And the Polls are open....

N513AU

Advanced
Aug 20, 2002
219
0
The IAM polls for mech and related have been open for over an hour on the east coast. Informal exit polling seems to indictate the company proposal is getting rejected by a signifigant margin.
 

ChairPrefRes

Member
Aug 19, 2002
89
0
Well, at least you guys had a vote on whether to trash yourselfs or not...We have never been presented anything to even look at...in customer service...I've been looking at other unions(SWA-Boeing) in negotiations and they have presented their rank and file something to vote on...maybe something is in the works...but so far nothing!!![:knockout:]
 

Steiner

Advanced
Aug 21, 2002
161
0
www.usaviation.com
The IAM will get their BOD seat, one way or another. There may need to be two or three votes to get to that point, but they will get there. Remember UAL and NWA.
 

Hope777

Veteran
Aug 19, 2002
2,053
490
www.usaviation.com
This vote serves the employees two ways. 1st, it shows the company we are not happy with the TA. Secondly it is a no confidence vote for the IAM. The IAM stands to lose a lot if this is voted down, Dues, Pension and so forth. The Hubs are were the vote matters. Meaning if PHL/CLT/PIT vote this crap in, all the other stations votes really don't matter except for the showing of no vote.
 
OP
N513AU

N513AU

Advanced
Aug 20, 2002
219
0
The vote of no confidence is why I voted no. The T/A had several glaring issues with me:

1) Loss of half of my vacation time. I'm approaching my 6th year with US Airways, but because of when it falls I was only due two weeks of vacation next year. The TA took that down to one. The lowest paid, unprofessional (in terms of training) workers in America get two weeks vacation from the crappiest, most miserly companies. Five days vacation is an insult when you're a junior guy working midnight shift with bad days off - how are you supposed to do anything with your family or outside of the workplace. Included in this was the proposed loss of two holidays.

2. The retroactive pay. Giving back what I already earned is wrong.

3. No profitabiliy-based snap backs. It's no secret that U is in trouble now. But when we "give back" and the company is making buckets of money when things turn around, the BOD will be pocketing it and we will be locked into the lowest wages in the business until the company gets around to negotiate our contract, sometime next decade. (Trust me, with wages like they wanted, there would be no hurry.) The way the T/A was set up was that I'd be making lots of money for other people, with little incentive to myself.


Basicly, I voted no because of principle. A contract is a contract. Wolf and crew had their contracts and they got paid. We have our contract, we get paid. The reason why U is in trouble is because of obscene salaries that went to management, not the "highest labor costs in the industry." I'm a capitalist at heart and I have no problem with someone getting paid what they are worth, but Wolf and Gangwal were not worth it. If I failed miserably at my job and cost the company $10 or $20K, I'd be fired in a minute. W&G did far worse, but the BOD kept paying them, after all they had a contract. So did we.