2014 Fleet Service Discussion

[700UW]

And this has what to do with US/IAM Fleet Service?
 
And lets see Jay has been garnished by the IRS, and filed chapter 11, DUIs, and other convictions.
 
If he cant manage is own money and cant stay off the sauce, how is he going to run the IAM?

 

[roabilly]

WTF NELSON! 
 
Amazing how you accuse, and chastise everyone of politically "fire bombing" the thread... and in return, you are free to do as you please... correct?

 

[Tim Nelson]

And this has what to do with US/IAM Fleet Service?
 
And lets see Jay has been garnished by the IRS, and filed chapter 11, DUIs, and other convictions.
 
If he cant manage is own money and cant stay off the sauce, how is he going to run the IAM?

It has everything to do with fleet service.  Fleet service is voting this month on it.   It has a lot more to do with fleet service than you and NYer playing semantics about the Southwest contract. Cripes!  Can you two leave it alone already?
 
I'd take a guy on death row to represent me over a guy who violated my rights and had to do a new election where the United States government doesn't even trust him.  How many International elections have to be supervised?  Ridiculous! But Buffy just didn't listen to me.  He just didn't listen.  Mess with the bull and.......

 

[roabilly]

It has everything to do with fleet service.  Fleet service is voting this month on it.   It has a lot more to do with fleet service than you and NYer playing semantics about the Southwest contract. Cripes!  Can you two leave it alone already?
 
I'd take a guy on death row to represent me over a guy who violated my rights and had to do a new election where the United States government doesn't even trust him.  How many International elections have to be supervised?  Ridiculous! But Buffy just didn't listen to me.  He just didn't listen.  Mess with the bull and.......

Nelson, there you go again... placing yourself on a pedestal! Buffy wouldn't listen to YOU? Are you obsessed with power and influence?
Nothing that transpired at Boeing had anything remotely to do with you... if Cronk wins... it's due to that, not what you say or do!

 

[700UW]

Tim you are being dishonest again.
 
The rerun of the GL election was due to some LOCAL lodges not giving enough notice, nothing more, nothing less.
 
And the IAM voluntarily agreed to rerun the election.
 

On August 15, 2013, the Department entered into a voluntary compliance agreement with the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (IAM), located in Upper Marlboro, Md., concerning the 2013 election of international officers.  The IAM agreed to conduct new nominations and a new election, if necessary, for the offices of international president, general secretary-treasurer and eight general vice presidents under OLMS supervision prior to June 2014.  The investigation disclosed that the union failed to provide notice of nomination to the membership regarding the nomination of international officers, local lodges did not provide notice of their nomination meetings to all members, and members were denied a reasonable opportunity to nominate candidates when some members were working at the time of the nomination meeting and/or endorsement vote and no alternative method of nomination was provided.  The agreement follows an investigation by the OLMS Washington District Office.

And as RS of 1725 in the past I ran two Grand Lodge Nomination and Elections.
 
As well as several local lodge elections and numerous district elections.
 
Shop Steward and Grievance Committee elections.
 
And numerous Bylaw elections.
 
Numerous Contract Ratification and Strike Votes.
 
Dont let the facts get in your way Timmy!

 

[P. REZ]

Thanks for the answer Prez
 
To the audience:
Signed and legal isn't what I asked him.  The question is, why does Prez intentionally avoid the question "Is the Association certified and recognized by the NMB as a collective bargaining agent to represent a group of workers?  The fact that he is on the negotiation team or a sitting officer does not restrict his liberties one bit from being honest about a question that is fairly basic and well known to anyone who understands even basic NMB recognition.   The 100% inexcapable truth, although inconvenient to Prez, is that the association simply is not recognized by the NMB to currently represent anyone as Prez well knows.  The Association can represent workers if it won a vote, and that is exactly what its intentions are. I ask Prez, just to show you that there is so much bs in the room that something is clearly wrong.  The primary argument that has been dishonest to you is that the Association represents workers and can have the TWU MOU voided out simply by switching organizations.  While that is ridiculous, that incorrect path avoids single carrier discussion and builds the strawman opinion that the TWU and an arbitrator are free to violate the TWU contract and/or its resolution. 
 
Ask yourself, why does our rep purposely avoid a simple yes or no question?   Myself, rockit, John John, and maybe ograc know [and maybe more who have been around] that NO organization, including the association, can be certified to represent a group of workers unless there was a prior vote. 

