Can anything Stop JG ?

[oldcrow]

From the outside looking in. After getting the east&west seniority list merged then completing the operating certificate in a timely manner(spring07)and stalling pilot negotiations along the way.

Can Glass&Co. then tell the former west pilots to join the LOA93 club boys and girls, see ya in 2010 as he walks out the door LHAO ?

 

[PITbull]

Specifics please?

 

[oldcrow]

Simply put and not being wordy. Once the airline is completely merged, one pilot group, one operating certificate, one schedule and no joint pilot contract has been signed at this point.

What would stop Glass&Co. from telling the whole pilot group,i.e. the now former west pilot group that Letter of Agreement #93(current east contrct) is in effect until 2010 and no need to talk until then .... see ya.

It would seem impossible to have two different pilot contracts once the airline was operating as one complete unit.

From the outside looking in , I don't see what could stop him(Glass&Co) from doing it. But when I asked a couple of pilots if the Co. could do that they had that deer in the headlights look and said they hadn't thought about it. Surely someone in alpa has ...... I would think .

 

[BoeingBoy]

The company has already said that they can impose the East pilot contract if agreement isn't reached on a merged contract. If that happens, it'll take at least an arbitrator and quite possibly a judge to decide if they're right.

Jim

 

[BoeingBoy]

Bob,

I don't disagree, except to this degree - one of the small benefits of being pilots is that we literally hold the pace and cost of the operation in our hands. If there's truly a collective will to do so, we can make a point a lot quicker and more pointedly than the media can.....

Jim

 

[BoeingBoy]

That action just jacks customers around which of course I don't care for.

Not necessarily, Bob. Remember - they try to close the door 5 minutes early. Would it make a point if 75% of the daily flights started going 5 minutes over schedule (while still arriving on time) - it'd show up in the next pay checks.

How about if the fleet fuel burn increased 3% ($10 Million a month) - that'd show up fast and you (passengers) would never notice.

And that's just a couple of ideas off the top of my head....

One problem we pilot's DO have - it's hard to get public sympathy when you make what we do (even after all the cuts). Especially when management can reply with the standard "Our pilot's make $X per year (stick in the highest pay) and only work Y hours per month (stick in the average block hours per month for all pilots including those in training, supervisory, on medical leave, etc).

Jim

 

[diogenes]

Jim,

Collective will is the issue.

If our 'favorite' pilot is any example, there are pilots on the property STILL willing to make concessions.

I never understood why membership could not figure the one big issue out.

Once part of the group agrees to throw another part under the bus, you just open the door to have yourself thrown under the bus at a later date.

At IAM, mechs could not wait to throw cleaners and fleet under the bus. Large station fleet threw small station fleet under the bus. And to what end? US turns a profit, execs cash in, and labor cannot negotiate until 2012.

JG, AC & co. played every group like a fiddle, the exception being AFA. And look what the Pres. got for her troubles.

IMO, if a group of pilots worked to the rule, another group of group of pilots would work to overcome it, and try to create situations to get you jammed up with the company.

 

[BoeingBoy]

di,

I agree completely. There are those who get it and those who don't. As long as those who don't are in the majority, nothing will change for the better.....

Jim

 

[USCREW]

The company has already said that they can impose the East pilot contract if agreement isn't reached on a merged contract. If that happens, it'll take at least an arbitrator and quite possibly a judge to decide if they're right.

Jim

Yes, I heard that out of DPs mouth loud and clear. That if negotiations fail, the East contracts will be imposed. This is after a West pilot tried to argue the acquisition point. I couldn't help laughing out loud, and saying YES, YES, YES!!!!

 

[700UW]

At IAM, mechs could not wait to throw cleaners and fleet under the bus.

Dio,

That is bull, I was a utility at the time, we gave the company a full comprehensive proposal that would have saved Utility at the large eight stations.

We never could reach an agreement with the company and our contract was abrogated and we voted on a final offer from the company and the MEMBERS ratified it.

And your fleet group has its own district and its own US Airways Fleet Service Negotiators, what your group did or did not do had NOTHING, not one iota to do with the Mechanic and Related group, you might want to ask your Negotiators from PHL what happened, as the blame rest squarely on their shoulders. (By the way, there are more Fleet Service in the IAM then Mechanic and Related and Robert Roach, GVP of Transportation and Tom Brickner, Airline Coordinator are both former Rampers at TW and UA.

If you keep posting your above thought process, please provide proof, as I was there, and what you say did not happen.

 

[diogenes]

We can start with, ever since I was about 10, I know the difference between what is said, and what is.

If you go by all of the IAM publications, and all of the the pretty speeches, then there was a virtual love-fest when fleet came into IAM.

Alas, what transpired was:

A mech letter writing campaign to keep more "coatriders off our coattails." This led to the creation of D141-M, an IAM fig leaf to maintain fleet/ mech separation. That, per a fleet and a mech AGC. And I'm sure members here will remember reading posts ad nauseum about coat-riding.

When fleet came into IAM, the mech E board did the best they could to keep us barefoot and pregnant. Did they offer any education? No. Did they give us any IAM background, history or tips on how to work the grievenace process? Nooo. We found out about Placid Harbor and educational conferences all on our own, and had to muscle our way into those.

Where fleet and mech contract language was, word-for-word the same, fleet got a different and lesser outcome. Never rectified from 1999 to 2005. That, from a fleet AGC and one of your wonder boys in CLT.

