What's new

2014 Fleet Service Discussion

Status
Not open for further replies.
ograc said:
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.  
I really don't have any idea how you could come up with most of what you wrote.  I've been arguing for democracy and to allow our members to vote on a proposal provided that the leadership recommend a rejection if the deal is not worthy, or a acceptance if it is.  And I have said countless times that this should happen now.   What you support, sir, is the paternal stranglehold from the leaders you want to keep in place but who have decided among themselves what is the best interest of the members by leaving members out of it.  That's what currently exist.   That's what I will do my best to change as soon as I could become an AGC elect, I will push to get what is currently on the table into the members hand and get the District to recommend one way or the other as the bylaws say.   If a NC thinks the membership deserves more then it ought to bring back the proposal and recommend a rejection to gain the consent of the membership to ask for more, or the membership ratifies and moves on to the Association.
 
I want to check you on one thing though.  Do you believe the IAM 141 eboard was accountable in bringing back the United contract and recommending it approved?  Remember, it wasn't just that they brought back a TA but they recommended a acceptance.   And if the leadership brings back a TA at US AIRWAYS and recommends an acceptance but falls short of many things, you are saying that you will give them a free pass and not hold fault with them?
 
So you would force the IAM to settle with the company to bring it out?
 
Thats ridiculous and stupid.
 
And you would have no power to do so at all.
 
cltrat said:
" Topped out members getting a higher % than those on the lower end???? "
 
anything with this in it is a deal breaker for me
I can assure you the whole thing is a dealbreaker for you based on what has been tabled and signed off on to this point.  Yes,  the top out % is a lot more than the % for the non topped out levels.  Full AMR wages aren't to be bridged until late 2015.  And AMR wage itself sucks and is a bankrupt wage.  The extra days off is even back loaded.  At ratification, as of a few weeks ago, you weren't going to get squat other than a band aid wage bump, everything else being loaded in 2015 with a big rah rah for joint talks.  It's a circle jerk at best.  Maybe some leads vote for this since they did sign off on lead pay [extra .50], but the company dabbled with scope last week in exchange [union NC hasn't signed off on that one though].  Maybe some who will be retiring over the next year will vote for it since it just tacks on a Cinderella date. 
Based on what I know about the present negotiations, I doubt CLT or PHL votes 10% for the current officers if they bring this junk back.
 
PJ ask i think if you would take a pay cut with your ticket as you said you would last election?
 
mike33 said:
PJ ask i think if you would take a pay cut with your ticket as you said you would last election?
Last election, I ran for President and all offices were up for election and my ticket pledged monies back into a education fund.  Thus, in 2012, such a thing could have happened. 
 
This election, Delaney will remain the president so any give back idea would be unlikely unless there was general eboard agreement.  I'm not currently in position to discuss such things with Delaney.
 
Tim Nelson said:
You still plan on campaigning through your email system that you use for negotiation updates? Poor taste indeed.
Lol. If there is one thing you and I definitely disagree on, it would be what is considered Poor Taste!!
My email briefings are informational email briefings. Not just negotiations. I cover many things happening with the members, from I- learning, hearing test, negotiations, elections. Whatever is going on, I try to brief on. A lot of people actually like getting informed about things. I've been told you do and have done the same on Facebook. I'm all for informing the members. Aren't you?? Don't understand why email is a poor taste to you, but yet Facebook is a great thing. I think we shld do everything we can to inform members of what's going on. So yes, my informational emails will continue. Your free to not read them if they upset you.
 
Tim Nelson said:
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.
We has some merger protections in the IBT contract. But Medical and topped out leads was definitely was not gonna happen. The Medical portion due to the new ACA (ie: ObamaCare) and we didn't have topped out leads on our side since we did not use strict seniority for leads. That gave junior members who wanted the chance to upgrade since senior people didn't want it. Plus you did not lose your seniority if you upgraded. Something would have to give for those two. Plus I think that our "Market Rate Adjustment" of 1.00 could have stayed, and added ORD to the list. That was given up as well. But I can agree with why giving up scope from a bankruptcy contract was mystifying for me. Why was that the baseline for negotiations instead of the BK contract of 2009? There was good and bad in both agreements. IMHO, all was needed to add IAH to the list of protected cities, and I think it would have been agreed to. People still don't know what was received for the loss of our Cargo.
 
