Will the real PATCO please stand up?
By Richard Negri Union Review had the unique experience this week to bring clarity to an old subject lingering in the labor movement while simultaneously working as the platform for current announcements. What started as a post that PATCO, Inc. was chosen to represent a group of private sector air traffic controllers turned into a small ball of confusion. Readers were writing in with questions, others with statements of what and who they perceived PATCO to be, and yours truly was trying to keep up with providing any factual leverage - fun. Why the confusion? Because it took only a few minutes to realize that there are two unions that are apparently using the same PATCO name. One is PATCO, Inc., which is a totally independent union that holds the 1968 trademark to the logo. This PATCO is under the leadership of President Ron Taylor, a former ATC who was among thousands of workers fired by former President Ronald Reagan in 1981. The other PATCO is part of a physicians and dental union division that is under an AFSCME umbrella. That organization is under the leadership of Executive Director Jack Seddon, who like Taylor, was an ATC in 1981. So, why are there two? Some would say there is only one; other folks would give a longer explanation tying in a lot of historical information, all of which seems to point to an irreconcilable dispute between the two leaderships, which include a gentleman named Jack Maher, the founder of the union. When PATCO was busted in the 80s the workers were fired from their jobs and simultaneously banned from their livelihoods. The union is now organizing private sector ATC around the United States - and has been doing so since 1996. According to President Taylor, PATCO disassociated from the dental union at the end of 2003, stating only that there was a "big disagreement" between the founder of the union and Jack Seddon at PATCO/AFSCME. When asked to explain greater details of the disagreement, Taylor said, "We go back to union democracy." It appears that one side wanted a more democratic union with elections and rank-and-file voices heard and accounted for, the other - though wanted the same - took union business with a more top-heavy hand; a common issue among many unions, some are always right and some are always wrong ... they are just different styles of leadership.
Seddon says, "The issue is that
Ron Taylor wanted to leave the ranks of organized labor. He did not like being
told what to and not to do." The AFL-CIO stepped in and told PATCO/OPEIU that unless PATCO was a non-organizing union, they would have to leave the federation. Taylor says that is exactly what took place, and PATCO again is an independent union - this time with no affiliations at all. Who's the real PATCO? They are both "real," they are both unions working to organize the unorganized - and they both provide a benefit to the worker that the worker would not get being nonunion. What is the difference then? Why aren't they working together? The only difference that I can see is that one union is folded into a hodgepodge of other organizations that falls under physicians, dentists, and everyone else that AFSCME has in its ranks - the other PATCO is focusing only on the ATC. One seems to have a marketing issue and the other has trademarks that are passed around and shown when needed. So who's creating the confusion? Well, both are to some degree. For anyone looking in, especially a rank-and-file air traffic controller, they might think ... well, if they don't have it together why would we want their representation? Well, that's my concern - ancient riff between the two or not ... now isn't a great time to create more confusion as to who is doing what under which name and logo, trademarked or not. What is the solution? We don't know yet. There is a lot of union history involved with these two groups. History that is not very pleasant at all ... bad decisions, mass firings, unions being busted by a lying president of the country, disaffiliations from a federation for article charges, and a breach of contract between one union and its merged sister union. With all of that to wrestle with, most of which should be water under a bridge after 26 years of in-fighting, I keep thinking about the unorganized air traffic controllers that need a union. So, I am making a few proposals:
While something tells me that these ideas are not going to be taken up any time soon, I would love to get both parties at one table and work to make it happen; the union movement deserves unity.
Bookmark/Search this post with: |
Help Build Union ReviewFind out more about ads and donations on this site. AFL-CIO Web Blog
Subscribe to UnionReview
Email:
Visit this group
|
the independent union
the independent union should fold and add its membership into the AFSCME local , if members didnt like the way the union was run they could have used their voices and votes to change it , furthermore the members who wanted change could have taken legal actions .
" The AFL-CIO stepped in and told PATCO/OPEIU that unless PATCO was a non-organizing union, they would have to leave the federation. "
there is a reason for that decision , creating another union in a different international going after the same pool of unorganized workers is a dirty move . its the opposite of what unions are all about . it does happen , most of the time it is known as bosses locals or paper locals and often times its internationals infringing on other internationals work . each local has its own territory , duties of the employees and collective bargaining agreement , having another competing local (international for that matter) who will do the work for cheaper or do it with the bosses interest (or if the boss is the president for that matter) in mind is deplorable . whats to stop an independent union from manning a job in a labor dispute ? or to swoop in after the organizing drive has started ? given the fact that most of the independents are scab boss created unions , why would anyone want to join one ?
so my BIG question is this , if the independent PATCO didnt like the way things were done and they got their own union , why didn't they play by the rules ? why did they have to step on the toes of another AFL-CIO union and go after the same workers ?
i dont by any means want mr.Taylor to think i'm attacking him personally , but i think if we should take his union seriously , some if not all of that should be explained .
