2014 Fleet Service Discussion

[P. REZ]

It's not for me to say but I think my actions have shown that I have been a great team player.

Ok, so if you are 1 of 10 negotiators for the jcba and 8 recommend an acceptance to send out for a vote and you are one of the no votes, do you go with the team and recommend or do you tell everyone you were a no Vote? 
 
P. Rez

 

[WeAAsles]

People should be aware how to access the financials of their particular union. Use the tools available to you and be educated.

http://kcerds.dol-esa.gov/query/getOrgQryResult.do

 

[737823]

The pay structure of the IAM is an outrage ...there's no getting around it ...we let it slide because we are complacent but it's total BS ...

 
Especially when you look at the Executive Council-Roach, Buffy, Sito, Mark Blondin, Dora Cervatnes, etc they are the ones really milking it. 
 
Josh

 

[Tim Nelson]

Ok, so if you are 1 of 10 negotiators for the jcba and 8 recommend an acceptance to send out for a vote and you are one of the no votes, do you go with the team and recommend or do you tell everyone you were a no Vote? 
 
P. Rez

I don't think that's how it is going to work under the Association.  At least I don't think that is how it worked with the TWU.  Maybe WeAAsles can inform us but I believe when they voted on the bankruptcy contract, and I think it was the Local Presidents, I don't think it was unanimous but only had to be by majority.  And I think Doyle from ORD was shown as one that voted against it.  I may be wrong but I think it was something like that.  Certainly, I think the voting by the Local presidents was straight up and disclosed. Again, I'll have to yield to WeAAsles though.
 
Regarding the eboard at DL141,  I never would have endorsed the United agreement, neither would I have had to.  Delaney didn't need a unanimous endorsement from the entire eboard but he knew he had it in you guys so he figured 'what the hell, why not".  It's called Bobbleheads.
 
The bylaws below read,.
 
It shall be mandatory for the best interest of the membership involved in all negotiations for the respective negotiating committee to recommend acceptance or rejection of the proposed agreement prior to its ratifica- tion by the membership. Contract ratification voting shall occur on the same day system-wide, where applicable.

Thus, if I were in negotiations as a committee member,  myself and all others on that committee would have to come to an agreement of acceptance or rejection, sorta like a jury, yes?  And I would imagine that prior to signing any TA, as not to  make us look like jack asses, that each of us discussed the items before it was TA'd so any recommendation could be 'seamless'. So, my interpretation of a negotiation committee member, under the bylaw, reads that it has to be unanimous because, 'negotiation committee' is one unit.
 
In practicality, if a District President couldn't get a solid recommendation either way, then me guess he/she could dismiss a AGC/VP/LC from that assignment as well. That's another option I suppose.

 

[WeAAsles]

I don't think that's how it is going to work under the Association.  At least I don't think that is how it worked with the TWU.  Maybe WeAAsles can inform us but I believe when they voted on the bankruptcy contract, and I think it was the Local Presidents, I don't think it was unanimous but only had to be by majority.  And I think Doyle from ORD was shown as one that voted against it.  I may be wrong but I think it was something like that.  Certainly, I think the voting by the Local presidents was straight up and disclosed. Again, I'll have to yield to WeAAsles though.

It was not provided for public knowledge who voted for or against acceptance of the BK TA. What those Presidents disclosed in their private Union meetings with their members may have gotten to social media but I know it wasn't brought out officially.
 
Regarding the eboard at DL141,  I never would have endorsed the United agreement, neither would I have had to.  Delaney didn't need a unanimous endorsement from the entire eboard but he knew he had it in you guys so he figured 'what the hell, why not".  It's called Bobbleheads.
 
The bylaws below read,.
 
It shall be mandatory for the best interest of the membership involved in all negotiations for the respective negotiating committee to recommend acceptance or rejection of the proposed agreement prior to its ratifica- tion by the membership. Contract ratification voting shall occur on the same day system-wide, where applicable.

Thus, if I were in negotiations as a committee member,  myself and all others on that committee would have to come to an agreement of acceptance or rejection, sorta like a jury, yes?  And I would imagine that prior to signing any TA, as not to  make us look like jack asses, that each of us discussed the items before it was TA'd so any recommendation could be 'seamless'. So, my interpretation of a negotiation committee member, under the bylaw, reads that it has to be unanimous.

 

[robbedagain]

it'd be very interesting to know where the progress is being made    is it in one of the 6  or all of the 6  or a combo of any of the 6 areas that were i'd earlier

 

[WeAAsles]

Under our structure each President holds a higher vote depending on the amount of members he or she represents. The Presidents of DFW and MIA carry the most weight since they have the most members. I believe followed by ORD and NYC down the line. So say if 3 of those Presidents agree to something and the rest don't it still passes because they have the most members.

The process is honestly and unfortunately very unfair to Presidents from small cities if they don't have a big brother to stand up for them.

 

[freedom]

Show the proof, you posted it so now put up or shut up.

