Issue Consulting for Representational Matters

[GulfCharlie]

In this video Paul claims that "We look at contracts every 6 or 12 months depending on the contracts." Who reviews the contracts?

 

[Maintainvfr]

This one is legitimately confusing. You're upset that were having our own people, who did great work for the union, review it instead of paying someone else to look over it?

Are we insinuating that Phil is getting personal kickbacks from Vegas? Or just that he's a bad negotiator?

 

[GulfCharlie]

This one is legitimately confusing. You're upset that were having our own people, who did great work for the union, review it instead of paying someone else to look over it?

Are we insinuating that Phil is getting personal kickbacks from Vegas? Or just that he's a bad negotiator?

No I’m not insinuating that all, my concern rests in the fact that the person who approve this might not have received approval from the NEB to do so. My sole purpose is to raise questions. If this amount of money is going out in what appears to be a stipend format, I wish to know why? I wish to know what type of consulting work is being done with my dues money? Am I not entitled to know since I pay?

 

[Maintainvfr]

No I’m not insinuating that all, my concern rests in the fact that the person who approve this might not have received approval from the NEB to do so. My sole purpose is to raise questions. If this amount of money is going out in what appears to be a stipend format, I wish to know why? I wish to know what type of consulting work is being done with my dues money? Am I not entitled to know since I pay?

Look over your original post. Tell me that this is the message you conveyed.

 

[lavabucket]

Why would we pay anyone to do it when you have current qualified members who could do it? Wouldn't any member of the current contracts in affect be able to consult? Why wouldn't you use available resources first and put that money to better use actually mentoring or training current members?

 

[Maintainvfr]

Why would we pay anyone to do it when you have current qualified members who could do it? Wouldn't any member of the current contracts in affect be able to consult? Why wouldn't you use available resources first and put that money to better use actually mentoring or training current members?

I'm totally on board with more transparency for what the employees of NATCA national's job descriptions are. I'm sure that Phil has more responsibilities than just this, and I would also imagine he's on the team with current NATCA members, mentoring and training them. I'm not sure that he is, just like you can't be sure that he's not.

My whole point, in every thread, is that these posts jump to worst case scenario conclusions with either no evidence or evidence that is stretching and assuming things that most likely aren't true.

 

[lavabucket]

agreed no one should jump to any conclusion, but certainly worth investigating and deciding on your own.