Freedom of Choice
Are you trying to say that the AFL-CIO lays "Sovereignty" over all the employees in the USA territory? Can you provide any Federal case law ruling to back that up? Have you ever read the U.S. Constitution? Do you not support "Freedom of Choice"? How about "Union Democracy?
You said that "most independents are scab boss created unions". Could you please elaborate further on this, and does that also apply to AFL-CIO unions? Does the AFL-CIO have any?
Ron Taylor
President
PATCO
www.patco81.com
The Problem
I have been a member of PATCO/FPD for more than 8 years and have watched the division take place. From my point of view, Mr. Taylor has worked hard to deepen the division.
Towers that were represented by PATCO/FPD were contacted by mail and phone and urged to join Mr. Taylor's new union. PATCO 81 strikers that worked in PATCO/FPD towers were convinced by Mr. Taylor that he could better serve their interest because many of them were members in his lawsuit against the FAA. As the current CBA was approaching renegotiation and an apparent "open season" for changing representation approached, PATCO FPD towers were again contacted and told by Mr. Taylor that they could have a better deal if they joined PATCO inc.
It would be nice if it were as simple as it seems. Mr Taylor has aggressively courted towers that allready have representaion and taken any opportunity to badmouth PATCO/FPD. There are not millions of contract controllers and Mr. Taylor's "New" union has not done any of us a favor.
Just my thoughts.
Freedom of choice....
Dear Union supporter,
To begin with, please read my previous post (Union Democracy), and note we are not a new union, but one that exercised its legal right of "Union Democracy", to govern itself. The division that you claim was democracy at work. You have the right to your opinion but don’t spin the words to suit your agenda.
In the organizing area, the employees have the right under the NLRA to "Freedom Of Choice", and along with that comes a secret ballot election to decide what they want. The AFL-CIO supports freedom of choice, so what is the problem? Air Traffic Controllers in the private sector have contacted PATCO for union representation, and they have done so across the country.
We live in a free society under the U.S. Constitution, and Bill of Rights, and with said maybe you can better understand what a democracy is all about.
In Solidarity,
Ron Taylor
President
PATCO
Hmmmmm.
In the organizing area, the employees have the right under the NLRA to "Freedom Of Choice", and along with that comes a secret ballot election to decide what they want.
Mr. Taylor,
I asked you point blank earlier if PATCO and you were involved in any representation votes between PATCO and other established Unions for control of members. I asked you that because as an outsider looking in there was the appearence that you were involved in an attempt to regain your place in Union Labor by going after ATCs already represented by other Unions. If you remember you denied that. I must say I was also surprised to hear you say you were not aware of the NATCA/FAA 2006 impass and the discontent it created amongst the NATCA ATCs. A man in your position one would think would be quite aware of all things that affect the ATCs even NATCAs.Now when confronted by others on the inside who disagree you no longer deny it but start to talk about Democratic choice. It appears that PATCO is indeed soliciting ATC in NATCA and FPD as well as OPEIU. Please elaborate on the statement above on the vote to decide what they want. Does that indicate a vote of Union-v-Non Union or a vote of PATCO-v-other unions. Thank you in advance. You are not obligated to answer any of my questions and I thank you for responding.
Freedom of Choice
I have responded to the question and below is part of what I said;
"In the organizing area, the employees have the right under the NLRA to "Freedom Of Choice", and along with that comes a secret ballot election to decide what they want. The AFL-CIO supports freedom of choice, so what is the problem? Air Traffic Controllers in the private sector have contacted PATCO for union representation, and they have done so across the country.
We live in a free society under the U.S. Constitution, and Bill of Rights, and with said maybe you can better understand what a democracy is all about. "
Like I said before, the AFL-CIO has been pushing "Freedom of Choice" so it appears we are on the same page. The NLRA is the law that protects the rights of employees to join or not join any union, and it states "Freedom of Choice".
Has there been a change of position by the AFL-CIO on "Freedom of Choice?
As far as the impass goes with NATCA and the FAA goes, I am aware of what has taken place, but that dog is their fight.
In Solidarity,
Ron Taylor
President
PATCO
PATCO/FPD activities
What exactly has PATCO/FPD done for us for the last 3 1/2 years?
Have they improved the working conditions for the controllers?
Have they made health insurance premiums for the unmarried controllers feasible?
When was the last time you saw a financial report from Seddon/Tuso explaining where the money they have collected from us has gone?
