2014 Fleet Service Discussion

[robbedagain]

it doesn't get any simpler than that roa bro!  

 

[Tim Nelson]

The IAM is a phenomenal union and from the things I've seen them have to do and go through in the airline industry have done a fantastic job with a horrible set of circumstances. Deregulation set the momentum on a downward spiral and Sept 11 put the final nail in the coffin to get to the bottom of the heap.

You're also very much barking up the wrong tree if you think I'll jump into the very silly game of I'm better than you, or my house is prettier than yours. Wrong cat jack.

If I could sit down with BOTH contracts and compare the "Total Costs" my guess is that they would come out pretty equal. The pie would wind up being the same size. Be that as it may.

I'm only a High School grad. The average High School grad makes about $12 per hour. Man do I and you guys make A LOT more than that with pay and benefits. WHO made that happen? With or without concessions due to NO fault of their own.

The International Association of Machinists and The Transport Workers Union!!!!!!

I agree with you.  Me and Josh certainly have differing opinion about the IAM.  Not that I always thought this way but from 2008 onward I have realized that the IAM constitution is quite a democratic document and I believe it is more democratic than any other union constitution that I am aware of.  If anyone has been engaged with this document, it has been I.  Trying to make the IAM better from within the shell seems like the thing that members should focus on. The difference may be that I think it can grow better if it is pruned a lot more, others disagree.    And I've supported the Association because it seems to carry over the same guiding principles.  And I think The Association keeps things fair for US AIRWAYS members regarding seniority.  Not fun what happened at AirTran with the McCaskill Bond act. 

 

[WeAAsles]

 
sCO passenger service as unorganized before the merger and there was no contracting out of passenger service jobs.  Really speaks volumes to the newly organized when they are forced to join the IAM after spending decades in their career unorganized and find out they have to move to another city or be without a job.  Ramp voted in IBT just before the merger.  The IAM was the single biggest beneficiary of this election, they got to collect dues from day one and administer the IBT contact, otherwise the dues collection wouldn't have commenced until 10/2013 with the new agreement.  CO management did move to outsource a number of stations before the election but you are dead wrong saying cargo or passenger service was outsourced. Those two were outsourced with the approval and facilitation of DL 141.
 
Josh

Alright unless I am wrong none of them had a contract prior to the IAM to be administered? And if they did there was no PROTECTION language contained within? Am I correct?

So let's take on the hypothetical. UAL members voted a 70% rejection rather than a passing. UAL says ok time to start our outsourcing layoff plans. Well one great thing about that is those people aren't paying those infernal union dues, "woop de do" Do they have anywhere to go work though? No. So they're laid off and collecting some unemployment bene's.

Maybe somewhere down the line the IAM could have come to a new agreement with the company that get's those people some recall "RIGHTS" maybe not?

Why do you really think it passed by 70%? Maybe those fine folks knew a lot more than you give them credit? 

 

 

[WeAAsles]

I agree with you.  Me and Josh certainly have differing opinion about the IAM.  Not that I always thought this way but from 2008 onward I have realized that the IAM constitution is quite a democratic document and I believe it is more democratic than any other union constitution that I am aware of.  If anyone has been engaged with this document, it has been I.  Trying to make the IAM better from within the shell seems like the thing that members should focus on. The difference may be that I think it can grow better if it is pruned a lot more, others disagree.    And I've supported the Association because it seems to carry over the same guiding principles.  And I think The Association keeps things fair for US AIRWAYS members regarding seniority.  Not fun what happened at AirTran with the McCaskill Bond act. 

There you go Tim. This one ain't too bad. You based an opinion that you feel is the direction your union should take without attacking those that feel otherwise. I wish I would see this kind of direction from you more often.

Not fun what happened to the TWA guys either. But let's not get back into something agreed upon by BOTH unions and taken before an independent arbitrator shall we. 

 

[cltrat]

Correct! For ALL the "gloom and doom" of the UA agreement... it was overwhelmingly passed by the Membership!

yep and it's even worst then gloom and doom and damn those pesky members ,it's all their fault. nevermind the leaders who pushed it to no  end. where do they stand in all this?
 
More on your other question hell i hope Nelson is wrong! if it comes out with some of that stuff is in it that's pathetic.
Th e only thing the leadership could do is to recommend a no vote and I'd be surprised if they bring something out that they say vote no to.

 

[737823]

Alright unless I am wrong none of them had a contract prior to the IAM to be administered? And if they did there was no PROTECTION language contained within? Am I correct?

So let's take on the hypothetical. UAL members voted a 70% rejection rather than a passing. UAL says ok time to start our outsourcing layoff plans. Well one great thing about that is those people aren't paying those infernal union dues, "woop de do" Do they have anywhere to go work though? No. So they're laid off and collecting some unemployment bene's.

Maybe somewhere down the line the IAM could have come to a new agreement with the company that get's those people some recall "RIGHTS" maybe not?

Why do you really think it passed by 70%? Maybe those fine folks knew a lot more than you give them credit? 

 

It passed by 70% because the 141 leadership mislead the membership saying it had all this "protection" that didn't exist, people wanted the money and didn't care about scope.  As T5 has posted before people at UA are very remorseful.  It seems everyone got caught up in the retropay and the membership was tired of the prolonged negotiations and wanted a pay raise. The IAM allowed the company to divide the membership between hubs and line stations and the company took full advantage of it.
 
Josh

 

[WeAAsles]

yep and it's even worst then gloom and doom and damn those pesky members ,it's all their fault. nevermind the leaders who pushed it to no  end. where do they stand in all this?
 
More on your other question hell i hope Nelson is wrong! if it comes out with some of that stuff is in it that's pathetic.
Th e only thing the leadership could do is to recommend a no vote and I'd be surprised if they bring something out that they say vote no to.

cltrat:  Really, who are you supposed to blame if YOU think it's a crappy contract and it get's voted in anyway? Whatever it winds up being of course.

What in the world happened to personal accountability today? Are people in America so walking dumb that they can't even read or try to understand something anymore?

Great message we send to the company on these boards sometimes. Hey management we work with idiots so don't worry what you send them. They'll scratch there heads and pass anything you throw at them.

I prefer to give you guys and my own members a lot more credit.

 

[WeAAsles]

It passed by 70% because the 141 leadership mislead the membership saying it had all this "protection" that didn't exist, people wanted the money and didn't care about scope.  As T5 has posted before people at UA are very remorseful.  It seems everyone got caught up in the retropay and the membership was tired of the prolonged negotiations and wanted a pay raise. The IAM allowed the company to divide the membership between hubs and line stations and the company took full advantage of it.
 
Josh

That's YOUR take on it. Again I saw that FB page and Jeez Louise were those people smart. I felt like I was in Law School the way many of those people were going over those TA's.

Sorry but from my vantage point as a observer sitting on the bleachers those guys were very well aware what they were deciding on. I was very very impressed.

 

[737823]

That's YOUR take on it. Again I saw that FB page and Jeez Louise were those people smart. I felt like I was in Law School the way many of those people were going over those TA's.

Sorry but from my vantage point as a observer sitting on the bleachers those guys were very well aware what they were deciding on. I was very very impressed.

 
 

TA 1 was a bad deal and it was overwhelmingly shot down.

TA 2 added more bonus money (IMHO to appease sCO members). The meat of the contract was basically TA 1.
When the roadshows happened, the District expressly told members that if they voted the TA in; effective on DOS, no one would be reduced in status. The "protection dates" was supposed to help in this. They also said that places would be opening up for members to move to if stations would be closed. But some (of the thinking members especially in my hub) was skeptical because of the deal about giving up our cargo. Some of our people could not could not get placed because they didn't have enough seniority to hold anything and they were furloughed. Also was the people that were downgraded as well. They also said that those people would try to get their FT back upon signing.

Bottom line, the money was appealing to a lot of people. People were tired of waiting. Rumors had it that TA 3 would be worse and more would be cut. The District wanted those new members on the sCO Passenger Service side. A combination of self serving members and a District who wanted those new duespayers.
This is how I see it from my perspective.

 

 

 

Yes. We are paying dearly.
Scope was given up for the money. People got tired of waiting. Like the J.G. Wentworth commercials, "They needed cash now!!". So it was given up. Plus the District didn't help to educate (if that is their job in the first place) the ramifications of a "Yes" vote. But I didn't think that 70% of the members would vote "Yes".

I pretty much know for a fact that my hub was in the minority (at least on the ramp side). WE already knew the price to be paid when our Cargo was eliminated; junior members were sent to the street; and others were downgraded to PT (on two occasions). Now the company realized they cut so deep, rumor has it that they want to bring back the PT people they cut to FT on a temporary 100 day basis, to cover the summer. And probably continue to do it again when the winter holiday season comes up. This is some sad stuff. That plays with people's lives. So we get punished before and after ratification. But maybe some voted "Yes" because it wouldn't affect them since the District came up with so called "protection dates" AND LOA #5 & 6. A lot of people got fooled and took the money. Now that stations will be cut (45 in total) those people will have to go somewhere. The District is hoping that people will take furlough if they can't move. (even if you spend your own dime to move....) But if those people need to go somewhere if LOA #6 is not implemented in a timely fashion, those people will be headed to the two places in the system where the majority of the "Yes" votes came from.(But not to the place they are being sent to now....SFO) Also, keep in mind that the company is only using filling vacancies right now and freezing some parts of the bid list, keeping the bump and roll to a minimum and hoping the "insourcing" can cover the rest. The District endorsed this "monumental" contract and got the people who were so beaten down, and needed the money to vote "Yes". Why else was LOA #5 put into this contract?

Don't be fooled. Preserve your scope as much as you can. Money (at least on the front end) will be thrown at you, since our deal has set a template. But at what cost in jobs, and work rules and quality of life will you sacrifice?

 

 
Josh

 

[WeAAsles]

 
 
 
 

 
 

 
Josh

Never said that I would want there contract but I've also said I think we're in a VERY different place then they were. We have unions and CBA's in place that have station staffing methodologies. They did not, right? The UAL side did I assume?

