2014 Fleet Service Discussion

[robbedagain]

orgac  I agree with you bro..   if it comes down to that   ill even admit it on here that I will vote no to the pos company crap and a big yes for strike
 
enough is enough    screw those flippin dirty arse donkeys   time for new improved deal in sect 6 only

 

[mike33]

And these two things that you speak of are???

I'm also interested it those 2 things. 

 

[charlie Brown]

Actually the membership needs to vote yes to strike either way. Even if they vote yes for the last offer they need to vote yes to strike. Some people don't get this. But voting yes for a last offer and then no to strike doesn't put is in a good position if it doesn't pass system wide. It could pass in a selected city because they vote yes there, but then fail system wide. We will need a yes vote to strike just to cover all the bases.

 

[700UW]

Actually CB, if they vote no on the CBA and vote no on the strike, that final offer becomes your CBA, it has happened in the past I cant remember what company they worked for.

 

[T5towbar]

Mike
I appreciate your opinion. I guess I just look at it different than you. Take our negotiating team for instance. We have been negotiating for 2 1/2 years now. I feel that nobody knows what's going on around our system and going on in the negotiations table better than the committee. UA people aren't put on the board for US people. Vise versa, I'm on the board to represent US people, not UA. If the negotiating committee came out with a T/A next month after 2 1/2 years that the committee supported 100%. And we were sure it was what our members wanted, would you expect a UA guy that knows nothing about what the US members want or what's been going on in negotiations to step in and say he won't support us on that? Now maybe you would expect him to, but I personally would have a big issue with that person if the negotiating team said this is what we want. I personally would feel that the UA guy would be overstepping his authority for what he was put on the board to do. This is just my opinion and not the IAM,s. But I would be pissed if a UA guy tried to block our T/A for our members. It's fine if you disagree with that, I'm sure others do. I'm just saying, that's how I feel. Do I wish the UA agreement was better? Yes. But they were in a much different place than we are now. They left section 6 and lost all their leverage. Then they were negotiating with a Continental CEO that had all continental employees with absolutely zero job protection. Since UA couldn't strike or anything, Smisek pretty much had the leverage with the CO teamster contract giving him a right to do anything he wanted. It was a position the we at US watched, and knew for sure, we didn't want to go that route.

CB,
All I'm saying is that sUA should have used their Section 6 and negotiated their improvements first, before going into joint talks. We (sCO) was still on Year Two of our 3 year IBT deal. That had some protections till after Year 3. But our ATW was unorganized. And management was not going to get rid of them easily as would be believed. (most was management supporters and did not want to rock the boat - they felt that FTW had more protections - which it did to a certain degree) We on the ramp had to worry. We already been thru a threat of seven stations closing when the IBT got involved. We voted for a rushed deal that left us vulnerable. Most of the informed on our side knew that the company wasn't going to get rid of sCO all in one fell swoop. That would be damaging enough at that time with two large hubs to deal with. (but the line stations were always in jeopardy as they are at this moment) And it was a contentious election between the IAM and IBT. Giving up on their talks and changing the baselines for negotiations is the mystery that I will never understand. The sUA bankruptcy contract would have been a good starting point and worked upward. Why start negotiations from the FTW instead of the 2009 agreement? That's a BK agreement! You can't get worse than that. But we somehow did. FTW is the company handbook which the IBT contract was based on. How in the hell did that happen? In my heart of heart it was the potential duespayers clouded judgement. When our Cargo was given up, (a very profitable operation I may add) and my hub started to be furloughs and downgrades, I would not vote for any agreement that loses any scope. Damn the money.

I support you guys and gals because you had a front row seat to what a bad agreement can do. Use your leverage and get your agreements first. Then negotiate jointly and preserve your scope.

I wish you the best and hopefully the District, and later the Association can get you guys an agreement that is better than ours and shows that it isn't all about the money.

 

[charlie Brown]

Actually CB, if they vote no on the CBA and vote no on the strike, that final offer becomes your CBA, it has happened in the past I cant remember what company they worked for.

Agreed 700. Not sure it has to be the last offer. But if you voted no for strike, it basically could be anything the company wanted it to be. But I was talking more about voting yes for the last offer. People need to still vote yes to strike to give us the leverage needed.

