of employees that seem to do just fine without a union.
By no means am I saying that the company is a saintly organization. However, if the working conditions are so horrible, would so many people still be working here? I mean, they are "at will" employees, only employed at the whim of the company.
This little fact doesn't seem to keep the union from crying wolf. They continue to recycle these lines over and over.
Speaking of recycling their lines, it appears that their methods continue to be recycled. I have noticed that whenever information is posted on the other blog (which allows anonymous posts) the response from those claiming to be union supporters is quite often rude, vulger, and threatening. A great deal of the responses are beyond insulting. They try to derail the conversation with things that have nothing to do with the debate. They make personal attacks against people that they suspect of having anything to do with a decertification effort.
Wouldn't it be wonderful for these hate filled people to be out of the workplace? Don't you want to have a workplace free of these attitudes? It can happen, but it takes work. It takes work from all of us to stand up and say that we aren't going to tolerate it anymore. It's not something that one person can do as an individual. It doesn't take an organized group to make it happen. It merely takes all of us refusing to stand by and not allow it. If this anger, vulgarity, threats, and hate filled rhetoric is what union representation is about, then we don't need it. I have more pride in myself than that and that is why IAMNOT933!
Sunday, August 23, 2009
Sunday, August 2, 2009
More harassment
It would appear that the union continues to try to harass and try to coerce those that don't agree with them. Emails were sent out to individuals private email addresses. These emails contained addresses. Evidently the union representatives feel that your personal information, such as your address, phone number, etc. is only personal as long as you are obeying their rules.
Besides being threatening and illegal, the use of such information is unethical and wrong. And we are supposed to trust these same pieces of crap to fight against the evil company in our best interest? I find this not only impossible to believe, but I find it impossible for the union to execute. At this point, they have shown such contempt for anyone that does not buy into their lies, that they cannot and will not negotiate on our behalf in a fair manner.
The only thing they are going to negotiate for is what gives their bank account the largest boost so that Jim and Steve get their raises next year. Bobby used to do the same thing. When we went year after year without a raise, Bobby was getting raises every year. How is this even close to being fair? Would Bobby Martinez like to explain himself? Oh, that is right, he's moved on. After using the employees of Raytheon for his own gain, he moved on.
I'm not going to be a stepping stone for the union's inner circle any longer. Are you?
Besides being threatening and illegal, the use of such information is unethical and wrong. And we are supposed to trust these same pieces of crap to fight against the evil company in our best interest? I find this not only impossible to believe, but I find it impossible for the union to execute. At this point, they have shown such contempt for anyone that does not buy into their lies, that they cannot and will not negotiate on our behalf in a fair manner.
The only thing they are going to negotiate for is what gives their bank account the largest boost so that Jim and Steve get their raises next year. Bobby used to do the same thing. When we went year after year without a raise, Bobby was getting raises every year. How is this even close to being fair? Would Bobby Martinez like to explain himself? Oh, that is right, he's moved on. After using the employees of Raytheon for his own gain, he moved on.
I'm not going to be a stepping stone for the union's inner circle any longer. Are you?
Sunday, July 26, 2009
There's lies and there's damned lies
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.
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 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)