Are non-union towers better or worse off than the towers represented by PATCO/FPD?
annother thought
Union Democracy
When PATCO was affiliated with the Dental union we had duly elected PATCO officers along with an executive board, voted in by the PATCO membership. Mr. Seddon was not an elected PATCO officer, but simply the business agent and director of his union FPD.
It was the legal right and correct decision of the PATCO Executive Board to vote to disaffiliate with the FPD union, and move on with PATCO….. for a brighter future.
PATCO has created no confusion over what has happened these past few years, and we have not snubbed our nose at organized labor. We believe in “Union Solidarity” but we must not forget “Union Democracy” and the right of every union and its membership to govern itself.
Ron Taylor
PresidentPATCO
Richard - With all due
Richard - With all due respect, your quote attributed to me is inaccurate. I advised Mr. Taylor that all of us had to abide by the rules, affiliate constitutions, etc. the AFL-CIO constitution, as amended, reflects that when one or two organizations within the Federation represent a particular profession or worker that it is not considered in the best interest of organized labor to have intervenors - only the employer wins. That is why there are Article 20 and 21 provisions. Additionally, it should be noted that although CTW unions left the AFL-CIO they have internal agreements that provide similar protections and administrative appeal procedures so as not to further divide labor. take a look at what happened with the AMFA strike and the support they did not find in the AFL-CIO or CTW.
Mr. Taylor chose to disassociate himself with PATCO/AFSCME following testimony we gave in Congress to "put to rest" the claims from others that Contract Controllers" did not provide the same element of safety as federal controllers and that they did not have to meet the same standards. Mr. Taylor, in writing and testimony, claimed that the statements attributed to myself and Jerry Tuso endorsed wholesale privatization and deflected from his lawsuit. Neither is accurate. The fact is that we, PATCO/AFSCME had a moral and ethical obligation to set the record straight in regard to the members we represent - our members are either retired military, FAA or new guys on the block - but they are members and deserve the respect for all that they provide to aviation safety.
I find it absolutely ludicrous that Mr. taylor lays claim to being around in 1995 and 1996 when PATCO/AFSCME was formed to find all of us "81" guys a home. As a amtter of fact I find him insulting at best. In 1967 I was there to help found PATCO; in 1968 in NYARTCC I helped implement Operation Air Safety; in 1969 I went out on strike in support of the MKC guys and gals; in 1970 I went on a sick out; and in 1981 I went on strike for what I felt was in the best interest of correcting the deficiencies in a sick FAA.
The first private sector contract was negotiated by me and took effect on July 16, 1997. Mr. taylor was not even a blip on a radar screen. The organizing, cost of negotiations, appeals, etc. were all borne by the FPD/AFSCME of which PATCO is a division. Mr. taylor and anyone else can call me what they will, but I can at least say I am not an anorchist, scab or part of rouge union. If divide and conquor or get even is his game than in the end he will be accordingly labeled.
Inaccuracy Noted
Dear Executive Director Seddon:
You wrote:
"Richard - With all due respect, your quote attributed to me is inaccurate. I advised Mr. Taylor that all of us had to abide by the rules, affiliate constitutions, etc. the AFL-CIO constitution, as amended, reflects that when one or two organizations within the Federation represent a particular profession or worker that it is not considered in the best interest of organized labor to have intervenors - only the employer wins."
I took the quote from our conversation, however, you DID elaoborate on the statement with what you are sharing here. In reviewing my work, I should have provided the same elaboration in the story; for that, you have my sincere apologies.
Thank you for pointing this out.
-Richard
yes , my unanswered post
yes , my unanswered post above explains a lot of the pitfalls of having 2 organizations representing a particular trade/profession . Now as an independent theres nothing stopping PATCO inc. from raiding any type of profession or trade . If they didnt want to abide by AFL-CIO rules why would they abide by rules such as honor and fairness ?
"not considered in the best interest of organized labor to have intervenors - only the employer wins."
that about sums it up
the democracy is within the said union , if the membership is fine with whats going on , then thats what you abide by , if the majority do not like whats going on , you get different people elected and/or take legal action , you do not create a competing union .
united we stand , divided we beg
Joe
Freedom of Choice & Union Democracy
The FPD union is still beating a dead horse and needs to move on with their organization, and accept the fact that PATCO officially disaffiliated with them years ago. It is a none issue, voted on by PATCO Officers duly elected by the rank and file membership.
It has been said I was not around in 1995-1996 when PATCO affiliated with FPD, but that is a lie. I was an original charter member of PATCO when it was brought back by Brother Jack Maher, the first Co Founder of PATCO from the early 60's. I was appointed by Jack Maher as National Coordinator of PATCO, and elected President by the membership.
