...........

 

I can't understand for the life of me, why you guys choose to air out our union's business on this forum. The site is a great vehicle on sharing hiring practice and professional knowledge, but there seem to be the few regulars who like to constantly expressed their personal complaints and distorted view points on how things should work. Take those viewpoints to our union website and expressed them there; they'll more validated with greater credibility with your names behind them. My 5th and last post I'm gonna make on this forum.

 

Joe;

Thank you for affirming my point that you have no experience or idea what it takes to lead the IPA. There is more to the job than politics. There is a lot of work to be done and I have witnessed the same people you feel we have no use for doing good work for the membership, you included. Personally, I don't have a dog in this fight and I'm still not sure who I will vote for so my response to you was not to support any candidate. I am simply defending the board from mis-informed critics such as yourself.

 

Avg. Joe, You are spot on! Hopefully the next to get booted out are Trefes, Moody, and Brown.

Need to clean house of these very weak EB members.

Any person running for office and speaks at a public Forum and says "we'll be lucky to keep what we have" about a future contract needs to be Tar and Featherd! Thanks Scott! You may think it, and talk about it inside. BUT never publicly.

What a bone head move.

 

I just listened to it again and it was BT that said that not SF.

 

agree, and I was just about to post that, but Scot nodded in acknowledgement. It was Rick that "strongly disagreed". Everyone has there "aha" moment, that was the election right there for me.

 

Nashmd11 and Avg Joe,

I asked Steve about his decision to leave the negotiating committee after the last IPA presidential election.

Steve was never sent to Harvard for a course. No $ was ever spent training him for negotiations. Someone else, J. L., resigned for personal reasons that April, about five months before Steve was asked to serve. Perhaps you are confusing the two?

Steve was asked to join the committee in September of that year, only one month before negotiations were suspended in October.

The new IPA president, Tom Nicholson, advised Steve that he should NOT expect to be part of the new negotiating team, although he could expect to continue to serve IPA as he had faithfully for ten years or more.

Based on that input from the new leadership, Steve decided to leave the negotiating committee with no IPA resources invested in his having been there for only one month of active negotiations. He did continue to serve his IPA brothers and sisters and continues today to serve as the Accident Investigation Committee Chairman.

I hope this helps everyone become more informed for this important vote!

 

IPNN for: 12/11/2003

{NEGOTIATION COMMITTEE RESIGNS}
IPA Negotiation Committee Chairman Dave Inman, and Committee members Wayne Jackson and Steve Whyte have resigned....

.......The IPA Executive Board has issued the following statement in reaction to today’s announcement. “The IPA Executive Board is disappointed that Dave Inman, Wayne Jackson and Steve Whyte have decided to step down from their lead roles in the negotiations process.

Seems to me SW had a "lead role" in the negotiation process according to the IPA Executive Board.

 

Just to be clear, that was Bob T. who stated that. NOT Farley. So perhaps you want to tar and feather Bob T.? Additionally, Scott went on to say that he would fight for improvements, not status quo or losses. Not quite sure which video you were watching.

 

Scott was never in the picture when Bob T. mentioned that. Not sure who you saw nodding. You might want to watch that section again. Additionally, as I stated to Nash, Scott said he would fight for improvements.