 

[charlie Brown]

CB,All I'm saying is that sUA should have used their Section 6 and negotiated their improvements first, before going into joint talks. We (sCO) was still on Year Two of our 3 year IBT deal. That had some protections till after Year 3. But our ATW was unorganized. And management was not going to get rid of them easily as would be believed. (most was management supporters and did not want to rock the boat - they felt that FTW had more protections - which it did to a certain degree) We on the ramp had to worry. We already been thru a threat of seven stations closing when the IBT got involved. We voted for a rushed deal that left us vulnerable. Most of the informed on our side knew that the company wasn't going to get rid of sCO all in one fell swoop. That would be damaging enough at that time with two large hubs to deal with. (but the line stations were always in jeopardy as they are at this moment) And it was a contentious election between the IAM and IBT. Giving up on their talks and changing the baselines for negotiations is the mystery that I will never understand. The sUA bankruptcy contract would have been a good starting point and worked upward. Why start negotiations from the FTW instead of the 2009 agreement? That's a BK agreement! You can't get worse than that. But we somehow did. FTW is the company handbook which the IBT contract was based on. How in the hell did that happen? In my heart of heart it was the potential duespayers clouded judgement. When our Cargo was given up, (a very profitable operation I may add) and my hub started to be furloughs and downgrades, I would not vote for any agreement that loses any scope. Damn the money.I support you guys and gals because you had a front row seat to what a bad agreement can do. Use your leverage and get your agreements first. Then negotiate jointly and preserve your scope.I wish you the best and hopefully the District, and later the Association can get you guys an agreement that is better than ours and shows that it isn't all about the money.

Thanks
Don't think I could disagree with your post. I think most of the UA negotiating team looking back would tell you they should have stayed in section 6 talks. Not trying to speak for them, but I think many feel that way. You have no leverage in joint talks, not in comparison to section 6 talks. Also the current AA contract with the TWU does have some job protection in it compared to you guys at CO. So we are in a better situation I feel than you guys were. But I appreciate your support.

 

[Tim Nelson]

timestamp="1394978948"]Thanks
Don't think I could disagree with your post. I think most of the UA negotiating team looking back would tell you they should have stayed in section 6 talks. Not trying to speak for them, but I think many feel that way. You have no leverage in joint talks, not in comparison to section 6 talks. Also the current AA contract with the TWU does have some job protection in it compared to you guys at CO. So we are in a better situation I feel than you guys were. But I appreciate your support.[/quote]
this forum has been knowlege for you.
6 months ago you were saying the exact opposite, ie, the current talks were only "5th biggest airline" and you would have more leverage in joint talks as the number 1 airline.

As far as united, our ramp craft had alot of leverage but you guys decided to piss all over the members. As an endorser to that anti union contract, i hope the membership votes you out. What difference have you made on the eboard that anyone would eant you back? Unlimited part time, scope for only 7 stations, etc.
keep endorsing pos agreements cb, gosh forbid u lose your place in line.

 

[charlie Brown]

timestamp="1394978948"]Thanks
Don't think I could disagree with your post. I think most of the UA negotiating team looking back would tell you they should have stayed in section 6 talks. Not trying to speak for them, but I think many feel that way. You have no leverage in joint talks, not in comparison to section 6 talks. Also the current AA contract with the TWU does have some job protection in it compared to you guys at CO. So we are in a better situation I feel than you guys were. But I appreciate your support.

this forum has been knowlege for you.
6 months ago you were saying the exact opposite, ie, the current talks were only "5th biggest airline" and you would have more leverage in joint talks as the number 1 airline.
As far as united, our ramp craft had alot of leverage but you guys decided to piss all over the members. As an endorser to that anti union contract, i hope the membership votes you out. What difference have you made on the eboard that anyone would eant you back? Unlimited part time, scope for only 7 stations, etc.
keep endorsing pos agreements cb, gosh forbid u lose your place in line.[/quote]
So now do we get to go at it again until you say Carry On??
Your wrong again. As usual. People were asking me back then about leading industry issues. I responded that we are just in section 6 for US only, and that certain things ( meaning leading industry) would be better in joint talks. Didn't know I had to make it so elementary for you. But you are right that this site has been knowledge for me, I think it is to anyone. And your the one running for AGC, but since you want to say I'm waiting in line I'll make you a deal. I'll step down from running for my position if you will yours?? Deal?? Now let's see who is after the position. Be careful calling my bluff on that one, because I could step away from all this tomorrow and be perfectly happy with my life. You say you can, but your actions prove you can't. I'll wait for my " carry on" now

 

[Tim Nelson]

this forum has been knowlege for you.
6 months ago you were saying the exact opposite, ie, the current talks were only "5th biggest airline" and you would have more leverage in joint talks as the number 1 airline.
As far as united, our ramp craft had alot of leverage but you guys decided to piss all over the members. As an endorser to that anti union contract, i hope the membership votes you out. What difference have you made on the eboard that anyone would eant you back? Unlimited part time, scope for only 7 stations, etc.
keep endorsing pos agreements cb, gosh forbid u lose your place in line.

