ograc said:
What I'm referring to Tim is it's easy to campaign that you will get it all for the membership if elected. You know these campaign promises are unrealistic and unachievable. Although you want to sell the membership on "no retreat" in negotiations and you will get it all; you know you are being misleading. By the way... what does AGC, Trustee and Vice President elections have to do with current contract negotiations? The NC is appointed by the District President is it not? Shouldn't the focus, concerning the AGC positions, be on Grienance Committee / Shop Steward experience? Of which your running mates have none. Is this about you or the betterment of the membership?
You mischaracterize me again. Why? You believe in cost neutral negotiaitons, I don't. We simply don't have to give SQUAT up! And I do happen to think that even asking for $23 is low since we already know they tabled scope. 40,000+ rampers in this industry are currently under compensation scales that are north of $24 today. I don't follow why our NC is dicking around with $22 right now when asking for $23 originally was suppose to also come with more scope. Grant it that the company hasn't signed off on a $22 wage yet but imo it's quite appalling to be leaning towards a wage in the $22 range. What the hell is going on in negotiations???? Sorry, but imo, they just aren't doing the job. Didn't do the job in 2008, damn sure didn't do the job at HAL or UAL, and are now F everything up here a second time.
That said, are you aiming for a TA that just bridges another year of Cinderella dates so you can retire? Because JAX isn't going to get any more scope from this negotiation team, and it looks like they are back ending the wage to F all of us and implicitly F all the TWU folks as well. If they bring the TA back now with what the NC thinks is reasonable....THEY WILL GET EATEN ALIVE IN JUNE. Sure, they will get more time off but tabling scope was a joke and back ending wages is another joke. BTW, even the days off won't start being accrued until next year. Hopefully, I can get in there and clean up the big mess as these guys didn't know what they were doing in 2008, HAL, UAL, and damn sure don't know what they are doing tabling scope as they work on another Cinderella band aid, and try to frame the 'no furlough' guarantee.
At any rate, you continue to quote mine me. What I have said, rather plainly, is that this isn't the sorta situation where we have to give. If we can't gain real scope in this situation then these guys are absolutely worthless.
I understand that you and several others think negotiations is a sorta cost neutral sorta thing, but it isn't. That doesn't mean we get everything we want, but the things we get shouldn't come with concessions.
In bankruptcy it's all about giving. When a company is making billions [not millions] it's about getting. Cripes, you and the negotiation team want everyone to think this company is a "Po Boy"! Your mindset and the mindset of the IAM leadership is disgusting, actually. It was seen at United, and the thing I am trying to avoid at US AIRWAYS is the same spin cycle negotiations that make it look like the company is broke. Most of us are not of your age to retire so another year of patched up Cinderella dates isn't the answer for those of us who still gotta work at least another 10 years.
And you want to talk about experience? Team Delaney says they have, collectively, 100 years of experience? It's called seat warmers and that isn't the type of experience folks want. When you look up at the scoreboard, they are getting "SMOKED" by management and it's such a blowout that the game would have been called if it was a pee wee game. The candidates you support have the 2008 US AIRWAYS contract they recommended; the HAL contract; and the infamous UAL contract. That's what the experience has netted. Certainly, that is fine by you.
