I just don't think that now is the time for our union to get all uppity and making demands , we should do all that we can possibly do to help secure this merger and talk of strike is unwarrnted.
Seriously? So what your suggesting is that we should let the company disrespect us and we should give up what little power we have simply to help the company to merge? What's the point of having bargining and strike power if you refuse to use it? Especially when you do it for no reason other then to help the company?
To an extent I truly do understand your perspective. If the merger doesn't go through the company might be harmed overall. It's theoretically possible that jobs might be lost. I dig that. I understand. What you're not understanding, however, is that first, no merger has happened recently (ever that I know of) that hasn't resulted in jobs being lost. Having seen the LAS bloodbath, and knowing people that were affected by PIT, this hurts the people affected BAD. Second, it's not our responsibility as employees to help the company. It's our responsibility to do our job! It's the executive and corporate employees who run the business end of the company. OUR responsibilities are to load the plane, dump the lavs, and to negotiate in good faith, nothing more.
Wow, really? Lose repesentation?
Uhh... were you not aware of that possibility? Given that both the TWU and IAM don't have much support overall it's quite possible that people will vote for no union.
Really? A decade? You've got battered spouse syndrome.Think intergration timelines, spelled out in transition agreement.
Interesting analogy. Yeah, you could say I'm a battered spouse I guess. I've been screwed over by HP and US so much they might as well be beating me.
There is no intergration timelines in a tentative agreement until that tentative agreement is reached. If it suits the company I'm damn certain they will drag it out as long as they possibly can. Remember, it is not possibe (that I'm aware of) to strike over a tentative agreement, only a true CBA.
Ahh, I see now.You're still butthurt about the IAM douching your station in exchange for catering in PHL or something along those lines a bankruptcy or two ago.
Nope, not at all. In fact, the IAM has had nothing to do with the screwing over of my station, that was all US.
TWU wants as many people paying dues as possible.You and your dues arent going under the bus.
Wow, that's hilarious. You need to do standup. I've got news for you. The TWU DUMPED ME! In fact, they keep wasting YOUR dues sending me their magazine still.
There wouldn't be signed MOU's with all three unions here if they didn't think that was about to change now would there?
The company will do whatever is in their best interests. It's in their best interests to get the deals in place. If the deal falls through it's not that big of a deal to them. It's no different to them then when you get a mortage you shop for rates, apply for several, then pick the best one. To those waiting for a new contract, however, it's huge.
Four people? Simplifiying the corporate structure a bit much there aren't you? These four heros aren't going to get the APA, the APFA and the TWU to agree to MOU's all by themselves are they? C'mon now.
If I gave the impression that there are four people and only four people involved, I apoligize. That was not the intent. There are four people in Labor. Yes, they consult with other departments, and some work does get farmed out. The vast majority of this stuff, however, is handled by those four people.
Not sure what you are talking about that I am somehow misrepresenting something. My statement is based on the situation starting in 2014 as noted.
If you're not disagreeing with my assertion, we might be talking past each other. I have yet to see you acknowledge that the $82/month/year rate (or whatever it is) is what it is for the years that we pay in at that rate. Your statements, to me, are written (as so much of what you say is) in ambiguous non commital language. In my opinion, you say things in a manner that suggests something different then fact, though I would not say that you're lying on this. Does that maybe explain my viewpoint of your statement?
What is being misrepresented are your statements that suggest that the defined benefit necessarily goes up if a new CBA forces more company contributions to the IAM pension.
The IAMNPF specifies that $X/hour (think it's hour, might be per month) and that that amount directly corresponds to a monthly payment upon retirement. If the company pays $1/hour for a payout of $82/month/year that's what we get. If the NPF (as it did) changes that scale to say $1.50/hour for $82/month/year and the company and union negotiate that increase then nothing has changes (though there may be a cost somewhere else in the CBA to suport that increased contribution). If an even higher rate is negotiated, then yes, I am suggesting that if the company contribues more that matches a higher payout the defined benefit goes up as well.
I don't deny that some, perhaps you, are comfortable with these trustees determining future benefits... Maybe I'm in the minority in this, dunno, but it's mind boggling to me at least that anyone would want any portion of more of the pie dumped into that fund, as opposed to our pockets or health care.
Actually, I want a pension AND 401(k). I pay into my 401(k), but I want other things as well. Why? Because I'm a ramper; I don't know crap about investing. I have no idea if your opinion is a minority or majority. What I do know is that there are people in our workgroup that want the pension, that want the 401(k), that want SS, and every combination of the three. Personally I'd be fully supportive of a options package. Give each employee one or more choices. If someone wants the 401(k) with match, let them have it. If they want a pension, they can have that instead. An offering of the combination would be cool too.
