AMFA National Officers to Visit Miami

[TWU informer]

LMAOROTF......

This has to be the most ridicules comeback ever....

At least it did bring a very good chuckle to my day. Thanks for that.

All of us Teamsters at UAL truly do appreciate your concern, but we seriously doubt the results were fixed by truckers. Thanks again for your involvement.

On a regular basis, your responses are like playground children's rhetoric and meaningless.

 

[ThirdSeatHero]

A little more than a few pennies. At the end of January, we all received $11,500 as a signing bonus (call it what you want). For me, after taxes, it worked out to a little more than $2,500 in my 401K, and just over $6,000 in cash. On top of this UA added $742 to my 401k in contributions for this payment.

Sure, and as before for me, simply getting me back to what I was making over 10 years ago is hardly adequate.

Sure, getting here first does change things. It has changed plenty for all of us including you. For a year now we have received higher wages which has prevented many from falling deeper in to debt. We have needed the bump in pay and have been the only UAL group besides the executives to enjoy a wage increase.

Nice try. You claimed by getting there first we were no longer picking at the Pilots crumbs, sure doesn't look that way after seeing their latest TA.

Did you look at our increases we received a year ago?

Wage increase

Yea I saw it. A paltry signing bonus and NOT the full retro the ibt promised. No double vesting pension as the ibt promised. A buyout program the ibt agreed to, and then let the company write the language AFTER the TA was signed. A bunch of nickle and dime money shifting... Line pay? longevity? shift pay? WHAT HAPPENED TO SKILL PAY? Oh thats right the ibt gave that up and just moved it around and calls that an increase in other areas.... nice try. Oh and BTW, Lead premium under the previous contract equalled more than 5% over mechanics, so should they consider that a pay cut? .... Sell it to someone whose buying.

You are asking me to back my statements that we are doing better with the Teamsters?

I have no issues with that at all.

I say YES. I'm in.

Good call.

No thats not what I asked you. I figured you'd dodge, and you didn't disappoint.

 

[Anomaly]

Sure, and as before for me, simply getting me back to what I was making over 10 years ago is hardly adequate.

Then no union in the world would have gotten you what you wanted. Sorry. For the great majority of us, as it was obviously voted in, we accepted this as a start.

Nice try. You claimed by getting there first we were no longer picking at the Pilots crumbs, sure doesn't look that way after seeing their latest TA.

We had pay increases A YEAR BEFORE the pilots even get to vote on theirs. Simple facts. A bird in hand is worth two in the bush.

Yea I saw it. A paltry signing bonus and NOT the full retro the ibt promised. No double vesting pension as the ibt promised. A buyout program the ibt agreed to, and then let the company write the language AFTER the TA was signed. A bunch of nickle and dime money shifting... Line pay? longevity? shift pay? WHAT HAPPENED TO SKILL PAY? Oh thats right the ibt gave that up and just moved it around and calls that an increase in other areas.... nice try. Oh and BTW, Lead premium under the previous contract equalled more than 5% over mechanics, so should they consider that a pay cut? .... Sell it to someone whose buying.

The amfa contract before did not have language for full retro in the event of extended negotiations. Simply put, retroactive payments are negotiated in the contract preceding. amfa did not do this. However, there are very few unions in the airline industry who are able to accomplish this feat. I hold not blame towards amfa, but by the same token, you should not hold blame towards the Teamsters for the inability to argue what is NOT in the contract. Apparently a VAST majority bought did agree this was a good contract...BTW. It was a good buy for the rest of us. Too bad you are still on the outside small minority.

No thats not what I asked you. I figured you'd dodge, and you didn't disappoint.

This is exactly what you asked. You want me to stand by my claims that the Teamsters are a worthwhile Union, and I accepted your challenge. WTF?? Do you need a foot massage or a back rub? I said YES to your wager. F**k YES if you prefer. Argghhhh. Even agreeing with you, you find reason to ####.....

You sound very much at times like someone I live with........

 

[ThirdSeatHero]

This is exactly what you asked. You want me to stand by my claims that the Teamsters are a worthwhile Union, and I accepted your challenge. WTF?? Do you need a foot massage or a back rub? I said YES to your wager. F**k YES if you prefer. Argghhhh. Even agreeing with you, you find reason to ####.....

You sound very much at times like someone I live with........

I'm already aware of your take on the teamsters,and that is NOT what I challenged you on. Now since you can't seem to read, here is my preface and challenge...AGAIN

Again simply getting there first means nothing, what you bring back DOES!

Anomaly, I'll wager you here and now....

My pledge to come to this site and a give full and proper credit to the ibt should they return numbers as a percentage of wages and comparable benefits in our upcoming joint agreement, that when added to our last agreement exceeds the current Pilots TA - (OUR 2 teamster agreements to ALPAs 1). You inturn must come to this site and admit you were absolutely wrong should they fail to return equivalent numbers when combined with our last agreement.

What say you?

In case you still don't get it, the subject is contracts.

You made fanciful claims on teamster prowess and how simply getting a contract first means we as mechanics aren't picking through the pilots crumbs.....

Taken from your post....

...The IBT at UAL is on no danger at all. The Pilots are finally moving forward on their contract at UAL and are doing so almost a YEAR AFTER the mechanics. For years we have been slave to the leftover crumbs of negotiations after they have finished, but the Teamsters changed the order of things. The mechanics were FIRST in negotiating an agreement and we have enjoyed our pay and benefits increase for almost a year....

So if your claims are to be believed, and we as teamster mechanics ARE NOT picking through pilot crumbs, then the combination of our TWO agreements ie; current+2013, should meet or exceed the pilots ONE combined contract as a percentage of wages and comparable benefits.

I for one am betting the teamsters can't/won't match the pilots numbers regardless of all the rhetorical hype like yours.

 

[Anomaly]

I'm already aware of your take on the teamsters,and that is NOT what I challenged you on. Now since you can't seem to read, here is my preface and challenge...AGAIN




In case you still don't get it, the subject is contracts.

You made fanciful claims on teamster prowess and how simply getting a contract first means we as mechanics aren't picking through the pilots crumbs.....

Taken from your post....



So if your claims are to be believed, and we as teamster mechanics ARE NOT picking through pilot crumbs, then the combination of our TWO agreements ie; current+2013, should meet or exceed the pilots ONE combined contract as a percentage of wages and comparable benefits.

I for one am betting the teamsters can't/won't match the pilots numbers regardless of all the rhetorical hype like yours.

YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES

I accept your wager.................


Clear enough for you...................??????????

F%%K

Swear, I think I am sleeping with you...........

 

[swamt]

LMAOROTF......

This has to be the most ridicules comeback ever....

At least it did bring a very good chuckle to my day. Thanks for that.

All of us Teamsters at UAL truly do appreciate your concern, but we seriously doubt the results were fixed by truckers. Thanks again for your involvement.

That's exactly what the teamsters want you to think. If you recall there was a TWU CAL mech that posted in the survey thread about the survey not being secured and that anyone could get in. Why did the teamsters/ibt allow this to happen?
Anomaly, what was the final results of the survey? Which option was the most chosen?

 

[ThirdSeatHero]

YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES

I accept your wager.................


Clear enough for you...................??????????

F%%K

Swear, I think I am sleeping with you...........

Maybe next time you could just answer the challenge directly and spare yourself all this "exasperation".

 

[swamt]

Maybe next time you could just answer the challenge directly and spare yourself all this "exasperation".

He's a drama queen.

 

[Rogallo]

He's a drama queen.

Yes, he's quite the queen!!

 

[Anomaly]

That's exactly what the teamsters want you to think. If you recall there was a TWU CAL mech that posted in the survey thread about the survey not being secured and that anyone could get in. Why did the teamsters/ibt allow this to happen?
Anomaly, what was the final results of the survey? Which option was the most chosen?

UA had over 70% participation and were against going to court by over 95% and against rank ration seniority by over 92%.

[background=transparent]CO had only 28% participation and was against going to court by 54% to 46%. They favored some type of rank ratio seniority for bidding purposes by 56% to 44%. [/background]

[background=transparent]CMI had 23% participation and was against going to court by 60% and 56% against a rank ratio seniority system.[/background]

[background=transparent]The purpose of the survey was to determine if the members wanted to put a hold on negotiations in order to let the courts decide our seniority. A secondary question was should a type of rank ratio be considered for bidding purposes. The survey participation and results seem to offer a clear explanation of where we are. [/background]

 

[swamt]

UA had over 70% participation and were against going to court by over 95% and against rank ration seniority by over 92%.

