Wednesday, July 25, 2007

19 th douglas

29 Comments:

At July 31, 2007 3:49 PM , Anonymous Anonymous said...

What is the time frame on the job study?

 
At August 1, 2007 7:28 PM , Anonymous Anonymous said...

Not sure yet there is a backlog of these. The person who generally does these is on IB.

 
At August 3, 2007 11:26 AM , Anonymous Anonymous said...

Several members leaving the union from the QCCC. It sounds like it could of been an easy fix, but the chief wouldn't act. They wanted a steward removed, but the chief says it is the membership to vote that steward out. The membership doesn't vote stewards in, so why vote to remove. Come on save the memberships.

 
At August 4, 2007 10:49 PM , Anonymous Anonymous said...

It's your Union not the chief's why not bring the issue to hall and vote on it.
Prove that there ARE SEVERAL members willing to quit over a steward by a vote thats how a union handles things.Come on stand up be a member

 
At August 6, 2007 4:04 PM , Anonymous Anonymous said...

Exactly its our Union, we never vote on the stewards we get.

 
At August 7, 2007 10:27 AM , Anonymous Anonymous said...

Since the information is not readily available to opt out. Here it is; you must send a certified letter to the Union and Company post marked with in 10 calendar days of the anniversary date of the contract.
CWA
Local 7400
1920 S. 44th St
Omaha, NE 68105

Qwest Communications
Human Resources, Payroll Dept.
5235 Zuni
Room 369
Denver, CO 80221

 
At August 7, 2007 12:28 PM , Anonymous Anonymous said...

But you can vote them out so where 's the problem, and yes you can can have elections for stewards
if you have that many that want to do it are you interested. It's your Union exercise your rights, better yet read the bylaws, be active.

 
At August 13, 2007 9:39 AM , Blogger Corky said...

Following is the Operating Practice of CWA Local 7400. I do feel if you have a problem with a steward, the represented group has the right to speak up and the majority of that group will decide.

Section 1 STEWARDS

(A) Appointed by the Chief Steward.

(B) If challenged at a Membership Meeting by a Member from the represented group, an election of the represented group would be held.

(C) Chief Stewards will determine the number of Stewards needed for a group.

(D) Stewards can be removed by the Chief Steward, Vice President and/or President.

(E) The removed Steward has the right to appeal the decision at a membership Meeting within 60 days.

 
At August 13, 2007 9:43 AM , Blogger Corky said...

In responce to the job study. The job study has been done now it goes to the analysis phase, it may take several Months. Please pass this on to your Union brother and sisters

 
At August 28, 2007 5:49 PM , Anonymous Anonymous said...

As Corky noted that option C and D, empower the chief steward to act. Guess the memberships weren't worth the chiefs time or responsibilties.

 
At August 30, 2007 12:58 PM , Anonymous Anonymous said...

If your not a majority and you won't vote him out then my descions been made, I don't feel (he)should been removed at this time based on the issues. We all make mistakes to get better we learn from them, I am sure I made a bunch right here. I still feel a vote best then we know how everyone feels not just the me.If I am wrong on this tell me why.

 
At September 6, 2007 12:36 PM , Anonymous Anonymous said...

You should be glad we have so many people willing to donate their time and efforts to represent all of us. No one starts out being a steward with out making mistakes. i worked in the DOTM bld and I was the only steward for 200 people and know one would volunteer to help. We all learn from our mistakes and no one is perfect or pleases everyone all the time.

 
At September 14, 2007 2:06 PM , Anonymous Anonymous said...

RE: Job Study
Is the Union really standing behind this B.S. A down grade from an M to a 5? We do combined functions of a Screening Consultant and a Service Delivery Coordinator, which are both wage scale 4. How can we push this issue?

 
At October 17, 2007 11:08 AM , Blogger Corky said...

I talked to Jay Boyle this morning about the Job Study. The last job study was done without Union input on a new process that the company was using, because of that a new job study will be done with Union Involvement. There is no date yet but they will contact me will it will be started.

 
At December 10, 2007 12:15 PM , Anonymous Anonymous said...

More strict language on loaning employess to other departments. All PDP days maybe used as priority days.
non member to pay for there own insurance maybe the would think before dropping out

 
At January 14, 2008 1:10 PM , Anonymous Anonymous said...

