Profit Sharing for Fleet Service

pj,
Great question . IMO this is how it played out. Fleet gets a p/s check but Randy tells Doug that the west is not in our CBA
so it shouldn't come out of the IAM pool.. DOUG say's Randy "it's not coming out of my profit sharing so YES it will come out of the
IAM and Randy say's " O.K Doug I just thought I would ask I am sorry to upset you "
 
bagchucker,
"One thing that is really frustrating is that the few grievances that we file seem to get lost. There is no final ruling on them. They get shuffled into the mix and swept under a rug somewhere."

Brother/sister I fell for ya . You guys out west have definitely been MISREPRESENTED by the IAM . And if I were in your shoes

I would be just as upset and angry. That's one of many reasons why we on the east were trying to oust the IAM altogether.

what does your grand poopa mr roth have to say about that. If he can't even get a local grievance settle what makes him think

he is qualified to be a VP on Canalios ticket. something to think about
 
orioleman said:
bagchucker,
"One thing that is really frustrating is that the few grievances that we file seem to get lost. There is no final ruling on them. They get shuffled into the mix and swept under a rug somewhere."

Brother/sister I fell for ya . You guys out west have definitely been MISREPRESENTED by the IAM . And if I were in your shoes

I would be just as upset and angry. That's one of many reasons why we on the east were trying to oust the IAM altogether.

what does your grand poopa mr roth have to say about that. If he can't even get a local grievance settle what makes him think

he is qualified to be a VP on Canalios ticket. something to think about
Click to expand...

Hi O man , Mr Roth is doing a fantastic job , you have to understand that it’s not the union that holds these things up but the company . Ron is constantly busy fighting the company , like for instance when the company just started cleaning out house in DEC by using attendance issues here in PHX …

Listen Ron is a really great guy , he is definitely qualified to be a VP and in my view even more . You guys don’t see him working tirelessly day in and day out to fight the company and protect our workers , but we here in PHX do . When guys can’t get anywhere with the AGC’S and upper IAM management , I tell them to go talk to Ron cause he’s the man .


Good luck at the talks if your reading this Ron ! we’re behind you 100 % !
 
Hey Freedom,

I have had the opportunity to work on the PHX ramp with Ron and I will vouch for him that he works hard at his job and even harder at fairly representing the membership out on the ramp. As far as his endeavours with furthering himself with the IAM, I wish him the best. I have been away from the PHX scene for quite a while now, and my recent posts on this thread are related to the absent representation we are currently facing at the station I am at now. We are VERY misrepresented and misinformed. We did get to vote on the T.A. back in August when an IAM "with a very East background" came to collect our votes. Anyway, I am straying off topic again.... Sure hope the West is considered again when the p.s. checks come out... cuz our dues are certainly collected religiously by the IAM.
 
My question is how can the IAM or the company pick and choose which parts of the "east" CBA to impose on you guys in the west. Is seems to me that it should be a all or nothing kind of thing. If they want to pick something why was it not the pay scale. Bagchucker why wouldn't you be considered in this years profit sharing. Did we not make a profit? Past practices is what I think they call it. As for the IAM feeling like they need to give something in return for collecting dues I don't buy it at all. The money came from the company not the IAM. If they felt bad about the dues then they should have returned a portion to you. We(east and west) made a profit so therefore we(east and west) should get a check.
 
I heard a RUMOR that profit sharing for West was at the request of the Company. Personally (as a West employee) I don't understand why IAM would do this. It doesn't make sense, especially given that they seem to not represent West in any way other then this. I am of the OPINION that it is the right (morally) thing to do as East and West jointly made the profit. Contractually, the East guys are getting screwed over, unless the Company kick more into the pot.

Now to kick over the hornets nest. We've recieved profit sharing as West employees for 2006. There is an implication by giving us that that we are now part of the pool. That opens up a lawsuit were the IAM to take it away. I'm already trying to figure out what bills I'm going to jump on with that check, which I think (and I have NO information to support this) will be $1200-$1500 for topped out guys. We had an awesome first three quarters (near as I can recall), better then last year in all cases. Even if the fourth quarter is a loss I wouldn't be shocked to see double the profits year over year.
 
