No matter how cynical you get, it’s hard to keep up...

The decert group sent out a mass e-mail this morning defending their communications and I found the following excerpt quite amusing:

It appears necessary to refute charges [against the decert team] levied by SPEEA recently... No lies have been told and each statement is carefully researched to verify accuracy.

I’d call their attention to their incorrect statements of “fact” like

• the retirement lawsuit lawyers are paid on contingency (they’re not)
  
• our dues-paying membership is only 275 WTPU employees (we number far more)
  
• our contract has an upper limit as to what the employer can provide (only lower limits)
  
• non-represented employees have always received the same benefits as represented folks (they haven’t)
  
• union reps don’t pay dues (we do)

...and suggest that if the decert leaders aren't outright lying about their “research,” they’re dangerously clueless incompetents.


-- Bill, who's now not sure if his pal Brian's a liar or a twit... [grin]

Open letter to “Questions@Vote-No-WTPU.net”...

Pertinent questions not found on the decerter’s “FAQ” webpage...

Question 1: I signed the decertification petition a while back but I’ve recently discovered that at least one of the Decert Focals has been distorting (if not completely misrepresenting) the facts about SPEEA representation. I’ve changed my mind and I now don’t support your effort to decertify SPEEA. How do I get you to take my signature off of your petition?


Question 2: You claim that the unrepresented employees’ benefits are the same as those SPEEA employees have enjoyed. Why are you ignoring the fact is that unrepresented Paycode 2 and 6 employees were denied a “merit” raise in the Spring of 2005, while SPEEA employees received theirs? Doesn’t that action show that, even if the benefits are now “the same,” it’s only at this exact instant in time and, without the guarantees of a contract, our Execs can unilaterally change non-rep wages and benefits tomorrow like they did yesterday?


Question 3: You say our “signatures” are held in strict confidence, but you say nothing about our “names.” The fact that you’re not photocopying my signature is a comfort, but are you providing our names to my coworkers you have out working trying to get more signatures? Are you sharing our names with your National Right To Work Foundation consultants? How about giving them to some outsider from Rose Hill?
     And, when you fall short of the required number of signatures to file, are you going to remember to shred the signed petitions before tossing them in your trash for neighborhood pickup next week?


Question 4: You continue to claim that your “best data” shows that there’s only 275 dues-paying employees in the Spirit WTPU bargaining unit. The best published data I can find, however, would indicate there are at least 575 WTPU duespayers, over twice what you claim. What do you think you know about SPEEA’s membership numbers that I don’t?


-- Bill, who’ll accept any answers y’all might have at the “comments” link, immediately below...

PS: To remove your signatures from the decert petition, send an e-mail to no.wtpu@yahoo.com “Questions@Vote-No-WTPU.net” requesting that they strike your signature from their petition and that they provide you photocopy proof of doing so. CC SPEEA’s new Executive Director at “RayG@speea.org” so the union has a record of your requests; should the decerters refuse to remove your signatures, the union can pursue recourse for fraud.

Union thugs...

From the decerters’ FAQ webpage:

Decerters’ question: A couple of SPEEA folks came to my house and I was intimidated and felt threatened. Who can I report this intimidation to?

Decerters’ answer: Report the incident to the authorities like [a list of organizations, the decerters themselves included, that can’t do anything about stopping reported intimidation]

My answer: I find it difficult to believe that the SPEEA representatives making housecalls would be intimidating or threatening, with or without intent. I mean, it’s not like the union folks visiting WTPU members are argumentative, arrogant a$$holes like me or anything.

But if anyone truly feels intimidated by a SPEEA member’s behavior in promoting our union, they shouldn’t bother writing to the decerters or their Nat’l Right to Work Foundation consultants. Instead, they should contact some “authorities” that actually have real “authority” to do something about stopping it.

The first contact I would make would be the SPEEA office (call 682-0262). Ask for Bob Brewer or Deb Shepard or any of the other folks working there, tell them about the threats, and then hand the telephone over to the intimidating SPEEA rep in your house. Shortly thereafter, you’ll get two things from the SPEEA visitor... your phone returned and a humble and sincere apology for their apparently offensive behavior.