T5towbar said:
We has some merger protections in the IBT contract. But Medical and topped out leads was definitely was not gonna happen. The Medical portion due to the new ACA (ie: ObamaCare) and we didn't have topped out leads on our side since we did not use strict seniority for leads. That gave junior members who wanted the chance to upgrade since senior people didn't want it. Plus you did not lose your seniority if you upgraded. Something would have to give for those two. Plus I think that our "Market Rate Adjustment" of 1.00 could have stayed, and added ORD to the list. That was given up as well. But I can agree with why giving up scope from a bankruptcy contract was mystifying for me. Why was that the baseline for negotiations instead of the BK contract of 2009? There was good and bad in both agreements. IMHO, all was needed to add IAH to the list of protected cities, and I think it would have been agreed to. People still don't know what was received for the loss of our Cargo.
True.  When cargo was outsourced, due to the merger and "harmonizing",  Delaney actually read your contract right and put out a update saying, "You can't harmonize your way out of a contract" and said he would expeditiously arbitrate. But, as we saw, all talk, as he decided to withdraw the grievance and bit on management's plea for 'expedited talks' in hopes of netting the extra dues from the continental ASA. Tossing cargo under the bus was just one of many things our union leadership has done.  It has been nothing short of embarrassing to true labor men and woman to have such anti union leadership who cares more about Vegas parties than enforcing contracts. Disappointing indeed.
 
Tim Nelson said:
True.  When cargo was outsourced, due to the merger and "harmonizing",  Delaney actually read your contract right and put out a update saying, "You can't harmonize your way out of a contract" and said he would expeditiously arbitrate. But, as we saw, all talk, as he decided to withdraw the grievance and bit on management's plea for 'expedited talks' in hopes of netting the extra dues from the continental ASA. Tossing cargo under the bus was just one of many things our union leadership has done.  It has been nothing short of embarrassing to true labor men and woman to have such anti union leadership who cares more about Vegas parties than enforcing contracts. Disappointing indeed.
Tim,
 
You can't negotiate 5 US spots on your ticket but you are going to save us all if you get elected? Tim, I don't think people are stupid enough to believe a guy who can't get 5 US spots is going to do s**t for anybody.
 
P. Rez
 
P. REZ said:
Tim,
 
You can't negotiate 5 US spots on your ticket but you are going to save us all if you get elected? Tim, I don't think people are stupid enough to believe a guy who can't get 5 US spots is going to do s**t for anybody.
 
P. Rez
I think you need to focus on negotiations with the company and bringing back something more than $22 and no increased scope.  Sorry Prez but this isn't 2001, this is 2014 and nobody is impressed with a wage that is slightly more than the wage of 2001.  Tossing everyone into another bankrupt contract is bizarre.  I could understand getting the low wage of $23 if you got all current stations within scope, but you didn't.  What is wrong with you?
 
Tim Nelson said:
I think you need to focus on negotiations with the company and bringing back something more than $22 and no increased scope.  Sorry Prez but this isn't 2001, this is 2014 and nobody is impressed with a wage that is slightly more than the wage of 2001.  Tossing everyone into another bankrupt contract is bizarre.  I could understand getting the low wage of $23 if you got all current stations within scope, but you didn't.  What is wrong with you?
Tim,
 
Easy to sit on the sidelines and tell everyone what should or shouldn't be done. How would anybody believe that you could do better if you can't even negotiate 5 US spots on your ticket? Did you sell the US members out to get elected? 
 