[background=transparent]CO had only 28% participation and was against going to court by 54% to 46%. They favored some type of rank ratio seniority for bidding purposes by 56% to 44%. [/background]

[background=transparent]CMI had 23% participation and was against going to court by 60% and 56% against a rank ratio seniority system.[/background]

[background=transparent]The purpose of the survey was to determine if the members wanted to put a hold on negotiations in order to let the courts decide our seniority. A secondary question was should a type of rank ratio be considered for bidding purposes. The survey participation and results seem to offer a clear explanation of where we are. [/background]

Curious to the low turn out from the CO guys. What I don't understand is why the teamsters even put this survey out when they said from the beginning they have to go by DOH (date of hire) or sometimes refered to as classification hire date. They were screaming DOH in the Airtran SLI nego's. As far as the courts are concerned, I can only tell you what happened here at SWA. The courts all told the company and unions that if your the same union representing both sides AND they have merger language, they must abide by such language for SLI. If the two unions are represented by different unions then they must NEGO SLI following the new laws in place that state both sides must agree, and will be fair and equitable to both sides.

Me personally? I am a firm believer that if you guys go DOH, and two fall on the exact same day the mech on the list of the co buying the other co should be DOH. Is this what you guys are being told??

 

[Anomaly]

Curious to the low turn out from the CO guys. What I don't understand is why the teamsters even put this survey out when they said from the beginning they have to go by DOH (date of hire) or sometimes refered to as classification hire date. They were screaming DOH in the Airtran SLI nego's. As far as the courts are concerned, I can only tell you what happened here at SWA. The courts all told the company and unions that if your the same union representing both sides AND they have merger language, they must abide by such language for SLI. If the two unions are represented by different unions then they must NEGO SLI following the new laws in place that state both sides must agree, and will be fair and equitable to both sides.

Me personally? I am a firm believer that if you guys go DOH, and two fall on the exact same day the mech on the list of the co buying the other co should be DOH. Is this what you guys are being told??

You are off a bit but not by much. DOH and Class seniority for many of us are the same because we hired in as mechanics. But there are those who worked in different areas and for this purpose the distinctions should be maintained. Your mention of the courts in your case is also much different than the case at UAL.

Following the equal rights movement of the 60's, United Airlines faced a class action law suit created by several groups of former employees in several different classifications including mechanics. The suit claimed that UAL Corp was furloughing and recalling employees based on sex and race rather than by a seniority method. There was enough evidence to prove the case and United was found guilty and consequently forced to follow language created by the Federal Court of Appeals with an implementation date of July 2, 1965. This is what we call Consent Decree Seniority. The courts basically follow the date an employee entered the company, or date of hire. There are no expiration dates for this court decree and as long as there is a United Airlines the affected employees and unions will follow these non-negotiable seniority methods. The only option in altering seniority for the purposes of lay off and recall is to challenge the Federal Courts, and possibly the company and the opposing unions if you can not get them to go along with you. Chances of success are reportedly very very low based on testimonials of lawyers who were retained to look in to the matter.

Continental and United merged, there was no buy out (although many of us working at the new airline have a different point of view). In any event, the surviving company was named/renamed United Airlines and must abide by the consent decree. The Judge who decided the case wrote language anticipating the future possibility of a merger. UA or CO did not acquire either as was the case with SWA and Air Tran. Continental Airlines, because of it's new relationship with United, is now subject to the full weight of the consent decree.

The question on the survey was very clear to those of us on the UAL side who have lived with the consent decree for some 47 years. We are certain any challenge to the decree would be a waste of time and money and would like to move forward with negotiations. Beyond that, in the issue of merging seniority for the different mechanic groups, most of us feel that date of hire would be fair because most of us do not have a different classification date. Again, most of us at UA were hired as mechanics. Perhaps this is why so many more of us participated?

I had asked the same question you did a few weeks ago; "why the teamsters even put this survey out when they said from the beginning they have to go by DOH?"

I was told that during the very recent seniority committee meetings, representatives on the Continental side were claiming that their was an overwhelming urge by all CO members to put a hold on negotiations and pursue a legal challenge to the consent decree seniority and create a new form of merging the lists. The survey was put together quickly to test this claim. The results seem to indicate that the committee may have over-exaggerated the position of their members.

Committees are great and most times do very well in voicing the wishes of those they represent. Sometimes, unfortunately, they get it wrong. A survey is a good, fast way of checking the real intentions of the overall group. I am happy the Teamsters chose to poll the entire membership with this issue rather than act on what a few committee members were claiming.

 

[swamt]

You are off a bit but not by much. DOH and Class seniority for many of us are the same because we hired in as mechanics. But there are those who worked in different areas and for this purpose the distinctions should be maintained. Your mention of the courts in your case is also much different than the case at UAL.

Following the equal rights movement of the 60's, United Airlines faced a class action law suit created by several groups of former employees in several different classifications including mechanics. The suit claimed that UAL Corp was furloughing and recalling employees based on sex and race rather than by a seniority method. There was enough evidence to prove the case and United was found guilty and consequently forced to follow language created by the Federal Court of Appeals with an implementation date of July 2, 1965. This is what we call Consent Decree Seniority. The courts basically follow the date an employee entered the company, or date of hire. There are no expiration dates for this court decree and as long as there is a United Airlines the affected employees and unions will follow these non-negotiable seniority methods. The only option in altering seniority for the purposes of lay off and recall is to challenge the Federal Courts, and possibly the company and the opposing unions if you can not get them to go along with you. Chances of success are reportedly very very low based on testimonials of lawyers who were retained to look in to the matter.

Continental and United merged, there was no buy out (although many of us working at the new airline have a different point of view). In any event, the surviving company was named/renamed United Airlines and must abide by the consent decree. The Judge who decided the case wrote language anticipating the future possibility of a merger. UA or CO did not acquire either as was the case with SWA and Air Tran. Continental Airlines, because of it's new relationship with United, is now subject to the full weight of the consent decree.

The question on the survey was very clear to those of us on the UAL side who have lived with the consent decree for some 47 years. We are certain any challenge to the decree would be a waste of time and money and would like to move forward with negotiations. Beyond that, in the issue of merging seniority for the different mechanic groups, most of us feel that date of hire would be fair because most of us do not have a different classification date. Again, most of us at UA were hired as mechanics. Perhaps this is why so many more of us participated?

I had asked the same question you did a few weeks ago; "why the teamsters even put this survey out when they said from the beginning they have to go by DOH?"

I was told that during the very recent seniority committee meetings, representatives on the Continental side were claiming that their was an overwhelming urge by all CO members to put a hold on negotiations and pursue a legal challenge to the consent decree seniority and create a new form of merging the lists. The survey was put together quickly to test this claim. The results seem to indicate that the committee may have over-exaggerated the position of their members.

Committees are great and most times do very well in voicing the wishes of those they represent. Sometimes, unfortunately, they get it wrong. A survey is a good, fast way of checking the real intentions of the overall group. I am happy the Teamsters chose to poll the entire membership with this issue rather than act on what a few committee members were claiming.

Wow! Very informative. Thx for all the explanation. I never knew UAL had a previous ruling from the courts as you have posted. I also think you are right that since the naming rights were kept as United they must follow the ruling.
If all this is true and accurate, would it be safe to say that all mechs will be integrated by DOH and no nego's are required for SLI? If so, it shouldn't take long at all for an SLI.

 

[WNMECH]

You are off a bit but not by much. DOH and Class seniority for many of us are the same because we hired in as mechanics. But there are those who worked in different areas and for this purpose the distinctions should be maintained. Your mention of the courts in your case is also much different than the case at UAL.

Following the equal rights movement of the 60's, United Airlines faced a class action law suit created by several groups of former employees in several different classifications including mechanics. The suit claimed that UAL Corp was furloughing and recalling employees based on sex and race rather than by a seniority method. There was enough evidence to prove the case and United was found guilty and consequently forced to follow language created by the Federal Court of Appeals with an implementation date of July 2, 1965. This is what we call Consent Decree Seniority. The courts basically follow the date an employee entered the company, or date of hire. There are no expiration dates for this court decree and as long as there is a United Airlines the affected employees and unions will follow these non-negotiable seniority methods. The only option in altering seniority for the purposes of lay off and recall is to challenge the Federal Courts, and possibly the company and the opposing unions if you can not get them to go along with you. Chances of success are reportedly very very low based on testimonials of lawyers who were retained to look in to the matter.

Continental and United merged, there was no buy out (although many of us working at the new airline have a different point of view). In any event, the surviving company was named/renamed United Airlines and must abide by the consent decree. The Judge who decided the case wrote language anticipating the future possibility of a merger. UA or CO did not acquire either as was the case with SWA and Air Tran. Continental Airlines, because of it's new relationship with United, is now subject to the full weight of the consent decree.

The question on the survey was very clear to those of us on the UAL side who have lived with the consent decree for some 47 years. We are certain any challenge to the decree would be a waste of time and money and would like to move forward with negotiations. Beyond that, in the issue of merging seniority for the different mechanic groups, most of us feel that date of hire would be fair because most of us do not have a different classification date. Again, most of us at UA were hired as mechanics. Perhaps this is why so many more of us participated?

I had asked the same question you did a few weeks ago; "why the teamsters even put this survey out when they said from the beginning they have to go by DOH?"

I was told that during the very recent seniority committee meetings, representatives on the Continental side were claiming that their was an overwhelming urge by all CO members to put a hold on negotiations and pursue a legal challenge to the consent decree seniority and create a new form of merging the lists. The survey was put together quickly to test this claim. The results seem to indicate that the committee may have over-exaggerated the position of their members.

Committees are great and most times do very well in voicing the wishes of those they represent. Sometimes, unfortunately, they get it wrong. A survey is a good, fast way of checking the real intentions of the overall group. I am happy the Teamsters chose to poll the entire membership with this issue rather than act on what a few committee members were claiming.

The bottom line is both groups are in the IBT.
The teamsters can poll them all they want.
The IBT will tell both groups what they will get.

I will bet you that there will be no vote on this determination from the teamsters.

You all will still have to take what you are told period.

 

[Anomaly]

Wow! Very informative. Thx for all the explanation. I never knew UAL had a previous ruling from the courts as you have posted. I also think you are right that since the naming rights were kept as United they must follow the ruling.
If all this is true and accurate, would it be safe to say that all mechs will be integrated by DOH and no nego's are required for SLI? If so, it shouldn't take long at all for an SLI.

The bottom line is both groups are in the IBT.
The teamsters can poll them all they want.
The IBT will tell both groups what they will get.

I will bet you that there will be no vote on this determination from the teamsters.

You all will still have to take what you are told period.

I will try to take on both your points in one answer;

Several members on both sides questioned the review and position of the IBT in house lawyers. The Teamsters, at the request of the Continental mechanics, hired an attorney, Ralph Berger, who has served as an arbitrator and a mediator on airline mergers to take a legal and professional look at our options. He determined that the most legal, and fair method for integrating the lists was in fact the consent decree (which we are bound with anyway). This was the same findings as IBT legal. Some CAL groups did not accept this and asked for another independent review. Spivak Lipton Attorneys at Law were retained to look at both the consent decree and the opinions of Ralph Berger. They too agreed on all counts. A Teamster Local representing CAL mechanics decided to go further to satisfy it's members and hired their own council to look at all the other view points in hopes of determining a way out of the consent decree for former CAL mechanics. He too agreed with all the other attorneys and even made it more clear how hard it would be to overturn the court ruling.

All this has had two outcomes; a long delay on our seniority integration, and a clear explanation of future delays that will most likely take place if we as a group choose to fight the Federal Courts. At the same time, the Teamsters has listened to and acted on the concerns of both groups. If the IBT had implemented DOH without offering the amount of independent explanations that they did, members on one side would indeed be very upset and probably take the position that the union shoved this decision down their throats.

I do agree with your last statement "You all will still have to take what you are told period" but this has nothing to do with the Teamsters or any other union. It is the companies failings years ago that force this on us. Even AMFA was subject to the consent decree while on property representing mechanics. In fact, the outcome would be exactly the same if UA mechanics were still AMFA and CAL were IBT. It would be a harder fight, but ultimately it appears based on findings of the individual lawyers that the consent decree (date of hire) would ultimately dictate the merger of seniority lists.

I suppose we could have a vote on the subject, but really, from the stand point of the members, why bother? For a very large majority of us on both sides, date of hire is the most fair in this case, and the courts have the final say anyway. A vote on merging the seniority list, in my opinion, would be a wast of time and resources if the decision is anything other than the court order.