If a contrite apology from a SPEEA rep now missing half their butt isn’t enough to soothe your fears, you should then contact the only other “authority” who could do anything about threats and intimidation (call 911) and have them and their half-assed behavior hauled outta your place in handcuffs.



Decerters’ question: A couple of SPEEA folks came to my house and I was intimidated and felt threatened. How does the union know where I live?

Decerters’ answer: We do not know how SPEEA was able to obtain your address.

My answer: If I had to guess, I’d assume SPEEA obtained the employees’ home mail addresses from the same source that the decerters obtained our work e-mail addresses: from employer records.

The difference is that SPEEA would have received the lists directly from official company sources while the decerters stole acquired this “company information” from access they have to it as a course of their jobs.



-- Bill, who’s quite willing to represent them, should they be called into an investigation for violating the employer’s “misuse of company data” policy...

PS Happy Labor Day

FAIL!!!!1!...

Nate attempts to calculate membership numbers
Apparently, the decert leaders are so desperate for signatures that they’re resorting to just making stuff up. Again, from their self-proclaimed “No Spin Zone” website:

Alleged SPEEA spin: SPEEA claims 27% of the WTPU represented employees pay dues to SPEEA

Decerter’s spin: There are only 275 employees paying dues for WTPU representation / 2426 possible members = 11.34% membership rate. Therefore, SPEEA has no support.

My spin: Your long division is good, kid, but your variables are effed up. You state “the best count available shows less than 275 dues paying WTPU members;” and if you want partial credit for the algebra problem, you need to show all your work as to how you derived that “275” number because your answer here, by itself, fails.


-- Bill, who’d have thought the fact that they couldn’t get enough signatures on the petition by their April 15 deadline would’ve tipped them off to their “no support” miscalculation...

“said Bill Hartig, SPEEA Exectutive Board Secretary” tonight...

(On their alleged “No Spin Zone” webpage, the decerters claim “The [retirement class action suit] attorneys are retained on a contingency basis & will be paid out of any winnings from the lawsuit...”)


“Yes, sir,” SPEEA’s class action lawyer says, pointing to me as the next questioner.

“So,man... how are you getting paid for this lawsuit?”

The lawyer tries to respond, but I roll right over the top of him, continuing the question.

“When we win this thing and get our pension and early medical restored, do you lawyers take half of it as payment?”

Arlus stares, then chuckles as he realizes just who his questioner is, way in the back of Curtis Middle School’s auditorium. Ya see, we had a similar "compensation" conversation not more than two hours prior, in Deb Shepard’s office. And he hammers the softball question outta the park.

“SPEEA’s members don’t pay a thing; this is not a contingency, where we take a third of the settlement. Your union, like the IAM, is paying for its members...”

He then went on talking about ways SPEEA could recover their costs or something, but I really wasn’t paying much attention by then: he had me at “members don’t pay a thing.”


-- Bill, who’d also point out to the decerters that this is his “blogspot,” not SPEEA’s...

The Silent (and Tight-fisted) Majority...

Alleged SPEEA “spin:”
SPEEA claims it has the support of a majority of WTPU represented employees.

The decerters’ “spin” that SPEEA is distorting the truth:
“SPEEA enjoys the dues of only 11% of the WTPU employees.   The other 89% are held hostage”

My “spin:”
While the WTPU’s dues-paying membership has always been a minority of represented employees, it is not, nor has ever been close to “only 11% of the WTPU employees” the decerters claim. Of course, “close” -- like “limited” and “ceiling” -- may not mean the same thing to the decerters as it does to me.

I’d also question their definition of “hostage,” as SPEEA makes no “give us money or else” demands of anyone in WTPU who chooses to not pay dues: the union is required to enforce our contract equally, for dues-payers and non-payers alike. Sure, the union offers benefits over and above “contract enforcement” -- like giving us salary charts to use when we want to ask The Boss for a raise -- but that’s an enticement to pay “insurance premium” dues, not a threat to withhold representation for contract violations.

In any event, regardless of how many WTPU-represented folks pay the thirty bucks a month “premium,” my Spirit coworkers certainly support having the option of union protection, whether they’re willing to pay for it or not.

