Ograc, my biggest gripe, as a non hub member, is to enhance scope. This is getting bizzare as nobody in leadership gave a crap at United in their joint talks. It is CRITICAL in our joint talks that we have someone advocate for more work. I'm expecting some scope to be enhances in the current talks. If not, then what are folks being asked to strike for? Scope is worth it.ograc said:
Tim. protecting the existing work (scope) is paramount for the long term existence of meaningful contractual language regarding wages,benefits and working conditions. Without it; the company continues to whittle away your numbers and future leverage in negotiations going forward. Let's give credit where credit is due. The companies (specifically UA and The New AA) have goals and stategies set for years down the road regarding current contract negotiations. The unions / members can't seem to see past the nose on their face. Case in point; do you think 4 to 6 years from now, when negotiating a new contract, the IAM will be representing as many members, in as many stations, as they currently are at UA? Not with the agreement that was just ratified. It's a game of chess. Until this membership wakes up; the company is at least two moves ahead of us.Tim Nelson said:
ograc the 43 cents was with and included the loss of those Stations. As I stated earler we had no choice on that issue because the company wasn't budging and they knew that they had the BK gavel to protect them. I personally know some of the leaders who were involved in the incredibly painful task of having to figure out the cost savings that were required in the Bk and I can promise you that those leaders wanted to save stations and jobs. That choice was simply not afforded to them.ograc said:
Can we please stop using the whole "gun to our head" analogy as a rationalization for incompetent leadership?WeAAsles said:
The TWU kept 17 stations in bankruptcy yet the IAM only keeps 7 at profitable (although industry lagging) UAL and WILLINGLY gives up stations, many remaining will be filled with part-time. The TWU scope may be deficient but compared to the IAM at UAL it's much better.Kev3188 said:
In1992 we enjoyed a different political reality that didn't have an entire political party publicly fighting against Unionism. In those years there many, many more airlines that could conceivably puck any slack in flights. Today, as you know most of those airlines are gone. The impact of a strike would be more wide reaching and therfore unlikely to be allowed.Tim Nelson said:
We are social beings, and humans, during all history, must be led. One leads by serving and not putting politics and self ahead of the members. That is what happened at United as the leadership had to resort to lies to get the contract through. Moving forward, here is what I see [and I'm not saying Im right]. Management would love to have the unions reduced to the hubs, and in return the unions have maintained their numbers by waiving the part time restrictions and have converted to the IBT UPS contract where part time is unlimited [UPS now up to over 80% part time]. Remember, the IBT model works as far as a business standpoint. The IBT went back up to 1.4 million members over ten years due to contracts that have no part time restrictions. We can't allow the IAM to continue down this path for our people. We need leadership to stand up in moments of decision when scope is on the line and part time jobs is on the line. I'll for sure stand up and I know you will if the scope and/or part time work rules are unfair. There simply isn't any good reason to vote in a contract that compromises those two things. In 4 months, I may be an AGC elect. If I'm privileged by the membership, then I will have more authority to speak out after June as an AGC elect. And believe me, one thing I do is speak out. Didn't [and doesn't] matter if I made a lot more money or not. I'm free now and I'll be free later to serve the membership [not as an appointee but as an elected official]. But above all, scope and part time issues. What good is it to get a pay increase but be outsourced? or lose your full time job and be reduced part time? Although skeptical about current sUS leadership due to them endorsing the UA contract, I guess we still have hope that they will do the right thing at this point. It's just that Delaney and the entire eboard said all the right things back in 2012 at United and convinced all the United members to vote for Delaney. I knew the truth because I worked with Delaney and heard how they all talked about the members and felt entitled, but the membership didn't know until Delaney's words came to pass as lies and betrayal....but it wasn't until after June of 2012. I'm hoping that there is some level of accountability after June 2014 because after elections. If I win, you can BANK ON IT and the story won't change, the fight won't change, and if elected, I won't be endorsing some terrible TA for Delany or anyone. That I know.ograc said:
My grasp on the processes led me to check you. Not saying I'm an expert on the processes but I know them enough not to use terms such as 'never'. I wanted you to move off of your absolute [language] and be more open to reason. I can apprehend your comment above a lot better using the term 'unlikely'. That's a comment you can make. "Never" is a comment that is not certifiable in this discussion. At any rate, there is much to overcome but we don't have any choice other than overcome. I believe we can change the reality that Republicans are attemptint to paint, and maybe even create a paradigm shift for our culture in this case. IMO, a shift seems to be wanting to happen anyways. The people are always much stronger than any political group, Republicans or otherwise. A lot of hard work indeed. One thing that bothers me is when strong union people accept the reality that the Republicans are trying to create. Such happened at United and our eboard. and we have to protect it from happening at US AIRWAYS. Our members need leadership otherwise they will not know until it is too late.NYer said:
Let me see if I can try to explain the process to you just a little bit. In a Chapter 11 BK "Restructuring" there is a set value that the company deems it needs to have to survive. In the case of AA that value was 20% from ALL unsecured creditors. So the issue for us is that we don't sell say coffee cups to the company and can cut our prices by 20%. We have a contract that has specific values set to many different items. Our 20% amounted to the tune of 320Mil that was needed to be cut from our contract. A group of leaders under legal advisement basically has to sit in a room and figure out the pieces to that puzzle to put it all together. Freezing the pension has value, our retiree medical, changing station staffing formulas, pay rates, etc.Kev3188 said:
As an aside, the United members are at a really great risk, perhaps a greater risk than Delta employees. Those that endorsed the United contract are naïve and misled and can't possibly understand Labor.ograc said:
NYer said:
NYer said:
NYer said:
The following is my opinion based on observing Ms Levine. When she was hired by the IAM back in 2003, she manufactured the legal position to match the IAM's direction. Bottom line like all attorneys, she did what they paid her to do. I'm not the most educated guy but I am educated enough to know when I was hearing bull S&T by her when I sat in a room with her. IMO she actually outright lied about letters called 1113 letters. Essentially, the letter was a letter from management saying it would not invoke any abrogation clauses in any future negotiations if the TA passed. Sharon = The Man. She is establishment and elitist that has found a niche with unions to be used to manufacture the consent from the masses. She can keep her little 1113 letters that destroyed more jobs and about 60 stations.WeAAsles said:
