Airlines Favor profit over safety. The Employer Free Choice Act

Untrained Pilots of

the Future?

Pilot Sully says Pilot Pay Cuts Put Passengers in danger. The pilot of Flight 1459 says the industry is driving out experienced pilots. The hero pilot has seen his pay cut and his pension destroyed as a reward for years of dedicated service. When do you think we will hear about Sully getting his huge retention bonus?

The pilot who successfully saved a planeload of passengers using years of skills and training by safely landing in the Hudson River said that pay and benefit cuts are driving experienced pilots from the cockpit. The US Airways pilot told the aviation subcommittee he has seen a 40 percent cut in his pay at the same time his pension was terminated and handed to the Federal Pension Guaranty Corp where he will get a pension "worth pennies on the dollar" .

Trained Union Pilot on the

River


The cuts were forced after several airline bankruptcies. Many of the management teams that oversaw the destruction of pay and pensions received huge bonuses as a reward for performance.. The cuts have placed "pilots and their families in an untenable financial situation," Sullenberger said. "I do not know a single, professional airline pilot who wants his or her children to follow in their footsteps."

Copilot Jeffrey B. Skiles said without labor-management reforms "experienced crews in the cockpit will be a thing of the past." Sullenberger said in his always controlled style that without experienced pilots "we will see negative consequences to the flying public." Will the airlines report a 200 mile an hour landing in a pine forest as an "extended delay".

Do you think temp agencies can send in pilots on an as needed basis? How about we take one of the executives that received bonuses for cutting Union pay and benefits and put them alone into the cockpit of a plane, take it off remotely and then kill the engines. If the executive lives then they can keep their life and consider it "pay for performance". Due to training and skills only gained through years of training Sullenberger landed in the river and all 155 people survived. If only Sully's pay and pension had been so lucky.

The Employer Free Choice Act

There has been a novel suggestion made to solve the problem of Unions that destroy the companies they work for. A program for the complete management of labor resources has been put forward by the National Right to Work for Less organization. A spokesperson said that after the idea was brought up everyone was amazed that it had taken them so long to arrive at this clearly obvious solution.

The new management initiative for complete management of labor resources for the parts of the American auto industry that have been hardest hit by the Union movement will be the first to see the effects of this new plan.

The program is based on a simple premise. Companies that have been hardest hit by Unions will be required to own their workers.

The spokesperson gave examples of how proper labor management has achieved greatness, the pyramids, and the entertainment industry in the days of the emperors, and the growth of the South into a burgeoning supplier for cotton in the early 1800’s. The “Complete Labor Management” program will allow commercial success to extend the free market principles to humans themselves.

Complete management of labor is the fastest, best, solution to investor losses and the pinnacle goal of free-market theory.

While is some ways the program could be mislabeled slavery, it is explained by the supporters as returning to their “roots”. In the past eight years labor relations have been taken in the direction of less conflict by allowing management to make the decisions unfettered by employees or long term commitments to pay benefits or pensions. We need to simply extend and polish these early improvements to labor relations. Much of the rest of the world including Iran has already taken the lead in these areas and now sees almost no Union conflict. America must not fall behind.

A management system where corporations make all the decisions is the only solution for falling dividends. Today, in American factories, employers must wend their way through a thicket of laws controlling wages, safety, and who they can hire. The only worries a corporation should have is if the employee is productive. Employers can not be saddled with the responsibility of an employee’s health or what they live on after their careers are done.

Rules must be set. If an employee is too sick to work, pregnant, or too old to be productive they should be out the door.

By encouraging employees to remain productive by not relying on an employer (or the government) we will be giving every employee true freedom of choice. They will decide their own destinies.

Further examples of the method at work were given, the late 1800’s success of Oil and Rail Roads. Chinese auto companies are rising stars. Chinese auto workers currently earn a dollar an hour. In each of these cases workers have been freed from labor worries, and management allowed to focus solely on the profitability without interference. In each case tremendous returns on investment have grown the corporations. There is a definite pattern and it can be proven that if it is Good for Unions, it is Bad for business. Bad for Unions, Good for business. The complete implementation of this plan is seen as the logical defense against the Employee Free Choice Act.