I will not lower myself to the name calling, nor will I be drawn into an emotional debate that serves no purpose. PATCO has moved on for a brighter future for the Air Traffic Controllers in the private sector.
There is only one PATCO, and we are an Independent Labor Union, certified by the National Labor Relations Board, and duly registered with the Department of Labor. Everything is public record via their DOL web sites.
In Solidarity
Ron Taylor
President
PATCO
web site @ www.patco81.com
www.patcounion.org
Will the real PATCO please stand up
The Truth
You are incorrect on all you have said, If you would like to discuss this matter with the Co Founder of PATCO, Brother Jack Maher, please advise. I talk to him on a regular basis . He does not have a computer but I will provide you a contact.
You information on Brother Gary Eads is off base and needs alot of changes on dates, events and the unions involved. Would you like to talk to Gary also?
For your information Brother Gary Eads is a member of PATCO along with Brother Jack Maher.
I have nothing to hide including my name on this site...how about you?
Ron Taylor
President
PATCO
www.patco81.com
PATCO Inc.
Representation Petitions and NLRB Elections
Filing A PetitionIf you want a union to represent you at your workplace or if you no longer wish the union that currently represents you to continue doing so, the filing of a petition with the NLRB will be the means by which either action can be initiated. You may file a petition by contacting one of the NLRB Offices. For more information on what to expect when a representation petition is filed, please see Representation Cases.
Types Of PetitionsThe NLRB processes 6 types of petitions. The petitions most commonly filed are representation (RC) and decertification (RD) petitions. The RC petition is used when employees are seeking to be represented by a union and the RD is used when employees are seeking an election to vote an existing union out. More information about the 4 other less frequently used petitions can best be obtained by contacting an Information Officer at one of the NLRB's field offices.
The bargaining units that wish to be represented by PATCO Inc. have done the above. These are direct quotes from the NLRB web site.
Joe638NYC so my BIG question is this , if the independent PATCO didnt like the way things were done and they got their own union , why didn't they play by the rules ? why did they have to step on the toes of another AFL-CIO union and go after the same workers ?RAIDING: “Luring people away, business in the business world, an attempt by an organization to hire or lure away a competitor’s employees, members, or clients.”
Raiding does not apply as indicated by the above post. These towers that PATCO Inc. is trying to represents made their choice!PATCO Inc. did play by the rules as indicated by the quote from the NLRB web site! As you stated “…furthermore the members who wanted change could have taken legal actions”
local370voice Please elaborate on the statement above on the vote to decide what they want. Does that indicate a vote of Union-v-Non Union or a vote of PATCO-v-other unions.The ballot would be thus: Incumbent union (PATCO FPD), petitioning union (PATCO Inc), or no union.
In Solidarity
John Rowlands PATCO Inc Central Region VPJohn Rowlands PATCO Inc Central Region VP
John Rowlands PATCO Inc Central Region VP
You will have to excuse me. Judging by Mr. Taylor’s insinuation that I am undereducated with his statement" with said maybe you can better understand what a democracy is all about. “I will ask you to be a little clearer in your rhetoric. I can see you as well seem to anticipate that we are rubes and we need you to explain all about the NLRB petitions. I tend to think you want to lay it out there so you could make the twist that you did. Others that are looking at this with me were curious to ask if “this guy thinks we are idiots” Either way.
PATCO Inc came on Union Review and made a post the “ATCS Request PATCO”. Naturally being cynical I wanted to see what was up and what were the allegations of raiding. From the start the evidence suggested that PATCO was trying to get back in the game by soliciting and RAIDING the members of other Unions. I had a look around and it sure seemed like it. In a sense of fair play I asked Mr. Taylor if this was true. I asked Mr. Taylor in language even the undereducated as I could understand if PATCO was involved in any NLRB representation votes between PATCO and other Unions such as NATCA, FPD,OPEIU or others. His answer was no. Now others as well as you in the statement above tell us that answer was FALSE. It reference to RC you state” The bargaining units that wish to be represented by PATCO Inc. have done the above” I asked Mr. Taylor what his thoughts were on the NATCA/FAA impasse and he answered he had “No Knowledge” of it. Now he says that answer was FALSE and he does know what happened. There seems to be an awful lot of FALSE going on. It makes it very difficult to believe, trust or support PATCO Inc.