So now do we get to go at it again until you say Carry On??
Your wrong again. As usual. People were asking me back then about leading industry issues. I responded that we are just in section 6 for US only, and that certain things ( meaning leading industry) would be better in joint talks. Didn't know I had to make it so elementary for you. But you are right that this site has been knowledge for me, I think it is to anyone. And your the one running for AGC, but since you want to say I'm waiting in line I'll make you a deal. I'll step down from running for my position if you will yours?? Deal?? Now let's see who is after the position. Be careful calling my bluff on that one, because I could step away from all this tomorrow and be perfectly happy with my life. You say you can, but your actions prove you can't. I'll wait for my " carry on" now[/quote]
i asked you what difference you have made on the eboard that anyone should vote for you. I thought that was a fair question. You are the one on the eboard, not me. Im not making any deals with you. I gotta jump in and clean up the stupid that the eboard has created, if the members want that. Very few believe that we are getting our dues worth. How have you made a difference on the eboard since u didnt have the stones to stand up to delaney on the united contract but endorsed it for him.

 

[700UW]

US Fleet Service,
 
Ask yourself this:
 
Do you want an AGC that insults people that have a different opinion than them?
 
Do you want an AGC is apparently has some anger issues?
 
Do you want an AGC that has a closed mind?
 
Do you want an AGC who turns his back on people?
 
Do you want an AGC who is in it for himself and not the members?
 
People really need to think.

 

[700UW]

CB and P.Rez,
 
Did you negotiate the UA CBA?
 
Is anyone except Delaney from UA involved in US negotiations are from UA?
 
I know the answers, but lets squash this deflection once and for all, as it seems that is all one poster can focus on.

 

[charlie Brown]

So now do we get to go at it again until you say Carry On??
Your wrong again. As usual. People were asking me back then about leading industry issues. I responded that we are just in section 6 for US only, and that certain things ( meaning leading industry) would be better in joint talks. Didn't know I had to make it so elementary for you. But you are right that this site has been knowledge for me, I think it is to anyone. And your the one running for AGC, but since you want to say I'm waiting in line I'll make you a deal. I'll step down from running for my position if you will yours?? Deal?? Now let's see who is after the position. Be careful calling my bluff on that one, because I could step away from all this tomorrow and be perfectly happy with my life. You say you can, but your actions prove you can't. I'll wait for my " carry on" now

i asked you what difference you have made on the eboard that anyone should vote for you. I thought that was a fair question. You are the one on the eboard, not me. Im not making any deals with you. I gotta jump in and clean up the stupid that the eboard has created, if the members want that. Very few believe that we are getting our dues worth. How have you made a difference on the eboard since u didnt have the stones to stand up to delaney on the united contract but endorsed it for him.[/quote]
I told you a long time ago, I don't care what you ask. Until you respect people enough to answer their questions instead of asking another question( which is what you always do) and as far as me being on the current e- board, I think they will be much more concerned about you running for AGC and who your endorsing than me being a VP. Heck didn't you even say several post back how a VP slot is a PT slot anyway?? Now your worried about the VP slot on the eboard all the sudden. You sure you want to go there again? After all, I think the US guys on this forum would rather have a US guy being a VP, then a UA guy being VP like your endorsing.

 

[700UW]

Guys you need to fix your posts, your not quoting right and all your posts are run ons.

 

[charlie Brown]

CB and P.Rez,
 
Did you negotiate the UA CBA?
 
Is anyone except Delaney from UA involved in US negotiations are from UA?
 
I know the answers, but lets squash this deflection once and for all, as it seems that is all one poster can focus on.

Of course we didn't. And no. Delaney is the only UA person on our negotiating team. Of course if Tim gets his way and keeps replacing US positions on the board with UA people, then we may in the future talks have more UA persons on the negotiating team.