2014 Fleet Service Discussion

[Tim Nelson]

Nelson,

When I voted on agreements in my past career, I NEVER let ANYONE... pro IAM... or anti-union (Company) voices persuade me not to READ the tentative fully, and in detail before basing my voting decision on the language I comprehended. It would not have mattered if you had a pathological liar with the charisma of JFK selling a substandard T/A... I would not have voted for it!

Attempting to portray the membership as unable to understand what they are voting on is pretty pretentious don’t you think? That’s pretty much calling them stupid...

Nobody is saying the membership is stupid.  Two bright people can read the same chapter of a book and come to two entirely different viewpoints, depending upon their particular environment. You are a bright guy Roabily and well read. That's why I asked you to help me out on a organizing drive.  
 
When you read the United LOA entitled "Full time commitment" no way can you come back at me and tell me that that letter is anything more than a commitment against back to back part time.  You and many others would know better.  However, all that is needed is a  majority to be persuaded into a false sense of security for it to pass.
 
My disappointment with this district team is that nobody ask them to lie, but they have done plenty of it.  Quite shameful over at United and HAL.  US AIRWAYS is up to bat now and I think hope is needed, as opposed to fear.  I'm quite persuaded that the actions of this IAM leadership team has an ear towards management, as opposed to the membership. At United, it started talking and sounding like management and, imo, became quite a management mouthpiece.  The more these leaders listen to management, the more they fear.  I think the United membership was much stronger than what TA2 produced, and if they would have listened to the membership a bit more, then more hope would have abounded.  Presently, I don't think I can scrap up 10 people across the system that think they are getting their money's worth from the IAM.  So something gotta give.  Hope has to start and plenty of it.  It starts with a change and this isn't a rehearsal, we only have one chance to make this happen and I think we take full advantage of it.
 
I'm actually quite hopeful that our members have plenty to gain with the current leverage.  Here today, gone tomorrow....so we gotta get this done right.

 

[Jimmy Neutron]

OK!!!!! So the CWA/IBT has spoken on the NON-Rev contract violation!!!!! ----- Now where's the Fighting Machinists ??????? 
 
On January 4, 2014, management of the newly merged American Airlines blatantly violated the seniority provision of the US Airways union contract, demonstrating a stunning lack of respect for union employees. With no discussions or negotiations with the CWA/IBT Association, the company announced a new non-rev travel program to be rolled out over the next few months that will apply to all employees of the combined airlines.
The new program clearly violates the seniority provisions in Article 8 of the collective bargaining agreement between US Airways and the Airline Customer Service Association-CWA/IBT. Specifically, the new program will replace the current system at US Airways in which employees board by seniority.  
Management is openly negating a provision that many of us fought to establish and protect and is behaving as though employees have no union representation. The company has no right to unilaterally implement this new program without negotiating with our union. We will fight this violation and any others they try to implement. We will not stand by silently when management violates our rights.
The CWA/IBT Association has filed a formal grievance with the company. 
After conferring on the issue, the presidents of our local unions and the CWA national staff expressed concern that this move by the new American appears to be an attempt to divide our two work groups.
Ellis Ryan, president of Local 3140 in Florida said, “It’s really disappointing that management would take such a step; it’s a blatant attempt to drive a wedge between US Airways and American Airlines employees. But we will not allow this to stand in the way of our mobilization as we prepare for the representation vote later this year.” 
As is clearly defined in our union contract, date of hire seniority applies to boarding non-revenue flights. Making a change without consulting or negotiating with the unions is a clear violation and just simply wrong.
“Once we win our representation election, we will negotiate a new, strong contract for all employees at the new American Airlines,” said Frank Spencer of Local 2252. “At that point, employees can decide what position we will take on the non-rev system. Until then, the company must respect the contract with US Airways employees.”
Our union will continue to update employees on the status of this grievance. In the meantime, leaders urged members not to allow the company to succeed in dividing the workgroups.
“We must focus on mobilization and winning the representation vote this year,” said Vickey Hoots, president of Local 3640. “That is the way to ensure we will have the best contract in the industry.”

 

[Tim Nelson]

OK!!!!! So the CWA/IBT has spoken on the NON-Rev contract violation!!!!! ----- Now where's the Fighting Machinists ??????? 
 
