2014 Fleet Service Discussion

[pjirish317]

tim,

Kindly refresh my memory, but weren't you a huge influence in the 2008 elections? Also I have stopped the blame game long ago. It was each individuals choice how they voted, water under the bridge. So please stop trying to speak for me on that subject. I would like to see airline specific voting, that way UA votes for who they want to represent THEM not us, and we vote for who we want to represent us not THEM. It's simple really. It takes the huge numbers advantage out of UA's hands as to who should represent us here at US. I differ with your opinion is all, yet you attack me to try what exactly? Get me to "see the light", agree with you? I don't know exactly but it aint gonna happen. You are trying to hamstring US by giving two eboard spots that US currently has to UA, effectively leaving us 2 down. Plus you want us to blindly believe that artie and carl would be great reps because they are "good guys". Please. You are riding the coat tails of a pissed off UA work group, and doing it to the detriment of US. You know this you just wont admit it.

 

[robbedagain]

Tim  while I do respect what u said in that post to my question, I have to be honest with you   I don't think that given you said the UA candidates could not get their own home endorsements then I gotta say that I do not think they would serve us good    IF they could not get their own home votes  than what makes you think they can do us good?    Secondly, I thought JG was brought in to DFW for the talks and not necessarily AH    if that is the case  it cld be that JG just simply picked up where AH left off and thus the company just does not care to have a seamless merger as they allegedly want

 

[Tim Nelson]

tim,

Kindly refresh my memory, but weren't you a huge influence in the 2008 elections? Also I have stopped the blame game long ago. It was each individuals choice how they voted, water under the bridge. So please stop trying to speak for me on that subject. I would like to see airline specific voting, that way UA votes for who they want to represent THEM not us, and we vote for who we want to represent us not THEM. It's simple really. It takes to huge numbers advantage out of UA's hands as to who should represent us here at US. I differ with your opinion is all, yet you attack me to try what exactly? Get me to "see the light", agree with you? I don't know exactly but it aint gonna happen. You are trying to hamstring US by giving two eboard spots that US currently has to UA, effectively leaving us 2 down. Plus you want us to blindly believe that artie and carl would be great reps because they are "good guys". Please. You are riding the coat tails of a pissed off UA work group, and doing it to the detriment of US. You know this you just wont admit it.

Sure, I gave Delaney a shot in 2008.  But after they screwed over members I could no longer support them.   Sorry, PJ, I do hold them accountable for how they screwed over our craft and they aren't entitled to votes from those who voted for them 6 years ago.  Anyways, the reality is that only 2 of those candidates from 2008 are even running for positions that they did in 2008.  
 
I can't make you to see anything at this point as you continuously blame your own station, Freedom, me, and everyone else for your sorry contract instead of blaming the candidates that YOU support.  You even put full blame on the United members and wash the hands of the 141 rising candidates who 'hammered' that group with a concessionary contract.    The United folks have their eyes open wide,  it will take you a bit longer, but I got hope for you in the future.

 

[Tim Nelson]

Tim  while I do respect what u said in that post to my question, I have to be honest with you   I don't think that given you said the UA candidates could not get their own home endorsements then I gotta say that I do not think they would serve us good    IF they could not get their own home votes  than what makes you think they can do us good?    Secondly, I thought JG was brought in to DFW for the talks and not necessarily AH    if that is the case  it cld be that JG just simply picked up where AH left off and thus the company just does not care to have a seamless merger as they allegedly want

That's what I'm saying,  Charlie Brown's boatload of United candidates could NOT get their own home endorsement.  If those that knew them the best, did not vote for them, then why should you? 
 
On the other hand, each and every candidate on the unifiedforchange ticket received his/her home nomination for all those locals who reported. 

 

[pjirish317]

 

Sure, I gave Delaney a shot in 2008.  But after they screwed over members I could no longer support them.   Sorry, PJ, I do hold them accountable for how they screwed over our craft and they aren't entitled to votes from those who voted for them 6 years ago.  Anyways, the reality is that only 2 of those candidates from 2008 are even running for positions that they did in 2008.  
 
I can't make you to see anything at this point as you continuously blame your own station, Freedom, me, and everyone else for your sorry contract instead of blaming the candidates that YOU support.  You even put full blame on the United members and wash the hands of the 141 rising candidates who 'hammered' that group with a concessionary contract.    The United folks have their eyes open wide,  it will take you a bit longer, but I got hope for you in the future.

tim,

So you are saying that the UA folks couldn't read? Did any of them think for themselves? Or did they just grab the cash and then blame the union for grabbing said cash? Oh wait, they were hoodwinked by the district, because not a single one could read, or comprehend the T/A that was voted on. They knew full well what they were voting on, the cash, period, and now want to cry foul? Seriously, they cut their nose off to spite their face and now want to blame the person who gave them the knife? When was the last time you saw me "blame" my own station, or anybody else for the 2008 contract? But hey, it's ok, put the bad light on me so you can stay in the shadows tim. It is your M.O. anyway to deflect. While we are at it lets blame the hubs, AGAIN, for the 2005 vote shall we. It's really because of that vote as to why we are where we are today. sheeeeeesh.

 

[robbedagain]

Tim, Im sorry but I personally cannot vote for some UA folks on the IAM slate  when I was hired by US in 98 and have been represented by US IAM not UA IAM   the way I see it here Tim is that in that UA deal while it is a sh!tty on the blame goes all the way around  not just the IAM leaders but also the members who voted yes by 70% to 30% margin  bec they did not read the entire contract   in fact T5 wrote about it  in an earlier post.. 

 

[Tim Nelson]

Tim, Im sorry but I personally cannot vote for some UA folks on the IAM slate  when I was hired by US in 98 and have been represented by US IAM not UA IAM   the way I see it here Tim is that in that UA deal while it is a sh!tty on the blame goes all the way around  not just the IAM leaders but also the members who voted yes by 70% to 30% margin  bec they did not read the entire contract   in fact T5 wrote about it  in an earlier post.. 

So you aren't going to vote at all then?  You realize that 141 rising has 3 US AIRWAYS AGC candidates which is the same amount as Unifiedforchange.  Are you thinking falsely that unifiedforchange is exclusively United + me?  That is incorrect, if that's what you are thinking. Both slates have the exact same number of US AIRWAYS AGCs.

 

[robbedagain]

the way it was written is that it makes it that US would lose more seats with the nbr of UA folks running

 

[Tim Nelson]

the way it was written is that it makes it that US would lose more seats with the nbr of UA folks running

Same amount of AGC's for US AIRWAYS that currently exist on both slates. No reduction of AGC's. Period.

 

[ograc]

 

tim,

I have no problem including our UA brothers and sisters in anything. I just do not want them deciding who should be the representatives for US. Just like they shouldn't be ok with US deciding who their reps will be. has nothing to do with being included or not. Hence my opinion that there should be a seperate vote for the airlines on their reps. And I am not voting for artie or carl because I do not want somebody that has NEVER written a grievance, or NEVER handled a hearing above step 2 at all being my rep. It has nothing to do with hate or bitterness, it has to do with their lack of experience, period. They will only be a detriment to us.

PJ,
I agree the members should be voting exclusively for the candidates of the E Board respectively. US members should not be voting for or against candidates on the UA side of a ballot that they do not know or have no knowledge of. Likewise, members at UA should not be voting for or against candidates on the US side. Unfortunately,in this upcoming election that will not be the case. As a result, you have US opposition candidates, who hope to ride the perceived and anticipated vote for change from a divided UA workforce in order to get elected. I say perceived and anticipated based on the ratification percentage at UA. 70% voted in favor of the existing  CBA. 

 

[blue collar]

Unfortunately,in this upcoming election that will not be the case.

I agree that airlines should only be voting for their respective reps, but this is how the IAM has always done it. By the above sentence, you make it sound like that is not the norm. Maybe you (collectively) should be pushing to be in a different district, one that is only for US fleet? I also never understood how the US mechanics ended up in the same district as WN gate agents. I would think all members would be best suited by having different DLs for each airline/classification.

 

[ograc]

That's what I'm saying,  Charlie Brown's boatload of United candidates could NOT get their own home endorsement.  If those that knew them the best, did not vote for them, then why should you? 
 
On the other hand, each and every candidate on the unifiedforchange ticket received his/her home nomination for all those locals who reported. 

