2014 Fleet Service Discussion

[charlie Brown]

Tim
Not sure what grace period your talking about for the 60 day furlough rule. But both T/a 1 & T/A 2. Had the exact same language in them when referring to the 60 day furlough.

 

[P. REZ]

Tim,
 
I know you like to hammer pj, roa etc. on what we have accomplished. As a team on the US side lets talk about a few things we accomplished.
1. Just recently negotiated an extension for scope protections in which 1 mainline flight a day will keep a station open.
2. Negotiated with the TWU an alliance which is good for all because Union brothers and sisters won't be fighting each other.
3. Negotiated seniority protections for all with TWU. No McCaskill Bond needed. 
4. Held numerous Mediations in which many issues resolved including getting jobs back.  
5. Got 5 positions for US in the upcoming election.
 
Nobody is perfect but this group of guys I work with including the NC is solid and the type of people that all Unions need. Promises made by you are rhetoric at best. Walk in any of our shoes and you will see that there is fight in every one of us and a knowledge/experience that your team can't compete with.
 
Speaking on number 5 above. You have 3 US positions on your ticket but want us to believe that you will be the difference this Union needs? You can't negotiate 5 US people on your ticket but you can negotiate an awesome contract against DP and Company? Get real bro and try a different story because yours ain't working. Telling it like I see it.
 
P. Rez  

 

[robbedagain]

prez  or cb    can either of you at least text me regarding my case?   also do you think that when you all go back to DFW this up coming week that there could be a deal struck?  

 

[charlie Brown]

prez  or cb    can either of you at least text me regarding my case?   also do you think that when you all go back to DFW this up coming week that there could be a deal struck?

Robbed
The last time we talked about your case on the phone is all I know at this time. I will check with FO in a week or so when we are down at the chairmans conference.
As far as talks go. Just like the update stated, we made significant progress the last two sessions and it's possible that a agreement in principle could be reached. But it's also possible that it could all fall apart. Sorry can't be more specific. But really, we don't know until we get there and see how things are going.

 

[mike33]

prez  or cb    can either of you at least text me regarding my case?   also do you think that when you all go back to DFW this up coming week that there could be a deal struck?  

Robbed....My suggestion is to not ask about any deals....if the company wants it to happen it will happen and i think you know what that means. Lets not put the NC in a situation that they feel uncomfortable in answering. I'm sure they would love to say whats on their mind but i for one leave it in their hands to progress with Prudence. Keep the faith!

 

[Tim Nelson]

Tim,
 
I know you like to hammer pj, roa etc. on what we have accomplished. As a team on the US side lets talk about a few things we accomplished.
1. Just recently negotiated an extension for scope protections in which 1 mainline flight a day will keep a station open.
2. Negotiated with the TWU an alliance which is good for all because Union brothers and sisters won't be fighting each other.
3. Negotiated seniority protections for all with TWU. No McCaskill Bond needed. 
4. Held numerous Mediations in which many issues resolved including getting jobs back.  
5. Got 5 positions for US in the upcoming election.
 
Nobody is perfect but this group of guys I work with including the NC is solid and the type of people that all Unions need. Promises made by you are rhetoric at best. Walk in any of our shoes and you will see that there is fight in every one of us and a knowledge/experience that your team can't compete with.
 
Speaking on number 5 above. You have 3 US positions on your ticket but want us to believe that you will be the difference this Union needs? You can't negotiate 5 US people on your ticket but you can negotiate an awesome contract against DP and Company? Get real bro and try a different story because yours ain't working. Telling it like I see it.
 
P. Rez  

#2 and #3 were a result of the AFLCIO and above your head. Period.  It made good sense and I fully support it.
 
But let's wait on any TA before taking any credit. BTW, the TA, from what was reported is terrible.  Wage back ended?  C'mon maaaannnnnn.  Topped out members getting a higher % than those on the lower end????   Only topped out long term members getting the extra week of vacation????    Full AMR wage level not until late 2015???   Really?     Wiki, any updates?    Prez, you do have some members of the NC who prolly won't even be IAM members in 6 months but have kept their integrity thus far, and others who aren't on District eboard but imo will fold, but time will tell. 
 
At any rate, I'm not understanding why scope being enhanced was dropped like a lead balloon for another Cinderella date.  SMH.  Even though I thought it was terrible to only ask to be placed in American bankrupt wage level, I fully realized that most members could live with that if scope was enhanced.  But since you guys aren't enhancing scope, I'm really at a lost of words what you guys have honestly been doing over the past 3 years.  This will be the last time we are in section 6 talks in the next 10 years since a joint contract will normally take 4+ to secure.  But hey, you guys did get full sick time, even though we get disciplined for using it since Delaney decided not to arbitrate the complete policy a few years back. Sheesh! 
 
Gosh I hope you guys don't completely screw things up for the sake of politics.  I'm hopeful that I'll get elected and finally be able to clean up the big mess you guys created everywhere.  6 years is enough for you guys to do nothing.  That said, I'll access the mess and I think the membership needs to access it as well and vote on a proposal.  The bylaws are clear, if it isn't good enough then the NC can recommend a rejection to gain the consent to ask for more. If the members ratify it then we move on to Joint talks. But one thing I Damn sure won't do is recommend a acceptance on a TA that doesn't enhance scope. There won't be any unanimous vote on that one, partner. Enhancing scope is a given, in the context of these talks.  No more of you AGC's selling out non-hub stations when change happens. 

 

[robbedagain]

thanks prez n cb   good luck next week

 

[Tim Nelson]

Robbed
The last time we talked about your case on the phone is all I know at this time. I will check with FO in a week or so when we are down at the chairmans conference.
As far as talks go. Just like the update stated, we made significant progress the last two sessions and it's possible that a agreement in principle could be reached. But it's also possible that it could all fall apart. Sorry can't be more specific. But really, we don't know until we get there and see how things are going.

You still plan on campaigning through your email system that you use for negotiation updates? Poor taste indeed.

 

[Tim Nelson]

cricket

 

[ograc]

TA 1 was a bad deal and it was overwhelmingly shot down.

TA 2 added more bonus money (IMHO to appease sCO members). The meat of the contract was basically TA 1.
When the roadshows happened, the District expressly told members that if they voted the TA in; effective on DOS, no one would be reduced in status. The "protection dates" was supposed to help in this. They also said that places would be opening up for members to move to if stations would be closed. But some (of the thinking members especially in my hub) was skeptical because of the deal about giving up our cargo. Some of our people could not could not get placed because they didn't have enough seniority to hold anything and they were furloughed. Also was the people that were downgraded as well. They also said that those people would try to get their FT back upon signing.

Bottom line, the money was appealing to a lot of people. People were tired of waiting. Rumors had it that TA 3 would be worse and more would be cut. The District wanted those new members on the sCO Passenger Service side. A combination of self serving members and a District who wanted those new duespayers.
This is how I see it from my perspective.

Your assesment is accurate. Let's not overlook the circumstances and environment of the UA negotiations. Former CO below wing under an existing IBT contract that was a mirror image of the company's Policy Guide. Former CO employees above wing, agreeing to IAM representation, but without a first CBA. These circumstances simply don't exist regarding the Section 6 contract negotiations for Fleet at US. To draw comparisons between the two, and asserting the same outcome can be expected in negotiations on the US side, should be viewed as misleading and politically motivated at this time.    

 

[Tim Nelson]

Your assesment is accurate. Let's not overlook the circumstances and environment of the UA negotiations. Former CO below wing under an existing IBT contract that was a mirror image of the company's Policy Guide. Former CO employees above wing, agreeing to IAM representation, but without a first CBA. These circumstances simply don't exist regarding the Section 6 contract negotiations for Fleet at US. To draw comparisons between the two, and asserting the same outcome can be expected in negotiations on the US side, should be viewed as misleading and politically motivated at this time.    

That is incorrect, it didn't mirror the policy guide, and their merger protections were actually the best of any contract.  Nobody could be displaced or lose status as a result of the merger.  Further, the United fleet agreement was a 60 year agreement with scope in all ramp stations even if 1 jet.  Medical that was the best, and 6 weeks of vacation, All leads at top of scale, minimal part time caps [best in industry].    Yes, we can compare the two scenarios.   

 

[700UW]

Why would anyone have approved ta1 which didnt have that grace period for the 60 day seniority cleansing. Seniority is the most sacred thing. Ta1 @ ta2 sucked. Plus the iam felt strongly about the coc and both districts teamed up. Are you saying higgonbotham misled folks?

And what did Higgenbotham have to do with Fleet?
 
He doesnt represent US Fleet nor does he run 141, he is PDGC of 142, which at US is Mechanic and Related.
 
And did you read Bloch's decision on the COC?

 

[700UW]

That is incorrect, it didn't mirror the policy guide, and their merger protections were actually the best of any contract.  Nobody could be displaced or lose status as a result of the merger.  Further, the United fleet agreement was a 60 year agreement with scope in all ramp stations even if 1 jet.  Medical that was the best, and 6 weeks of vacation, All leads at top of scale, minimal part time caps [best in industry].    Yes, we can compare the two scenarios.   

They had NO scope protection in that CBA.

 

[ograc]

The problem is definitely the leadership that brings nasty terrible contracts to members.  Something you fail to acknowledge by constantly blaming the membership as you fail to properly access the situation.  Quite a difference between me and you.   The leadership you ran against two years ago, I might say. 

There is indeed a difference between your idealogy and mine. The difference is accountability not political gain. I believe, in the end, the membership, through the ratification vote process, chooses what they believe is best for them. If the TA is such a POS then it will surely be rejected overwhemingly by the membership. You believe, it is up to the DL leadership and the respective NC, to not bring back any TA that may not be in the best interest of the membership. Your belief, as I see it, is the NC and the District leadership will determine what is in the best interest of the members. Until then... the members will have no say. Doesn't sound too democratic to me. The inescapable truth is; in the end the members either accept the TA or reject it! We must all be willing to accept and support the memberships' choice. This applies to contract ratification votes and leadership elections.  

 

[cltrat]

" Topped out members getting a higher % than those on the lower end???? "
 
anything with this in it is a deal breaker for me