Some public sentiment still brands the word slavery with some negative connotations so we are re-branding the initiative as the Employer Free Choice Act. We can stress the benefits to the employee and the economy. The employee is freed from choices and conflicts with management. All their time is productive or the company is freed from the employee.The benefits to the economy have been obvious since the building of the pyramids.

This is what free choice is all about. The employee is freed when they only have to follow orders and management is freed when they can make any choice needed for the good of the corporation.

Enter your Email Sign up for Email notification of new posts.





Preview Powered by FeedBlitz

When do we start Bargaining?

CLICK ON THE CARTOON FOR A FULL SIZE PICTURE.

Tonight I sent out over one hundred emails to stewards. I will enclose the body of the letter in this post. If you know a steward that did not get an email it was because either there was no email listed, a bad email was listed, or the only address was a Maine.Gov address and I won't abuse the system the same way some of the decert people abused the email in 2007. This is not just my idea, the last negotiations team unanimously endorsed early bargaining. A Union official said publicly that bargaining would start early. Bargaining before all the money is gone. Bargaining with time to collect all the bargaining proposals and do the research. Time to answer members questions about proposals. We need time. If you know anyone that was P.O.ed about their proposal not being included in the last contract or someone that wants to know what we can do to try to head off the attempt to make MSEA-SEIU members pay for the budget deficit with no raises and cuts in benefits tell them to start asking when the bargaining teams will be elected. Unless we start NOW we will be in the same boat again.

Here is what I sent out. Pass it on.

I am sending this email to as many stewards as possible. If you know anyone, steward or member that might be interested please pass this on.

My name is Thomas Maher, a steward from Bangor. I am a member of the Pro-Tech unit. I have been involved in contract negotiations for the MSEA-SEIU for several contracts as both a negotiations team member and as a bargaining committee member. Most members don’t know that the negotiations team last year voted unanimously to start bargaining as early as possible this time around. The reason is that the State always puts us up against the wall saying that time is short and if we don’t have a contract members will go without step raises, we could see shut down days, and more scare tactics of that type. I am trying to contact as many stewards as possible to get involved and to get bargaining going early before the legislature has taken all the cash and we are reduced to collective begging in place of collective bargaining. Another effect of this would be for all members to get their proposals in early so every proposal has a chance to be read and studied if research is necessary.

I will be putting up articles about early bargaining on my website, address included and I have already collected a number of bargaining proposals. Please drop by if you have a minute. My site is not Union sponsored or supported. I am doing this on my own. If do not want me to email you again just reply with “Do not Email” in the subject line and I will not email you again.

In Solidarity,

Thomas Maher

E.T.I. 2009
Enter your Email and sign up for updates.





Preview | Powered by FeedBlitz

Universal Health Care, The other Side.

E.T.I. 2009

The debate about Universal Health care has proponents and opponents. Since I am a firm believer in Universal Health Care I felt that I should go out and listen to the reasons given by the opposition. I have collected the most common reasons and it is only fair to listen to the other side.

I have listed the most common below.

1: With Universal Health Care people would live longer and the money would just be wasted on old people.

2: If you knew you could go to the doctor for yourself or your kids you would go for every minor broken bone and the Government might even end up paying for inoculations to prevent disease. Why pay for something that has not happened?

3: Universal Health Care would stop Americans from paying more and getting less than other counties and that could harm the economy.

4: Single payer countries are run by dictators in lands with no choice, like Canada, and Holland.

5: The people that oppose a single payer system can afford health care and it would be an unfair burden on the rich.

6: Paying insurance companies for poor care is more American than paying taxes and receiving good care.

7: The U.S.A. which has one of the highest infant mortality rates of all the civilized countries would become overcrowded if we let all those babies live.

8: Clients have become fond of their HMO providers and would miss dealing with them.

9: Regardless of how much good would be done, if good is done by government then it must really be bad.

10. It’s fun to see how long you can get one prescription to last by skipping days, and cutting doses. The mental activity helps prevent Alzheimer’s.

Since I write so much about State employees who (for now) still have health care you may ask yourself what this has to do with you.

