+1So I see that the CWA has already filed a grievance [staff grievance] on the new boarding policy that the company says will happen later this summer. Remember, in the CWA and IAM contract, DOH is applied to non rev boarding since the company put it in the contract and agreed to it. Just say no to anything that makes things more seamless for this merger unless our people get a contract that can be ratified. I hope our NC and Delaney are as aggressive as the CWA in filing the grievance. Gosh I hope Delaney doesn't sign a side letter agreeing to support the new boarding policy. Please, any NC person, make sure he doesn't sign anything. The recent eboard action to push the disgusting United contract is reason in itself to issue caution for how Delaney may side with management.
Good luck but I can tell you that AA got everything they asked for in BK.Tim Nelson said:So I see that the CWA has already filed a grievance [staff grievance] on the new boarding policy that the company says will happen later this summer. Remember, in the CWA and IAM contract, DOH is applied to non rev boarding since the company put it in the contract and agreed to it. Just say no to anything that makes things more seamless for this merger unless our people get a contract that can be ratified. I hope our NC and Delaney are as aggressive as the CWA in filing the grievance. Gosh I hope Delaney doesn't sign a side letter agreeing to support the new boarding policy. Please, any NC person, make sure he doesn't sign anything. The recent eboard action to push the disgusting United contract is reason in itself to issue caution for how Delaney may side with management.
With the vast number of displaced employees in the US system (pilots, flight attendants, fleet and MTC.) who rely on non rev travel to report to and from work I'm suprised this new boarding procedure was agreed to by US. It will be another burden and obstacle for those displaced employees who have been forced to commute to their new domicile. Then again; maybe the company's reasoning is some of those commuting will elect to seperate from the company with the new boarding procedures being implemented. Remember... the New American is after "synergies". Every union on US property should be actively resisting this ageed to boarding policy on behalf of the displaced workers they represent. There are E Board members of DL 141 on this forum. I ask each of them; Does the IAM DL141 leadership team of US plan to resist this change in boarding procedures on behalf of the countless displaced workers you represent on the US Fleet Service system? The membership is watching.Tim Nelson said:So I see that the CWA has already filed a grievance [staff grievance] on the new boarding policy that the company says will happen later this summer. Remember, in the CWA and IAM contract, DOH is applied to non rev boarding since the company put it in the contract and agreed to it. Just say no to anything that makes things more seamless for this merger unless our people get a contract that can be ratified. I hope our NC and Delaney are as aggressive as the CWA in filing the grievance. Gosh I hope Delaney doesn't sign a side letter agreeing to support the new boarding policy. Please, any NC person, make sure he doesn't sign anything. The recent eboard action to push the disgusting United contract is reason in itself to issue caution for how Delaney may side with management.
ograc said:With the vast number of displaced employees in the US system (pilots, flight attendants, fleet and MTC.) who rely on non rev travel to report to and from work I'm suprised this new boarding procedure was agreed to by US. It will be another burden and obstacle for those displaced employees who have been forced to commute to their new domicile. Then again; maybe the company's reasoning is some of those commuting will elect to seperate from the company with the new boarding procedures being implemented. Remember... the New American is after "synergies". Every union on US property should be actively resisting this ageed to boarding policy on behalf of the displaced workers they represent. There are E Board members of DL 141 on this forum. I ask each of them; Does the IAM DL141 leadership team of US plan to resist this change in boarding procedures on behalf of the countless displaced workers you represent on the US Fleet Service system? The membership is watching.
Thanks cargo. Unfortunate this is the case and that so many people who are given the opportunity to take part in the process do not get involved. Hopefully the NC this time will be more hard line and not allow something like the UA agreement to get out.Can't speak for the entire system but I was a Teller for the local in my station for the most recent UA ratification vote. The UA station is considered outline and the TA offerred no future job protection for the members. Voter turnout was around 50%. Suprisingly the TA passed by the same margin in my station that it did systemwide. IMO... this was the result of a number of factors. Many you have touched on. Senior employees who saw retro money, are close to retirement and figure they would ride it out until they're furloughed. Senior employees, many of which from the UA side, who have been displaced before. They are either willing to be displaced again or have a false belief UA will keep the station open. Another major influence on the outcome was voter supression. When voting is limited to one day and the member is required to be physically present at their local in order to vote it drives the number of members voting down. Generally speaking; the majority of those going out of their way to vote view the TA as acceptable. Especially in the large stations where there is a retro check awaiting and scope is not a concern. Voter supression works. I think the District and the International knew this. Quite a different outcome from the first TA voting results. A voting procedure that better accommodated the members.
Ogracograc said:With the vast number of displaced employees in the US system (pilots, flight attendants, fleet and MTC.) who rely on non rev travel to report to and from work I'm suprised this new boarding procedure was agreed to by US. It will be another burden and obstacle for those displaced employees who have been forced to commute to their new domicile. Then again; maybe the company's reasoning is some of those commuting will elect to seperate from the company with the new boarding procedures being implemented. Remember... the New American is after "synergies". Every union on US property should be actively resisting this ageed to boarding policy on behalf of the displaced workers they represent. There are E Board members of DL 141 on this forum. I ask each of them; Does the IAM DL141 leadership team of US plan to resist this change in boarding procedures on behalf of the countless displaced workers you represent on the US Fleet Service system? The membership is watching.
personally I could give a rat's backside less how the travel boarding is,give me a contract and a damn good one and I'll make the travel work.AANOTOK said:I guess you folks can use DOH among your peers until you have a T/A...as for the big picture and the combined "New American" it will be FCFS.
Little too early to determine who will be running the show. Let's see first who survives the upper management restructuring. Then, and only then, will we have any idea who "is running the show".nycbusdriver said:
You're kidding, right?
First, who said US needed to agree to anything?
And, aside from that, who do you think is running the show?
Wow! that's a pretty optomistic opinion; based on the disregard the company has shown in contract negotiations the past two years. So you assume we will reach a section 6 contract ratification at US and a Transition Ageeement before summer of 2014? If not a grievance needs to be filed. I don't feel real comfortable with FO scheduling an arbitration date or representing the grievance if it were to come to that. I know full well what the contract states CB. The question is; how effectively the district fights to enforce the language.charlie Brown said:Ograc
You being a grievance chair, I would think you would know the contract states that we will be granted travel benefits based on company regulations. Art 28 D. Art 7 seniority states we will use DOH seniority for travel. So of course if they try to implement this prior to a T/A then I believe a grievance needs to be filed. It was my understanding that this new policy wouldn't go into effect until summer. I would assume we will have a T/A before then.
Slow down AANOTOK. You, like all of us, have no idea how this will all play out. You speak as if you are the new CEO of the combined carrier.AANOTOK said:I guess you folks can use DOH among your peers until you have a T/A...as for the big picture and the combined "New American" it will be FCFS.
Do I expect a section 6 agreement by summer? Yes. A transition agreement by summer? No. But I could be wrong. I grievance will be filed if they violate our current contract. My point is by the time it is implemented, who knows of it will be a violation then. Travel benefit as you know is given to all the work groups, not just fleet. It's a privilege that the company will argue they don't even have to give you. I know our travel policy is pretty liberal compared to some other airlines.ograc said:Wow! that's a pretty optomistic opinion; based on the disregard the company has shown in contract negotiations the past two years. So you assume we will reach a section 6 contract ratification at US and a Transition Ageeement before summer of 2014? If not a grievance needs to be filed. I don't feel real comfortable with FO scheduling an arbitration date or representing the grievance if it were to come to that. I know full well what the contract states CB. The question is; how effectively the district fights to enforce the language.