2014 Fleet Service Discussion

[Kev3188]

Further, DL has allowed crossover to above wing, something that long allowed many BW employees to remain in their stations since DL has its own people in far more above wing stations.

...Which really means that they farmed out a ton of ramps awhile ago.

As for being able to move back & forth, that was used heavily in DL's union busting campaigns. We were explicitly told that we could move back and forth almost at will. That's simply not true. Another over promise/ under deliver.


 
 

All I asked was the basis he was using for telling Josh not to participate in the discussion since he wasn't a union paying member but apparently neither is 700.

I said nothing about DL.

Also, Mr. Nelson compared the profit sharing that DL employees will be taking home and other US employees ran with how much it will net them.

It's always someone else, isn't it?

 

[ChockJockey]

I'm sorry CJ, but I gotta weigh in here:

 
I'm always glad to hear what you have to say Kev, I appreciate the input we get here from fleet folks that are non-US...

 

[WorldTraveler]

I asked the question about why someone should be excluded from a discussion on the basis of being a union member. Others commented about DL. 700 decided to use it as a means to whip up an argument that involved DL in which I and then you jumped in.

yes, I have never denied that DL outsourced the ramp in the mid 90s.... but at the same time, pilots were signing concessionary contracts, airlines were laying off thousands of workers, and the industry was a financial disaster after the Gulf War.
Everyone here wants to talk about 7.5 but they never want to mention the context or what other airlines did.

Can you show where DL said they would open up new ramp stations as you took their message to mean?

Can you also show that there was an explicit, not implicit, or tacit guarantee that you could continue to move up?

You argue that there is no contract but then you want to throw in your own interpretations. If there is no contract and DL is free to do what they will, then where was the guarantee?

I appreciate your input and I am not trying to turn this into a DL thread but you have joined several other people in inserting DL issues into the thread. I'd like to see your response.

 

[ChockJockey]

 Other commented about DL. 700 decided to use
 

 
*ding*

 

[roabilly]

And Delta cut the profit sharing percentage from 15% to 10%, so in reality it was another concession forced upon them.
 
And Roa, do you remember the PPG days?
 
Thats what it is like at Delta.

Ohhh yess... the old PPG... (Personnel Policy Guide)... and... that is exactly what it was... a “guide”!
Everything was open to interpretation by management; it even contained language that stated "or management discretion” in virtually every paragraph!
 
Hundreds of Fleet Service Agents were terminated, or forced to seek employment elsewhere because of these policies. We have come a long way thanks to our decision to have the IAM as our representing agent. 

 

[ograc]

first off, delaney said it. Second off, both cb and prez denied it several months ago. Third off, cb flipped like a cheeseburger and admitted that he did endorse the ua and would be upset if ua didnt endorse his. Apparently cb didnt know what he said like he seems to have forgotten and wants to lie about the december proposal.
one way you cant get the donkeys to settle grievances is by playing their game by waiving off time limits. With arbitration, you dont have to get ah to settle, instead you get an arbitrator to rule.
As an aside, they been blowing smoke up your arse for 6 years but somehow you continue to believe them.
due to my foot up their arse by calling them out about your case, maybe they will pick it up. Ograc posted about his grievance and it was resolved.
i think you have a strong case so if they delay your case for 7 years and if i get in, i will give you my word that ill see to it to arbitrate.
Ok?

Tim,
I have indeed posted about the outstanding grievance, for a member I represent, being unresolved and still awaiting an arbitration hearing many years past the Step 3 decision. Allow me to correct your previous post if I may.The grievance is still awaiting a scheduled arbitration date and is currently unresolved. As a GCC how do you explain or justify such a delay, not only to the dues paying grievant, but to the membership in the station who are fully aware? As a GCC I should not have to continue to prod the district to pursue the grievance. Mediation or Arbitration is the final step in the contractual grievance procedure. On another note... Like any other slate, past and future, there are bad apples in the DL 141 Rising slate. Some are up for election this June. Others two years from now. Hopefully, the membership can seperate the wheat from the chaff in June 2014 and eventually June 2016. IMO... this will probably require cross slate voting by the membership. Slates are made up of candidates who are in it for the right reasons and those who are not. You, of all people, should agree and understand. I foresee many of the current UA DL 141 incumbents as being vulnerable to the wrath of the members based on the recently ratified contract. How ironic. The very membership that ratified the contract will now vote against the leadership representatives who endorsed the TA. Kinda like a dog chasing it's tail isn't it?  