I wouldn't read too much into nomination endorsements Tim. They have been a false indicator in the past. Voter turnout will be the key. The level of apathy will be the key. The 70% who voted yes to the POS UA agreement will be the key. If UNFC is voted in it will be on the anticipated wave of dissention on the UA side. This should not be confused with, or interpreted as a ringing endorsement for the 3 US Candidates. I'm not telling you anything you don't already know. In order to get yourself and the 2 other popular candidates elected on the US side of the ballot... You want the UA dissention! You need the UA dissention! 
  

 

[Dog Wonder]

Tim needs people who haven't worked with him before.

Carry on.

 

[WeAAsles]

It may depend upon if SAN has 12 jet flights a day.  A few months ago, AH offered same AMR pay but with AMR scope, which would have killed off most of our stations. The movement came a few weeks ago when ole AH proposed 12 flights a day and $21.90 [I previously said $21.80 but it was $21.90 + .20 longevity], or $22.10 plus wage installments past the September, 2015 date for 'catch up pay'.  As of last week, the only hold up was the scope increase. The NC tried to bridge with a Cinderella date and a 'no layoff' clause and work below the 12 flight minimum but ole AH didn't have any of it.   Me thinks they got a deal as Wiki hasn't responded to me, and my hunch is that ole AH got his 12 flights a day and agreed to the no layoff clause and the band aid Cinderella date that expires one day prior to ammendability.  If AH hoodwinked them, they he just killed more of our leverage in joint talks and has no reason to settle a joint contract until his mine field triggers start popping. 
 
As far as the retirement option.  Sad to say, the IAM NC was focused on IAMPF over 401k match if there is any retirement increase.  Comparing the IAMPF and the sAA 401k, it cost the company much more money with the TWU members 'topped out' who exercise the fullness of the 5.5%.   Remember, after 9 years, TWU folks top out.  Only in the 13th year do US AIRWAYS members.
 
So take 5.5% on $23.30 and that = $1.28
And, that dollar figure goes up as it is based on total compensation.  Thus, all future pay raises, the 5.5% means more $$.   It also doesn't have the overtime penalty that the US AIRWAYS IAMPF does.  So, if a regular ramp worker works 1.5 overtime pay, the dollar amount is an additional $1.92.  
Yearly, if a non-lead ramper just worked 4 hours of overtime a week, the total match in a year would be: $3,066 retirement contribution from the company.
 
OTOH, the IAMPF has the overtime penalty and caps all company contributions on regular work hours at only $1.05 for 60% of our members, or .65 for the 40% part timers.
Full time, that's about $2,184 a year for a net difference of about a $1,000 less than the sAA contribution.  For 40% of our workforce, as part timers, it's even more of a disaster as the yearly benefit is only a Fuc'n $845 buck on a 25 hour work schedule.  With the additional IAMPF penalty credit for not working 31 hours a week, our average part timer is making a whopping $19 buck a month x number of years or gets a $190 monthly benefit after 10 years.  What up with that bullshit?
 
These pimp leaders have done nothing but F us all over.

Tim for your members who want to know more about how pensions actually work and how Multiemployer pensions are insured. This is the PBGC Director Josh Gotbaum on Fox Business on May 15. It's very long and in 2 parts but anyone who has the time should find it incredibly fascinating.

http://video.foxbusiness.com/v/3568812803001/insuring-private-pensions-part-one/#sp=show-clips

 

[pjirish317]

 

Same amount of AGC's for US AIRWAYS that currently exist on both slates. No reduction of AGC's. Period.

 
tim,

Please stop BSing here. While you are correct that there are 3 AGC's running for positions on both slates, please kindly remeber to also include that on the unifiedforchange slate, it takes away 2 EBoard spots away from US, spots that US currently has, and hands them to UA folks, further outnumbering US more so than we currently are. You twist the truth and do not tell the whole story just to sell your position. Not the quality of a good leader. A good leader tell the WHOLE STORY, not what he/she only wants people to hear. So to answer your question correctly robbed, yes there are the same number of AGC's running on both slates, but the UfC slate is attempting to replace two spots on the EBoard with UA people, spots that US people currently hold.