Why Is Iam Sending Confusing Message?

[unit4clt]

Roach has been saying The IAM cant endorse the agreements to be voted on by its members. The question is why are the usual IAM/company yes men doing everything to scare the members to vote FOR this agreement while selling out its own membership?

Then after agreement is voted in.....IAM leadership will blame its membership for voting this rediculous agreement in. Much like 700 has done in the past.

Again the IAM is not informing the membership of their options. When will FSA's finally realize the IAM has to be replaced by a real UNION!

What Roach is telling me by not endorsing agreement is to vote NO! :down: When will other IAM (so called leaders) yes men get on same page?

 

[700UW]

There will be informational meetings set up to explain everything.

You need to chill out and relax the final offer was given to the M&R group at 9:15PM on Thursday.

 

[unit4clt]

So are you saying everyone at IAM will be on the same page as Roach?

 

[700UW]

Each District President and their Negotiating Committees will make the choice.

But I know 142 is not endorsing this final offer.

 

[unit4clt]

All FSA's need to keep in mind one thing. That being the only time a proposal was voted down did the company better its offer. The same needs to be done again. When will the IAM negotiate for the workers instead of the almighty dues???

 

[usairways_vote_NO]

All FSA's need to keep in mind one thing.  That being the only time a proposal was voted down did the company better its offer.  The same needs to be done again.  When will the IAM negotiate for the workers instead of the almighty dues???

[post="236899"][/post]​

As my name suggests I don't endorse a yes vote but you fail to point out this time is a littlle different the company already has the ok from judge to abrogate the contracts if contract offer is voted down which means imposing what they want anyway. The company is only letting you vote on this so as if you vote it in yourself the employees may live with it in better harmony, Assuming you are still employeed bye them after the vote.

 

[Justaramper]

You won't get an endorsement because it's not been negotiated and agreed to by the Union, so you vote on the lesser of two evils.

 

[unit4clt]

The IAM provides NO Leadership to its members as usual. The IAM has to be REPLACED with another UNION NOW!!!!

 

[umech]

The IAM provides NO Leadership to its members as usual. The IAM has to be REPLACED with another UNION NOW!!!!

[post="236930"][/post]​

the iam did the best they could under the circunstances, it took a judge to pry open the concession stand, now ist open and the company gets everything,nothing the iam can do about it, except let the members vote on the company proposal because if the mechs vote yes they get the union/company blessing and havekeep a contract, if they vote no they get the sameor worst offer by force and the contract is terminated. that is the reason the iam is silent.
i dont like the iam but i understand in the position they are in.

the union is in the membership and not in the leadership.

umech.

 

[PITbull]

Roach has been saying  The IAM cant endorse the agreements to be voted on by its members.  The question is why are the usual IAM/company yes men doing everything to scare the members to vote FOR this agreement while selling out its own membership?

Then after agreement is voted in.....IAM leadership will blame its membership for voting this rediculous agreement in.  Much like 700 has done in the past.
 
Again  the IAM is not informing the membership of their options. When will FSA's  finally realize the IAM has to be replaced by a real  UNION!

What Roach is telling me by not endorsing agreement is to vote NO! :down:  When will other IAM (so called leaders) yes men  get on same page?

[post="236858"][/post]​

Your post is full of it!

The IAM did not reach a T/A. They just sent out the last proposal by the company.

IAM and related members will have to evaluate the proposal and make the decision.

Unlike the AFA, the neg. committee did reach a T/A, but the MEC was "silent" on recommending yes or no.

Members have to decide if they can live with this proposal or not. Just as AFA did.

Majority rules the day.

 

[RedOne]

Members have to decide if they can live with this proposal or not.  Just as AFA did.

Majority rules the day.

[post="237049"][/post]​

....
Unlike AFA whose contract is the same regardless of where you work (based), the agents in the large F/S cities will really have the say. Yes, every F/S agent will get to vote, but with the agents in the large cities having the most numbers, and their pay scale higher, they will be more inclined to vote for it....thus selling out the small cities (who are going to be contraced out). There are not enough agents (numbers) in the small stations to offset the large stations "yes" vote, so IMHO the vote will "pass"

 

[Bob Owens]

unit4clt,Jan 8 2005, 04:06 PM]
Roach has been saying The IAM cant endorse the agreements to be voted on by its members. The question is why are the usual IAM/company yes men doing everything to scare the members to vote FOR this agreement while selling out its own membership?


Because with each passing day your IAM is becoming more like the TWU. They will not tell you to vote for it but they really wont provide you with any other options either. This way, if USAIR does survive, and they are making record profits by 2007 or 2008, and you guys are ready to lynch them they can turn around and say "You voted for it".

Then after agreement is voted in.....IAM leadership will blame its membership for voting this rediculous agreement in. Much like 700 has done in the past.

Exactly, you answered your own question. A real union would fight to make options instead of lying back.

Again the IAM is not informing the membership of their options. When will FSA's finally realize the IAM has to be replaced by a real UNION!

What Roach is telling me by not endorsing agreement is to vote NO! :down: When will other IAM (so called leaders) yes men get on same page?

I saw the tape. Like you said he is not endorsing it, but he is not saying that you should reject it. He is not offering leadership. He should be saying "vote No" and "we will take it from there". "Voting no does not automatically mean strike", nor does it mean that the judge will impose terms that are harsher than what the company proposed in their latest offer.

Hey that was their offer, how can they justify needing to go lower? Obviously the figures are good enough, but you cant give them a guarantee till 2011.

The worst thing you can do is allow the company to impose an agreement that extends to 2011! Inflation has a thirty year average of 3% per year, so by 2011 you can figure that in addtion to the cuts you are about to take by the time contract is renegotiable you will have lost an additional 21% on top of what you have already lost!

You are better off to have the judge throw out your agreement, if the company acts too harhly you can strike and the terms become renegotiable when/if they exit bankruptcy. If you vote yes you are stuck till 2011. These are the things Roach should be saying, not simply "I dont endorse this", but giving the members good reasons not to agree to a long term concessionary agreement that in reality provides the illusion of being a little more safe than no agreement.

Figure out if you think that this job will even be worth it at 21% less than it is now. That thirteen dollars will be the equivelent of $10. You will be working as hard as ever but collecting food stamps to feed your family.

 

[unit4clt]

Very good post Bob.

 

[PITbull]

Bob,

The judge doesn't impose terms of a contract.

He has just abrogated.

The terms will be mangment's terms.

IAM DID NOT REACH A T/A, therefore, they can not endorse or oppose a proposal that was not negotiated.

Instead of accepting abrogation, the IAM has sent out the company's last proposal, which at this point was the right thing to do.

Once the IAM-M members have their proposal to review and seek information to become well informed, then, they will have to decide whether the company's terms are acceptable to them.

I don't believe the membership needs for any leadership to tell them how to live, what to live with, or not, or what the risks are.....

The membership is smart enough to know and they have figured it out awhile ago.

We are all living with terms that suck. The "furlough package" of AFA's ; much like IAM's severance package, is giving folks options to leave. AFA suspects many will.

 

[Jennyann]

The IAM provides NO Leadership to its members as usual. The IAM has to be REPLACED with another UNION NOW!!!!

[post="236930"][/post]​

I agree......Ya'll work your ass off......You deserved better