 

[mike33]

Tim,
I have indeed posted about the outstanding grievance, for a member I represent, being unresolved and still awaiting an arbitration hearing many years past the Step 3 decision. Allow me to correct your previous post if I may.The grievance is still awaiting a scheduled arbitration date and is currently unresolved. As a GCC how do you explain or justify such a delay, not only to the dues paying grievant, but to the membership in the station who are fully aware? As a GCC I should not have to continue to prod the district to pursue the grievance. Mediation or Arbitration is the final step in the contractual grievance procedure. On another note... Like any other slate, past and future, there are bad apples in the DL 141 Rising slate. Some are up for election this June. Others two years from now. Hopefully, the membership can seperate the wheat from the chaff in June 2014 and eventually June 2016. IMO... this will probably require cross slate voting by the membership. Slates are made up of candidates who are in it for the right reasons and those who are not. You, of all people, should agree and understand. I foresee many of the current UA DL 141 incumbents as being vulnerable to the wrath of the members based on the recently ratified contract. How ironic. The very membership that ratified the contract will now vote against the leadership representatives who endorsed the TA. Kinda like a dog chasing it's tail isn't it?  

Cargo,
  According to 700, its not about the grievant.  Its about the time / backlog / $$$ it takes to not wave off time limits. It doesn't matter if your grievant has been in the union for 9 yrs at 50$ x 12mo x 9 yrs and has paid  appx $5400 in dues. 95% of the members don't have to use the grievance process and good for them, but if need be,  then use it to its' fullest extent. Not half a** it. 

 

[Tim Nelson]

Ohhh yess... the old PPG... (Personnel Policy Guide)... and... that is exactly what it was... a “guide”!
Everything was open to interpretation by management; it even contained language that stated "or management discretion” in virtually every paragraph!
 
Hundreds of Fleet Service Agents were terminated, or forced to seek employment elsewhere because of these policies. We have come a long way thanks to our decision to have the IAM as our representing agent.

actually there were 8800 usair rampers when the iam was voted in. Immediately, 6 months after voting them in, they negotiated a pay cut from 17.88 down to $16 but when the stews voted against their ta, ours was pulled.
flash forward to 1998. Frieberger signs a ta for fleet that sells fleet short as he plans more for mx. The 98 agreement wipes out 60 stayions and catering so The Big Picture is created to publicly campaign against it. The intl gets picketed by usairways workers (thats why there is a big fence around it now).
1999 i campaign against new ta but the money talked as it went to $20.08 from $17.88.
Catering was protected in a few stations but drop dead language eliminated 60 stations and the workforce fell to below 4,000.
West merger brought numbers close to 7,000 but the lack of scope dropped things down to below 5,000. Now the group is over 6,000.
So when you say the carnage was before the iam was voted in, its been twice the carnage with them. Those are statements, not opinion. My opinion is that our representation has sucked donkey balls forever and we need to change that. We tried to change it last time but these guys didnt do the job. What do they say "if you want the job done right then you better do the damn job yourself". Thats what i intend to do this time.

