IAM fleet service thread 7/5-7/12

[Tim Nelson]

Randy Canale does it again.
This goofball signs a ridiculs voluntary furlough package over at United. Geez, I hope you guys at US AIRWAYS don't get hose with this clown signing off on an incompetent volutary furlough. Hopefully, the IAM will allow Delaney to come in and clean things up instead of allowing Canale to turn his hate and anger towards those who voted him out.

Doesn't even guarantee that United will pay unemployment and only offers $500 a month up to $12,500. Trust me, United saves "Millions" By trying to cut bait with 400 rampers that are making $21hr as opposed to laying off 400 that make about $9 buck.

I'm sure this is such a lowball plan that when the pilots sign one that it will not be made public.

regards,
Tim Nelson
IAM Local Chairman, 1487, Chicago

 

[cltrat]

Randy Canale does it again.

we can't get rid of this p o s quick enough to suit me

 

[cltrat]

Kudo's go out to all 5 who showed up to vote for the disgraced ex-got-thrown-out-on-his-a$$-grievance committeeman. Maybe he'll get a clue!.

this reminds me of the master who keeps beating his dog, finally the dog learns and quits doing what caused the beatings.

this person instead of learning just stands up raises his hand and and says "Thank you Sir, May I have another? Whack! Whack ! Whack!

 

[rat tales]

this reminds me of the master who keeps beating his dog, finally the dog learns and quits doing what caused the beatings.

Not so,

It's more like the fox who keeps getting shot in th a$$ to stupid to realize he is no longer wanted around the hen house. He just keeps getting shot down.

 

[cltrat]

Not so,

It's more like the fox who keeps getting shot in th a$$ to stupid to realize he is no longer wanted around the hen house. He just keeps getting shot down.

 

[P. REZ]

Rat tales,



P. Rez

My statement here is not a dig at you, but you were on the seniority integration committee prior to negotiations. We were told by the Grand Lodge that your committee was in charge of this issue and that the negotioating committee would not address this. Tell me I'm wrong please!


This is not a dig at you either, but you are wrong. This seniority committee had nothing to do with tower getting all of their seniority. I want to reiterate my position on seniority. I have and will always be a proponent of date of hire seniority, as long as you were a part of the group at the time the union comes in or merger or whatever the case may be. If you are new to the class, you get pay seniority but bid date of when you entered the class. PERIOD. I do however, respect opposing opinions, just don't agree.


P. Rez

 

[rat tales]

This is not a dig at you either, but you are wrong. This seniority committee had nothing to do with tower getting all of their seniority. I want to reiterate my position on seniority. I have and will always be a proponent of date of hire seniority, as long as you were a part of the group at the time the union comes in or merger or whatever the case may be. If you are new to the class, you get pay seniority but bid date of when you entered the class. PERIOD. I do however, respect opposing opinions, just don't agree.


P. Rez

The Committee that you were part of was in place Aug 8 2006. How many times did you meet? It is hard to fathom why the tower/clp work was not discussed? The IAM had to have revealed to your group that tower/clp was our work and would come into play with seniority transition. If you were a proponent of date of hire, why was this not discussed? You seem to think that the committee was convening now to discuss these issues. Were you not present over the entire process?

http://www.iam141.org/PDF/US%20Airways/RC-77USA80806-1.pdf

 

[Ramp Rogue]

This is not a dig at you either, but you are wrong. This seniority committee had nothing to do with tower getting all of their seniority. I want to reiterate my position on seniority. I have and will always be a proponent of date of hire seniority, as long as you were a part of the group at the time the union comes in or merger or whatever the case may be. If you are new to the class, you get pay seniority but bid date of when you entered the class. PERIOD. I do however, respect opposing opinions, just don't agree.


P. Rez

P. Rez,

If you were or are a proponent of DOH, please explain to us that weren't in negotiations what went down that we don't now go by DOH? It seems as if each and every person that was on the negotiation committee wanted DOH if you ask them. But when you are not in their face asking them about DOH they sing a different tune. What happened in there? Why do you seem so afraid to say? PM me if you have to, inquiring minds need to know.

Rogue

 

[rat tales]

Rogue,

He wasn't on the negotiating committee from PHX, Ron Roth was. P.ReZ was on the seniority integration committee and while Canale promised updates as discussions progressed, that never transpired and the East was kept in the dark.

• Nate Gushi-USA-LAX
• Vinny Capitani-USA-TPA
• Larry Sano-USA-CLP-PIT
• Pat Rezler-AW-PHX
• Steve Willis-AW-LAS
• Ed Turner-AW-LAX

Notice that of the East reps on the seniority integration committee niether PHL, CLT, nor PIT Mainline were represented. At that time those three represented over half of the Fleet East total membership. WTF!

It is easy to see why date of hire did not fly though, out of the 6 reps AW was made the majority PHX, LAS, LAX[very few east at LAX].
TPA rep was an educator for Randy. I think it was stacked for a reason don't you!

 

[P. REZ]

Rat tales,



The Committee that you were part of was in place Aug 8 2006. How many times did you meet? It is hard to fathom why the tower/clp work was not discussed? The IAM had to have revealed to your group that tower/clp was our work and would come into play with seniority transition. If you were a proponent of date of hire, why was this not discussed? You seem to think that the committee was convening now to discuss these issues. Were you not present over the entire process?

We met 3 times including this time if I'm not mistaken. Tower was never mentioned to my recollection. It was made clear on the first session that DOH was not an option for the membership because before the merger the respective Unions had policies in place and we were not here to change that. We were here to basically integrate the lists. No decisions were made here. No votes. What can I say. Everyone on the committee had their opinions on what was right but no vote was ever taken. I have a history of agreeing with DOH seniority. In TWU's first negotiations I was out voted 5-1 against DOH including temp time. I was present at every meeting BTW. It seems to me that DOH is disliked among many leaders and agents alike on the IAM side.


P. Rez

 

[P. REZ]

Rogue,

P. Rez,

If you were or are a proponent of DOH, please explain to us that weren't in negotiations what went down that we don't now go by DOH? It seems as if each and every person that was on the negotiation committee wanted DOH if you ask them. But when you are not in their face asking them about DOH they sing a different tune. What happened in there? Why do you seem so afraid to say? PM me if you have to, inquiring minds need to know.

Rogue


Not afraid to state anything. We were only there to integrate the lists. No decisions were made by this committee.



P. Rez

 

[rat tales]

Rogue,


Not afraid to state anything. We were only there to integrate the lists. No decisions were made by this committee.



P. Rez

Randy, The Grand Lodge rep, and AGC PF all walked around CLT break rooms openly lying to the membership about who was dealing with the seniority integration. No one listened to the membership. The membership turned a deaf ear to Randy and his TEAM08 and kicked them to the curb as a result.

As stated before, it is what it is and we deal with it. It just would be nice to know what transpired behind our backs and to hear the truth. Thank you P. REZ for at least being above board.

 

[Ramp Rogue]

Not afraid to state anything. We were only there to integrate the lists. No decisions were made by this committee.

P. Rez

P.

If you were only there to integrate the lists and no decisions were made by the committee, who made the decision on how the lists would be integrated?

Rogue


Would you please explain what an (adjusted seniority date field) is? Also what is the (America West’s Human Resources Information System) and where can it be found?

Rogue

 

[Ramp Rogue]

Pat

The problem is that alot of people don't know or have access to the HP Human Resources information Sys. I saw the list about 2 yrs ago and it had Bid date and Adj class date I believe, but I can't remember. They don't have a list out now I believe....The "Ajd Sen date field is vague in our minds.................

 

[Ramp Rogue]

Rat tales,



P. Rez

My statement here is not a dig at you, but you were on the seniority integration committee prior to negotiations. We were told by the Grand Lodge that your committee was in charge of this issue and that the negotioating committee would not address this. Tell me I'm wrong please!


This is not a dig at you either, but you are wrong. This seniority committee had nothing to do with tower getting all of their seniority. I want to reiterate my position on seniority. I have and will always be a proponent of date of hire seniority, as long as you were a part of the group at the time the union comes in or merger or whatever the case may be. If you are new to the class, you get pay seniority but bid date of when you entered the class. PERIOD. I do however, respect opposing opinions, just don't agree.


P. Rez

Seniority Integration




1. Whatever your current classification seniority date is what you will continue to get.

2. Tower people will get all of their seniority minus temp time for the most part. This was negotiated and is part of the contract we all voted in. No changes.


Before you complain, call up your negotiating committee and thank them. This subject (tower people) was totally out of our hands.



P. Rez

Who is responsible for tower people getting all of their seniority? If whatever our current classification seniority is is what we will continue to get, who is responsible for that? It seems to me that the seniority integrating committee didn't do squat. What the hell was going on while you were supposed to be coming to some sort of fair seniority agreement for ALL of us? Did the committee have a knife in their belly and a gun to their head? There are too many statements being made about our seniority that are contradictory!

Rogue