2014 Fleet Service Discussion

[Tim Nelson]

You know it's easy for you to sell all of this to the readers here Tim because none of your NC guys are allowed to come on here and refute what you're saying. It's like having a guy tied up to a tree and you're whacking him with a bat. Kind of unsportsman like conduct if you ask me.

Can any of the readers REALLY believe that there is almost nothing that has been agreed to that they'll like or is good? I mean seriously, think about that. Movement started to come right after the courts threw out the last arguments that could be made against the merger. Before that no the company wasn't budging because they weren't positive of their position.

Tim do you have anything better than your "Throw The Bums Out" mantra? What IF these guys do all that hard work and bring you all back a pretty good TA? But yea it comes after you've already chucked them out thinking they got crap coming on the horizon? Man that would really be unfair.

Tim I've caught some of your selling points that are not just attack the incumbents and feed on the emotions and those points you have aren't that bad. I wish you luck in your campaign though. It's just not the way I'd ever want to win anything.

Sure they can.  They just can't talk about company finances and some other items.  They can bring the whole damn proposal out if they want. 

 

[john john]

Even if we did... they would be made to sign Non-Disclosure Agreements... They wouldn't be able to tell us anything, without fear of repercussions!

Unions should have an obligation to report to all members and to update them on meetings, briefings, and other information that may affect the careers, lives and welfare of their members reports to members about bargaining, arbitrations, negotiations, ratifications, briefings by management, and board of directors meetings Members are entitled to know the substance and content of meetings with management, and also the direction and implication of policies and programs that are under discussion. The only exception that should be make is that the unions don’t publicly report legitimate, unreleased, “business confidential” data, charts, or strategies that would aid or assist a competitor of US Airways.
Open Meetings and reports should have no secrets as long as there is nothing “business confidential” contained in a report; and the report is entirely accurate and truthful Employees’ right to know...
“Business confidential” refers to unreleased data, charts or strategies that would aid or assist a competitor of US Airways. Management loves to think “business confidential” refers to anything they don’t want the employees to know about.

 

[Tim Nelson]

You are the best......hands down.....nobody compares to you......Damn you are good !........
 
Now....show all this that you talk about in writing please. Thats the only real truth and you know it... I don't need a Tim Nelson History lesson. I need factual proof please. Not HALs' ...not UAs'.. i would like USairways proof that what you say is true....

I've been giving you a personal factual lesson but your eyes and ears are closed, seeing, you do not see.  hearing you do not hear, thus it is impossible for you to understand.
 
You were one of the few who were blabbing your mouth about "Lock and Load".  Who bullshitted who?   You and the NC were bullshitting the masses.  That there is a fact, Jack!   Kindly review all the postings over the past 6 months.   As difficult as it may be for you,  I told you that as we approach June, the release will be "GOOSED".   Realizing the truth, and the processes, one didn't have to be a prophet to understand that the union was going to make some fatal mistakes, certainly enough to slam the door on a release.  That being said, the reality was that even though our NC was shitting the hell out of everyone and blabbed its mouth 3 times on separate occasions in the press that there was a impasse, no such impasse ever existed, as I said.   Fast forward, now it can not be mistaken that I am deeply disappointed in that they also bullshitted everyone on the 6 points, saying that "No compromise on 6 items with a line drawn in the sand."    You want to believe bullshit? Go ahead because you certainly love it.   But when someone says that they are drawing a line in the sand because there is an impasse and no more wiggle room over 6 items, but then flips like a pancake and coughs up 2 items immediately....I got a problem with that.   You think the mediator was ecstatic to schedule more talks because only the company moved?   Really?
 
The reality of the negotiations is that they agreed that parity wages can be done in installments catching up with AMR wage in mid/late 2015.  I believe the actual wage at this point is 6% plus a .20 longevity that takes things past $22 at top out.  But that the rest of the wage scale hasn't even been adjusted to that level.  And these are your boys now, not mine.   Yes, they tabled some days off but even those accrual rates aren't until 2015?  What are your boys doing????   Why not when a contract gets ratified, everything should be in place and nothing should have to be dicked around for a year.  Same bullshit as at United. 
 
And, although this is strictly my opinion, the reason why this bullshit TA didn't come out is because they would all be found out and eaten alive in their elections even moreso.
 
What I don't know is the scope conclusion.  That was the only remaining item as they secured the $1.50 lead pay.  AH wanted more than 56 flights to boot out fleet service.  My understanding is that he wanted 12 flights a day or 84 flights a day.  The NC didn't agree to that.  AH wants it bad and may be willing to sucker bait them with it.   The last round of negotiations had Delaney countering with a Cinderella date almost to ammendability and a no layoff clause that I told you about.  Although Delaney didn't previously talk about it, his update is currently laced with "Job protection".   Mike, you know what "Job protection" means?  Job protection has nothing to do with scope or 'who does what work'.  Job protection is a glorified reduction in force clause.  For instance, if someone gets contracted out, they have a right to exercise their seniority.  The job protection Delaney is talking about is a 'no furlough' clause.  See united.  Basically, it says, the company has a right to contract out work however as long as the member wants to move, the company has to provide a job.  Guess where that job is going to be?  PHL or ORD prolly. The lucky ones may get CLT or DFW. 

