CS Policy

[Bob Owens]

 
 
--Wow, Bob, you're getting desperate to create something here aren't you. No, I'd rather keep what we have now over the current contractual language in the IAM CBA. If there is time in JCBA, maybe this can be addressed but until it is, I'd rather not take chances in losing what we currently have.
 
 
The fact is you have no rights to CS, its a company privilege that can be revoked at any time. 
 
 
--If we can get the current policy in the JCBA, then good for us. In the meantime, the choices are what we currently have and what the IAM currently has...I'd rather keep what we currently have. If you like the IAM language then that's your choice.
 
 
Really? So you are OK with having it in the contract that management can determine who gets to CS and have a different policy for each workgroup in each station? 
 
 
--We work the CS's, not management. If you believe the CS Policy is a tool of management and has not benefits for the Membership than just say so or move towards eliminating it.
 
You work CS with managements approval, you have no rights to it, and you want to keep it that way and add it to the contract. I would rather have the US CS contract language than a policy where every station is different. You are OK with Tulsa being denied CS because thats Tulsa's CS policy because the policy where you are meets your needs, So much for Unionism.

 

[NYer]

Funny how you claim to support the TWU but seem assured that despite all the numbers the IAM would win. 

 
I'm not the one that's been telling everyone, for so many years, that the TWU is so terrible. It seems strange to me that so many people that despise the TWU and have actively worked to replace them are so sure they can win a vote. The main reason I don't think a TWU win is a slam dunk, aside from low turnout, is precisely because of the anti-TWU campaigns that have been active for long.
 
It must feel strange to many to hear the same people bashing the TWU to now suddenly say, "well they're not as bad as...."
 
Numbers? Most of the TWU votes have low turnout. You'd figure most at the IAM have a built in incentive to vote which is their multi-employer medical and pension plans. Then the TWU has to convince a multitude to disregard all the anti-TWU rants they've heard for so many years and vote TWU.
 
OR even worse, there is a campaign within the TWU to have Members write-in AMFA which dwindles the already fragmented voting.
 
Yeah! That gives a great deal of confidence in a guaranteed TWU win.

 

[NYer]

 

 
 
--Wow, Bob, you're getting desperate to create something here aren't you. No, I'd rather keep what we have now over the current contractual language in the IAM CBA. If there is time in JCBA, maybe this can be addressed but until it is, I'd rather not take chances in losing what we currently have.
 
 
The fact is you have no rights to CS, its a company privilege that can be revoked at any time. 
 
 
--If we can get the current policy in the JCBA, then good for us. In the meantime, the choices are what we currently have and what the IAM currently has...I'd rather keep what we currently have. If you like the IAM language then that's your choice.
 
 
Really? So you are OK with having it in the contract that management can determine who gets to CS and have a different policy for each workgroup in each station? 
 
 
--We work the CS's, not management. If you believe the CS Policy is a tool of management and has not benefits for the Membership than just say so or move towards eliminating it.
 
You work CS with managements approval, you have no rights to it, and you want to keep it that way and add it to the contract. I would rather have the US CS contract language than a policy where every station is different. You are OK with Tulsa being denied CS because thats Tulsa's CS policy because the policy where you are meets your needs, So much for Unionism.

 

 
Correct, the current CS Policy is a privilege...which has been around for decades so there is more confidence for it to be around rather than get stuck with the current IAM contractual language. With the Association we get to keep it and hopefully negotiate it into the JCBA or have the current IAM language modified to be more appealing.
 
Seems you only understand things in your own way, doesn't it. Of course you also have a tendency to change meanings to other people's words. I guess that's effective for those that follow you hand over foot.
 
It clearly states that I'd rather keep what we have, rather than have the contractual language in the current IAM CBA until a JCBA and hopefully the differences can be addressed.

 

[blue collar]

What is it about the contractural language that you feel is so restrictive?

 

[MetalMover]

It's humorous how the same folks talking against the TWU for years are so confident that same union could win a representational vote.

Just because many of us are so anti-TWU does not mean we will go IAM if given a choice. There are and always will be pro-TWU kool aid drinking lapdogs and there are and always will be pro-IAM kool aid drinking lapdogs.
But given the size of the LAA TWU membership compared to the LUS IAM membership, let me tell you this..........Seniority is a sore subject and if the IAM is spewing the promise of restoring the former TWAers' seniority, I can guarantee you that the TWU would win hands down if there were an election between the two.
The seniority issue was ruled on by an arbitrator and that is it. The IAM cannot just come in and change that.
So making false promises to the former TWAers is merely an act of desparation.