HA, non members pay for something. Good luck with that. They will continue to "FREE LOAD" the system, because that is a State issue not a contract issue. Lobby your officials to change NE from a right to work state to a labor state. Maybe then some wouldn't think "OUR" union isn't so weak.

 
At January 14, 2008 1:53 PM , Anonymous Anonymous said...

Are we sure it's a State issue.

 
At January 30, 2008 11:10 AM , Anonymous Anonymous said...

Nebraska is a Right to Work State. Employees who work in Nebraska, except on federal property or for a railway or airline, have a right to resign from union membership and not pay union dues or fees.

http://www.nrtwc.org/states/ne.htm

 
At January 30, 2008 11:12 AM , Anonymous Anonymous said...

So, the same "BS" jub study is being done. A Qwest management employee interviewing the "yes" people in the center. What happened to original job study committee that started when T. Brown was the second level?

 
At January 30, 2008 11:16 AM , Anonymous Anonymous said...

What I don't get, I install circuits as a provisioning SR, but CCTs are rquired to do the repair on them. How does that make sense?

 
At January 30, 2008 12:25 PM , Anonymous Anonymous said...

Is this the BEST the union can do regarding the job study, this is ANOTHER joke by the management that the Union is letting them get away with.... its the SAME person who did it last time, only this time its on the phone???? This makes no sense at all, and its more of the same "YES" people particapating, this is why you are losing union members in the QCCC, you have people (union members included) that are nothing but mgmt yes people who are weaking our union.... as long as they go along with the mgmt STUFF, our union will never be strong

 
At February 12, 2008 9:51 AM , Anonymous Anonymous said...

Here we go again, an SR job study that includes input from the SA title. If I recall the job study was done for the SRs that converted to the SA title. I wasn't part of that job study, so why are they part of ours. Way to go Union. I starting to understand the "taking a stand", just not for it's members. One less member come August.

 
At February 25, 2008 3:21 PM , Anonymous Anonymous said...

expanded on our five strategies for 2008 and beyond.where are you union

 
At February 25, 2008 3:29 PM , Anonymous Anonymous said...

Drive productivity and cost efficiency.

Ed discussed the need to constantly look at everything we do and focus on efforts that will improve our market position. “Productivity and cost efficiency isn’t always just working faster and harder. It’s working smarter, and a lot of times deciding what you’re not going to do.”===============================

At what cost to all((cut us again try to make us do 2 jobs at what cost where is enough ))cut our jobs again and make us work harder were allready short handed why cant anybody see this!!!!!!!!!!

 
At February 25, 2008 3:30 PM , Anonymous Anonymous said...

Balance investment in profitable growth with return to shareholders.

The recent dividend and the $2 billion stock buyback program were among Ed’s examples of returns to shareholders======yep i see thinking of money in there pockets again !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 
At February 28, 2008 5:58 PM , Anonymous Anonymous said...

HA, non members pay for something. Good luck with that. They will continue to "FREE LOAD" the system, because that is a State issue not a contract issue. Lobby your officials to change NE from a right to work state to a labor state. Maybe then some wouldn't think "OUR" union isn't so weak.
)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
ok you need ((all members on this vote and if the members do not send the vote )) and make union put this in writing!!we are union not state ((The state has nothing to do with this vote ))(we are the members who made contract ) we need to put nonmambers on mangement plan ther not part of us anymore ((they pay nothing free loaders )(and days off and vacaction ))put this in writing ((state has nothing to do with this )) ((I know i pay my fair share ))) ((why is always one person to saysomething if we all members saying something then tis would be done need all help from all members here )))))then we need a president who will get it done !!!!

 
At March 3, 2008 7:21 AM , Blogger Cwa said...

Please don't insult others for spelling or grammer here ,whats important is the message.If you have a comment specific to an area you may want to point that out ie ... "company trying to combine 2 jobs" where ? we have 6 or so units represented here .

 
At March 12, 2008 5:04 PM , Anonymous Anonymous said...

Any updates on the SR job study? Thanks again for all you do. I, we, are just hoping for the best. (an upgrade)

 
At April 28, 2008 12:22 PM , Blogger Corky said...

I have talked to the District office about the job study and they would like to have a conference call with the Members involved on the outcome and what to do next.

 

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home