2014 Fleet Service Discussion

[P. REZ]

Phl will decide for themselves after reviewing your statement Prez.

Tim,
 
Getting desperate? I was President of TWU Local 580 at the time and my membership was pissed off about the incident and to this day still mention it and some still dislike the IAM for it. Being in a leadership role I made many statements on the issue to politicize the moment to try and gain momentum for a possible election. I also knew all the TWU guys and were friends with 2 of them. So now you want to use some statement against me? You do what you have to do but it sounds desperate brother.
 
Please explain to the US membership why you are f**king them over by running on a ticket which has only 3 US members running versus the 5 positions on our ticket. I would love to hear your spin on this one. Politically smart if you consider 30000 UA members versus 6000 US members because UA dominates the votes but disappointing indeed that f**king US to reach your goal is how you are rolling. Please do tell.
 
P. Rez   

 

[ograc]

You must not know what the union moved on in the last round of negotiations. Small stations like blaming hubs, but the reality is that your station and all small stations voted for the last agreement, other than ORD, TPA, CLT, PHL.

I know full well how my station voted for the TA 2 2008 agreement. I also know they voted for the TA 1 that was superior, yet you advocated against. I know how the members at UA voted in my station for the recent agreement. 70% in favor to 30% rejecting. I believe this was close to the systemwide voting results at UA. Doesn't much matter what size station the members are in. What this tells me is the membership tends to vote for the hourly wage, retro and the hell with the rest. Some on the UA side are realizing the mistake they made voting in favor of the money and retro and disregarding all other Articles of the contract. This group now blames the DL 141 Leadership for agreeing to these terms and misleading them. How the UA membership responds in June remains to be seen. I still believe, however, the US membership will support the incumbent US candidates. They appear to be close to a Section 6 Agreement. The members on the US side are being asked to vote for opposition candidates that, may be very popular in their respective cities, yet lack any experience regarding grievance representation. This isn't a popularity contest. As far as how the US members view the UA candidates... I believe they look at the fact the membership voted 70%-30% in favor of the contract. Ultimately, who is to blame? Ultimately, who should be held accountable? I'll give you one thing Tim; what happened at UA was dissapointing. The parameters that surrounded their negotiations, compared to ours, is quite different. That said... the outcome could be quite different. BTW... I had a nice day. I see you're still on here.  

 

[Tim Nelson]

Tim,
 
Getting desperate? I was President of TWU Local 580 at the time and my membership was pissed off about the incident and to this day still mention it and some still dislike the IAM for it. Being in a leadership role I made many statements on the issue to politicize the moment to try and gain momentum for a possible election. I also knew all the TWU guys and were friends with 2 of them. So now you want to use some statement against me? You do what you have to do but it sounds desperate brother.
 
Please explain to the US membership why you are f**king them over by running on a ticket which has only 3 US members running versus the 5 positions on our ticket. I would love to hear your spin on this one. Politically smart if you consider 30000 UA members versus 6000 US members because UA dominates the votes but disappointing indeed that f**king US to reach your goal is how you are rolling. Please do tell.
 
P. Rez

we arent desperate, in fact you guys are the ones campaigning, buying ads, and got a campaign site of ill repute that u paid for and purchased a thousand likes and whose visitors are from ho chin china. Lol.
we are staying ptofessional and actually using your contracts against you. Our members have been messed over so bad by your peeps pat that it really doesnt matter what you guys talk about experience.
The experience of delaneys team is almost as good as the experience of the Toronto mayor.

One of the big things we can change is how delaney blackballs those who dont stand down to him. He is a geek and im coming for him. He should retire because he wont have the luxury of a bunch of bobbleheads. Our usairways members will be much better off in joint talks with agcs who just dont endorse any ole silly agreement. Management has had its way over the last 6 years and there isnt any reason for it. Our peeps are starved.

 

[mike33]

Tim
 
  You can say all you want about whatever you want but i look at this election like this.
 Out of so called 30,000 UA, maybe 10,00 vote.  ( wasn't the ramp the only group that fared poorly with the TA) ? With the 10k it maybe 50/50 5000 for You Guys and 5000 for incumbents.
 
 At US of approx 6000  90% (5,400) will vote because of a possible CBA coming and knowing the incumbents ( my hope of course).  Of those i would say 10% for YOU GUYS (540+) and 90% for incumbents ( 4600+)
 
Outcome   + or - 15%
 
You Guys- 5400 +
Incumbents - 9600+
 
IMO ( Obviously a statistical guess )

 

[pjirish317]

tim,

Can you explain to us why you are relying on a pissed off UA workforce to get elected to primarily represent the US people who don't want you? You vouch for artie and carl when they have ZERO documented grievance work at all, and will be a detriment to the US people just because they are "good people". You are bashing P.Rez for an incident that happened, what 6 or 7 years ago? Yet you expect the rest of us to let go what happened in 2008 with the current T/A and stop blaming those who voted for it. Why don't you take your own advice? Leave the past in the past, because some on here know your labor history here at US all too well, and you want us to forgive and forget that. And like CB said, if you truly are for the membership, and you should be for the membership at US not UA, then if a majority of US people vote against you, and you somehow pull off a miracle and actually get elected, will you decline the position because the people you will primarily serve, didnt want you? And please save me the "I will serve the membership that elected me" line, because we all know that it will be UA people that elect you and not US. You do not work for UA. Because with that line, you are saying that because you got elected by a majority we have to deal with it. Kind of like the HAL, UA/CO, and our very own 2008 T/A's. They were voted in by a majority, and everybody has to deal with those because a majority voted them in. So which is it, do we have to deal with being bullied by a larger workforce to accept people that we don't want, yet the district is to blame for cba's getting voted in? Or is it acceptable only in that scenario?