 

[NYer]

Just because many of us are so anti-TWU does not mean we will go IAM if given a choice. There are and always will be pro-TWU kool aid drinking lapdogs and there are and always will be pro-IAM kool aid drinking lapdogs.
But given the size of the LAA TWU membership compared to the LUS IAM membership, let me tell you this..........Seniority is a sore subject and if the IAM is spewing the promise of restoring the former TWAers' seniority, I can guarantee you that the TWU would win hands down if there were an election between the two.
The seniority issue was ruled on by an arbitrator and that is it. The IAM cannot just come in and change that.
So making false promises to the former TWAers is merely an act of desparation.

 
So let's see. The BK CBA vote yielded a 73% rate of participation of all the 7 work groups, which means over 6000 TWU Members didn't vote either was for a contract that was going to affect their lives and their futures. So we have that issue.
 
Then, on these very same pages there is a call for people to write-in AMFA instead of voting for the Association, the IAM or the TWU (if those choices were made available). So that will just lower the number of possible TWU and IAM votes with the majority of those being lost votes for the TWU. So we have that issue.
 
Then we have the guys that are just fed up with all the in-fighting that would for anything but the TWU. So we have that issue.
 
Then we have the ex-IAM guys from TWA and Eastern that remember those hey-days or hope to get their seniority back that would give some votes to the IAM.
 
Of course, by now many are thinking that the same would hold true for the IAM and they'll lose votes on their side. That might be true, but it is also true that their numbers will be very small in comparison because they will not want to relinquish the multi-employer medical and pension plans, something they can't get through collective bargaining negotiations under the TWU and the new AA.
 
With so many on these pages that have spent so much time talking against the TWU, it doesn't make logical sense how suddenly everyone believes that a vote is a slam dunk. It might be that the odds are in the TWU's favor, but they are not the kind of odds you'd make a good profit from.

 

[MetalMover]

 
So let's see. The BK CBA vote yielded a 73% rate of participation of all the 7 work groups, which means over 6000 TWU Members didn't vote either was for a contract that was going to affect their lives and their futures. So we have that issue.
 
Then, on these very same pages there is a call for people to write-in AMFA instead of voting for the Association, the IAM or the TWU (if those choices were made available). So that will just lower the number of possible TWU and IAM votes with the majority of those being lost votes for the TWU. So we have that issue.
 
Then we have the guys that are just fed up with all the in-fighting that would for anything but the TWU. So we have that issue.
 
Then we have the ex-IAM guys from TWA and Eastern that remember those hey-days or hope to get their seniority back that would give some votes to the IAM.
 
Of course, by now many are thinking that the same would hold true for the IAM and they'll lose votes on their side. That might be true, but it is also true that their numbers will be very small in comparison because they will not want to relinquish the multi-employer medical and pension plans, something they can't get through collective bargaining negotiations under the TWU and the new AA.
 
With so many on these pages that have spent so much time talking against the TWU, it doesn't make logical sense how suddenly everyone believes that a vote is a slam dunk. It might be that the odds are in the TWU's favor, but they are not the kind of odds you'd make a good profit from.

What I was stating was that if there WERE a IAM vs TWU vote and the dream of the ex TWAers getting their seniority back was an issue, the IAM would lost on that alone.
BTW, the Eastern guys got nothing when they hired on as did the PanAM guys. The few Eastern guys who went to the Trump Shuttle got their seniority back over a long fought battle. 
 
And as you have stated in another topic, the seniority issue was decided by Kasher. It is done and binding.
So whoever started this rumor or flame baiting needs to read the IAM/TWU Alliance  agreement regarding seniority. 
 
Your link:http://www.iamdl142....U/US-AA_SIL.pdf

 

[blue collar]

 
Correct, the current CS Policy is a privilege...which has been around for decades so there is more confidence for it to be around rather than get stuck with the current IAM contractual language. With the Association we get to keep it and hopefully negotiate it into the JCBA or have the current IAM language modified to be more appealing.
 
Seems you only understand things in your own way, doesn't it. Of course you also have a tendency to change meanings to other people's words. I guess that's effective for those that follow you hand over foot.
 
It clearly states that I'd rather keep what we have, rather than have the contractual language in the current IAM CBA until a JCBA and hopefully the differences can be addressed.

Why don't you answer, what do you think is so restrictive about the IAM's contractural language?

 

[NYer]

Why don't you answer, what do you think is so restrictive about the IAM's contractural language?