P. Rez
 
Tim Nelson said:
No, Mark, I'm not talking about informing. Informing members is fine.  But the majority of us don't want our union officers campaigning as they inform. It's not only unfair, improper, and in poor taste but it also violates my LMRDA rights as a candidate since I asked the union leadership for the same communication venues at my own cost, but you guys rejected that.  Under law, union officers have every right to go into breakrooms, email, communicate and inform members but are prohibited from campaigning in that capacity if the same access has not been granted to other candidates.   When I consider the following, the email is from a desperate candidate screaming "Vote for Me" by using a negotiation update to try to get votes. 
 
Subject: Briefing
From: Mark Baskett
To: baskett62@hotmail.com
CC:
 
Briefing for 5-10-14
 
 
                       NEGOTIATIONS UPDATE: Meetings this past week with the NMB & Company went very well. Everyone can get the official IAM update at www.iam141.org. I cant give out a lot of specifics at this time [Tim's edit: Of course you won't give any real info, otherwise you wouldn't get two votes.  Management sees the proposals and so should our members] . I can tell you we are meeting again on the 19,20,21 of this month in Dfw. Things have progressed very well the last two times we have met with the company. We believe IF ( if is the key word ) if we can keep the momentum going like it has the last two meetings, then the next meeting we could very possibly have an announcement to make. Lets hope things keep progressing the way they have been the last few meetings. I know its frustrating to not get anymore information than this, but everyone needs to just hang in a little longer and hopefully we will have some good news.  [Tim's edit: Ok, so did I miss something or did you just give no information at all other than say you are meeting on the 19th? and toss in the word progress?]
 
                       DISTRICT 141 ELECTIONS: We have elections coming up this June for District officers. I will be running for VP again. Many of you filled out absentee request forms the last few weeks and I thank you.Some of you have contacted me about someone supporting the other ticket. There will be two tickets with candidates running. Our ticket that I ask you to support is called 141 Rising. Some of you have said that a certain individual is putting up material about the other slate, and also spreading rumors about ours. I hope I have proven myself so far to all of you. I said in the beginning that I would tell you the truth whether it was good news or bad. I hope through my actions I have built some type of trust with most of you [tim's edit:  I hope I have proven myself to you?  Put down the violin Mark and stop crying]. Please [Tim's edit: Please, I beg you...  Really Mark??]   if any of you have any questions about any of these rumors, contact me personally to find out the real truth. Some people will say anything, or spread anything just to get elected to a position. [Tim's edit:  Well, at least you got that one right and you seem to be doing a fine job in this email with that] Here is my cell number xxx-xxx-xxxx. If any of you have any questions please contact me. We are about to finish up this contract, and then within 30 days head into talks for the joint contract that is going to be huge. We don't need people thinking or trying to change leadership right in the middle of this. This isn't the time for change. I ask all of you to keep in touch with me, and vote the right way in June [Tim's edit:  You mean vote for you, because in your eyes that is the right way. LOL] when the time comes. Thanks
 
                      STATION VISIT: Due to negotiations picking up pace, and I also have the Chairman's conference I have to attend the last week in May. I'm not sure when my next visit will be. I will try to shoot up one day wed or Thur this week for the day.
 
                       EMAILS : Some of you have sent me emails with other agents emails to add to this briefing. If they do not get this latest briefing, please send me their emails again. I misplaced two or three and cant find them. 
 
EVERYONE HAVE A GOOD AND SAFE WEEK
MARK BASKETT IAM VP .  "
 
Again, inform the members all you want, but leave politics out of your breakroom updates and email blast in which you are suppose to separate professional for campaign.
That briefing was sent out due to several personal emails I recieved asking questions, which is normal when you get many people's emails. Like I said, we are going to differ on what's poor taste. I have always, and will always answer people's questions whether that is in the breakrooms in person, or by email. Besides your not really worried about the US side of things anyway, since your throwing all them under the bus. Maybe you just don't want them knowing the truth.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top