2014 Fleet Service Discussion

[P. REZ]

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? 

I for one am not a fan of how this structure works. If you are someone that should be considered size of station shouldn't matter.
 
P. Rez

 

[wings396]

This is one area where the CWA shines in comparison to the IAM. They have people from small stations in position, therefore they voice their concerns that may not be a factor in a hub. If the IAM had some representation from the smaller stations, I doubt that we would have experienced the loss of so many over the years. Never forget how the big boys threw over 20 stations under the bus in favor of catering.

 

[Tim Nelson]

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.

Oh, it's definitely both.

 

[700UW]

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. 

Never said that, just explained to you "timmy jr" that if you totally adhere to the time limits everything will end up in arbitration, is that too hard to understand?

 

[Tim Nelson]

Never said that, just explained to you "timmy jr" that if you totally adhere to the time limits everything will end up in arbitration, is that too hard to understand?

thats not true. You assume quite a bit.

 

[700UW]

As do you. If the company is not answering the grievances now, how are you going to make them now?

 

[Tim Nelson]

As do you. If the company is not answering the grievances now, how are you going to make them now?

i hope they pay you overtime posting at 3am.
If the company isnt answering grievances now, and they arent, then there is no other chouce but to arbitrate. The reason why yhe company isnt answering grievances is because the union isnt doing its job of enforcing the contract. Why do you keep blaming AH when the union goes running to him to get his consent to waive off time limits?
What the union leaders are doing is wrong. If im an agc im not going to deal away grievances by begging AH to waive off time limits. AH loves waiving off grievances because then he can be confident that the great grievance wasteland will grow and hundreds of more grievances can disappear forever never to be heard from again in the Bermuda Triangle.

Btw, why do you and a few others complain after i post how delta rampers got $5,000 profit sharing checks?
I think it is great that delta rampers were able to enjoy those checks, why dont you?

 

[700UW]

Not getting paid by anyone to post, and it was after 4am, had to get up for an event that I have to be at by 6am to set up.

You still don't get it, if you push everything to arbitrate, and the company will only agree to hear six cases as they deal with every other union on the property, how are you going to resolve it any faster?

You truly don't get it and that's quite clear.

And if you are a GC, AGC or PDGC, you have a fiduciary responsibility to the members, not every case merits taking it arbitration, so what are you gonna tell the member then? "Tuff lucka"?

You will play right into Hemenway's hands, any how I hear you are his boy anyhow.

 

[Tim Nelson]

Not getting paid by anyone to post, and it was after 4am, had to get up for an event that I have to be at by 6am to set up.

You still don't get it, if you push everything to arbitrate, and the company will only agree to hear six cases as they deal with every other union on the property, how are you going to resolve it any faster?

You truly don't get it and that's quite clear.

And if you are a GC, AGC or PDGC, you have a fiduciary responsibility to the members, not every case merits taking it arbitration, so what are you gonna tell the member then? "Tuff lucka"?

You will play right into Hemenway's hands, any how I hear you are his boy anyhow.

Im sorry but im not sure i understand your statements. Are you suggesting that everything that gets filed on step one goes to arbitration and has merit to do so?

 

[700UW]

That's what you imply when you said you will hold the company to time limits, so everything will end up in the final step of the process.

 

[Tim Nelson]

That's what you imply when you said you will hold the company to time limits, so everything will end up in the final step of the process.

not hardly. Some grievances that have no merit will be dissolved and a close out letter will be served. Some grievances will be settled before arbitration. Some will be arbitratdd. Presently there is no respect for the grievance procedure and the PRIMARY reason is due to our agcs asking AH for his consent to waive time limits. So dont blame AH for something that our agcs beg him to do.

But, i dont waive off yime limits and if AH doesnt want yo settle grievances then arbitration is the path in the contract and arbitration it will be.

And you are wrong about 6 case limit per year. Its in the agreement and it is non negotiable.

Unions need to enforce contracts and just because they have grown comfortable waiving off time limits and making arbitration rare doesnt mean it has to be that way.

And to be sure, AH doesnt settle grievances so we have no choice but to arbitrate and get to a third party. Will it cost the union alot of money? Not really but if so, then our dues pay for it.

 

[roabilly]

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.

Nelson,
 
As usual, you bend the facts to fit your argument. The Catering station losses you are attempting to pin on the IAM were already outsourced prior to even certification of the IAM as our bargaining unit! Several mid-sized stations like GSO, ATL, and DCA had Catering, but they were downsized by "US Air" headquarters in the early 90's. almost a decade prior to your assertions!
 
The IAM actually SAVED the remaining Catering Stations with contractual language in our first agreement that still exist today!
 
As for the rest of you argument... I am providing actual links to credible news sources that place a clear time stamp on the devastation Fleet Service went trough PRIOR to joining the IAM...
 
Baltimore Sun 1993
 
Pittsburgh Post 1994

 

[roabilly]

Cargo,
 
I'm sorry to hear you aren't running... I would vote for you in a heart beat if you were! 
 
Lock -N- Load!

 

[Kev3188]

Maybe the question that needs to be asked is why the company is hand sitting on all of these grievances? Could it be that they're doing so intentionally as a way to try and discredit the IAM? Just a thought.
 
Also, can you guys not settle a grievance at the local (station) level? Not trying to sound silly- I'm assuming you can- but haven't seen much mention of it here. I know I was able to resolve a good lot of them before they every needed to advance up the ladder. 
 
Roa-- I seem to recall reading on here that a ton of stations that were farmed out as a sort of quid pro quo to save PHL catering in your last CBA. Is that not accurate?
 
Orgac--  The small stations of the world need a voice too. I think more people look at those names than many of us might guess. I know every time a ballot came out for us (NW), that's one of the first things I looked for. 

 

[roabilly]

Maybe the question that needs to be asked is why the company is hand sitting on all of these grievances? Could it be that they're doing so intentionally as a way to try and discredit the IAM? Just a thought.
 
Also, can you guys not settle a grievance at the local (station) level? Not trying to sound silly- I'm assuming you can- but haven't seen much mention of it here. I know I was able to resolve a good lot of them before they every needed to advance up the ladder. 
 
Roa-- I seem to recall reading on here that a ton of stations that were farmed out as a sort of quid pro quo to save PHL catering in your last CBA. Is that not accurate?
 
Orgac--  The small stations of the world need a voice too. I think more people look at those names than many of us might guess. I know every time a ballot came out for us (NW), that's one of the first things I looked for. 

PHL Catering was/is contractually protected... the only way it can be farmed out is if the language in the agreement is struck, or lost in negotiations. It is part of our scope! I'm sure from Nelson's perspective what you are saying is possible, but I doubt it! If the Company went into negotiations asking for PHL catering... they would have also wanted CLT Catering.
 
Of course, the last agreement was a BK agreement, so I suppose if the Company really wanted Catering, they would have just forced the issue, and let the judge abrogate the agreement, and ultimately they would have ended up with the stations you mentioned... AND Catering!