How else could you explain our 58-42 win last time someone wasted our time with a decertification campaign here at Spirit, save that, yes, SPEEA has the support of a majority of WTPU-represented employees, regardless of how many folks pay dues?



Okay, then... how ‘bout “SPEEA’s support is so low they are bribing recruiters with your hard-earned dues.”?

“Bribing” may be one way to “spin” the recruitment bonuses. Another would be calling it “rewarding” the folks who work to sell our union.

Ya see, unlike where I grew up on the Right Coast, the folks here in the SPEEA’s Midwest Region aren’t as culturally predisposed to support unions. Therefore, getting folks to help pay the cost of maintaining our union “insurance” coverage is a bit more difficult here than elsewhere in SPEEA World. It requires repeated contact with the potential duespayer and alot of research work to address each individual’s issues and concerns.

The union understands this is hard work for our member-recruiters; selling a union here in the Midwest takes time and effort and it doesn’t pay well. So the union offers a reward for their efforts.

Save for the random recruitment contest -- like the $1000 payoff during the 2002 Boeing Engineering negotiations that, for some unfathomable reason, the decerters are trying to sell as current at Spirit -- that reward is a SPEEA “thank you” check for ten bucks. Which, best I can tell, works out to ‘bout $0.0476 an hour for the work they do.

Sure, it’s not the $25 gift card I got for twenty-five years of service to the Company, nor the $25 gift card and t-shirt you get for fifteen minutes of your time at some health fair in the cafeteria, but it’s at least some recognition of the hard work our folks do to make us stronger.


-- Bill, who bets SPEEA still has faaaaar more duespaying WTPU members than the decerters have valid signatures on their petitions...

Have you no sense of decency, sir?...

“Spin” is one thing, but when the Decerters have to resort to outright lies to sell their petition, you know they’re desperate. And this morning they jumped the shark.

Out on their “FAQ” website, they have a list of bullsiht Q&As, but the the most absurd is

Q: Why have non-union employees enjoyed big bonuses, while SPEEA-WTPU workers have been left out in the cold? 

A: Spirit is limited by the SPEEA-WTPU "contract".  The "contract" establishes an effective ceiling.

Now, perhaps they have a different understanding of “ceiling” than do I, but the WTPU contract quite specifically states

2.1(b) The terms and conditions of this Agreement are minimum and the Company shall be free to grant more favorable terms and conditions to any employee at its discretion.

How “minimum” equates to “limited” and “ceiling” escapes me...


-- Bill, who couldn't make this stuff up if he tried...

A Day at the Office...

----- Original Message -----
From: Hartig, Bill G (SN)
To: Rothe, Ron (SN)
Sent: Tue Apr 01 13:28:27 2008
Subject: I hope I didn't step too far into it this time...

Boss,

I've apparently upset a new Tooling supervisor who "would like to talk to your Boss right now!" If you'd be so kind, would you please give Mr Foxx a call at 660-9453 [telephone number for the Sedgwick County Zoo] and tell him you'll make sure his needs are met?

Bill Hartig
IT Relationship Management - Tooling
SPEEA Executive Board - Secretary
Tel 316/526-2360; MC K92-10

"Confidence" is what you have right before you understand the problem - Woody Allen



-----Original Message-----
From: Rothe, Ron (SN)
Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2008 1:42 PM
To: Hartig, Bill G (SN)
Subject: Re: I hope I didn't step too far into it this time...

What are his needs?



----- Original Message -----
From: Hartig, Bill G (SN)
To: Rothe, Ron (SN)
Sent: Tue Apr 01 14:01:09 2008
Subject: RE: I hope I didn't step too far into it this time...

Uhhhhhhh... he's having a bear of a time getting an ad hawk committee set up to discuss the porpoise of having both Green and Blue workstations and is looking for some information straight from the horse's mouth. I tried being on my best bee-hive-ior, but we had a difference of a pinion. He kept badgering me until I had no i-deers left. I have no egrets, however, and salmoned up the courage to tell him I'd push his concerns onto the Big Dog.

He said if the lion was busy, to call back...