On January 4, 2014, management of the newly merged American Airlines blatantly violated the seniority provision of the US Airways union contract, demonstrating a stunning lack of respect for union employees. With no discussions or negotiations with the CWA/IBT Association, the company announced a new non-rev travel program to be rolled out over the next few months that will apply to all employees of the combined airlines.
The new program clearly violates the seniority provisions in Article 8 of the collective bargaining agreement between US Airways and the Airline Customer Service Association-CWA/IBT. Specifically, the new program will replace the current system at US Airways in which employees board by seniority.  
Management is openly negating a provision that many of us fought to establish and protect and is behaving as though employees have no union representation. The company has no right to unilaterally implement this new program without negotiating with our union. We will fight this violation and any others they try to implement. We will not stand by silently when management violates our rights.
The CWA/IBT Association has filed a formal grievance with the company. 
After conferring on the issue, the presidents of our local unions and the CWA national staff expressed concern that this move by the new American appears to be an attempt to divide our two work groups.
Ellis Ryan, president of Local 3140 in Florida said, “It’s really disappointing that management would take such a step; it’s a blatant attempt to drive a wedge between US Airways and American Airlines employees. But we will not allow this to stand in the way of our mobilization as we prepare for the representation vote later this year.” 
As is clearly defined in our union contract, date of hire seniority applies to boarding non-revenue flights. Making a change without consulting or negotiating with the unions is a clear violation and just simply wrong.
“Once we win our representation election, we will negotiate a new, strong contract for all employees at the new American Airlines,” said Frank Spencer of Local 2252. “At that point, employees can decide what position we will take on the non-rev system. Until then, the company must respect the contract with US Airways employees.”
Our union will continue to update employees on the status of this grievance. In the meantime, leaders urged members not to allow the company to succeed in dividing the workgroups.
“We must focus on mobilization and winning the representation vote this year,” said Vickey Hoots, president of Local 3640. “That is the way to ensure we will have the best contract in the industry.”

+1

 

[Kev3188]

I agree Mike...

Many times as steward, I would see what I thought was a clear violation... only to find language in an article or LOA that superseded it. This is where wisdom and experience is needed with the G/C and stewards. I used to keep color coded tabs on the pages of my copy of the agreement to reference ALL articles applicable to any given issue.

For instance all pages with language regarding seniority were red, overtime, blue, scope green etc. This worked well, and it allowed me to research potential grievances thoroughly, and quickly...

 
I'm not sure people get that part of being a steward or grievance committee member sometimes meaning telling someone they don't have a leg to stand on, language-wise...
 
As for CBA's, I never color coded mine, but I did tab either by article, or language that was frequently brought up in my station.  Definitely makes it easier.

 

[ograc]

Let’s see... UA fleet was misled. No one could read for themselves what they were voting for. The IAM is corrupt, so therefore it should be eliminated, or restructured (again)...

Let me guess... the ratification of the new Boeing/IAM agreement from the 751 will be the next issue to be linked to Fleet! There is a conspiracy in every corner; behind every curtain is a wizard!

It’s real simple... if you can read and comprehend English, and you don’t like a Tentative you vote it down! The collective/democratic will of the Membership has... and always WILL prevail!

roabilly,
Although I have little knowledge of the details that led up to the final ratified agreement at Boeing I have heard the members will no longer be part of the IAM pension. If this is true the membership and the International should be ashamed. The membership for ratifing; the International for reaching an agreement with such a concession. Is preserving dues flow worth such concessions? If what I'm hearing is true... one would have to believe that the preservation of dues flow trumps the interests of the membership reagarding the Grand Lodge Executive Committee. Again; I have little knowledge of what led to this agreement. I only know many members at Boeing are outraged. Hoping someone on the forum can enlighten.

 

[cltrat]

ograc
what I seen on the Boeing deal was no new hires would be a part of pension plan presumably they would still pay dues.

 

[P. REZ]

roabilly,
Although I have little knowledge of the details that led up to the final ratified agreement at Boeing I have heard the members will no longer be part of the IAM pension. If this is true the membership and the International should be ashamed. The membership for ratifing; the International for reaching an agreement with such a concession. Is preserving dues flow worth such concessions? If what I'm hearing is true... one would have to believe that the preservation of dues flow trumps the interests of the membership reagarding the Grand Lodge Executive Committee. Again; I have little knowledge of what led to this agreement. I only know many members at Boeing are outraged. Hoping someone on the forum can enlighten.