Did you also notice this phrase made by T5 "This is how I see it from my perspective." The perspective of a single individual doesn't decide the perspective of the collective.

Absolutely the warning should be heeded and even extremely appreciated but we're in a very different position and that has to absolutely be taken into account. 

Don't be oh ye of Mr Little Faith Charlie. B) 

 

[WeAAsles]

Love me some of them Dave Roth lyrics.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n1hQdfVE38A

 

[Tim Nelson]

cltrat:  Really, who are you supposed to blame if YOU think it's a crappy contract and it get's voted in anyway? Whatever it winds up being of course.

What in the world happened to personal accountability today? Are people in America so walking dumb that they can't even read or try to understand something anymore?

Great message we send to the company on these boards sometimes. Hey management we work with idiots so don't worry what you send them. They'll scratch there heads and pass anything you throw at them.

I prefer to give you guys and my own members a lot more credit.

The leadership dressed it up like a Christmas Tree and sold it as "monumental".  Then laced it with a anti union letter by the attorney that said if TA2 gets voted down then all is doomed because congress will impose something worse. Sprinkled in lies for those who wanted contract interpretations as well.    Most folks will agree that everything rises and falls with leadership. Doesn't matter if we are talking a union, US government, company, church, etc.   It's very hard to pardon blame from a leadership, when the leadership is selling something and manufacturing something that is simply not a good product.  Memberships have some partial blame but it violates the principles of non contradiction for those to blame the membership and pardoning the leadership. 

 

[WeAAsles]

The leadership dressed it up like a Christmas Tree and sold it as "monumental".  Then laced it with a anti union letter by the attorney that said if TA2 gets voted down then all is doomed because congress will impose something worse. Sprinkled in lies for those who wanted contract interpretations as well.    Most folks will agree that everything rises and falls with leadership. Doesn't matter if we are talking a union, US government, company, church, etc.   It's very hard to pardon blame from a leadership, when the leadership is selling something and manufacturing something that is simply not a good product.  Memberships have some partial blame but it violates the principles of non contradiction for those to blame the membership and pardoning the leadership. 

Tim UAL was absolutely going to headchop all over the place if they had not passed it. You have said that you believe otherwise. I think on this one you're living in la la land.

The leadership doesn't need a pardon. They were working with air and the smell was horrible. We have a little of that going on right now over here at AA with our agents too. They're batting them out of the cage like poorly tossed softballs. What do you think the CWA would be able to do for them even if they are voted in as the new bargaining agent? Our agents chose to walk through life with their pants down and because of that the company is raping them. You could very well see the same scenario happen over here that happened with the sCo people? Hope not, maybe not, who knows? 

Again this is a very different ballgame we have here in Unionized Fleet.

 

[Tim Nelson]

Tim UAL was absolutely going to headchop all over the place if they had not passed it. You have said that you believe otherwise. I think on this one you're living in la la land.

The leadership doesn't need a pardon. They were working with air and the smell was horrible. We have a little of that going on right now over here at AA with our agents too. They're batting them out of the cage like poorly tossed softballs. What do you think the CWA would be able to do for them even if they are voted in as the new bargaining agent? Our agents chose to walk through life with their pants down and because of that the company is raping them. You could very well see the same scenario happen over here that happened with the sCo people? Hope not, maybe not, who knows? 

Again this is a very different ballgame we have here in Unionized Fleet.

It's a matter of opinion to say that United was going to do it anyways.  One thing that we do know is that the sUA ramp had all ramp work under scope at all ramp stations.  If there was one jet flight at the station, then it was our ramp. So, we do know that BUF, SLC, and DTW would NOT have been contracted out if the TA didn't pass since we can say with certainty that all of that work was union work until it was voided by the TA.  Going from 29 protected ramp stations down to 7 is disappointing.   Maybe the common ground that me and you may have on this is that we both can admit that only having 7 ramp stations under scope is a bit alarming. I mean, even large stations like New York and Boston have no scope. 

 

[WeAAsles]

It's a matter of opinion to say that United was going to do it anyways.  One thing that we do know is that the sUA ramp had all ramp work under scope at all ramp stations.

Before Bankruptcy and the hammer of the Judge?

  If there was one jet flight at the station, then it was our ramp. So, we do know that BUF, SLC, and DTW would NOT have been contracted out if the TA didn't pass since we can say with certainty that all of that work was union work until it was voided by the TA. 

Are you also here talking about the Judges Hammer? We maybe should change the language for TA here to FU,A or SOOL,A ????

Going from 29 protected ramp stations down to 7 is disappointing.   Maybe the common ground that me and you may have on this is that we both can admit that only having 7 ramp stations under scope is a bit alarming. I mean, even large stations like New York and Boston have no scope. 

Absolutely agree. And I blame the ultra morons in the past who were too stupid not to join a Union and get a freakin CBA under there belt. I'll never say that they got what they deserve but they did get what should have been expected.