2014 Fleet Service Discussion

[mike33]

Don't like it when it comes out?......Vote it down. It's your choice,  not anyone else's.....Period !

 

[Dog Wonder]

For a PHX guy your pretty ballsy, I thought PHX was a field full of sheep and I have some friend that work there!

He is not a PHX Fleet Service worker, just a pot stirrer. At least Tim stirs his own pot.

Carry on.

 

[Tim Nelson]

Possible? If so even better then huh? That and the averaging in Sept 2015.

Unlike you though I'll wait to read the ENTIRE TA before I wax poetically.

Everyone is waiting.  Like me, you are discussing things as well. 

 

[Tim Nelson]

you argued earlier that it was expected to speculate now you say you didnt do it, you are a piece of work 

I have a hard time figuring out what you are saying.  Wait for the TA language already, would you?  Basing your opinions on a highlight sheet is ridiculous.

 

[Jimmy Neutron]

The highlight sheet looks decent but there has to be some poison in there somewhere. True, we wont know till the full t/a comes out for disection. I wish it would come out soon, we had some screaming matches going on and it makes for a bad atmosphere at work. It seems to good to be true. After talking to a source at one of our hubs, the junior guy's are ready to vote yes. That's what scares me. Looking at the money but not other things that really matter.
 
 The Rockit

I will again re-iterate what I said yesterday --- and since then I've spoken to quite a few senior 30+ year guys that are absolutely voting YES too, so what I said, and what's going to happen here IMO will be a VERY BIG YES -Vote for this contract !!! Like it or NOT !!! I Personally am NOT Happy with some very important missing things here, but will have to live with what the masses decide, just as the last Transition Agreement !!!! Unfortunately !!! this is just my opinion !!
 
freedom, on 16 Jun 2014 - 12:07 PM, said:

1500 is fine with me

$1500 is ABSOLUTELY NOT OK -VS- RETRO, but accomplishes two important things for the company and the Union, it buys the votes of the biggest percentage of members on the property, Junior 5-7 years or less, and taking care of the small stations (bonus is a TRUE bonus for them) ALL but ASSURES a strong passing vote to get this thing through !! Like it or not people, good luck convincing all of the more junior peopl in the system, and there is a LARGE percentage of them to VOTE NO !! Not HAPPY myself at ALL, but not sure it matters, it will be what the majority wants, and most will take that $ and RUN !!!!!

 

[WeAAsles]

Everyone is waiting.  Like me, you are discussing things as well. 

Of course I'm discussing it Tim. But what I'm discussing is what you have currently in front of you. I wouldn't speculate on the other items until they're more fleshed out past the basics. Such as SCOPE and staffing methodologies. Some of my people are already calling me to inquire about what it means and I've told them that there are not enough details out yet to gauge the possibilities.

The "BASE" rate is there though so that can be discussed. But the Devil (Maybe Not) is in the details on everything else.

The wages will take you guys up to a roughly $3.50 per hour increase in 14 months if you sign yes. That winds up being for a Top out guy $560.00 per month before Taxes not including any extra hours worked. I wouldn't call that chump change. And of course during that we will be negotiating for a JCBA that could take us even further up depending on how fast both sides want to get it done? 

The retro would have been great and preffered over a signing bonus but it was the Tortuous who won the race, not the Rabbit. So don't let the emotions of an issue be the thing that sways you.

 

[yoyodyne]

He is not a PHX Fleet Service worker, just a pot stirrer. At least Tim stirs his own pot.

Carry on.

 
+1000

 

[WeAAsles]

He is not a PHX Fleet Service worker, just a pot stirrer. At least Tim stirs his own pot.

Carry on.

I sometimes think Tim has a pot on his head?

But he does make things interesting I will say.