Tim,
 
You are not thinking clearly on this subject. I am not saying anything about whether the Association is recognized by the NMB because it doesn't matter. What matters is that the Association is signed, legal and binding. Sheesh, think it through. Let me reiterate this slowly to you Tim, itttttttt doesn'tttttttt matterrrrrr ifffff the NMBBBBB recognizesssss becauseeee it is signeddddd andddd legalllll and bindinggggg. Is that slow enough.
 
P. Rez     

 

[WeAAsles]

OK... let's entertain this thought. They (WN Fleet) took concessions that really weren't called concessions? --  In other words, contractual language "evolved" that permitted certain financial liberties to transpire that favored WN... is this what you are saying?

Hopefully and I agree that this is about the end of this comparison exercise but yes. Anything that weakens the CBA in one area is agreed to with a purpose.  Let's take the original allowance of PTers for example. The members at one point agreed to this for something in return. Let's say the first time it was 10% PT mix. The next CBA more is offered to bring that mix to 30% and so on in following contracts. Slowly over time the FT higher paid members are pushed out of the mix and what do you have left?

Now who controls the vote? The PTers that were thrown under the bus by those who are still left. Who does the company aim any improvements to now?

It's a vicious cycle that comes about over time, slowly and pervasively which is exactly how the company thinks anyway. Over extended periods of time.

 

[Tim Nelson]

Tim,
 
You are not thinking clearly on this subject. I am not saying anything about whether the Association is recognized by the NMB because it doesn't matter. What matters is that the Association is signed, legal and binding. Sheesh, think it through. Let me reiterate this slowly to you Tim, itttttttt doesn'tttttttt matterrrrrr ifffff the NMBBBBB recognizesssss becauseeee it is signeddddd andddd legalllll and bindinggggg. Is that slow enough.
 
P. Rez     

Is it recognized by the NMB Pat to represent us?  Yes or No? 
 
Oh, it does matter.  It probably matters more than just about anything since there has to be a vote about it and it's our future rep.  The point I'm establishing, and you are helping me establish,  is that it has NOTHING to do with the current representation and will not keep the TWU from avoiding its MOU obligations.  That's why you can't answer a fairly basic question.  The document has no legal significance other than to say that the two unions agree to be engaged in a 'representational union'  far down the road.

 

[P. REZ]

 

OK... let's entertain this thought. They (WN Fleet) took concessions that really weren't called concessions? --  In other words, contractual language "evolved" that permitted certain financial liberties to transpire that favored WN... is this what you are saying?

Hopefully and I agree that this is about the end of this comparison exercise but yes. Anything that weakens the CBA in one area is agreed to with a purpose.  Let's take the original allowance of PTers for example. The members at one point agreed to this for something in return. Let's say the first time it was 10% PT mix. The next CBA more is offered to bring that mix to 30% and so on in following contracts. Slowly over time the FT higher paid members are pushed out of the mix and what do you have left?

Now who controls the vote? The PTers that were thrown under the bus by those who are still left. Who does the company aim any improvements to now?

It's a vicious cycle that comes about over time, slowly and pervasively which is exactly how the company thinks anyway. Over extended periods of time.

WeAAsles,
 
I'll say that you are correct and will take it one step further. In some instances the things you gained by taking concessions in an area were wiped out in bankruptcy. For example, if a negotiating committee agreed to 30% part time 10 years ago to keep 40 stations open and bankruptcy causes 20 stations to close and you get stuck with the 30% part time, it is a double screw job.  
 
Whoever takes on the task of being a part of jcba needs to consider these type scenarios and how to correct them moving forward.
 
P. Rez
 

 

[Kev3188]

Let's get one thing straight, losing scope isn't an option.  The Association should take the best of both contracts and work upwards from there.

+1

That goes for any CBA in this industry, really.
 
 

Now, in terms of SW... I have read financial, and business synopsis, as well as complete assessments of their business model. The Charlotte Observer spent almost two years comparing SW to US, as did every single financial publication in existence. The end result from ALL of this is simple... SW is a domestic carrier with basically one A/C type, and a relatively young workforce.
 
Unless the combined AA/US decides to downsize to challenge and compete with that model, it's comparing apples to oranges...

"Relatively" being the key word there. As WN's network growth has slowed, so too has their hiring. IOW, the people already there are gettin' more senior by the day, and the associated labor costs will continue to rise accordingly.

The rest of your points are certainly valid.

...And speaking of "simple," I would say that their current scope for Fleet Service is simply the best around right now...

 

[Tim Nelson]

Nelson, there you go again... placing yourself on a pedestal! Buffy wouldn't listen to YOU? Are you obsessed with power and influence?
Nothing that transpired at Boeing had anything remotely to do with you... if Cronk wins... it's due to that, not what you say or do!

He didn't listen.  I was party to the case.  And although me and Karen teamed up and put forth the internal grievance showing that the nomination process did not satisfy the LMRDA rights, we take no pleasure in having to fight our own union leadership.  But we had to since the union leadership decided to violate the law. You were not on the conference calls were you Roabilly?  Nope, just me, Karen, attorneys, etc.  We filed the grievance ahead of time and gave them ample opportunity to correct the error of their ways.  Their attorney told us good luck.  Thus, we filed and successfully secured the LMRDA rights for our members in a federal case.  The IAM attorney was 'promptly' fired. 
 
This election never would have happened if they just listened to us.  They just don't listen. Delaney didn't listen too well either.....to be continued..

 

[P. REZ]

Is it recognized by the NMB Pat to represent us?  Yes or No? 
 
Oh, it does matter.  It probably matters more than just about anything since there has to be a vote about it and it's our future rep.  The point I'm establishing, and you are helping me establish,  is that it has NOTHING to do with the current representation and will not keep the TWU from avoiding its MOU obligations.  That's why you can't answer a fairly basic question.  The document has no legal significance other than to say that the two unions agree to be engaged in a 'representational union'  far down the road.

Tim,
 
I give up on you, I just told you that it doesn't matter if the NMB recognizes because it is signed, legal and binding.  
 
P. Rez

 

[Tim Nelson]

Tim,
 
I give up on you, I just told you that it doesn't matter if the NMB recognizes because it is signed, legal and binding.  
 
P. Rez

Does the NMB recognize the Association as a certified bargaining agent for any workers on this property? Yes or No?
 
To the audience;  It is happening.  The single carrier status applications are starting to roll in just as I said.  Those detractors who are pounding their chest saying "I will not allow a single carrier for ramp" are just doing so for political gain.  The single carrier status for ramp will be filed AND should be determined by September, NOT months and years down the line. 
 
Here is the CWA's single carrier application that just came out two days ago:  http://www.dallasnews.com/business/airline-industry/20140404-unions-begin-effort-to-represent-american-airlines-agents.ece

 

[WeAAsles]

 

 


OK... let's entertain this thought. They (WN Fleet) took concessions that really weren't called concessions? --  In other words, contractual language "evolved" that permitted certain financial liberties to transpire that favored WN... is this what you are saying?

Hopefully and I agree that this is about the end of this comparison exercise but yes. Anything that weakens the CBA in one area is agreed to with a purpose.  Let's take the original allowance of PTers for example. The members at one point agreed to this for something in return. Let's say the first time it was 10% PT mix. The next CBA more is offered to bring that mix to 30% and so on in following contracts. Slowly over time the FT higher paid members are pushed out of the mix and what do you have left?

Now who controls the vote? The PTers that were thrown under the bus by those who are still left. Who does the company aim any improvements to now?

It's a vicious cycle that comes about over time, slowly and pervasively which is exactly how the company thinks anyway. Over extended periods of time.

WeAAsles,
 
I'll say that you are correct and will take it one step further. In some instances the things you gained by taking concessions in an area were wiped out in bankruptcy. For example, if a negotiating committee agreed to 30% part time 10 years ago to keep 40 stations open and bankruptcy causes 20 stations to close and you get stuck with the 30% part time, it is a double screw job.  
 
Whoever takes on the task of being a part of jcba needs to consider these type scenarios and how to correct them moving forward.
 
P. Rez
 

 



Having to be strong armed into concessions through Bankruptcy court is an entirely different beast in itself. Comparing that scenario to knowingly and willingly weakening parts of your CBA for the gain of the masses and them agreeing to sign it yes is an entirely different matter. Not saying if it's right or wrong but it is a choice rather than a gun to the head.

 

[P. REZ]

Does the NMB recognize the Association as a certified bargaining agent for any workers on this property? Yes or No?
 
To the audience;  It is happening.  The single carrier status applications are starting to roll in just as I said.  Those detractors who are pounding their chest saying "I will not allow a single carrier for ramp" are just doing so for political gain.  The single carrier status for ramp will be filed AND determined by September, NOT months and years down the line. 
 
Here is the CWA's single carrier application that just came out two days ago:  http://www.dallasnews.com/business/airline-industry/20140404-unions-begin-effort-to-represent-american-airlines-agents.ece

Tim,
 
I am giving you an answer as to legal thoughts on the matter and I am not pounding my chest stating that we will or won't be successful in stopping single carrier filings. You constantly complain that people are misquoting you and putting words in your mouth but you are the one who puts words and interpretations to others posters statements.
 
P. Rez