United Mechanics vote on new contract extensio

[WeAAsles]

Another reason why UAL is trying to get ahead of the game?

American Airlines To Increase Engine Overhaul Output By 60% At Tulsa Facility

The carrier could be overhauling over 150 engines annually.

simpleflying.com

 

[ThirdSeatHero]

I don’t vote with my emotions and I don’t vote on any what ifs. That’s all you’re giving me here.

I don't vote while ignoring the obvious - especially where the ibt is involved

Again this Teamcare is NOT NOT NOT in your deal. You are NOT voting on Teamcare.

Read much? ...

While the language in article 16 doesn't mention Teamcare by name, they ibt has already given the game away with their update a few weeks ago ...

I get it. You have a hatred for the IBT. But you don’t work for the IBT. You work for UAL. And what I’m seeing is UAL is putting a pretty good (financial) deal on the table for you to vote on.

Read much? Part II ...

And again, to be clear, if that article 16 language was removed, I'd vote YES.

And there in lays the real beauty in all of this - Asking UAL to remove this language doesn't cost them ANYTHING - making this the easiest ask of all the complaints UAL techs are voicing concerning this TA.

So while UAL might indeed balk at the ask for a reduced TTTO, ($$$) or a change of the Holiday move language, ($$$), I don't think they hesitate for a moment to remove this language - the ibt wouldn't like it, UAL wouldn't care. They want this extension done.

BTW if you vote no you also screw AMT’s at AA, Delta and SWA since you “weirdly” refused to accept raising the bar.

Oh give it a fricken rest - at top out UAL would only be PENNIES above SWA - some bar raise.

UAL doesn’t have half a million employees so they couldn’t possibly offer you lower costs than Teamcare probably can.

Common sense.

Better get your "Common sense" checked

Why do you think there was such a severe rejection of Teamcare the last time?

The ibt put on their typical dog & pony shows, touting unicorns & rainbows with Teamcare, fortunately for the UAL techs, we all did our homework as well.

We brought our concerns with receipts - literally in most cases - to the road shows where Teamcare reps were brought in to answer our questions, and when confronted with example after example of increased costs - some in premiums, others in co-pays, and in one of the most devastating take downs I've ever seen in a road show, one individuals cost on prescriptions alone would have gone up over $100 dollars a month. He beat the reps down with the very information they had provided to sell the plan.

The reps finally acknowledged that "some" members costs were going to go up. Shortly thereafter the petitions went out around the system - We had to go around our own representatives directly to the company to shut the discussions on Teamcare down.

 

[WeAAsles]

I don't vote while ignoring the obvious - especially where the ibt is involved




Read much? ...






Read much? Part II ...



And there in lays the real beauty in all of this - Asking UAL to remove this language doesn't cost them ANYTHING - making this the easiest ask of all the complaints UAL techs are voicing concerning this TA.

So while UAL might indeed balk at the ask for a reduced TTTO, ($$$) or a change of the Holiday move language, ($$$), I don't think they hesitate for a moment to remove this language - the ibt wouldn't like it, UAL wouldn't care. They want this extension done.





Oh give it a fricken rest - at top out UAL would only be PENNIES above SWA - some bar raise.





Better get your "Common sense" checked

Why do you think there was such a severe rejection of Teamcare the last time?

The ibt put on their typical dog & pony shows, touting unicorns & rainbows with Teamcare, fortunately for the UAL techs, we all did our homework as well.

We brought our concerns with receipts - literally in most cases - to the road shows where Teamcare reps were brought in to answer our questions, and when confronted with example after example of increased costs - some in premiums, others in co-pays, and in one of the most devastating take downs I've ever seen in a road show, one individuals cost on prescriptions alone would have gone up over $100 dollars a month. He beat the reps down with the very information they had provided to sell the plan.

The reps finally acknowledged that "some" members costs were going to go up. Shortly thereafter the petitions went out around the system - We had to go around our own representatives directly to the company to shut the discussions on Teamcare down.

And again doesn’t matter over and over and over we can keep going.

In the deal being presented to you, you are NOT NOT NOT NOT voting on Teamcare.

If it was included as a CHOICE why do any of you have a problem with that?

You’re not halfwits that can’t read the language if the next time they try to dump whatever crappy Medical plans you get currently through UAL are you?

 

[SWAMECH]

I don't vote while ignoring the obvious - especially where the ibt is involved




Read much? ...






Read much? Part II ...



And there in lays the real beauty in all of this - Asking UAL to remove this language doesn't cost them ANYTHING - making this the easiest ask of all the complaints UAL techs are voicing concerning this TA.

So while UAL might indeed balk at the ask for a reduced TTTO, ($$$) or a change of the Holiday move language, ($$$), I don't think they hesitate for a moment to remove this language - the ibt wouldn't like it, UAL wouldn't care. They want this extension done.





Oh give it a fricken rest - at top out UAL would only be PENNIES above SWA - some bar raise.





Better get your "Common sense" checked

Why do you think there was such a severe rejection of Teamcare the last time?

The ibt put on their typical dog & pony shows, touting unicorns & rainbows with Teamcare, fortunately for the UAL techs, we all did our homework as well.

We brought our concerns with receipts - literally in most cases - to the road shows where Teamcare reps were brought in to answer our questions, and when confronted with example after example of increased costs - some in premiums, others in co-pays, and in one of the most devastating take downs I've ever seen in a road show, one individuals cost on prescriptions alone would have gone up over $100 dollars a month. He beat the reps down with the very information they had provided to sell the plan.

The reps finally acknowledged that "some" members costs were going to go up. Shortly thereafter the petitions went out around the system - We had to go around our own representatives directly to the company to shut the discussions on Teamcare down.

That is sad how hard the members had to prove how wrong they were and even get the company to help show the union they were wrong as well. This is why the crooked teamsters NEED to be completely out of our industry, period.

 

[SWAMECH]

I don't vote while ignoring the obvious - especially where the ibt is involved




Read much? ...






Read much? Part II ...



And there in lays the real beauty in all of this - Asking UAL to remove this language doesn't cost them ANYTHING - making this the easiest ask of all the complaints UAL techs are voicing concerning this TA.

So while UAL might indeed balk at the ask for a reduced TTTO, ($$$) or a change of the Holiday move language, ($$$), I don't think they hesitate for a moment to remove this language - the ibt wouldn't like it, UAL wouldn't care. They want this extension done.





Oh give it a fricken rest - at top out UAL would only be PENNIES above SWA - some bar raise.





Better get your "Common sense" checked

Why do you think there was such a severe rejection of Teamcare the last time?

The ibt put on their typical dog & pony shows, touting unicorns & rainbows with Teamcare, fortunately for the UAL techs, we all did our homework as well.

We brought our concerns with receipts - literally in most cases - to the road shows where Teamcare reps were brought in to answer our questions, and when confronted with example after example of increased costs - some in premiums, others in co-pays, and in one of the most devastating take downs I've ever seen in a road show, one individuals cost on prescriptions alone would have gone up over $100 dollars a month. He beat the reps down with the very information they had provided to sell the plan.

The reps finally acknowledged that "some" members costs were going to go up. Shortly thereafter the petitions went out around the system - We had to go around our own representatives directly to the company to shut the discussions on Teamcare down.

TSH, the idiot you are talking to does not understand the "grey language" you are talking about, obviously, by your continued and raised voice of concern. There is NOTHING more dangerous than to vote in "grey language" especially when the entire UAL membership as well as the company both know that that is what it is, and the crooked a$$ teamsters are still trying to push it in with a back door try at getting a foot in the door. I see exactly what you are talking about.
I see it as you do TSH, language that is so grey would allow opening talks about teamcare if proven to be a cost saving movement within the current medical cost evaluations for the memberships coverages. It's a no brainer, vote that crap down big time.
Also, as indicated by you, the wages only surpass at the very end and last year for pennies above SWA's current top out. I would much prefer to see you guys around 4-8% above us, if not even more with this inflation crap still growing. Think about it brother, and good luck...

 

[ThirdSeatHero]

And again doesn’t matter over and over and over we can keep going.

In the deal being presented to you, you are NOT NOT NOT NOT voting on Teamcare.

If it was included as a CHOICE why do any of you have a problem with that?

And again it DOES matter -

Over and over and over, you can keep ignoring the FACT that the ibt tried to push Teamcare before, and we had to go around them to put a stop to it. - You can keep ignoring the FACT that the last time they pushed Teamcare, it wasn't a choice among many, we were ALL going to be forced into Teamcare at a higher cost.