How many times was fleet educated to support a mech strike? Twice (1999 and 2004). How many times were mechs prepped to support a fleet strike? Not in 1999 (Per our local mech pres,"you can't strike with no contract in place, and if you do, we don't have to support it"). And not so much in 2004, either. Technically, mechs were supposed to support us, but it didn't get talked up. I had mech friends tell me they wouldn't put their job on the line for us, and I heard mech AGC speculation about how many mechs would actually honor a fleet picket line (less than 50 %). Meanwhile I was wrestling with the airport board to get a permit for fleet to support a mech strike, even though we don't have mechs in our station.

You can't blame the local - this stuff went up to the district and international level.

You weren't the only one there, bub.

 

[700UW]

The creation of 141-M was to created to stop AMFA from raiding US and UA. When the mechanic and related members voted on the issue to seperate, it actually harmed the M&R group as 141M never gained financial stability, 141 on the other hand had a lot of money and 141M did not.

At my station, the E-Board embraced Fleet, set up education and placed them on committees, some were even sent to conferences and you were not even dues paying members.

As for Placid Harbor, dude, I hate to tell you this but as Utility it took me a long time to get there also, it did not happen overnight. And at my station, we have plenty fleet sent to Placid Harbor and serve on the E-Board.

The Mechanic and Related contract has been in effect since 1949, your were negotiating a first contract, a very big difference, and it was not word for word the same. The thing I find ironic is fleet took four times to unionize and yet you expect the IAM to come in wave a magic wand and give you back everything you gave up by being an employee-at-will.

Yes fleet was educated at my station in 1995, nothing was done in 2004.

And due to AMFA and Atlantic Coast Airlines, the courts have ruled a group negotiating their first CBA cannot strike as the RLA does not permit it, thank AMFA for that, not the IAM.

And you can believe any rumors that people say, a true trade unionist would support any strike by fellow members of his union.

See you were not the only one there either.

 

[Dilligas]

The creation of 141-M was to created to stop AMFA from raiding US and UA.

LOL... and how's that working for ya?

Actually, the formation of 141-M was in response to the mechanics' outcry about the sheer numbers of fleet and the dilution of the mechanics' power and control of the district.

Then, because of the dilution certain folks realized the mechanics may "bolt". 😀 no pun intended hehehe

The IAM did a reprehensible job at bringing fleet into and making them feel welcomed and valued. I was shocked at the indifference shown to fleet and the hostility.

 

[700UW]

LOL... and how's that working for ya?

Actually, the formation of 141-M was in response to the mechanics' outcry about the sheer numbers of fleet and the dilution of the mechanics' power and control of the district.

Then, because of the dilution certain folks realized the mechanics may "bolt". 😀 no pun intended hehehe

The IAM did a reprehensible job at bringing fleet into and making them feel welcomed and valued. I was shocked at the indifference shown to fleet and the hostility.

Lets see, the IAM at NW seperated districts at NW to try and stop an amfa raid, the International did the same at with 141, not because the mechanics wanted to get rid of fleet, if that was the case then why did only about 20% of the Total Mechanic and Related in 141 vote instead of more?

And I agree the IAM did a diservice in how long it took to get a first CBA, but it takes two to tango and the company was in no hurry and the RLA supports that.

And why don't you ask how the fleet acted in 1776, or better yet, 1976 that sparked the creation of 1044 as a fleet only local?

The members at the local level control how the dues are spent, and they can get involved at the district level by attending their district conference and the International Constitutional Convention which set the course of how the union will operate, see the delegates elected by the members attend and vote on the issues, the local can even vote and charge their delegates on how to vote.

But since you are not involved PB, I would not expect you to know this since you would rather throw barbs out then to take the time and eductate yourself.

 

[diogenes]

IAM was also facing AMFA pressure at US, and US mechs were also put in 141M - to create separation, which is contrary to the meaning of union.

I fail to understand how creating separation fights off AMFA, other than to play into the coattail theme - a theme good trade unionists reject. Would not IAM have been better served by educating the membership, particularly local presidents?

With regards to the length of time it took fleet to get the initial CBA, part of the reason was IAM wanted fleet and mech contracts to become amendable at the same time. That, per an AGC.

With regards to the PIT fleet/mech split, why and how did the district and international allow that to happen? I hear a lot of fingerpointing at fleet, and I have no doubt some were out of line. Given the fact that mechs would have been vastly outnumbered, and used to ruling the roost, are you telling me none of them got uppity? Doubtful. After all these years, I still find it unbelievable that PIT fleet and mechs had separate locals. That sure was helpful to the company, telling them right where to drive the wedge. Why didn't IAM knock some heads and fix it? I'm guessing because some of those heads were on mech shoulders.

I also accept the fact fleet was not going to get everything back in the first bite (although the IAM sure pumped that theme with their "strength in numbers" BS during the campaign). But, when the nuts and bolts language is the same, and you get different outcomes, how does IAM let that happen?

For instance, mechs never had a minute's trouble getting time off for union duties - grievances, Placid Harbor, etc. Fleet and mech language was the same. The company interfered with that at fleet, and frequently denied time off, even for grievances. The mechs on our E board was amazed and outraged at the blatant interference. It was grieved with their support, and died at the district level. Meanwhile, mechs continued to get time off for union business with ease. Why didn't IAM defend fleet grievance language?

FWIW, in all of my business courses, they teach the first step in problem-solving is defining the problem. 700UW, how are we going to solve the problems with unions in general and IAM in particular if we don't define and discuss the problems? Even the intructors at Placid Harbor admit they exist.