Fleet Service apathy

[Tim Nelson]

Dave, I would like to thank you for your posts. As of now you are the only person to come out here and simply post why you should be elected. No one else has.



Personally I'll say that I think we'll have a TA presented to the membership before the end of the year. What it will contain I'm not certain, and hence I don't know if we'll have a contract or not.

Necigrad, your opinion has no merit at all. Given a merger on the horizon, if you review prior trends, you won't have a new contract for quite a few years. Why would you think otherwise? And what model or case work or trend are you basing your opinion on? At any rate, the wage would have to be substantial to cover the damage from pension losses before Jan 2014 if there is a contract this year. I find no supporting evidence that anyone should assume a contract by the end of the year.

regards,

 

[ChockJockey]

Thank you for reading.

Hi Dave, thanks for posting. I hope more candidates will do themselves the favor.

We should have a new CBA before the year is out. Then LCC and AMR F/S will be looking at a merger and representation election between the IAM and TWU in 2014. For now it's STATUS QUO. That is how after 35 yrs. in this industry I see it. Contracts for ALL in 2012.

I admire your imagination!

One thing I’m sure of is that suspicion must be a real problem with occuoy. Why do you guys always claim I’m some union guy? I learned a long ago that people who are paranoid and suspicios have something to hide. Noway would I vote for you for that reason alone.

I see what you're trying to do and I don't think you're doing it very well.

 

[Jester]

One thing I’m sure of is that suspicion must be a real problem with occuoy. Why do you guys always claim I’m some union guy? I learned a long ago that people who are paranoid and suspicios have something to hide. Noway would I vote for you for that reason alone.

Didnt you earlier suggest that Tim was some Company plant to distract the negotiations? And didn't you state that you were in the break room discussing Tim and his hidden agenda? "Paranoid" is thine name!

Now you are attacking Tim for his lack of experience in negotiations, but embrace RD after we see the results of HA's agreement? RD should be burned in effigy alone for that one and never be allowed to negotiate another contract! If I was forced to work under that agreement, I would become a dues paying objector! Seriously, that contract is so bad, it looks as if HA Company gave their starting point, low ball offer, and RD rubber stamped the deal and declared victory for himself and the Membership.

Why don't you tell us as to why you think the current leadership should stay based upon its record for the past 4 years, and don't weasel around topics like that Attendance Policy and the premature base closings?

So Provokes Jester.

 

[necigrad]

Necigrad, your opinion has no merit at all. Given a merger on the horizon, if you review prior trends, you won't have a new contract for quite a few years. Why would you think otherwise? And what model or case work or trend are you basing your opinion on? At any rate, the wage would have to be substantial to cover the damage from pension losses before Jan 2014 if there is a contract this year. I find no supporting evidence that anyone should assume a contract by the end of the year.

My OPINION has no MERIT?!?!??! WTF? My OPINION is just that; MINE. Your OPINION is YOURS and has no more or less merit then mine. You're more obnoxious then I thought. Also, I said IMO there would be a TA presented to the membership by the end of the year, not necessarily a contract. I'm not comfortable at this time saying it will be a good TA or a bad one, so having an actual contract is up in the air.

I've given consideration based on my experiences and observations. I do not think there will be an AA merger with US this year. At all. I'm not talking being worked on, I have no doubt that thousands of hours are being invested by both US And AA as we speak to determine the value of such a transaction. It's my understanding that the Negotiating Committee IS in fact well into negotiations. Now if you have EVIDENCE to the contrary please share it; until then the DL says we're well on the way, so that's the case.

 

[Tim Nelson]

My OPINION has no MERIT?!?!??! WTF? My OPINION is just that; MINE. Your OPINION is YOURS and has no more or less merit then mine. You're more obnoxious then I thought. Also, I said IMO there would be a TA presented to the membership by the end of the year, not necessarily a contract. I'm not comfortable at this time saying it will be a good TA or a bad one, so having an actual contract is up in the air.

I've given consideration based on my experiences and observations. I do not think there will be an AA merger with US this year. At all. I'm not talking being worked on, I have no doubt that thousands of hours are being invested by both US And AA as we speak to determine the value of such a transaction. It's my understanding that the Negotiating Committee IS in fact well into negotiations. Now if you have EVIDENCE to the contrary please share it; until then the DL says we're well on the way, so that's the case.