I listened some more. The other side says we are the worst criminals. By having health care and good wages we are almost single handedly driving out all of the business in Maine. I have listened to the arguments and they sum up to a demand that we give up at least a third of our pay, all of our benefits, and stop being a part of a Union. There are also other demands that want all poorly performing State employees fired immediately. This demand leads right back to the "get rid of the Union" argument, so government can be efficient.

Some how this will then lead all of the businesses to flock to Maine for the low wages. At that time anyone in Maine that wants to work for minimum wage in ugly working conditions (Wal-Mart) will have the opportunity. Did I miss the point? We suffer, business does great, and that is good?

Let me know if I missed the point.

E.T.I. 2009

Enter your Email and Click Subscribe me! to get email announcing new posts.





Preview | Powered by FeedBlitz

More ideas for 2009

E.T.I. 2009

Would something like this work if you had a choice?

Eight hours of vacation per month after six months of service.

Employees receive increased vacation for increased years of state service:
- seven hours of vacation per month for up to three years of service;
- 8 hours per month for up to 10 years;
- 12 hours per month for up to 15 years;
- 14 hours per month for up to 20 years;
- 16 hours per month for 20 + years.

Employees may opt for annual leave, in lieu of separate vacation and sick leave, and can opt to enroll in or leave the program each July.

Employees enrolled in annual leave receive combined vacation/sick leave of:
- 12 hours per month for up to 10 years of service;
- 16 hours per month for over10 years, to 15 years.
- 18 hours per month for over 15 years up to 20years;
- - 20 hours per month for 20+ years.

Nine hundred twenty (920) hours of vacation or annual leave can be carried into the next calendar year.

Employees must be paid for unused vacation or annual leave upon leaving state service.

Could make a great going away day and help make up for the cliff. What do you think? Should we go for something like this? Find the comments link under this post and leave your ideas.
E.T.I. 2009
.
Enter your Email and click Subscribe Me! To be updated with new posts.





Preview | Powered by FeedBlitz

MSEA CONTRACT 2009

I promised my brothers and sisters in the Union that I would work on collecting ideas for the next contract. New ideas are starting to come in so I am reposting this entry to let you know that the contract for 2009-2011 starts here, starts now.

This is just in from a member.
I believe there is an important issue associated with Departments like the Warden Service, Maine State Police and Marine Patrol using sworn investigators and interrogators to look into allegations of contractual misconduct by bargaining unit members. I would like to see a provision in the discipline article that prohibits Dept. employees who are part of the criminal legal system to be used for contractual investigation.

I am going to keep up the collection. Here is an idea that showed up regarding sick time. The State loses a lot of money when people are getting near retirement and is always looking for ways to cut down on sick leave. If you take a day off, you get paid, and a contribution is made to the retirement fund. How about a way to cut down on the cost of sick time and a way to put a few dollars in your pocket at the same time? This would be at mutual agreement. The State could not just take away time you had earned and might be saving for that "rainy day" in case of illness.

As you all know Health Care is the biggest Elephant in the closet. A member suggested that the State offer employees a buy out of their Health Care. If you don't want health care because you are retired from the military or have coverage through a spouse you would receive between $2.00 to $4.00 an hour to give up your health care. Remember, it would then be gone forever, but an extra $80.00 to $160.00 a week would certainly be attractive, especially if it went toward your pension. Would you still get Health Care when you retired? Interesting question and a fascinating proposal.

Sick Leave-Compensation for.

1. Employees shall be eligible to receive monetary compensation for accrued sick leave as follows:
1. In January of each year, and at no other time, an employee whose year-end sick leave balance exceeds 240 hours may choose to convert sick leave hours earned in the previous calendar year minus those used during the year to monetary compensation.
1. No sick leave hours may be converted which would reduce the calendar year-end balance below 240 hours.
2. Monetary compensation for converted hours shall be paid at the rate of 50% and shall be based upon the employee's current salary.
3. All converted hours will be deducted from the employee's sick leave balance.
2. Employees who separate from state service due to retirement or death shall be compensated for their unused sick leave accumulation at the rate of 50%. Compensation shall be based upon the employee's salary at the time of separation.
2. Compensation for unused sick leave shall not be used in computing the retirement allowance; therefore no contributions are to be made to the retirement system for such payments, nor shall such payments be reported as compensation.
3. An employee who separates from service for any reason other than retirement or death shall not be paid for accrued sick leave. Don't forget to try Http://UnionMaine.Informe.com E.T.I. 2009

Enter your Email





Preview | Powered by FeedBlitz

Mark Turek Speaks out. Click on comments to read All.