 

[blue collar]

JMHO- But the above highlights why I wasn't really a fan of the IAM structure. I've always felt that the people representing you should only be elected by your own airline - not every member. The only people that should be voted on by all airlines would be local positions. Not that it matters - just my own opinion.

 

[pjirish317]

blue,

I think that the IAM needs to look at that to be honest. That way people can't ride to coattails of the larger workforce to get elected. I wonder what it would take to get that by-law changed?

 

[Tim Nelson]

tim,Can you explain to us why you are relying on a pissed off UA workforce to get elected to primarily represent the US people who don't want you? You vouch for artie and carl when they have ZERO documented grievance work at all, and will be a detriment to the US people just because they are "good people". You are bashing P.Rez for an incident that happened, what 6 or 7 years ago? Yet you expect the rest of us to let go what happened in 2008 with the current T/A and stop blaming those who voted for it. Why don't you take your own advice? Leave the past in the past, because some on here know your labor history here at US all too well, and you want us to forgive and forget that. And like CB said, if you truly are for the membership, and you should be for the membership at US not UA, then if a majority of US people vote against you, and you somehow pull off a miracle and actually get elected, will you decline the position because the people you will primarily serve, didnt want you? And please save me the "I will serve the membership that elected me" line, because we all know that it will be UA people that elect you and not US. You do not work for UA. Because with that line, you are saying that because you got elected by a majority we have to deal with it. Kind of like the HAL, UA/CO, and our very own 2008 T/A's. They were voted in by a majority, and everybody has to deal with those because a majority voted them in. So which is it, do we have to deal with being bullied by a larger workforce to accept people that we don't want, yet the district is to blame for cba's getting voted in? Or is it acceptable only in that scenario?

I think you are incorrect. Most of the usairways people i talk to are very disappointed in the current leadership and really are dialed out of the iam. They realize the current leadership has done nothing at all in 6 years to accomplish anything. If i missed something then please chime in?

 

[Tim Nelson]

Tim
 
  You can say all you want about whatever you want but i look at this election like this.
 Out of so called 30,000 UA, maybe 10,00 vote.  ( wasn't the ramp the only group that fared poorly with the TA) ? With the 10k it maybe 50/50 5000 for You Guys and 5000 for incumbents.
 
 At US of approx 6000  90% (5,400) will vote because of a possible CBA coming and knowing the incumbents ( my hope of course).  Of those i would say 10% for YOU GUYS (540+) and 90% for incumbents ( 4600+)
 
Outcome   + or - 15%
 
You Guys- 5400 +
Incumbents - 9600+
 
IMO ( Obviously a statistical guess )

id say if there is a ta reached that usairways members will vote 10% for the incombents based on the concessionary movement by your boys last week. Id say you really wouldnt vote for them either when you find out the truth that scope is only staying the same. If they decide to wait until after the election to screw you then my hunch is you allow yourself to vote for ghe current regime. What i find interesting is that even though there is a wealth of evidence against the incumbents, you continue to falsely believe that somehow they will take care of you. They wont. They tabled scope last week and the mediator saw that as movement. You sir are going to get hosed on scope and you wont be able to blame nobody but yoyrself if by some miracle our union votes for the incumbents and kills off our craft more.

The only ones that wont recommend a ta that doesnt have more scope is unifiedforchange. I asked charlie to pledge the same but he reverted to more personal attacks.

As far as the numbers, i feel pretty good about the membership finally wanting to take back yhe union so i think we can all be excited to clean up the current mess and move forward.

 

[Tim Nelson]

Some of the incumbent supporters must be a bit late with information.  Your boys tabled scope, did you hear that?  No more, no less.  It's tabled.   Instead, they decided to shift gears and morph all of this into a no layoff thing 'guaranteeing' present employment if you are willing to uproot.  Same as United so I don't think I need to explain to any of you what that means.  In the current contract, there is a no layoff for those below 1999 and that hasn't done squat other than force folks to move or get laid off.  Don't say you didn't know or were not informed.
 
I want Prez and Charlie Brown to step up and 'fess up' instead of reducing things to personal verbage.

 

[Tim Nelson]

Tim
 
  You can say all you want about whatever you want but i look at this election like this.
 Out of so called 30,000 UA, maybe 10,00 vote.  ( wasn't the ramp the only group that fared poorly with the TA) ? With the 10k it maybe 50/50 5000 for You Guys and 5000 for incumbents.
 