The TA may not mention Teamcare by name, but it is clear from the published updates they are pursuing exactly that. This language is a first step. The answer is NO.

 

[WeAAsles]

And again it DOES matter -

Over and over and over, you can keep ignoring the FACT that the ibt tried to push Teamcare before, and we had to go around them to put a stop to it. - You can keep ignoring the FACT that the last time they pushed Teamcare, it wasn't a choice among many, we were ALL going to be forced into Teamcare at a higher cost.

The TA may not mention Teamcare by name, but it is clear from the published updates they are pursuing exactly that. This language is a first step. The answer is NO.

Oh so even if it wasn’t your dreaded Boogeyman you DO NOT want your Union to talk to the Company about trying to find lower Healthcare?

Again your Union (Any Union) does not need to have Contract language to have your permission to have a “conversation” with the Company about anything.

So I guess in your World if UAL decides to lower your Medical costs mid contract you don’t want the IBT to have that conversation with them.

You’re out of your mind. Any and all of you who think that way.

I’d be surprised if people don’t vote yes anyway. 10.68% is a great raise.

 

[ThirdSeatHero]

Oh so even if it wasn’t your dreaded Boogeyman you DO NOT want your Union to talk to the Company about trying to find lower Healthcare?

You're free to remain as dismissive as you like - your opinion means little when you insist on remaining astoundingly obtuse on the matter.

Your question above is just another splendid example of you trying to ignore the obvious - its not Aetna, or Blue Cross, or Anthem they intend to pursue ... its is without question Teamcare.

 

[WeAAsles]

You're free to remain as dismissive as you like - your opinion means little when you insist on remaining astoundingly obtuse on the matter.

Your question above is just another splendid example of you trying to ignore the obvious - its not Aetna, or Blue Cross, or Anthem they intend to pursue ... its is without question Teamcare.

Who cares what they pursue. You and your Membership can do exactly what you did the last time if they try to sell it to you again.

You voted it down once you can vote it down again.

But in the meantime again it is NOT on your plate as an option or anything you’re about to vote on.

Not sure how that’s being obtuse over being factual?

 

[WeAAsles]

“Explore options”
“Any changes would require a vote”

 

[ThirdSeatHero]

But in the meantime again it is NOT on your plate as an option or anything you’re about to vote on.

Not sure how that’s being obtuse over being factual?

... or anything you're about to vote on ...

Then whats the article 16 language about you quoted? You stated earlier ...

Again your Union (Any Union) does not need to have Contract language to have your permission to have a “conversation” with the Company about anything.

If they don't need the language, why did the teamsters ask for it in this TA? Obviously they felt they needed it.

You want to ignore the teamsters history of lying, you want to ignore their duplicitous previous attempt at Teamcare on UAL, you want to ignore the latest update prior to the TA where they stated CLEARLY they were already meeting with Teamcare. You posted ... “Explore options” ... like that means ANYTHING other than Teamcare, and it doesn't.

So yes, obtuse fits nicely

No need to wait to vote NO on Teamcare later when we can vote NO now, and the beauty in it, it costs nothing as we weren't getting an increase until August anyway, and it costs UAL nothing to remove the language.

 

[SWAMECH]

... or anything you're about to vote on ...

Then whats the article 16 language about you quoted? You stated earlier ...



If they don't need the language, why did the teamsters ask for it in this TA? Obviously they felt they needed it.

You want to ignore the teamsters history of lying, you want to ignore their duplicitous previous attempt at Teamcare on UAL, you want to ignore the latest update prior to the TA where they stated CLEARLY they were already meeting with Teamcare. You posted ... “Explore options” ... like that means ANYTHING other than Teamcare, and it doesn't.

So yes, obtuse fits nicely

No need to wait to vote NO on Teamcare later when we can vote NO now, and the beauty in it, it costs nothing as we weren't getting an increase until August anyway, and it costs UAL nothing to remove the language.

The long awaited update from the teamsters also indicated something was up, and it now appears to be the teamcare that no one wanted before. You nailed it, the language in such "grey" language as to "a lower cost program" is a wide open door where they could claim teamcare is one of the lower costing options.
Are a lot of the Mechanics also seeing this language as you do? So odd that they see they needed to add this language within the CBA, nice catch for the membership...