E.T.I. 2009

Mark,

You are invited to present any of your issues on my Blog http://www.unionmaine.blogspot.com/

While you may think I am a Union Lackey, I feel that my viewpoint is simply 180 degrees opposed from yours. What matters to me like the X files is that the truth is out there. The greater danger is that if we do not have a forum or if anyone is denied a forum then the truth is endangered specie. I suggest you have a “guest post”, rather than answering any of the current topics. Your points will be presented fairly. If you take advantage of this offer, be aware that a post could be edited according to the rules of my blog. I will submit my edits you for approval. If you wish to be a guest poster please include a picture, if you wish. You may also post anonymously or using a handle.

Mark, you are wrong, you have not provided any proof, and you have claimed that if you lose it will be due to a crooked court. I will not participate allowing you to claim the game is rigged. I offer you a podium for your point of view.

In total disagreement but with support for free speech

Narsbars

Trust me, I work for the government

Please read Mark Turek's response. If Mr. Turek chooses to post as a guest poster he will have a featured post.

The Same invitation goes to anyone interested. I have said that the people opposed to our Union have one strength and that stength is persistance and dedication. I hope to hear from all view points as the real danger is lack of involvement. I have told Mr. Turek that I do not agree with him on any point. I think he is totally wrong, and his facts are questionable, BUT free speech will not be denied. To mangle Chandler, "This if Liberty hall, you may spit on the mat and call the cat a bastard".

Enter your Email and press Subscribe





Preview Powered by FeedBlitz

SUPREME COURT RULES NO POLITICAL FEES BE TAKEN FROM NON-MEMBERS. MSEA HAS NEVER TAKEN POLITICAL COSTS FROM NON-MEMBERS.

On July 14 the Supreme Court ruled unanimously that states may require public-sector labor unions to get permission from workers before using their union fees for political activities.

The 9-0 decision applies to government workers who have chosen not to be members of the union.

Justice Antonin Scalia wrote for the court. Because it even would be constitutional for Washington state "to eliminate agency fees entirely," this "far less-restrictive limitation" is acceptable, he wrote.

The question was if it is enough for unions to give nonmembers the chance to opt out of their fees being used for political purposes - Under this standard, the burden is on the nonmember to object, and if no objection is heard, the union can assume consent.

The high court yesterday reaffirmed that standard, saying that it's OK for a state to put the burden on the nonmember. But the court also said that standard is a "floor," not a "ceiling" -- meaning that states may impose further restrictions on unions-------

The man who brought the case said the Supreme Court unanimously rejected the idea that unions have a constitutional right to spend nonmember dues on politics. THE FAIRSHARE FEE INCLUDES NO POLITICAL SPENDING.

The Supreme Court also refused to push further and force all states to follow Washington in requiring unions to get affirmative consent from nonmembers.

Officials at the National Right to Work Foundation -- which helped bring the suit said the Supreme Court passed up an opportunity to change the union rules.

They have no dues paying members. Where is the money coming from? Corporate generosity to union busting groups?

America's workers laboring under compulsory unionism are little better off after today's ruling," said Stefan Gleason, the group's vice president. "No one should be forced to join or pay dues to a union in the first place."

No one is being forced to pay Union Dues in Maine, they are being asked to pay for the expenses that the State has determined the Union must cover for all employees, Union members or not.

"Our fear was that if the Supreme Court had ruled the other way, the constitutionality of federal campaign restrictions on unions would be next," he said.

Yeah,
He is afraid that the restrictions placed on the free speech of Union members might be removed. I am sure the same group believes in uncontrolled corporate speech.

The Supreme Court didn't rule that the teachers union had violated any law.