 At US of approx 6000  90% (5,400) will vote because of a possible CBA coming and knowing the incumbents ( my hope of course).  Of those i would say 10% for YOU GUYS (540+) and 90% for incumbents ( 4600+)
 
Outcome   + or - 15%
 
You Guys- 5400 +
Incumbents - 9600+
 
IMO ( Obviously a statistical guess )

Mike, they are done.  We have our work to do to build up a strong majority support on US AIRWAYS but I can assure you that a helluva lot more than 10% want the incumbents out since they haven't done a damn thing other than BS over 6 years.  As far as United, I think all you have to do is look at your station,  PHX, CLT, PHL can look at their United members, and if you can find more than 10 United voters between all of those stations then you will be doing very good.  Although the hubs, both ticketing and ramp offer little if any support whatsoever for the incumbents, we are actually stronger in all of the small stations as well now, even though we got many of them already to endorse us in February. I think this vote can be historic and that the members, both US AIRWAYS and United can be a part of finally taking over their union after 6 years of starvation.  The only thing that the incumbents are left with is their final bull #### that you apparently swallowed, i.e., that they gonna 'fix scope'.  They already tabled it, sir.   You don't have to believe me.  I just want you to listen to me now, and believe me later.  We have to move this union forward, it's our only choice if we have any hope of a joint talk. 
 
June can't come fast enough!

 

[charlie Brown]

Some of the incumbent supporters must be a bit late with information.  Your boys tabled scope, did you hear that?  No more, no less.  It's tabled.   Instead, they decided to shift gears and morph all of this into a no layoff thing 'guaranteeing' present employment if you are willing to uproot.  Same as United so I don't think I need to explain to any of you what that means.  In the current contract, there is a no layoff for those below 1999 and that hasn't done squat other than force folks to move or get laid off.  Don't say you didn't know or were not informed.
 
I want Prez and Charlie Brown to step up and 'fess up' instead of reducing things to personal verbage.

Why do you say I'm attacking your personally. Because I point out how your screwing the US members?? The only people that should take anything personal are all the US members that read this site and find outf what your doing to them. If that bothers you? The good!! It should!! But you will sale out anybody to get your position. And Tim, I've knew you too long to jump on your little bait about scope. Of course you can pledge anything to the membership you want. It's easy to be a backseat driver. You seam to claim a know all about negotiations. You want the members to see proposals. Why don't you just make yourself look good and tell them everything. Hell I would kinda like to here myself. Now I do have a wife that I'm going to celebrate Mothers Day with her. Talk to ya later. Happy Mothers Day to everyone's wives and moms out there.

 

[roabilly]

tim,

Can you explain to us why you are relying on a pissed off UA workforce to get elected to primarily represent the US people who don't want you? You vouch for artie and carl when they have ZERO documented grievance work at all, and will be a detriment to the US people just because they are "good people". You are bashing P.Rez for an incident that happened, what 6 or 7 years ago? Yet you expect the rest of us to let go what happened in 2008 with the current T/A and stop blaming those who voted for it. Why don't you take your own advice? Leave the past in the past, because some on here know your labor history here at US all too well, and you want us to forgive and forget that. And like CB said, if you truly are for the membership, and you should be for the membership at US not UA, then if a majority of US people vote against you, and you somehow pull off a miracle and actually get elected, will you decline the position because the people you will primarily serve, didnt want you? And please save me the "I will serve the membership that elected me" line, because we all know that it will be UA people that elect you and not US. You do not work for UA. Because with that line, you are saying that because you got elected by a majority we have to deal with it. Kind of like the HAL, UA/CO, and our very own 2008 T/A's. They were voted in by a majority, and everybody has to deal with those because a majority voted them in. So which is it, do we have to deal with being bullied by a larger workforce to accept people that we don't want, yet the district is to blame for cba's getting voted in? Or is it acceptable only in that scenario?

Strategic advantage gained through superfluous circumstances, like riding the coattails of a larger group, is not a virtue of someone that should be representing our Membership.Especially, when this strategic advantage is pre-planned, connived, and used as tool of revenge for settling old grudges!
 
That is the ultimate disservice to the Membership, and I agree bylaws... need to be looked at!

 

[mike33]

Why do you say I'm attacking your personally. Because I point out how your screwing the US members?? The only people that should take anything personal are all the US members that read this site and find outf what your doing to them. If that bothers you? The good!! It should!! But you will sale out anybody to get your position. And Tim, I've knew you too long to jump on your little bait about scope. Of course you can pledge anything to the membership you want. It's easy to be a backseat driver. You seam to claim a know all about negotiations. You want the members to see proposals. Why don't you just make yourself look good and tell them everything. Hell I would kinda like to here myself. Now I do have a wife that I'm going to celebrate Mothers Day with her. Talk to ya later. Happy Mothers Day to everyone's wives and moms out there.

  Please do Tim. Tell us what you know. Why wait for the NC to come out with something if YOU already know?......
 
 Please stop with the " My Boys" . You have no idea whom my boys are. For representational purposes. if they are my boys then they are " Your Boys " also as a USairways employee. 

 

[freedom]

Geez stop ridding Tim, he has every right to accept any one of these BS over paid union positions that he can get into ..

Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't our baggage handler President paid 250K a year ?

Ridiculous salaries..