 

[Tim Nelson]

I will again re-iterate what I said yesterday --- and since then I've spoken to quite a few senior 30+ year guys that are absolutely voting YES too, so what I said, and what's going to happen here IMO will be a VERY BIG YES -Vote for this contract !!! Like it or NOT !!! I Personally am NOT Happy with some very important missing things here, but will have to live with what the masses decide, just as the last Transition Agreement !!!! Unfortunately !!! this is just my opinion !!
 
freedom, on 16 Jun 2014 - 12:07 PM, said:
$1500 is ABSOLUTELY NOT OK -VS- RETRO, but accomplishes two important things for the company and the Union, it buys the votes of the biggest percentage of members on the property, Junior 5-7 years or less, and taking care of the small stations (bonus is a TRUE bonus for them) ALL but ASSURES a strong passing vote to get this thing through !! Like it or not people, good luck convincing all of the more junior peopl in the system, and there is a LARGE percentage of them to VOTE NO !! Not HAPPY myself at ALL, but not sure it matters, it will be what the majority wants, and most will take that $ and RUN !!!!!

As far as retro, there should have been something built in for the next contract as well.  The 1.5% increases after ammendability date are concessions that penalize fleet service, much like the 2% that covered a 18 month period. There is no reason in the world for management to negotiate a quick joint contract when they already branded a small 1.5% on our asses for 2017 and 2018.
 
That said, a contract isn't about retro only.  Someone in negotiations did in fact call me and soothed my concerns regarding ORD and 'cross utilization'.  Yesterday, when the highlight sheet came out, I became uncomfortable with the bullet point making significance out of cross utilization.  I was told that that bullet point is just an additional measure that was negotiated in a foreseen way to avoid any future problems in joint talks.  With that in mind, it seems to me, that this contract may be worthy to pass, even without retro, provided there are no health care penalties or other language penalties.  I was assured that the health care stayed the same, as in cost neutral with only some interpretive language adjustments.  And pension is now in the $60's.  Again, I'm not suggesting that anyone, including myself, should vote yes, but if what I have been told is true, it seems as if it's a fair contract.  In fact, the words of one of our negotiators is "We got everything we asked for, Tim and hope you can support it."   I hope so as well and I'm cautiously optimistic. 

 

[WeAAsles]

As far as retro, there should have been something built in for the next contract as well.  The 1.5% increases after ammendability date are concessions that penalize fleet service, much like the 2% that covered a 18 month period. There is no reason in the world for management to negotiate a quick joint contract when they already branded a small 1.5% on our asses for 2017 and 2018.

Remember what I've said before. Both sides need carrots on the stick to continue talks for JCBA's We see areas that can be improved on and they want seamlessness.

Parker and his team have something to prove to Wall Street let's keep in mind.
 
That said, a contract isn't about retro only.  Someone in negotiations did in fact call me and soothed my concerns regarding ORD and 'cross utilization'.  Yesterday, when the highlight sheet came out, I became uncomfortable with the bullet point making significance out of cross utilization.  I was told that that bullet point is just an additional measure that was negotiated in a foreseen way to avoid any future problems in joint talks.

Just as I said and thought.

With that in mind, it seems to me, that this contract may be worthy to pass, even without retro, provided there are no health care penalties or other language penalties.  I was assured that the health care stayed the same, as in cost neutral with only some interpretive language adjustments.  And pension is now in the $60's.  Again, I'm not suggesting that anyone, including myself, should vote yes, but if what I have been told is true, it seems as if it's a fair contract.  In fact, the words of one of our negotiators is "We got everything we asked for, Tim and hope you can support it."   I hope so as well and I'm cautiously optimistic. 

 

[mike33]

Tim...Can you help me get this rock off from on top of me?????  Your Pollyanna!

 

[totobird]

I work Fleet in a mid size city and the feel here is overwhelmingly positive. The scope issue was huge for us ! Throw in another weeks vacation and a big hourly rate increase and you can't go wrong. I've talked with a few friends in CLT and they too say the feel is positive and most agents are saying they like what they see and will vote yes. My hat is off to the Negotiating Commitee. NICE JOB GUYS !