  • Thread Starter
  • Thread starter
  • #22
I guess my whole point was that the I'll Ask Management want to pick and choose which part's of the East's CBA they want to let the West be a part of. IMHO that is wrong. It should be all or nothing. And for the record, even if have more in our share of the P/S pool, we all will get a smaller P/S check due to the fact that the West employee's will get a full years share.
 
I guess my whole point was that the I'll Ask Management want to pick and choose which part's of the East's CBA they want to let the West be a part of. IMHO that is wrong. It should be all or nothing.
Click to expand...

Yup, it should have been that way.

And for the record, even if have more in our share of the P/S pool, we all will get a smaller P/S check due to the fact that the West employee's will get a full years share.
Click to expand...

Not exactly. Because I suck at math (and I'm trying to watch the Giants make it to the Superbowl) I'll make a simple example. Say pre merger you would have had 10 million in the pool to share with 5000 people. That's $2000 per person. Now, post merger let's say there was a 20 million pool with 7000 people. That's $2857 per person. It's impossible to say "what if" for profit and loss, and we don't want to start a "Well if it wasn't for (pick East or West) there wouldn't be a profit", so I think this simple example may be sufficient.

You're correct in that if the value of the pool didn't change that West getting a cut would take away from the East share. Since incomes mostly go to US Airways, and it seems most of the merger expenses go to AWA, it's also impossible to even look at income statements for last year or the year before. I believe 2007 is the first year where AWA does not exist for anything other then certificates and labor.
 
  • Thread Starter
  • Thread starter
  • #24
Well the I'll Ask Management will probably "give" P/S back to the company in the next "offering", because the I'll Ask Management seems to think that we have to pay for improvements to our CBA. Even though the company is making profits.
 
necigrad
I don't know if you suck at math or not but I think your math might be a little flawed. Let me try something here. If my thinking is flawed or my math is flawed I am sure someone will let me know. The figures I used are not real just using them as an example. The math could get real complicated because its based on each employees earnings throughout the year. Having the different pay scales really complicates thing when you try to pin down what people should recieve. The way I figure it there has to be a 25% increase (achieveable but unlikely) in the pool over last year in order for me to recieve as much or more than I recieved last year.
 
Nothing wrong with that. If the profit is identical, yes, you lose some. What's wrong is that you spoke in absolutes. The more profit there is the less it cuts, and easily can increase.
 
Profit sharing for the west was the IAM's together with
the company's sceme to placate the west in exchange to
give up on section 6 negotiations. If I were an eastie I
would sue the IAM.
 
Besides Parker and Canale both planned to get rid of it ASAP. So
who cares. Steal from the east and make the west feel like they
got something from this deal. It's criminal collusion.
 
  • Thread Starter
  • Thread starter
  • #29
The Bagfather said:
Profit sharing for the west was the IAM's together with
the company's sceme to placate the west in exchange to
give up on section 6 negotiations. If I were an eastie I
would sue the IAM.
Click to expand...
Bagfather,
Very good point. OTOH the West should look into a case about "Duty of Fair Representation". I mean it has been how long since your CBA was amendable? And the I'll Ask Management has done nothing to futher negotiations for the west.Sounds like the West employees have a good case also.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

I
Fleet Service Profit Sharing
2 3 4
Replies
54
Views
6K
stormchaser
S
Jimmy Neutron
FLEET SERVICE PROFIT SHARING
Replies
7
Views
2K
diogenes
D
S
Profit Sharing
2
Replies
29
Views
5K
jetster
J
W
Why was the Usairways IAM Mechanic and Related Profit Sharing form the East with the West?
2 3
Replies
32
Views
4K
awausairtech
awausairtech
3
Profit Sharing will shut airline if this happens!
6 7 8
Replies
106
Views
14K
insp89
I

Latest posts

Back
Top