In reference to your spin. The fact is that an employee who has the support of a majority of his coworkers desires he can request decertification. He (or she) circulates a petition. If at least 30 percent of the workers in the bargaining unit sign the petition, then it must be sent to the NLRB's closest regional office, along with a cover sheet, NLRB Form 502. Once the petitions have been received and validated, the NLRB will set a date for the decertification election. Did PATCO provide any material support in the way of consultation or attorneys to any of the ATCs seeking decertification? It has already been alleged that PATC was soliciting ATCs although again MR Taylor said the was untrue as well. Again somebody is FALSE. Prior to any decertification did PATCO encourage or solicit such actions. You see Mr. Rowland if they did no matter how much you try to spin it into your ”Democratic Free Choice” spin it certainly falls under YOUR own definition of raiding as such “RAIDING: “Luring people away”.
In regards to your spin on Representation Petitions. It is not the employees who approach the NLRB for Representation votes it is the Union who claims they have the support of the workers and are requesting a Representation vote. You would have us believe that the employees requested a Representation vote when in fact it had to be the new guy trying to move in which in this case IS PATCO Inc. This statement is very misleading and I suppose due to your perception of my under education meant to be. The ballot would be thus: Incumbent union (PATCO FPD), petitioning union (PATCO Inc), or no union. It is quite clear that I was asking if the vote at the NLRB was to be a vote of Patco inc- vs Patco or another established Union. Or if as PATCO inc has tried to portray as their true mission an NLRB to bring a Union to the non Union Tower.. Since the Tower or shop was already Union and this vote is to settle a contest between two Unions for the same members you can understand why I have to conclude that your statement was well …. Nonsense.
We have gone in a full circle to get to the truth of what PATCO inc really is. The answers have been evasive and for the most part not the truth. I don’t know about the rest of you but I find PATCOinc to have a serious credibility problem. It is quite clear that PATCO inc is trying to regain its place as THE Union that represents ATCs. It is also quite clear that they are raiding (fulfilling a desire for Democratic Free Choice) the other Unions that have represented the ATCs while they (PATCO 81.PATCO inc and whatever they are this week) were being spanked for going to bed with Ronald Reagan. Do they deserve the come back. Could be. Did they take a beating in 1981.Yes they did. Are they the best choice for the ATCs? Could be. The problem is the rift they are willing to cause in the Unions to regain power. The problem is that they like the UBC they left the AFL-CIO because there were questions raised about raiding. You will never get me to support Unions who raid our fellow tradesmen and tradeswomen or try to increase ther market share by raiding other Unions. Of all the Unions who should know the lesson of solidarity it is PATCO. Had they had the solidarity they needed back in 1981 perhaps they would have been victorious and the rest of Union Labor would not have suffered as we have. The problem is we have to wonder how far are they willing to go. We have one of their supporters asking to censure someone on this site because HE says they do not speak the truth. This person has asked for a posters identity for WHAT exactly. Perhaps to bully, threaten or harass. Perhaps he should explain to the rest of us WHY he wanted that identity. We must all decide for ourselves if we shall offer support to PATCOinc. To do so we should have the right to know who they are and what their mission is in the Union movement. We have had a chance here at Union Review to shed some light on PATCO for others to come and decide for themselves. Now the Union community has some insight into PATCOinc. .
Richard Dorrough
Victim Of Carpenters Local 370
Albany NY
You didnt answer my
You didnt answer my questions , Why did you make another Organizing in the same field Local union ?
Why if you were already in the PATCO FPD union didnt you and other disgruntled members get your own candidates ?
Why did they not petition for change or just stay in the NON-ORGANIZING union ?
I'm sure if other members of PATCO FPD wanted to be in your union they could have petitioned their way in via the AFL-CIO , why did you have to create a renegade union ?
i completely agree with local370voice and the AFL/CIO bylaws on this
you guys are wrong
and i don't have to reveal my name in this public forum , it's not necessary , there are plenty of good legal reasons why i shouldn't , I do actually walk the walk so to speak in the real world
Joe
Victim of IBT local 138
Brooklyn NY
PATCO
I am a member of PATCO Inc. and a I was a member of PATCO Local 303 until it closed it's doors in 1982. I started on this web site as Easyiest, but changed to PATCO Local 303 member.
It seems to me that no raiding has taken place. All that PATCO Inc. has done is make itself known and available to the controllers interested a union that is dedicated to their welfare. The controllers and towers that are represented by PATCO Inc. were all choices freely made by the controllers who were tired of a union that didn't seem to care about their welfare. I spoke to some controllers and they advised they were not even able to contact their union with questions.
