2014 Fleet Service Discussion
- Thread starter Falcon
- Start date
- Status
Tim Nelson
Veteran
lolroabilly said:
No proceedings or process made your boys F over United. 7 stations under scope, unlimited part time, increased health care caps, no work rules, etc. Obviously, the great majority of United members have had enough of your boys as they proved their mettle by blowing up the contract at HAL and UAL. UAL was the big one where management and your boys teamed up to endorse a anti union agreement that will set the craft back 50 years.
Your boys couldn't get endorsed in any of the top 8 locals. In fact, few of them even approached 20% of the nomination vote. Most couldn't even get a home endorsement. And it wasn't because of me or anyone else. They have themselves to blame. As far as the lies to get the contract through, I already posted a few of them but your eyes are shut. Lol
Tell us Roabilly, Yes or No, did they prove their mettle with the United contract? A simple yes or no will do. lol. Carry on Roabilly
The NC nor the E-Board ratified the CBA, that would be the members, I know I wont vote on anything till I read the whole T/A.
So ponder this since you educated the UA membership with your videos and other social media and they still ratified it, does that make you and the UA membership losers as you say the NC and E-Board are?
Hey I campaigned against the final offer for M&R at US during bankruptcy part II, and we never gave a recommendation as we couldnt agree, BF, FS and WH all were yes for the final offer and myself, TG, TR, TB and PDGC O'D were all against it, but we never came to a consensus to put out, bottom line is people always vote for their own money and job and dont care about anyone else, we saw it with the Fleet TA with West and East.
So ponder this since you educated the UA membership with your videos and other social media and they still ratified it, does that make you and the UA membership losers as you say the NC and E-Board are?
Hey I campaigned against the final offer for M&R at US during bankruptcy part II, and we never gave a recommendation as we couldnt agree, BF, FS and WH all were yes for the final offer and myself, TG, TR, TB and PDGC O'D were all against it, but we never came to a consensus to put out, bottom line is people always vote for their own money and job and dont care about anyone else, we saw it with the Fleet TA with West and East.
WeAAsles
Veteran
- Joined
- Oct 20, 2007
- Messages
- 28,236
- Reaction score
- 5,375
Wasn't that TA ratified by 70% of the members who voted on it? Over and over and over Tim keeps saying that the UA members are STUPID. That is exactly what I read into what Tim continues to say. The man who wants YOU to vote him in thinks you are STUPID. Stupid would be voting in a man who believes that you can't think for yourselves.700UW said:
Just curious you spent years on this forum attacking Freedom and others who supported the 2008 US fleet agreement yet apparently you have different standards for UA and defend this BS saying the membership ratified it. Why the change in course? You admitted the UA agreement is bad. Roach didn't deliver on his word to do everything legally and humanly possible for the UA members.700UW said:
Josh
I for one didn't vote for it. And my hub (EWR) didn't either. The TA was a bad deal in some of sCO's eyes because we felt we weren't getting much out of the deal. ORD and IAH (believe it or not) carried most of the vote. The promise of retro (for sUA); apathy (from some of sCO); and the promise (and lie) of LOA #5 & #6 carried the YES vote. I personally wasn't going to gain much from this deal. The only thing that happened to EWR was we took TWO big hits before and after this contract signing. The company is dragging ass on pay; hourly differentials; and insourcing. sUA is getting a big medical increase. Now with the RIF's (ironically on the day that retro payments were to come out) and the CLE mess, people are regretting their decision.WeAAsles said:
I will not say that our members are stupid. It wasn't many choices once the IAM filed for single carrier and scrapped their talks to get improvements for their members before going into joint talks. We had our own issues with the IBT contract as well. Members voted their own interests and best needs, and now we will pay for it with the decisions that the company makes. I personally thought that talks were going to be based from the BK sUA contract, which is far superior. But I don't know why that wasn't the baseline for negotiations.
First of all this isnt about me, this is about US fleet service.737823 said:
How many times do you have to be told Roach is not GVP of Transportation, he is the GST, he wasnt involved in the UA negotiations?
Keep going off the topic as usual, if you want to talk about UA, go to UA, this is US.
WeAAsles
Veteran
- Joined
- Oct 20, 2007
- Messages
- 28,236
- Reaction score
- 5,375
I'm not an expert on your contract and I have seen that UAL is dragging their heels on implementing items in it now. Personally in my carreer with AA I feel the members have made mistakes in their choices as well but that's in the end not my decision to make. All I can do if I don't agree with a TA is try to tell others why and get them possibly to see my way. The good and sometimes bad about being in a Union is that the collective makes the final decision. If we feel it was the wrong decision all we really can do is shake our head and go along for the ride.T5towbar said:
That has nothing to do with the 2013 agreement, do you not understand, he wasnt GVP of Transportation, is that too hard for you to comprehend?
He is has been for a couple of years GST, and this thread isnt about Roach or UA, its US fleet service.
You just cant resist to insult, and attack anyone of the IAM.
Move on.
He is has been for a couple of years GST, and this thread isnt about Roach or UA, its US fleet service.
You just cant resist to insult, and attack anyone of the IAM.
Move on.
Get your facts straight Roach was GVP Transportation until December 31, 2011. He sure has done extremely well for himself compared to his paltry dues paid into the IAM as a RSM at TWA. I wonder would be willing and able to work under the terms of the UA agreement? He sure doesn't mind the GL collecting dues based on it.700UW said:
Josh
Ask yourself this, why would a so called investment banker with JP Morgan be so interested and slam the IAM all the time?
Last time I checked JP Morgan employee in BOS and MIA doesnt work for US nor is an IAM member, but yet slams the IAM and posts misinformation all the time.
Last time I checked JP Morgan employee in BOS and MIA doesnt work for US nor is an IAM member, but yet slams the IAM and posts misinformation all the time.
- Status
