Kev3188
Veteran
Actually, that's a pretty accurate recap of DL143's (and the GL's) complete f**k up of the NW/DL election.
April/May 2013 IAM Fleet Discussions
- Thread starter Falcon
- Start date
- Status
Tim Nelson
Veteran
i still think delta is doable provided the iam actually sign a solid contract. It doesnt help when delta works more ramps and gets paid almost $3 more than usairways plus .60 longevity and profit sharing. Of course it goes without saying that the iam leadership has to clean up its own housekeeping matters first. regards,
ograc
Veteran
- Jan 30, 2012
- 1,868
- 1,624
Tim,
I agree the real leverage is in Section 6 negotiations for the US Fleet. The position of the District is they will not entertain negotiations on a Transition Agreement until a new contract is negotiated, under Secttion 6, for the current Fleet Service at US. A strategy I agree with, however, if the District and the NC negotiates minimal improvements in wage, benefits and especially scope, in those negotiations they have indeed given away their leverage. Their position would represent a paper lion and nothing more than sabre rattling. The time to negotiate for needed improvements is now rather than later. The company wants us in Transition talks ASAP. We have the leverage now. Hopefully the District and the NC are wise enough to realize this. If not... we will repeat history. The choice is theirs. Obviously; the engaged membership is watching and accountability will be at hand. Your opinions and predictions of where we're headed, although dismal, are respectfully and duly noted.
Tim Nelson
Veteran
let us hope they truly listen this time. A few weeks ago, the iam was pounding the ibt for supporting the new pension reform. James carlson, excellent grand lodge guy, was hammering the ibt on facebook.
I ended up pounding james for the iam not fighting against it and drilled the iam on it. Within 48 hours, the intl put out its support against such legislation. Thus, its good to hammer the leadership if its warrented. It helps all of us.regards
ograc
Veteran
- Jan 30, 2012
- 1,868
- 1,624
An engaged membership that holds it's elected leadership accountable is what it's all about. With that being said... one should not critisize unless they are proposing viable solutions. Didn't we go through this eight years ago with the Canali Team?
Tim Nelson
Veteran
completely agree. I think the biggest focus should b on scope before signing any contract. Nothing else really matters if we dont take care of scope first. There is no way in hell that fleet service shouldnt be in the same amount of stations as ticketing but whatever the case, something gotta give.
We finally got to section 6 to address this after 14 years since the 1999 contract. Nothing will chap my arse more than if the nc got persuaded to jump to transition talks by agreeing to a ta that doesnt adequately address more scope. The loa can only serve as a bridge to a ta that increases scope and does away with drop dead dates. There is no justifiable reason why the company cant commit to its own employees. Grandfather rights should also be put on the table as each current employee ought to be allowed to benefit from this merger. regards
Tim Nelson
Veteran
The following is what I think would be a great Fleet Service Manifesto
1. Stick to section 6 bargaining and refuse to sign a quickie contract that doesn't adequately address the following mandatories: Scope, retirement, wages.
Our members waited 14 years to finally get in section 6 talks, which we haven't been in since 1999. Section 6 is where the best gains will come from, not transition talks which lack the strength and risk that section 6 creates for management. These section 6 talks are further leveraged with the fact that management now needs cooperation to move the merger forward. Add on the fact that the environment forecasted $4 billion net profit for the combined airline in 2015. Also add on that our peeps will be in negotiations NOT with a mom and pop, or regional airline, but with the world's biggest airline as soon as the merger is approved! Management WANTS transition talks for sure! Screw that until our peeps are taken care of. Everyone needs to benefit from this merger, NOT just management and the collective bargaining agents.
The path should be: Strong TA in section 6 then another bump in transition talks.
a. Wages: Industry leading wages are 25.97 but since the US AIRWAYS members don't have anything of real substance, it is unlikely that 25.97 can be attained until a transition agreement gives us a final bump. But, for now, comparable wages to non union airlines like Delta ought to be. $23.16 + longevity pay of an additional .60 [provided our members get the scope and other benefits]. The IAM should use the AMR bankruptcy pay scale as the bar to cross and advance far past. Then in transitions, we advance the bar further. [Warning: our NC is currently asking for alot less. What they are 'asking for' won't even bring our membership to non union levels. Never mind that it isn't even considering many of the other enhancements below.]
b. Retirement. Our peeps already have a 401k so negotiate a % of company contribution into it so that things can be more 'seamless' in joint talks since AMR has a 401k. Whatever the math, our peeps retirement has been screwed by both the company and the union, so both entities need to recognize that the masses also need to be a part of gains and not just the IAM and management. Some enhancement is required. I do NOT subscribe to enhancing the IAM pension, only enhancing the current 401k. With higher wages, this is the best benefit. With the IAM pension, it doesn't matter what the wage is, as the company contribution is set.
c. Scope. This is the GRANDDADDY win at all cost item. This is a MUST HAVE. we can talk wages or benefits all day long but if we don't enhance our scope then our members will definately get screwed again. Scope ABOVE ALL!!!!!!!! It's a no brainer. If the company doesn't want to have the decency to commit to the current stations without drop dead dates then we ought not to commit to the merger or joint talks. Screw Joint talks until our members are taken care of.
d. Health benefits: Our part time members have to pay double the health care cost but Parker's MOU with the TWU recognized the TWU's contract + the MOU, and that includes same health care for all, whether part time or full time. Our members deserve the same damn thing. Bottom line.
e. Snap backs. Parker gave the CWA snap backs, so he should also give it to our members who deserve them as well. Anything less is inequitable.
I know the IAM is salivating to work out a deal with the TWU and to realize the extra synergies of the worlds' largest airline, and that's fine, BUT not at the cost of the membership.
Many may not share my opinion but, IMO, it is wise to wait and make sure we get a fair deal, as opposed to jumping at a tiny wage increase and blowing smoke up our members arse about how joint talks is where everything will be attained. HOGWASH. There is LITTLE power in transition talks. Section 6 is where any juice is at. We've waited 14 years to get here, let's not blow it!
Of course, it goes without saying that I will B slap any negotiation team that brings back a crap TA that does not adequately address the above and punts to transition talks. Unfortunately, at least one member of the NC admitted that some of the items above will just 'get in the way' of some mythical transition talks due to commence in the distant future.
And again, IMO, scope is most sacred. Some other items can be lessoned if scope applied to all current stations without dopey deadline dates that collar future negotiations.
[edit: what may happen is what happened with the CWA/IBT. To protect their interest, the CWA and IBT formed joint representation similar to what the IAM/TWU are contemplating. If so, then management NECESSARILY has to recognize it and will want something as well. Management will want a joint contract immediately. If that becomes the case then a leading industry contract ought to be expected. Biggest airline, forecast to be most profitable = best contract.]
regards,
1. Stick to section 6 bargaining and refuse to sign a quickie contract that doesn't adequately address the following mandatories: Scope, retirement, wages.
Our members waited 14 years to finally get in section 6 talks, which we haven't been in since 1999. Section 6 is where the best gains will come from, not transition talks which lack the strength and risk that section 6 creates for management. These section 6 talks are further leveraged with the fact that management now needs cooperation to move the merger forward. Add on the fact that the environment forecasted $4 billion net profit for the combined airline in 2015. Also add on that our peeps will be in negotiations NOT with a mom and pop, or regional airline, but with the world's biggest airline as soon as the merger is approved! Management WANTS transition talks for sure! Screw that until our peeps are taken care of. Everyone needs to benefit from this merger, NOT just management and the collective bargaining agents.
The path should be: Strong TA in section 6 then another bump in transition talks.
a. Wages: Industry leading wages are 25.97 but since the US AIRWAYS members don't have anything of real substance, it is unlikely that 25.97 can be attained until a transition agreement gives us a final bump. But, for now, comparable wages to non union airlines like Delta ought to be. $23.16 + longevity pay of an additional .60 [provided our members get the scope and other benefits]. The IAM should use the AMR bankruptcy pay scale as the bar to cross and advance far past. Then in transitions, we advance the bar further. [Warning: our NC is currently asking for alot less. What they are 'asking for' won't even bring our membership to non union levels. Never mind that it isn't even considering many of the other enhancements below.]
b. Retirement. Our peeps already have a 401k so negotiate a % of company contribution into it so that things can be more 'seamless' in joint talks since AMR has a 401k. Whatever the math, our peeps retirement has been screwed by both the company and the union, so both entities need to recognize that the masses also need to be a part of gains and not just the IAM and management. Some enhancement is required. I do NOT subscribe to enhancing the IAM pension, only enhancing the current 401k. With higher wages, this is the best benefit. With the IAM pension, it doesn't matter what the wage is, as the company contribution is set.
c. Scope. This is the GRANDDADDY win at all cost item. This is a MUST HAVE. we can talk wages or benefits all day long but if we don't enhance our scope then our members will definately get screwed again. Scope ABOVE ALL!!!!!!!! It's a no brainer. If the company doesn't want to have the decency to commit to the current stations without drop dead dates then we ought not to commit to the merger or joint talks. Screw Joint talks until our members are taken care of.
d. Health benefits: Our part time members have to pay double the health care cost but Parker's MOU with the TWU recognized the TWU's contract + the MOU, and that includes same health care for all, whether part time or full time. Our members deserve the same damn thing. Bottom line.
e. Snap backs. Parker gave the CWA snap backs, so he should also give it to our members who deserve them as well. Anything less is inequitable.
I know the IAM is salivating to work out a deal with the TWU and to realize the extra synergies of the worlds' largest airline, and that's fine, BUT not at the cost of the membership.
Many may not share my opinion but, IMO, it is wise to wait and make sure we get a fair deal, as opposed to jumping at a tiny wage increase and blowing smoke up our members arse about how joint talks is where everything will be attained. HOGWASH. There is LITTLE power in transition talks. Section 6 is where any juice is at. We've waited 14 years to get here, let's not blow it!
Of course, it goes without saying that I will B slap any negotiation team that brings back a crap TA that does not adequately address the above and punts to transition talks. Unfortunately, at least one member of the NC admitted that some of the items above will just 'get in the way' of some mythical transition talks due to commence in the distant future.
And again, IMO, scope is most sacred. Some other items can be lessoned if scope applied to all current stations without dopey deadline dates that collar future negotiations.
[edit: what may happen is what happened with the CWA/IBT. To protect their interest, the CWA and IBT formed joint representation similar to what the IAM/TWU are contemplating. If so, then management NECESSARILY has to recognize it and will want something as well. Management will want a joint contract immediately. If that becomes the case then a leading industry contract ought to be expected. Biggest airline, forecast to be most profitable = best contract.]
regards,
- Banned
- #1,105
Not gonna happen, the CWA didnt get everything back.
And they didnt get improvements, just back to where they were in 1999, they still lost a few hundred jobs as all the overseas jobs that went to Manilla and El Salvador didnt come back at the same levels before they closed PIT res and Baggage.
And they didnt get improvements, just back to where they were in 1999, they still lost a few hundred jobs as all the overseas jobs that went to Manilla and El Salvador didnt come back at the same levels before they closed PIT res and Baggage.
Jester
Veteran
I am going to probably say something rather unpopular, but frankly, I have some empathy with the Company's tactics of negotiations, not to say, I like it or it is something which is ideal, but with this merger, the pilots' unresolved issues, having to integrate the different work groups, along with dozens of other matters, I am not surprised Management has been trying to defer as much as possible. From a Management's point-of-view, what's the point of negotiating with US FSAs, only to have to do it again when the AA and US FSAs after the integration in another year? As Management intends to stall, might as well get something for it, and I think reduction in the continued "Swissporting" of stations is something of real value, although I wish the guarantee was longer than a year.
- Status