So now I guess I don't understand why all of a sudden PATCO/FDP cares about the controllers. I am curious. When was the last time PATCO/FDP had an election?
heya patco303rep , if that
heya patco303rep , if that is the case the employees should have taken action , legal and with the AFL-CIO . I know from experiance that a lot of unions are not what they should be , i had a business manager tell us that our steady working hours were gonna change the monday of the next week , and if we didnt do it he was gonna get us laid off and get someone else to do it , and we surrounded him and told him what was gonna happen to him if that happened . It's a shame that , if in fact the only option of you guys was to create another union , that you arent under the AFL-CIO or CTW flag . especially when the local you guys were in also represented helicopter pilots and related services , wasnt the AFL willing to hear about getting other members into the AFL local you were in ?
and yes in most peoples eyes Independent unions are very scrutinized , in the construction field they are almost always raiders in the bosses best interest , so please understand the disdain i hold towards them , even for non-organizing locals in the AFL-CIO , there are some which have skirted the line of expulsion . Take a look at Local #363 of the United service Workers of America which seems to do the job of the IBEW local 3 electricians here in New York , they boast about their great package
from www.gunzerelectric.com
"We are completely insured. Our workers are covered by disability and workers compensation insurance. Liability and completed operations insurance covers the business
Our workers are Union, Members of Local #363 of the United service Workers of America, IUJAT, AFL-CIO, CLC"
I'm not really sure what their package is , but I would guess that they compete for jobs at a lower rate than the IBEW package , in the same market .
believe me they are not the only ones , right here in NYC we had a "Bosses" paper-local working construction in the Marriot Hotel in midtown , a union with no benefits doing all the union trades work .
so i hope you can see why i would be trepedatious
I really think it's a shame what happened to you guys , i don't blame the PATCO strikers for all the evils in the anti-union movement we have today , i blame ronnie and the conservative right .
PS i have nothing to do with PATCO/FDP
Union Democracy
"You didnt answer my questions , Why did you make another Organizing in the same field Local union ? "
The questions have all been answered. We are PATCO and not a local union........
Ron Taylor
President
PATCO
www.patco81.com
my apologies for not typing
my apologies for not typing what was in my head , the actual question was "why did you guys create another AFL-CIO local that was an Organizing local?" wasn't there any other to get the members who were disgruntled to become a part of your local ? like maybe a decertification drive ? Or it wasn't within the charter of the AFL to do this ? I'm curious if that couldn't be done and i apologize if anyone feels I'm attacking your union .
PATCO Central Region VP
“Why did you make another Organizing in the same field Local union?”
The union members at this particular local filed a decertification petition. PATCO Inc through communications with this local opted to represent them. In other words a bilateral decision was made, by the parties involved, to be represented by PATCO Inc.
“Why if you were already in the PATCO FPD union didnt you and other disgruntled members get your own candidates?”Our candidate was in office. Ron Taylor!
“Why did they not petition for change or just stay in the NON-ORGANIZING union?”
Don’t know what you mean by “petition”
“I'm sure if other members of PATCO FPD wanted to be in your union they could have petitioned their way in via the AFL-CIO , why did you have to create a renegade union?”
PATCO Inc. is not a member of AFL/CIO.
Renegade: 1. traitor: somebody who abandons previously held beliefs or loyalties 2. Rebel: somebody who chooses to live outside laws or conventionsDon’t believe that applies to PATCO Inc.
Joe, it appears you like Richard have been through some turmoil with your union “Victim of IBT local 138” I wish you the best of luck in resolving your issues.
John R. Rowlands, PATCO Inc. Central Region VPidentity of appleton controller
I could care less about his/her identity. I was asking the webmaster to verify that the person posting the information was actually a working controller at Appleton FCT.
I take it from you post that you are blaming the PATCO 1981 strikers for all the strife that has come down on unions for the past 25 years?
Freedom of Choice
Richard,
PATCO has answered all questions as poised by you, however you don’t like the answers because you favor the AFL-CIO.
Employees have the right to "Free Choice", and that does not mean it has to be the AFL-CIO choice. Please take note that there are more independent labor unions in the USA then within the AFL-CIO, and there is nothing wrong with that.
You have stated PATCO has " a serious credibility problem", and I consider that an attack on our union.
PATCO has all the legal credentials and documents of a Labor Union. If your intent is to slam and discredit us, then you need to back up your statement with facts, not opinions. Lets begin with our name...PATCO.
Ron Taylor
President
PATCO
www.patco81.com
Will the real Richard please stand up :)
I think this comment was meant for Richard Dorrough of Local 370 ... is that correct?
-Richard Negri
You are
You are correct, it is to Mr Richard Dorrough.
Ron Taylor
President
PATCO
i think everyone is
i think everyone is replying to the wrong sub-threads , maybe if they could be condensed when you visit the page it may help , you can delete this Rich after you read it
L8tr
Joe
Forums Forthcoming
Joe,
Thanks for the note ... you are right that there are responses all over the place and that people aren't realizing that if they want to respond to something that someone wrote, all they have to do is reply right after the message is read.