No, you just said don't let facts stand in my way.

 

[WeAAsles]

No, you just said don't let facts stand in my way.

Freedom I just provided you with the DOL link to find out all the financials you want for your organization. For clarity last year Mr Delaney made $126,357

 

[WeAAsles]

Tim I have been reading the thread for the last few days and I want to pose a question to you.

Taking our contract as an example since I know it better.

We no longer have cabin service or mail as jobs. If you were to receive a TA that brought you up to $25 per hour and gave you back those 2 jobs but either some more stations would be subject to closure or remain status quo. How would you vote?

Would you vote against improvements for thousands over keeping cities open for a few hundred? Yes the question includes them having bumping options.

 

[Tim Nelson]

Tim I have been reading the thread for the last few days and I want to pose a question to you.

Taking our contract as an example since I know it better.

We no longer have cabin service or mail as jobs. If you were to receive a TA that brought you up to $25 per hour and gave you back those 2 jobs but either some more stations would be subject to closure or remain status quo. How would you vote?

Would you vote against improvements for thousands over keeping cities open for a few hundred? Yes the question includes them having bumping options.

I think what we have seen with unions, regardless of which one, is that they are giving up work.  Sometimes in bankruptcy, a Judge may give it up, but with a company making millions, or in this case, billions,  I don't think it is a question of either/or, or over/under.  It ought to be both/and.  Cutting outlying stations/work for a bigger buck for those in the hubs is a taxation on all.  Just because it doesn't look like the hubs got taxed doesn't mean they didn't.
 
Consider the United contract. 7 stations with scope. The company's opening proposal in 2018 will be 4 stations.  I'm not a prophet but that's what the opening proposal may be, if not 3.   So, even though DEN, IAD, or LAX may feel comfortable now,  they are now on the bubble.  Let's keep stations off the bubble and bring unionism back to "One for All and All for One" because when we give up work, it's one less member and makes us weaker. So, why not look at expanding scope, and not doing so, by 'cost neutral' trading?  Gaining work in good times is what our focus should be.  I think we can go back to that.  Will it be tough? Of course, but that should be our vision.
 
That said, I realize MIA, or CLT, or PHL, or ORD may have a different opinion, but my opinion is that losing stations has already affected them as well.

 

[WeAAsles]

I think what we have seen with unions, regardless of which one, is that they are giving up work.  Sometimes in bankruptcy, a Judge may give it up, but with a company making millions, or in this case, billions,  I don't think it is a question of either/or, or over/under.  It ought to be both/and.  Cutting outlying stations/work for a bigger buck for those in the hubs is a taxation on all.  Just because it doesn't look like the hubs got taxed doesn't mean they didn't.
 
Consider the United contract. 7 stations with scope. The company's opening proposal in 2018 will be 4 stations.  I'm not a prophet but that's what the opening proposal may be, if not 3.   So, even though DEN, IAD, or LAX may feel comfortable now,  they are now on the bubble.  Let's keep stations off the bubble and bring unionism back to "One for All and All for One" because when we give up work, it's one less member and makes us weaker. So, why not look at expanding scope and not doing so without 'cost neutral' trading?  Gaining work in good times is what our focus should be.  I think we can go back to that.  Will it be tough? Of course, but that should be our vision.

Alright but my question to you did gain jobs by bringing back cabin and mail. The jobs are now in the hubs though instead of the outline stations. Losing those two jobs in MIA alone was about 400 people. Now let's say we had hundreds more in all the other hubs so even after the station closures you actually have a net gain of jobs. They are just jobs that are condensed to specific locations. Would you find something like that to be satisfactory? 
 
That said, I realize MIA, or CLT, or PHL, or ORD may have a different opinion, but my opinion is that losing stations has already affected them as well.

Under BK we lost stations and jobs although a lot of it was mitigated with the EBO.

 

[WeAAsles]

Correct me if I'm wrong but because the former CO workers had no CBA, UAL had the ability to close those stations with or without the approval of the IAM? The former Co people are paying for the fact that they were non union in the past and wore no pants.

I believe UAL was going to close those stations no matter what and told the negotiators that. The TA they took was a take it or leave it and at least gave those people who's stations were closing options that they didn't have before and options they would not have had had there been a no vote on their now current contract.

 

[freedom]

Oh well in that case I have no problem with his level of compensation. ..

I still think the AGCs should be making 75-80K though.

 

[WeAAsles]

A contract like the one that happened at UAL would not happen under our merger because both groups were already unionized and had contract language in place to protect them. Yes BK's weakened that language from what it once was but there is still language to be utilized and possibly strengthened under JCBA talks.

For the sake of labor peace and putting on that happy face for Wall Street and those lenders I do not think you will see a JCBA wait until after those "Cinderella dates" that Tim keeps talking about. The fact that the station staffing was just agreed to to be extended by the company and the IAM a few weeks back should tell any reader what that means.

Some need to learn to understand that there are far more dynamics in play than just the negative connotations we place within our limited thought processes.