As of 10/2016 the pension will be frozen. The first 2 years will get 10% of gross wages put into their 401k with 6% the 3rd year and 4% every year after that added to their 401k. On top of that, they already receive a match of 4% of base salary which will increase to a 6% match.  
 
What is upsetting is that the pension is no longer an option after 2016 but the 401k set up is nothing to be ashamed about. It is not good that the vote was so close because nobody really won and there will be bad blood for sure. 
 
P. Rez

 

[roabilly]

Boeing threatened to take the 777X work to a right to work state... NC was on the short list (GSO and CLT) and local politicians were courting them with incentives. This of course was all a sham created by Boeing to leverage the machinist into accepting the agreement.

The RLA does not apply to factory workers at Boeing... so the threat could have been executed legally!

 

[charlie Brown]

roabilly,
Although I have little knowledge of the details that led up to the final ratified agreement at Boeing I have heard the members will no longer be part of the IAM pension. If this is true the membership and the International should be ashamed. The membership for ratifing; the International for reaching an agreement with such a concession. Is preserving dues flow worth such concessions? If what I'm hearing is true... one would have to believe that the preservation of dues flow trumps the interests of the membership reagarding the Grand Lodge Executive Committee. Again; I have little knowledge of what led to this agreement. I only know many members at Boeing are outraged. Hoping someone on the forum can enlighten.

Ograc
It is my understanding that Boeing isn't a part of our pension. I believe they had a company pension supported completely by Boeing. That's why Boeing wanted out of it so bad. So they shouldn't effect our pension good or bad either way. I could be wrong on this, but I'm pretty sure that's the case.

 

[Tim Nelson]

Ograc
It is my understanding that Boeing isn't a part of our pension. I believe they had a company pension supported completely by Boeing. That's why Boeing wanted out of it so bad. So they shouldn't effect our pension good or bad either way. I could be wrong on this, but I'm pretty sure that's the case.

you are not wrong.  They were never a part of the IAM Pension.

 

[Tim Nelson]

Boeing threatened to take the 777X work to a right to work state... NC was on the short list (GSO and CLT) and local politicians were courting them with incentives. This of course was all a sham created by Boeing to leverage the machinist into accepting the agreement.

The RLA does not apply to factory workers at Boeing... so the threat could have been executed legally!

The greater problem was the failed strategy [why am I not surprised?] of the INTL.   When Boeing took some work on the Dreamliner to South Carolina, Obama and the NLRB blocked the work from starting.  The IAM ended up siding with management and agreed with management that the South Carolina plant can stay open provided that the company allow it access to breakrooms and doesn't fight against its organizing efforts.  The NLRB had no dance partners at that point and dropped the suit.  Boeing management gladly said, "I do" with the IAM since it figured the South Carolina plant will never organize.   That South Carolina plant still isn't organized and I doubt it ever will be. 
 
At any rate, it probably makes things a helluva lot more difficult at Delta when the IAM leaders come out and say there is little that a union can do and that everyone will lose their jobs if they don't toss in another $4,000 a year in medical cost.

 

[roabilly]

The greater problem was the failed strategy [why am I not surprised?] of the INTL.   When Boeing took some work on the Dreamliner to South Carolina, Obama and the NLRB blocked the work from starting.  The IAM ended up siding with management and agreed with management that the South Carolina plant can stay open provided that the company allow it access to breakrooms and doesn't fight against its organizing efforts.  The NLRB had no dance partners at that point and dropped the suit.  Boeing management gladly said, "I do" with the IAM since it figured the South Carolina plant will never organize.   That South Carolina plant still isn't organized and I doubt it ever will be. 
 
At any rate, it probably makes things a helluva lot more difficult at Delta when the IAM leaders come out and say there is little that a union can do and that everyone will lose their jobs if they don't toss in another $4,000 a year in medical cost.

So... in the world of Nelson, what actions would YOU have taken to prevent Boeing from going to a right to work state (SC)? What 'leverage' would you have used?

 

[700UW]

Once again Tim is wrong, the plant was up and running when the NLRB ruled on that Boeing used the SC plant as punishment for the previous IAM strike at Boeing.
 
And in the last CBA, not the one they just voted on, in their was a settlement between Boeing and the IAM, which was voted on by the membership and approved.

 

[cltrat]

Is Boeing mentioned anywhere in the title of this thread?

 

[roabilly]

Is Boeing mentioned anywhere in the title of this thread?

Was "United" when you chimed in about their agreement?