NATCA Going Down in Flames

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message


Actually, the union is fulfilling its role of representing their
membership's voice to management. That's what unions do.

What you say is accurate as far as it goes, which is not far enough. The
union's full responsibility is to represent the members' best interests in
the labor-management relationship. There are millions of union employees
who are well paid, well trained, well treated, and secure in their positions
because they do their jobs well and their companies make money. But how
often do you hear of union leaders telling their rank and file, "you know,
guys, we've got a good deal here, and you're well treated. I don't think we
ought to disrupt anything right now." Any union man or woman who said such
a thing would be instantly branded as a management stooge and run out of the
local.

In a previous article, "John Gaquin" said:
"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
Actually, the union is fulfilling its role of representing their
membership's voice to management. That's what unions do.
the labor-management relationship. There are millions of union employees
who are well paid, well trained, well treated, and secure in their positions
because they do their jobs well and their companies make money. But how
often do you hear of union leaders telling their rank and file, "you know,
guys, we've got a good deal here, and you're well treated. I don't think we
ought to disrupt anything right now." Any union man or woman who said such

Have you ever considered that you don't hear about it because a union not
making noise doesn't make the newspapers?

The one and only time I belonged to a union, I had no idea what they did
except deduct dues from my paycheck. And that's mostly because we had a
pretty good deal and we were well treated, so the union never made noise.

--
Paul Tomblin http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
Like most computer techie people, I'll happily spend 6 hours trying
to figure out how to do a 3 hour job in 10 minutes.
--Rev. James Cort, ASR

On Mon, 4 Sep 2006 12:06:53 -0400, "John Gaquin"
wrote in
:


"Larry Dighera" wrote in message


Actually, the union is fulfilling its role of representing their
membership's voice to management. That's what unions do.

What you say is accurate as far as it goes, which is not far enough. The
union's full responsibility is to represent the members' best interests in
the labor-management relationship.

That is reasonable. I don't see where that is not occurring in this
instance.

Management wants to change the rules of the workplace after the fact,
and the union is advising their members to alert union officials when
such employee abuse occurs.

There are millions of union employees who are well paid, well trained, well
treated, and secure in their positions because they do their jobs well and
their companies make money.

And employee interests are voiced collectively when they are
threatened by management. That, in addition to good job performance,
is what assures their positions.

But how often do you hear of union leaders telling their rank and file, "you know,
guys, we've got a good deal here, and you're well treated. I don't think we ought
to disrupt anything right now."

I have heard similar sentiment voiced by union leaders when it is
appropriate.

Any union man or woman who said such a thing would be instantly branded as a
management stooge and run out of the local.

That has not been my experience. When did you see that occur?

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message

That has not been my experience. When did you see that occur?

Thrice in my experience.

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message


Management wants to change the rules of the workplace after the fact,
and the union is advising their members to alert union officials when
such employee abuse occurs.

Requiring professional attire equates to "employee abuse"?

--
John T
http://sage1solutions.com/TknoFlyer
Reduce spam. Use Sender Policy Framework: http://spf.pobox.com
____________________

On Mon, 4 Sep 2006 15:05:59 -0400, "John T" wrote in
:

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message


Management wants to change the rules of the workplace after the fact,
and the union is advising their members to alert union officials when
such employee abuse occurs.

Requiring professional attire equates to "employee abuse"?

If it is a change in the working agreement, that hasn't been agreed to
by both parties, I would see it as inequitable and unjust. If changes
are desired, they should be openly negotiated by all concerned.

Don't get me wrong. Both management and labor are completely capable
of tyranny. The open negotiation of contract terms is an attempt to
mitigate that tendency.

This is ridiculous that a union is opposed to casual attire (slack &
collard shirts). I did not read suits.

Sounds like NATCA needs to be Reaganed.

Ron Lee

In a previous article, none said:
This is ridiculous that a union is opposed to casual attire (slack &
collard shirts). I did not read suits.

It's ridiculous that an employer thinks they can arbitrarily change the
terms of employment without consulting the employees.

Sounds like NATCA needs to be Reaganed.

It sounds like this country needs to remember that employees aren't
slaves.


--
Paul Tomblin http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
Considering the number of wheels Microsoft has found reason to invent,
one never ceases to be baffled by the minuscule number whose shape even
vaguely resembles a circle. -- [unknown]

It's ridiculous that an employer thinks they can arbitrarily change the
terms of employment without consulting the employees.


Absurd! You should work for an auto company. Over the past 20 or so
years white colar workers have lost COLA, vacation time, etc.
Management never asked permission. We do live in the land of the free
- one is free to work for an employer or not.

On 4 Sep 2006 10:24:51 -0700, wrote in
. com:


It's ridiculous that an employer thinks they can arbitrarily change the
terms of employment without consulting the employees.


Absurd! You should work for an auto company. Over the past 20 or so
years white colar workers have lost COLA, vacation time, etc.

Personally, I believe auto workers were paid far in excess of the
skill they possessed. (How long did an auto worker have to attend
training before being considered skilled enough to demand top pay?)

Automobile companies had seen to it that they had the market to
themselves without significant competition until the Japanese, with
their low wages and copy-cat mentality entered the scene.

While founders of the virtual monopoly sat back on their fat sacks of
cash, it was easy for them to acquiesce to unreasonable union demands
while remaining profitable, but foreign car manufacturers produced a
less expensive product, and eventually dominated the automobile
marketplace. It is only now that Flint Michigan is a ghost town, that
the US auto makers are finally realizing that they have been priced
out of the market by foreign competition.

If US auto makers are to remain in business, they must cut costs, and
those fat labor contracts are a prime source of cost. So, the reason
UAW employees agreed to the loss of COLAs, vacation time, etc. is
because it is preferable to losing their jobs entirely as a result of
bankruptcy.

Management never asked permission.

They didn't have to ask permission; management just included it in
their contract proposals, and the UAW recommended ratification.