If FCFS boarding becomes an issue the company wants in negotiations for a Transition Agreement and the unions resist; the company will expect movement / compromise on another issue before backing off FCFS. It's a bargaining chip that may very well be played by the company.Tim Nelson said:
If its one more thing that the company may need but we have then it just puts a bit more leverage in the union hands.im not sure how anyone can be looking at this as anything other than something that we have that they will want. Also imo the company isnt going to back off fcfs but it may have to negotiate something to get it. It is worth something. Not sure how much. But we have already seen countless times that if we go soft that we get nothing in return except more grief. I dont personally see much reason to accommadate seamlessness in a merger unless management starts respecting and furthering the very reasonable wants of fleet service.ograc said:
I agree. If the company wants FCFS boarding so be it. The NC should get something in return. The huge mistake by the District would be to sign off on FCFS boarding prior to a TA agreement. Additionally, IMO... the NC and the District would be unwise to resist FCFS at any cost. There are far too many more important issues that need improvement regarding our future contract. IMO... non rev passenger boarding procedures, pale in comparison, to the real issues that need to be addressed in future contract and Transition agreements. Issues such as wage, scope, sick leave, vacation accrual and pension contribution, to name a few, should be priority one with the membership and the NC. I view the issue of boarding procedure as a mere distraction from the issues that matter most.Tim Nelson said:
I agree Cargo...ograc said:
Mere distraction as it may be, but all we have left in this industry is SENIORITY! Which deals with everything we do in our work lives, be it shift bidding, vacation bidding, and TRAVEL, to OT. It is a bigger issue than people are giving it credit for. I for one want it to stay at DOH boarding, simply because I have put my time in and some 6 month employee who is faster on the keyboard shouldnt go ahead of me if I'm flying somewhere, where does the raping of our seniority stop?ograc said:
+1cltrat said:
it should be noted that the twu doesnt have this in their contract so unless the iam and twu waive it off, the company will be forced to either abide by it or give the iam and cwa a value for it. Until then, that change wont happen. Im sure that had something to do with postponing the boarding application indefinately.pjirish317 said:
Nelson,Tim Nelson said:
But at Boeing the international took purposeful efforts to circumvent the democratic process, requiring a second vote on a proposal that was nearly identical to the preceding offer and scheduled it when they knew many members were still away for the company sanctioned vacation shutdown period. It's clear the IAM wanted to protect the dues they knew the company would move to a RTW state and the international would lose dues. Same thing at UAL, AGC pay was tied to the higher hourly wage that is why they wanted to get this ratified ASAP.roabilly said:
I agree Mike...mike33 said:
