OCT/NOV 2012 IAM Fleet Service Discussions

[JFK Fleet Service]

More interesting than this? C'mon man...next you'll be telling me you guys don't have Direct TV with NFL Ticket in your ready rooms!

 

[Kev3188]

Health care is not a right...

Not yet...

I agree. People shouldn't receive serious medical care if it doesn't contribute to the wealth of others.

Ha!

 

[roabilly]

Let's see... you have gone from an "industry outsider", to a ten year fleet service employee in just a few months! Narcissism and schizophrenia bleed through no matter the medium!

Black Magic--February 5, 2012-- "As an outsider with not much knowledge of the grievance doings can someone enlighten me on what happens to the company when the union wins a grievance? Are there any kind of citations, fines, or? lol I mean what is to stop the company from doing whatever they please when they know the worst that can happen is a "grievance?"

Black Magic--November 12, 2012-- "In the 10 year period I've been employed at US airways I have never once needed union representation on a grievance case and I plan on keeping a spotless record for years to come. With the companies 3 strikes in a year and you "might" be out program, you'd have to be a serious degenerate to get fired. In that case I wouldn't want such a person working around me anyway."

How long do you intend to play this game?

 

[robbedagain]

If you think you dont need a union... then you have no idea. ive heard stories about what happens.... such as for example a guy in las got fired they had a union he was in and it took the union 5 yrs but he got the job seniority and back pay back this i heard from my coworker worker who i work with came from las

 

[700UW]

Busted

 

[ograc]

I see your point. But that is why americas optional health insurance exists. A person can choose wether or not they want to buy into it. It should not be forced upon a healthy individual to buy health insurance.

Buying health insurance for an employee making minimum wage working for an employer who does not provide it is unaffordable. The decision is not based on wheather a person is healthy but on affordability. When this healthy person, who is uninsured, is involved in a traumatic accident that requires extensive medical care who do you think is burdened with the cost? The cost is passed along to the insured with higher premiums to the employer and employee. The uninsured pay next to nothing for required medical care while the insured are billed double for the same care. This makes it cost neutral for the caregiver. An upward cost cycle that must be fixed.

 

[Black Magic]

Let's see... you have gone from an "industry outsider", to a ten year fleet service employee in just a few months! Narcissism and schizophrenia bleed through no matter the medium!

Black Magic--February 5, 2012-- "As an outsider with not much knowledge of the grievance doings can someone enlighten me on what happens to the company when the union wins a grievance? Are there any kind of citations, fines, or? lol I mean what is to stop the company from doing whatever they please when they know the worst that can happen is a "grievance?"

Black Magic--November 12, 2012-- "In the 10 year period I've been employed at US airways I have never once needed union representation on a grievance case and I plan on keeping a spotless record for years to come. With the companies 3 strikes in a year and you "might" be out program, you'd have to be a serious degenerate to get fired. In that case I wouldn't want such a person working around me anyway."

How long do you intend to play this game?

Sorry for the late reply, had a nice saturday fishing with the nephews. I'm not playing any games. As you can see I asked that question earlier in 2012 because I have never needed the union for a grievance case, never a troublemaker, I just put my head down follow the rules and work. I've always known about the companies 3 strikes performance policy. I've seen other co-workers who have their cases amazingly won or lost and simply always wondered if the company was reprimanded/fined/ect. if the mediation board sided with the employee. Doesn't seem like the company has much to loose, if the mediator sides in the employees favor. It was a question, the answers I get help me form my own conclusions.

I speak out on both the company and the IAM when I see foul play. Keeps things real and in check. I'm sure in Roabilly's search of my posts he has seen it, anyone else is free to check them out if they like. Being independent and focusing on my own goals is important rather that following sheep everywhere without questioning. I don't hate the rich along the same lines I don't pity the poor, make ur own decisions to better yourself.

 

[Jester]

Buying health insurance for an employee making minimum wage working for an employer who does not provide it is unaffordable. The decision is not based on wheather a person is healthy but on affordability. When this healthy person, who is uninsured, is involved in a traumatic accident that requires extensive medical care who do you think is burdened with the cost? The cost is passed along to the insured with higher premiums to the employer and employee. The uninsured pay next to nothing for required medical care while the insured are billed double for the same care. This makes it cost neutral for the caregiver. An upward cost cycle that must be fixed.

Ograc,

I have avoided much of this debate, because of the complexity of the issues in terms of free markets, unions, healthcare, etc. (and not to mention, first I had to get the permisssion of my alter-ego, Tim Nelson... that's a shout-out for you, Mr. Roabilly), which cannot be discussed in brevity. However, I think there are some fallacies or oversights on your behalf that need to be questioned in terms of healthcare.

First, it is a flaw to think it is soley an issue of affordability. For example, I have seen more than a few full-time FSAs decline healthcare benefits because they wanted to save the $100/month, as they figured themselves to be young, single and healthy. I have told them many times they are insane, and changed a few minds along the way. But if not $100/month, would it be "affordable" at $300? For many, yes, but still if the choice is a new car payment or health insurance, the cool ride would often times be the choice instead. Obama even admitted to making that mistake during a "60 Minutes" interview where he stated that he was under the misconception, if he made health insurance affordable that everyone would buy it... both of his liberal and conservative economists corrected him on that falsehood.

Second, I view the heatlhcare question as a matter of options that every nation faces into that common paradigm: Good, Fast, and Cheap, but can only Pick Only Two. For examples, I think the US would be Good and Fast (but not Cheap), Canada would be Good and Cheap (but not Fast) and Cuba would be Fast and Cheap (but not Good). All of this discussion becomes one of how we wish to change that "mix" of those three options with the pre-dominately false narratives of some type of Euro-Socialism which is thought to be an Utopian ideal of all 3 options being possible.

Third, I really don't know what we should realistically expect from insurance premiums as we come to demand highly trained medical professionals, state-of-the-art technology, the lastest in pharmarceutical research, caring and comfortable facilities, immediate availablity for treatment, and the ability to sue for considerable monetary damages when things go wrong, but we want it for a discount price?

Fourth, there is certainly a cost-shifting of the uninsured costs of care being indirectly billed to those with insurance or through higher taxation to the public hospitals. However, we are seeing that even with insured patients, insofar as the reimbursement rates are not adequate to cover the costs of providing treatment, in particular, Medicare and Medicaid coverages. The reason I mention it is that a large part of "Obamacare" has been to expand the Medicaid eligibility which ironically will increase the cost of private insurance to cover the poor reimbursement rates, and people with insurance are far more likely to demand medical services than those without insurance.

And finally, many people speak of "excessive" or "greedy" profits of healthcare providers or insurance companies, but the profit margins on most firms are around 3-5%, which generally speaking would not be considered to be out of line with most businesses. Some people may speak about Medicare's low overhead, but then ignore the estimated $60 BILLION in annual fraud too.

I do not pretend to have the solutions, but I know that most of the healthcare talking points overlook critical assumptions and understandings to the healthcare economics.

 

[Black Magic]

Duplicate post

 

[ograc]

Ograc,

I have avoided much of this debate, because of the complexity of the issues in terms of free markets, unions, healthcare, etc. (and not to mention, first I had to get the permisssion of my alter-ego, Tim Nelson... that's a shout-out for you, Mr. Roabilly), which cannot be discussed in brevity. However, I think there are some fallacies or oversights on your behalf that need to be questioned in terms of healthcare.

First, it is a flaw to think it is soley an issue of affordability. For example, I have seen more than a few full-time FSAs decline healthcare benefits because they wanted to save the $100/month, as they figured themselves to be young, single and healthy. I have told them many times they are insane, and changed a few minds along the way. But if not $100/month, would it be "affordable" at $300? For many, yes, but still if the choice is a new car payment or health insurance, the cool ride would often times be the choice instead. Obama even admitted to making that mistake during a "60 Minutes" interview where he stated that he was under the misconception, if he made health insurance affordable that everyone would buy it... both of his liberal and conservative economists corrected him on that falsehood.

Second, I view the heatlhcare question as a matter of options that every nation faces into that common paradigm: Good, Fast, and Cheap, but can only Pick Only Two. For examples, I think the US would be Good and Fast (but not Cheap), Canada would be Good and Cheap (but not Fast) and Cuba would be Fast and Cheap (but not Good). All of this discussion becomes one of how we wish to change that "mix" of those three options with the pre-dominately false narratives of some type of Euro-Socialism which is thought to be an Utopian ideal of all 3 options being possible.

Third, I really don't know what we should realistically expect from insurance premiums as we come to demand highly trained medical professionals, state-of-the-art technology, the lastest in pharmarceutical research, caring and comfortable facilities, immediate availablity for treatment, and the ability to sue for considerable monetary damages when things go wrong, but we want it for a discount price?

Fourth, there is certainly a cost-shifting of the uninsured costs of care being indirectly billed to those with insurance or through higher taxation to the public hospitals. However, we are seeing that even with insured patients, insofar as the reimbursement rates are not adequate to cover the costs of providing treatment, in particular, Medicare and Medicaid coverages. The reason I mention it is that a large part of "Obamacare" has been to expand the Medicaid eligibility which ironically will increase the cost of private insurance to cover the poor reimbursement rates, and people with insurance are far more likely to demand medical services than those without insurance.

And finally, many people speak of "excessive" or "greedy" profits of healthcare providers or insurance companies, but the profit margins on most firms are around 3-5%, which generally speaking would not be considered to be out of line with most businesses. Some people may speak about Medicare's low overhead, but then ignore the estimated $60 BILLION in annual fraud too.

I do not pretend to have the solutions, but I know that most of the healthcare talking points overlook critical assumptions and understandings to the healthcare economics.

Agreed the issue is very complex, however, when I referenced the uninsured I was speaking of those who would have to purchase health insurance on their own. In this case the cost is much more than the company provided health benefits ranging from $100.00 - $300.00 per month. Comparable health insurance for family coverage is in the $1,000.00 per month range when you have to purchase it on your own. For a person working for a company making minimum wage or just above, that does not provide health coverage, the cost to purchase health insurance on their own is simply out of the question. Many of the nation's employed fall into this category. I, likewise, do not pretend to have the solutions to this issue. I do, however, believe this issue needs to be fixed.

 

[necigrad]

If you want socialized medicine move to europe, where you get to pay for peoples bad health choices in smoking ect. Health care is not a right, just same as owning a car, or house is not a right.

But that is why americas optional health insurance exists. A person can choose wether or not they want to buy into it. It should not be forced upon a healthy individual to buy health insurance.

So let's say I'm healthy and thus uninsured. Since I'm healthy I have no need for it. Tomorrow I'm hit by a drunk driver. My neck is broken and have substantial trauma to my left side where I was T boned when the drunk ran the red light. My left arm gets amputated, I spend eight weeks in the hospital. I spend another 6 months recovering at home while receiving substantial in home health care. I lose my job because the company I work for doesn't feel the need to keep me once I exhaust my FMLA. Disability (thank God I have that insurance through my employer!) has said that I'm as healed as I can be and they're not going to keep payign for me to be out of work. They determine my disability level, and extrapolate a settlement from that. I can pick for a woefully inadequate one time payment OR a monthly payment over 20 yers for FAR less then I was making. I have a very hard time finding a decent job as I now only have one arm, constant pain, and substantially restricted movement. The drunks insurance only covered the first $30,000 of my injuries (again, that God he was even insured!), so I take him to court. I get a settlement for some nice number. Great for me, but he can't pay it so he declares bankruptcy. I now can't pay my bills, so I declare bankruptcy. My medical bills, the ones I don't have insurance for, go unpaid. To make up for this loss the doctors and hospital and health care companies pass those losses on to their other patients in the form of higher bills. That is where all those people that have health insurance pay for the medical attention. Socialized medical care.

At least with Obamacare all the headaches and bankruptcys are gone.

Damnit. Six months of living in a battleground State dealing with the pain in the ass polls and political calls. I was pissed off the other week that politics was in this forum and left for probalby three weeks to get away from it. And here I am dragged back in...

If you think you dont need a union... then you have no idea. ive heard stories about what happens.... such as for example a guy in las got fired they had a union he was in and it took the union 5 yrs but he got the job seniority and back pay back this i heard from my coworker worker who i work with came from las

This isn't a story. It's absolute fact. I know exactly who it is. The settlement was confidential, but I do know he got back pay. He got all his seniority. He's back working and has been for a few years now.

 

[roabilly]

Well... well... Mr. Black Magic-- for someone that claims not to know anything about the union, and/or Grievance Procedures, I'm finding some very disturbing posts from you that call into question your integrity on this board. They are certainly in direct conflict with your recent assertions...

Below, is one such comment from November 4, 2009, where you personally claim to know people on the Grievance Committee, and even commend them on their abilities at working the Grievance System. It's kind of hard to deny knowledge of the system, after bragging about your knowledge of it just 3 years ago!

(CLICK ON THE IMAGE TO ENLARGE)

 

[700UW]

Seems someone has been exposed as a fraud, good work Roabilly!

 

[roabilly]

Seems someone has been exposed as a fraud, good work Roabilly!

It get's a lot better... I'm saving the BEST for last!

P.S. The sad part is almost half of the poster's are frauds... and out of that half... another half is the same person!

 

[Black Magic]

Well... well... Mr. Black Magic-- for someone that claims not to know anything about the union, and/or Grievance Procedures, I'm finding some very disturbing posts from you that call into question your integrity on this board. They are certainly in direct conflict with your recent assertions...

Below, is one such comment from November 4, 2009, where you personally claim to know people on the Grievance Committee, and even commend them on their abilities at working the Grievance System. It's kind of hard to deny knowledge of the system, after bragging about your knowledge of it just 3 years ago!

(CLICK ON THE IMAGE TO ENLARGE)

Oh brother..really? Who doesn't know who their grievance team is in their station/hub?? And who doesn't know some employees that have had their cases won. This is a riot of laughter for me.

Keep digging, I'm awaiting the best for last.