 

[WeAAsles]

... or anything you're about to vote on ...

Then whats the article 16 language about you quoted? You stated earlier ...



If they don't need the language, why did the teamsters ask for it in this TA? Obviously they felt they needed it.

You want to ignore the teamsters history of lying, you want to ignore their duplicitous previous attempt at Teamcare on UAL, you want to ignore the latest update prior to the TA where they stated CLEARLY they were already meeting with Teamcare. You posted ... “Explore options” ... like that means ANYTHING other than Teamcare, and it doesn't.

So yes, obtuse fits nicely

No need to wait to vote NO on Teamcare later when we can vote NO now, and the beauty in it, it costs nothing as we weren't getting an increase until August anyway, and it costs UAL nothing to remove the language.

I’m not ignoring that they “talked” about it or that they wanted to offer it to you and I’m sure continue to want to offer it to you.

Here at AA we have multiple offerings for Medical. We have Core, Standard, Standard Plus, and High Cost options. The IAM side of our Association also fought hard to keep their PPO 100/90 and 80 plans two of which sunsetted and the 80 plan continuing only for those Grandfathered in.

We also have something called DFW Connect Care only offered to those who live and work in DFW who get a much lower cost Medical coverage but providers are only in the DFW area.

But reading your continuing responses I’m pretty sure I get exactly what this is all about for you now.

You just don’t want your coworkers getting wrapped up in anything having to do with any other Union besides AMFA. If your coworkers were to be offered as another option a medical plan affiliated with the Teamsters then more of them will lose interest in dumping them to go with AMFA. Pretty F’d up reason to put up a fight against an option that some may actually want and like?

But I get it. The IBT couldn’t win the contest against the IAM at USAIRWAYS partly because the Mechanics didn’t want to see there IAMPF frozen not knowing how long it would take to reach a new retirement deal.

So you would have the same problem if the IBT gets embedded with your medical plans. AMFA doesn’t have medical or retirement plans so they have nothing they’d be able to offer against that. Any and every AMFA drive would be DOA and probably even mocked and laughed out the door.

BTW with Teamcare you said it yourself. The people trying to sell it to you said “some” would pay more. That also means “some” or many more might pay less.

Too bad you have a different motivation for not letting it be offered that’s not about cost.

 

[WeAAsles]

I assume there must be some stipulations to this language or the Company just doesn’t want to offer you additional options anyway since employees dropping out of their required plan options would cause total costs to rise.

As I read this if the Company wanted to they could tell the IBT sure we’ll include your Teamcare as an “option” for your represented employees? As long as they continue to offer the other plans at the negotiated rates they would remain in compliance.

 

[ThirdSeatHero]

But reading your continuing responses I’m pretty sure I get exactly what this is all about for you now.

You just don’t want your coworkers getting wrapped up in anything having to do with any other Union besides AMFA. If your coworkers were to be offered as another option a medical plan affiliated with the Teamsters then more of them will lose interest in dumping them to go with AMFA. Pretty F’d up reason to put up a fight against an option that some may actually want and like?

But I get it. The IBT couldn’t win the contest against the IAM at USAIRWAYS partly because the Mechanics didn’t want to see there IAMPF frozen not knowing how long it would take to reach a new retirement deal.

So you would have the same problem if the IBT gets embedded with your medical plans. AMFA doesn’t have medical or retirement plans so they have nothing they’d be able to offer against that. Any and every AMFA drive would be DOA and probably even mocked and laughed out the door.

BTW with Teamcare you said it yourself. The people trying to sell it to you said “some” would pay more. That also means “some” or many more might pay less.

Too bad you have a different motivation for not letting it be offered that’s not about cost.

In a word - WRONG

You think this is about keeping the road clear for AMFA? You think it was all just a bunch of disgruntled former AMFA members who petitioned the company and shot Teamcare down the last time it was proposed?

It wasn't about AMFA the last time, and its not about AMFA this time - Just so you don't embarrass yourself any further you should know that the Teamcare proposal that was shot down, had a termination clause allowing the company & members & retiree's out.

So even if we had gone into Teamcare, and then wanted to vote the ibt out, our medical was safe. Teamcare posed no hindrance to a drive for AMFA or any other union that the membership might choose. We shot it down because it was a crap plan.

Don't try to speak to my motivations on this matter when you are clearly clueless on its specifics