Have you seen the latest bulletin from SEIU in the break rooms? We certainly hope you have. After all, our collective $500,000 to $600,000 a year is being put to good use.
The thing that caught our attention on this bulletin was the blurb about most of baggage paying only 1.2% in union dues versus most of checkpoint paying 1.8%. They have the gall to try and convince us that the reason baggage lost their 4/10s and weekends was because most of the baggage community only pays the 1.2%! Really?!
So the implication is that SEIU is intentionally punishing the baggage community because they only pay 1.2%. Something stinks about that implication. In other words, if you don't pay the 1.8%, you're nobody to SEIU. What a way to garner more support guys!
The reality is that Covenant Aviation Security can pretty much do whatever they want, regardless of what the union thinks. In fact, we're more and more convinced that the company uses SEIU as their little play thing. After all, where are SEIU's lawyers when Covenant Aviation Security violates the contract? What is the penalty to CAS when they are in violation? Where are those damn chairs for TDC and all the exits as the CBA requires?
The more pertinent question we should all be asking is what exactly are we getting for that $500,000 a year we all pay them?
And how can anyone take our union seriously when in that very bulletin, as well as others, they repeatedly make the simplest of grammatical errors. Sorry to be a grammar nazi, but when you are using the possessive adjective of "their" it's spelled just as we spelled it. "There" is an adverb. Completely different words. If you're going to try and pass yourself off as some professional entity, do a little proof reading before you send things out like that.
The time has come folks. And we all need to ask ourselves: Is SEIU in our best interest?
Is SEIU in our best interest? A good question. But I have a another one. What is the better alternative?
ReplyDeleteSomething I forgot to mention earlier... and offered only with the best of intentions. I frankly don't care if my union spells "cat" "dog" if they were only effective. Aggreeably, while irritating, pointing out the grammatical shortcomings comes across as pettily pejorative; diminishing the impact of your argument... irronically, my pointing this out makes my argument pettily perjorative. My head hurts.
ReplyDelete