 
It sets a number of allowable changes of shifts and the language about having management approve all changes is troubling. The Policy for AMT's may be different, but the GSE and Facilities CS Policy is much more liberal than the current language in the IAM CBA.

 

[blue collar]

You don't need managements approval for every change. You get 26/qtr which is enough to do double/double/single every week. You only need approval above the 26/qtr, and like I've mentioned before I never had a problem getting that approved.
You're ok with your more liberal policy, even though it's not applied to everyone the same? Textbook IGM

 

[NYer]

You don't need managements approval for every change. You get 26/qtr which is enough to do double/double/single every week. You only need approval above the 26/qtr, and like I've mentioned before I never had a problem getting that approved.
You're ok with your more liberal policy, even though it's not applied to everyone the same? Textbook IGM

 
The CS Policy is the same for everyone covered under it, which includes Facilities Maintenance, GSE, Fleet Service and Cargo employees. Aircraft Maintenance has their own process. It used to be that all stations in the system could have different policies, but they were all superseded by the current policy.
 
It is unlimited if you work, but if you give away you'd need to work at least 50% of your scheduled hours in a 6 month period. If you work a 7 day week you could work up to 16, 16, 14, 16, 14, 16, 14 hours per day.
 
Hopefully, Aircraft Maintenance could also get these policies. They're there for everyone else, if they want them.
 
I know the US people may not need to get approval, but the language is in the CBA. In contrast, the ability to CS is on an automated system in which the changes could be made and it could be split up between 3 people, if needed.

 

[MetalMover]

 
The CS Policy is the same for everyone covered under it, which includes Facilities Maintenance, GSE, Fleet Service and Cargo employees. Aircraft Maintenance has their own process. It used to be that all stations in the system could have different policies, but they were all superseded by the current policy.
 
It is unlimited if you work, but if you give away you'd need to work at least 50% of your scheduled hours in a 6 month period. If you work a 7 day week you could work up to 16, 16, 14, 16, 14, 16, 14 hours per day.
 
Hopefully, Aircraft Maintenance could also get these policies. They're there for everyone else, if they want them.
 
I know the US people may not need to get approval, but the language is in the CBA. In contrast, the ability to CS is on an automated system in which the changes could be made and it could be split up between 3 people, if needed.

Can someone post the US mechanics CS policy? If there is a LAA CS policy change coming, it might make sense for the company to have it reflect the LUS CS policy because their's is contractual and LAA's is not.

 

[john john]

US Airways Passenger Service Agents have shift swaps in the contract and were and have a history of high concern for the group. When surveying the group this is of great importance. CWA won an Arbitration case with the company on refusing shift swaps “The Company is ordered to cease and desist from suspending employees’ shift trade rights or refusing to approve shift trades under the attendance control program as set forth in Section F of the CSAPP.”

 

[Bob Owens]

 
So let's see. The BK CBA vote yielded a 73% rate of participation of all the 7 work groups, which means over 6000 TWU Members didn't vote either was for a contract that was going to affect their lives and their futures. So we have that issue.
 

Hmm, the International stalls talks for nearly three years, then even after mediated talks brings back a zero cost TA which the members rejected, despite being told that rejection means a strike, then for the first time that I've ever seen the Union does not abide by the strike vote and request to be released, instead they stall three months before even meeting with the company. When is the last time the NMB did not grant a release after a TA was rejected? I don't know of it ever happening. 
 
We never even asked. The International instead invited known a Union Buster to talk to the committee to share his opinions on why we should not ask.  
 
Then in BK the members reject a noter TA, Then you wonder why people stopped voting? Because they knew that the plan was to have them keep voting until it passed thats why. 
 
I'm disappointed that many gave up and didn't vote but its what should be expected when the people running the Union do not respect the people they represent. 
 
 
The fact is with this vote, just as with the contract votes, the only votes counted are those that were cast. How many at US voted in the IAM/IBT vote? Was the percentage that much more than voted even in the last 2012 vote? If so by how much? I think you underestimate how dissatisfied a lot of IAM members are at US. Their employer exited BK eight years ago, and they were the first to go into BK, they have been bottom of the industry for most of that time and in their second contract out of BK the IAM brought back wages that we left BK with. 

 

[Bob Owens]

Can someone post the US mechanics CS policy? If there is a LAA CS policy change coming, it might make sense for the company to have it reflect the LUS CS policy because their's is contractual and LAA's is not.

Haven't you learned yet that this management team isn't going to make anything better?