I have been talking about adding some functionality to the site, which I believe should ready to integrate by Wednesday or Thursday; and that is FORUMS. As you probably guessed, the first forum with be called PATCO ... this way everyone can go to that one area and discuss these issues and spread their concerns. Having all of that in one forum will help with the responses getting lost and in the mix of the discussion.
Thanks again for bringing this to my attention.
-Richard /UR
Actually
PATCO has not answered any questions Ron Taylor has unless of course you consider them to be one and the same. If that is the case than I must stand with my credibility statment. It was Ron Taylor who answered my questions with answers that IN MY OPINION were less than truthful. It is my contention that Ron Taylor has a credibility problem but if you insist they are one and the same that its for you to sort out. In regards to you trying to turn this into a pro AFL-CIO vs Anti AFL-CIO issue lets not be foolish. I am not a schill for the AFL-CIO nor do I support their agenda. The one single issue I do support of theirs is the bylaw against raiding. Wether its Cash McCarron or Patco/Ron Taylor. I believe it is wrong and in my OPINION, which I am entitled to, that is what you are doing. Your prefer to call it Freedom of Choice.
Now I went out of my way to be polite to you. Richard Negri says that I have a habit of being rude to people on this site so I said please and thank you and was nice right up until Ron Taylor decided he needed to explain Democracy, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights in his infinite wisdom.. I certainly dont need you to explain Democracy or guide me to the Constitution or Bill of Rights to help me learn that you cannot mask raiding by calling it Freedom of Choice. Remember that being the President of a Union does not give you a superior intellect. If you use our Union President example..Well never mind. I dont want Richard to censor me.Im not bashing PATCO and if you feel me calling you on statements you made that I feel were evasive and less than truthful as bashing Ron Taylor than its something you will have to live with. Perhaps the next time you will remember the truth is always the best.
PATCO Centrtal region VP
I’m not sure which rhetoric you are talking about. And no I don’t think anyone is a “rube” or an “idiot”. As I have no idea what your Union background is, I posted an answer that I thought all could understand.
Just to clarify in my own mind. What do you consider “raiding”?
At this point in time PATCO Inc is not involved in any “representation votes”
I don’t think there was an impasse in the truest sense on the word; I think the FAA said here’s the “collective bargaining agreement” period. I may be wrong about this as it happened about two years ago.
“Did PATCO provide any material support in the way of consultation or attorneys to any of the ATCs seeking decertification? I don’t know what you mean by “material support”? Was there communications between PATCO Inc and the towers that were going through decertification? Yes. I don’t mean to play “semantics” with you but we are in some what of a legal area and I don’t want any misunderstandings.
“This statement is very misleading and I suppose due to your perception of my under education meant to be. The ballot would be thus: Incumbent union (PATCO FPD), petitioning union (PATCO Inc), or no union. It is quite clear that I was asking if the vote at the NLRB was to be a vote of Patco inc- vs Patco or another established Union . Or if as PATCO inc has tried to portray as their true mission an NLRB to bring a Union to the non Union Tower .. Since the Tower or shop was already Union and this vote is to settle a contest between two Unions for the same members you can understand why I have to conclude that your statement was well …. Nonsense.
“It is quite clear that I was asking if the vote at the NLRB was to beIt’s not a vote at the NLRB but a vote at each facility held by the NLRB.
…a vote of Patco inc- vs Patco or another established Union .”The answer to this is NO. The ballot would be as I stated.
Richard I respect your opinion as a fellow union member as well as I respect any ones right to freedom of speech. I can see by your signature line “Victim Of Carpenters Local 370” that you have gone through some turmoil with your Union . I wish you the best of luck with securing the outcome that you desire.
John R. Rowlands PATCO Inc. Central Region VPThat was a lot to read through
Hi Everyone,
I did a little exercise this evening; no - not at the gym, which would have been better -- but with this thread. I read it from top to bottom as if I had not seen it before. & I have to admit, it is terribly confusing.
Here is what I understand (Please note, I am not stating what is 100% correct ... I am simply stating that this is what I understand is happening, clearly I am open to being wrong).
1. Patco / AFSCME is affiliated with the AFL-CIO
2. Patco, Inc. is an independent union
3. Patco, Inc. disaffiliated with Patco/ AFSCME (and therefore, the AFL-CIO)
4. The reason for #3 is not terribly clear: Mr. Seddon of PATCO/ AFSCME says one thing, Mr. Taylor of PATCO, Inc. says something else. Regardless of what the reasons were, a disaffiliation took place.
5. Patco Inc. was briefly part of the OPEIU, and ultimately back in the AFL-CIO.
6. Patco Inc. diaffiliated from OPEIU because the AFL-CIO realized they were organizing the same workers that PATCO/ AFSCME were (I don't know how they didn't know in the first place!)