 

[700UW]

 
How is your events business doing?  Are your employees part of the IAM?
 
Josh

And what does this have to do with the topic?

 

[700UW]

 
Guess you didn't read the new UA CBA, CLT doesnt have any scope and can be contracted out tomorrow if the company wants, thanks to the IAM.
 
Josh

 

This is US, not PI, UA, or about how I am in love with tim.
Josh

 

[700UW]

 
How is your events business doing?  Are your employees part of the IAM?
 
Josh

 

This is US, not PI, UA, or 700's resume.

Josh

 

[700UW]

This is the IAM we are talking. At Alaska Air hubs at ANC, LAX, PDX, and SEA are outsourced. IAM rampers are a dying breed of 600 in the state of Alaska and dwindling. AS prevailed outsourcing the SEA ramp to Menzies.

Josh

 

This is US, not PI, UA, AS or 700's resume.

Josh

 

[700UW]

Ahh the master of misinformation is at it again.

You are nothing but a fecal stirrer and a fraud.

You are lying, who told you Tim pays me to post here.

Josh

 

This is US, not PI, UA, or 700's resume.

Josh

 

[737823]

700 are you coming to MIA Tuesday morning?

Josh

 

[700UW]

700 are you coming to MIA Tuesday morning?

Josh

 

This is US, not PI, UA, or 700's resume.

Josh

 

[ograc]

It passed by 70% because the 141 leadership mislead the membership saying it had all this "protection" that didn't exist, people wanted the money and didn't care about scope.  As T5 has posted before people at UA are very remorseful.  It seems everyone got caught up in the retropay and the membership was tired of the prolonged negotiations and wanted a pay raise. The IAM allowed the company to divide the membership between hubs and line stations and the company took full advantage of it.
 
Josh

Your opening statement is contradictory. First you state "It passed by 70% because the 141 leadership mislead..." Then in the very same sentence you admit "the people wanted the money and didn't care about scope." In the end... and I don't care what the leadership recommends, the choice is the members'. If they choose to not follow due dillegance in reviewing the details of an agreement and instead vote for money and retro who's fault is that. Hell, it may have passed even if the leadership recommended rejection. A member's greed and self centerness is hard to overcome. If we are to put the responsibility on the leadership... then we should be prepared to have them act as judge and jury. A TA would no longer be subject to membership ratification. That is not how the process works in a democracy.

 

[ograc]

In the end; the membership decides. If it's a POS TA vote NO and send the parties back to the table. If it's acceptable vote YES! The membership has the final say. As it should be. Our membership may have a shaky track record in the past of voting for the short term money and retro but that is what we live with. The only ones blowing up our craft and class is ourselves. In the end; it could be argued, the true enemy is ourselves. 70% to 30% ratification of the agreement at UA. Will the members at US show the same pattern? A change in leadership will not change this reality. Until the mindset of the entire membership changes we can expect the same results.

 

[roabilly]

Unions should have an obligation to report to all members and to update them on meetings, briefings, and other information that may affect the careers, lives and welfare of their members reports to members about bargaining, arbitrations, negotiations, ratifications, briefings by management, and board of directors meetings Members are entitled to know the substance and content of meetings with management, and also the direction and implication of policies and programs that are under discussion. The only exception that should be make is that the unions don’t publicly report legitimate, unreleased, “business confidential” data, charts, or strategies that would aid or assist a competitor of US Airways.
Open Meetings and reports should have no secrets as long as there is nothing “business confidential” contained in a report; and the report is entirely accurate and truthful Employees’ right to know...
“Business confidential” refers to unreleased data, charts or strategies that would aid or assist a competitor of US Airways. Management loves to think “business confidential” refers to anything they don’t want the employees to know about.

What is being discussed in Negations IS business confidential! Negotiations are completely about a major business expense that is both current, and projected... LABOR COST!
 
Confidentiality Agreements are presented for a reason... to protect the interest of the Company. The NDA’s are not presented to hide information from the Membership. The Membership is allowed to review the full context of any agreement BEFORE voting for it. Only then are the “secrets” of what transpired in Negotiations revealed... LEGALLY under Federal Law!  

 

[ograc]

Contract negotiations continue to be ongoing. No TA reached in DFW this week. Let's stand our ground.
Lock and Load!

 

[psa8979]

JJ you are correct Brother. RB CCA / NDC after 3 yrs. of sham negotiations, a merger,  and a mediator re-assignment. Both become mute and non-enforsable on either side of the table in a Court of Law. Leaking happens. Ask WIKI or AH. The ? is to AF Readers and Posters . Have the LCC//IAM/ FS Membership not reached a TA CBA because of Politics ? Mechanics/ Related/ D-142 ? CWA/Teamster Election ? or Other ? CARGO is right at the end of the day what ever is finally put out for a vote the Membership will decide. Hopefully ! well informed and full disclosure by the IAM Leadership ?