 

[Tim Nelson]

Tim,
I have indeed posted about the outstanding grievance, for a member I represent, being unresolved and still awaiting an arbitration hearing many years past the Step 3 decision. Allow me to correct your previous post if I may.The grievance is still awaiting a scheduled arbitration date and is currently unresolved. As a GCC how do you explain or justify such a delay, not only to the dues paying grievant, but to the membership in the station who are fully aware? As a GCC I should not have to continue to prod the district to pursue the grievance. Mediation or Arbitration is the final step in the contractual grievance procedure. On another note... Like any other slate, past and future, there are bad apples in the DL 141 Rising slate. Some are up for election this June. Others two years from now. Hopefully, the membership can seperate the wheat from the chaff in June 2014 and eventually June 2016. IMO... this will probably require cross slate voting by the membership. Slates are made up of candidates who are in it for the right reasons and those who are not. You, of all people, should agree and understand. I foresee many of the current UA DL 141 incumbents as being vulnerable to the wrath of the members based on the recently ratified contract. How ironic. The very membership that ratified the contract will now vote against the leadership representatives who endorsed the TA. Kinda like a dog chasing it's tail isn't it?

i hear ya. The united membership was also deceived, misled, lied to, then given anti union advice by the iam attorney, telling the membership if ta2 was voted down then they are on their own.
the translation of that is that the unifiedforchange slate has absolutely destroyed the incumbants by winning all the big united hubs that have reported. Never mind smaller stations as well.

So the members are not only seeking change but also voiving the shitty job the current officers have done by endorsing a pathetic anti union agreement and thinking they can get away with it.

 

[ograc]

Cargo
I'm sorry to learn that you're not going to run. However I understand what you said & most likely you're correct. Sucks.
 
Harry

Harry,
Thank you. It's not that I have not chosen; for I have tried to fairly represent the members and support whatever leadership team the membership elects. I believe I was not asked based on numbers in the station I work. It's a political numbers game when they put these slates together. As stated before; this thought process does not always produce the best candidates. In the meantime; I will continue to represent my members locally to the best of my ability. With that being said... A GCC is only as good as the District Leadership they have backing them up. 

 

[john john]

And Roa, do you remember the PPG days?

Yep! remember the IAM leadership put it out as fleets first contract

 

[ograc]

i hear ya. The united membership was also deceived, misled, lied to, then given anti union advice by the iam attorney, telling the membership if ta2 was voted down then they are on their own.
the translation of that is that the unifiedforchange slate has absolutely destroyed the incumbants by winning all the big united hubs that have reported. Never mind smaller stations as well.

So the members are not only seeking change but also voiving the shitty job the current officers have done by endorsing a pathetic anti union agreement and thinking they can get away with it.

Is it a case of a misleading NC and DL leadership team or a disengaged and uninformed membership? Probably a toxic mixture of both IMO.

 

[cltrat]

Harry,
Thank you. It's not that I have not chosen; for I have tried to fairly represent the members and support whatever leadership team the membership elects. I believe I was not asked based on numbers in the station I work. It's a political numbers game when they put these slates together. As stated before; this thought process does not always produce the best candidates. In the meantime; I will continue to represent my members locally to the best of my ability. With that being said... A GCC is only as good as the District Leadership they have backing them up. 

Ograc I've heard some good things about you myself, people like you need to run station size be damned .

 

[ograc]

Ograc I've heard some good things about you myself, people like you need to run station size be damned .

I was not asked to run by either slate. I will continue to serve. I will continue to try to mediate in the workplace and this forum.Political slates are put together, not by experience or dedication, but by potential vote numbers. As a result many dedicated and qualified candidates are not considered. Subsequently, many inexperienced candidates or candidates not in it for the right reasons get elected. I'm sure there are many on this forum that would testify to this being the truth. Would any of our incumbent candidates or opposition candidates care to respond? 

 

[charlie Brown]

I was not asked to run by either slate. I will continue to serve. I will continue to try to mediate in the workplace and this forum.Political slates are put together, not by experience or dedication, but by potential vote numbers. As a result many dedicated and qualified candidates are not considered. Subsequently, many inexperienced candidates or candidates not in it for the right reasons get elected. I'm sure there are many on this forum that would testify to this being the truth. Would any of our incumbent candidates or opposition candidates care to respond?

My only response would be that your 100% correct.