 

[Jimmy Neutron]

As far as retro, there should have been something built in for the next contract as well.  The 1.5% increases after ammendability date are concessions that penalize fleet service, much like the 2% that covered a 18 month period. There is no reason in the world for management to negotiate a quick joint contract when they already branded a small 1.5% on our asses for 2017 and 2018.
 
That said, a contract isn't about retro only.  Someone in negotiations did in fact call me and soothed my concerns regarding ORD and 'cross utilization'.  Yesterday, when the highlight sheet came out, I became uncomfortable with the bullet point making significance out of cross utilization.  I was told that that bullet point is just an additional measure that was negotiated in a foreseen way to avoid any future problems in joint talks.  With that in mind, it seems to me, that this contract may be worthy to pass, even without retro, provided there are no health care penalties or other language penalties.  I was assured that the health care stayed the same, as in cost neutral with only some interpretive language adjustments.  And pension is now in the $60's.  Again, I'm not suggesting that anyone, including myself, should vote yes, but if what I have been told is true, it seems as if it's a fair contract.  In fact, the words of one of our negotiators is "We got everything we asked for, Tim and hope you can support it."   I hope so as well and I'm cautiously optimistic. 

I'm just saying and again, NO, this contract is NOT at all ----- ALL about Retro, but in my opinion, this bonus should have been based on longevity, and not merely FT-PT ..... As everyone knows, those who have been here the longest have given up the most, by far, and that should count for something !!!! Just think how many 30+ year employees around the system are working part time, due to no fault/choice of their own, unless they move, and these guys are gonna get 1/2 of a bonus check as someone who, let's say has 1-2 years or less??? Just not seeing the fairness there at all, but again, getting something is always better than getting nothing, it just seems that the one's that survived the blood-bath, just never seem to be recognized !!! I still feel that by lumping everyone together, they give enough people a reason to VOTE-YES regardless of what else is in the Tentative---GOOD or BAD !!!!

 

[Tim Nelson]

I'm just saying and again, NO, this contract is NOT at all ----- ALL about Retro, but in my opinion, this bonus should have been based on longevity, and not merely FT-PT ..... As everyone knows, those who have been here the longest have given up the most, by far, and that should count for something !!!! Just think how many 30+ year employees around the system are working part time, due to no fault/choice of their own, unless they move, and these guys are gonna get 1/2 of a bonus check as someone who, let's say has 1-2 years or less??? Just not seeing the fairness there at all, but again, getting something is always better than getting nothing, it just seems that the one's that survived the blood-bath, just never seem to be recognized !!! I still feel that by lumping everyone together, they give enough people a reason to VOTE-YES regardless of what else is in the Tentative---GOOD or BAD !!!!

you are absolutely right. Basically, unions have watered down contracts by cutting work rules and boosting pay for votes. It's a disease, but at least in this case, it does appear that scope was salvaged with no drop dead dates. If there are not drop dead dates and no other penalties then this will certainly be on the fair scale. Of course, the same was said at United until the language came out but I remain hopeful.

 

[28L_or_10R?]

I'm just saying and again, NO, this contract is NOT at all ----- ALL about Retro, but in my opinion, this bonus should have been based on longevity, and not merely FT-PT ..... As everyone knows, those who have been here the longest have given up the most, by far, and that should count for something !!!! Just think how many 30+ year employees around the system are working part time, due to no fault/choice of their own, unless they move, and these guys are gonna get 1/2 of a bonus check as someone who, let's say has 1-2 years or less??? Just not seeing the fairness there at all, but again, getting something is always better than getting nothing, it just seems that the one's that survived the blood-bath, just never seem to be recognized !!! I still feel that by lumping everyone together, they give enough people a reason to VOTE-YES regardless of what else is in the Tentative---GOOD or BAD !!!!

Agreed. As I have stated before, I am PT and work more hours than many FT employees. There should be back pay for hours worked. If someone drops every shift available he or she should get less of a "bonus" than I do. Until the vote I will impress on part-timers that if they have any pride or self-worth they should vote NO just based on the signing bonus alone.