Bill Hartig
IT Relationship Management - Tooling
SPEEA Executive Board - Secretary
Tel 316/526-2360; MC K92-10

"Confidence" is what you have right before you understand the problem - Woody Allen



-----Original Message-----
From: Rothe, Ron (SN)
Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2008 3:00 PM
To: Hartig, Bill G (SN)
Subject: Re: I hope I didn't step too far into it this time...

I was in a meeting, presenting to the Lead Team when your note came in. Jan [Ron’s boss, my 2nd-level] was upset that I looked at my Blackberry, but was glad I did when she heard about the issue. She volunteered to go make the call for me, so I could finish my presentation.



-----Original Message-----
From: Rothe, Ron (SN)
Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2008 3:21 PM
To: Hartig, Bill G (SN)
Subject: Re: I hope I didn't step too far into it this time...

She wasn't able to speak to Mr. Foxx, but did talk to Ella Funt. Ella said it was all a misunderstanding and that you could make it up to the group by coming to clean up her area. Sounds like you need to bring a shovel.




-- Bill, who pities the fools who work for some humorless Boss...

SPEEA fights for better benefits

The decerters' second example of SPEEA’s alleged "spin" is their contention that the union "claims it fights for better benefits for us" and, as proof of the alleged distortion, they post something from an anonymous HR rep that states "your benefits are exactly the same [as the non-reps], so no need to worry about change."

I guess the decert argument is, basically, "who are you gonna believe: HR or your lying eyes?!" because I recall seeing something quite different.

While it’s true we've as yet been unsuccessful fighting for the bonus benefit, we were quite successful in improving other benefits from those that were imposed upon us the day Spirit Aerosystems (nee “Midwestern Aircraft”) took us over. If you recall, we hadn't concluded negotiations with our new employer so, on "Day One," the new owners implemented their "non-represented" benefits package on us all, union and non-union alike. Then, 'bout a month later, SPEEA finished its negotiations and we received far better benefits than those imposed on Day One. (I'm not going to list them again here... go check my essay from the last time an unsuccessful decert attempt at Spirit tried this argument.)

That the Company then improved the non-rep benefits to the better ones SPEEA negotiated doesn’t change the fact that SPEEA did fight for -- and obtain -- better benefits for us than the Company would willingly give.

And contrary to what the pirouetting decert folks would have you believe.


-- Bill, who’s surprised an agent of the Company would actually promise no change in benefits if the decert is successful...

Round and round we go...

Well, this year’s Decert Team has their website up and, for a group who allege that they are above "spin," this sucker buzzes like the Hulk’s dreidel:

"[SPEEA has] perpetuated the myth that a Decertification effort would force SPEEA to withdraw its 3 year old lawsuit...SPEEA has a duty to continute to pursue a lawsuit affecting WTPU employees it legally represented in 2005.

First off, it isn’t SPEEA’s lawsuit to pursue, it’s Mr Harkness’, mine and my fellow named plaintiffs. So it wouldn’t much matter if "SPEEA" wanted the suit to go forward or not.

Second, SPEEA isn’t "representing" us. The class is represented by Arlus Stephens, of Davis, Cowell and Bowe in Wash DC. All SPEEA’s doing is paying the legal fees for the portion of Davis, Cowell’s work billed to SPEEA members portion of the class, much as the IAM is paying the legal fees for their union members. I assume other members of the class are responsible for their own legal fees, or they’ll be deducted from their final "class settlement" amount.

Now, as to some "duty" SPEEA has to decertied ex-members, all I can tell you is when the Boeing WTPU decertified, the union had to immediately stop pursuing active grievances with the company and arbitrations with the courts. While SPEEA may want to continue to help us, I can’t see why they’d be allowed greater participation in lawsuit proceedings on our behalf than they were allowed in grievance and arbitration procedings.

Look at the bright side... even if we do wind up having to pay the legal fees, at least we’ll be getting our pension and ERM back, unlike those poor, unrepresented "confidential" and "management" employees, who aren’t covered by the class and have little chance to recover their Boeing retirement benefits. They could probably take their bonus checks and try to find someone who'd be willing to work a class suit for them, but I don’t think "violated employers ‘at will’ work policies" has nearly the weight in court as does our "violated legal business contract" charge.


-- Bill, who thinks his $30/month insurance dues payments were well worth a $200K retirement payoff...