7. There were no charges, but disaffiliation took place before charges could come.
8. Per 1981 and Reagan, neither union can represent FAA-governed towers, they can only represent private towers.
9. Some PATCO/AFSCME members have spoken out about not being terribly thrilled with their union.
10. Renegotiation at some of the towers where members have spoken out were known in the industry, and the members received Patco, Inc. information as a "solution" to their known issues.
11. Patco, Inc signed to Union Review to share those annoucements
12. The idea of raiding came up because we have a lot of UBC brothers here at Union Review; it is understood among us that most in these trades would have serious hesitation supporting an independent union -- that was very well explained by both Joe and Richard D.
13. PATCO, Inc seems to continue to stand by the fact that they are not raiding at all ... that they are providing information to union brothers/sisters who are unhappy with their current union at a time of renegotiation.
14. Question of NACTA gets thrown in the mix; but NACTA, I thought, was the union that "replaced" the orginal PATCO - and in other words is off limits to either of these two PATCO organizations.
15. Do I personally think that both unions using a same or similar name confusing for the average guy, Yes!
16. Mr. Taylor has shown that he owns the trademark to the name -- and believes he has right to use the name.
17. Argument and debate of Brother Maher comes in; however, the fact is that Taylor owns the trademark to the name.
18. Who is the better union for the worker? I don't have enough information to say ... I can tell you that I have heard from a few who are part of the PATCO/AFSCME union and few who are part of Patco, Inc. My impression is that those who are with PATCO/AFSCME are not very thrilled with their representation. Perhaps because they are a division of a dental union.
19. Is number 18 a fact? Absolutely not ... it is just based on a few emails I have received and from watching this thread unfold. Some have argued that a union that is spread into a few different trades might not be as affective as a union with one sole purpose, but that is not for me to decide.
20. What is the solution? Is there a solution? We don't have one that we all agree to -- and
... I thought one union should change its name -- or the two should figure out a way to merge into one another, but as I have said, I don't know what is right or what the solution is ... I just know that this triggered a lot of emotion out here ... and why I hope that by Wed we will have the new PATCO forum so that we can get more involved in a more coherent way.
Finally, while I have the floor I want to talk about something I DO know a little about -- or at least know I am bothered by something I am seeing here enough to bring up: For the record: I don't care if someone is a union president or a carpenter, a paid business agent, or an executive director -- the insinuation that someone here is stupid, uneducated or anything similar ... is absurd, it is childish and, it is really better left off this site. If someone is uneducated to a fact you are trying to prove, including me, please say so in a manner so that the person can understand without belittling them, instead empower them with a knowledge transfer based on your understanding.
I think if you read any mainstream news coverage of a labor story you will see there is enough fuel on the fire that burns up the perception of labor as being populated with folks that are less than smart, educated, etc. In the end it is about common sense manners, which though you might not have learned from your union halls, I am certain everyone here had a mother that taught this at one point before age six (and if you didn't ... no problem, I can help you with this). For instance, the next time you feel obliged to tell someone, in writing, on this site, that you think they are dumb, stupid, an asshole, or insinuate all of that ... think about your own age and wisdom, and then come up with a better way of saying the same thing. I know, based on research, that at least three of us here have a Masters Degree -- one of us has it in English; but you wouldn't know it looking in from the outside; & that's just sad - no, its pathetic.
At my old shop we used to say, "If we can't explain it to each other, we won't explain it to them..."
-Richard Negri
Nice summary
I believe you cut through the bull with your exercise.
I did a small amount of research and some educated guesses about the contract tower world.
As per theU.S. Contract Tower Ass. There are 235 contract towers.
Most Facilities have an average of 5 controllers, not counting Managers for a ballpark total of 1,175 controllers eligible for union representation.
PATCO/FPD has 48 towers listed on their webpage as towers that they represent. That's about 20 percent of the total towers.
NATCA represents a small number of contract towers. I was unable to determine exactly how manyas their website does not list them, but I know of 5.
PATCO Inc. has 2 represented towers listed.
Mr Taylor and his people can say what they want but there are not huge numbers of contract towers or controllers to represent. The division that has been created is not to anyone's benefit. We are a somewhat specialized group of people and our voice would be difficult to hear if we were all in the same union.
PATCO/FPD is a division of a larger union but I have never experienced problems getting answers or attention from Mr. Seddon. There have been comments on prior posts about the lack of elections. The people at my tower have always recieved ballots for election of officers and had an opportunity to vote on proposals of bargaining agreements. I find it difficult to believe that one or two towers were not included while all others participated.
You may reach me via e mail if you have questions.