First off, the negotiations team is NOT well on the way and I will totally welcome anyone on the negotiations team to engage in this. None of them have admitted anything remotely close to anything other than the company is showing little respect. Correction, no respect.

As far as your opinion, it has nothing to do with obnoxious and everything to do with what we actually know, i.e., both me and you since there is collective information that goes 180% against your opinion.

The last merger, i.e., America West and US AIRWAYS, the company refused to sign any contracts beforehand, including PAX. It took the flight attendants 6 years to finally ink a deal. But no deal was signed before a merger. More troubling is Delaney's actions at UA/CO. In that merger, he pissed on 3 years of negotiations with UA, only to agree to throw UA and CO into transition talks without getting a deal first. I don't expect that to change with your group and Delaney. The most likely scenerio with Delaney is that he will negotiate for a few years then be fancied with transition talks like he was with Co/UA.

At any rate, there are also fundamental factors that serve as collective factual information to base your opinion on, i.e, 2% pay increase in July, and a pension cut coming on Jan 2014. While the 2% increase in July will mean that there is a built in barrier that will prevent the company from stuffing more money into your pocket? Why would they? no reason for the company to stuff more money into your pockets. The pension benefit cuts should mean that US AIRWAYS fleet service shouldn't be in any hurry anyways to sign a contract unless one can contain a huge pay increase to offset the premature pension cuts. As soon as you sign a contract, it triggers 40% of your future benefit accurals to get whacked, so any contract before Jan 2014 is going to have to be a HUGE leading industry contract before you bite the pill on your pension, right?

That's all I meant Necigrad, other than politics being played by Delaney saying he is in the middle of negotiations, there is no evidence, both logically or physically to support your opinion that you have the slightest chance of obtaining a contract before the end of the year. Why would the company even bother with your group? Why would it change the gears of history on this property and that on United? Doesn't make any logical sense.

And, in any case, if there is some future movement and Delaney can actually build enough leverage to get negotiations into the second inning, then switching pitchers isn't going to bring you back to the first inning.

regards,

 

[700UW]

I am surprised someone doesnt ask Tim how the IAM saved his job when he was getting fired for advocating a slowdown on his "Big Picture" web page and how he filed short on cards and caused great pain to FSA and CSA when they was a one year bar on becoming unionized.

Ask Tim how many times he tried to start his own union and oust the IAM only to fail.

And RD doesnt lead negotiations at the other carriers, now does he?

Arent they led by the AGCs off of the respective property and members?

 

[saywhat]

First off, the negotiations team is NOT well on the way and I will totally welcome anyone on the negotiations team to engage in this. None of them have admitted anything remotely close to anything other than the company is showing little respect. Correction, no respect.

As far as your opinion, it has nothing to do with obnoxious and everything to do with what we actually know, i.e., both me and you since there is collective information that goes 180% against your opinion.

The last merger, i.e., America West and US AIRWAYS, the company refused to sign any contracts beforehand, including PAX. It took the flight attendants 6 years to finally ink a deal. But no deal was signed before a merger. More troubling is Delaney's actions at UA/CO. In that merger, he pissed on 3 years of negotiations with UA, only to agree to throw UA and CO into transition talks without getting a deal first. I don't expect that to change with your group and Delaney. The most likely scenerio with Delaney is that he will negotiate for a few years then be fancied with transition talks like he was with Co/UA.

At any rate, there are also fundamental factors that serve as collective factual information to base your opinion on, i.e, 2% pay increase in July, and a pension cut coming on Jan 2014. While the 2% increase in July will mean that there is a built in barrier that will prevent the company from stuffing more money into your pocket? Why would they? no reason for the company to stuff more money into your pockets. The pension benefit cuts should mean that US AIRWAYS fleet service shouldn't be in any hurry anyways to sign a contract unless one can contain a huge pay increase to offset the premature pension cuts. As soon as you sign a contract, it triggers 40% of your future benefit accurals to get whacked, so any contract before Jan 2014 is going to have to be a HUGE leading industry contract before you bite the pill on your pension, right?

That's all I meant Necigrad, other than politics being played by Delaney saying he is in the middle of negotiations, there is no evidence, both logically or physically to support your opinion that you have the slightest chance of obtaining a contract before the end of the year. Why would the company even bother with your group? Why would it change the gears of history on this property and that on United? Doesn't make any logical sense.

And, in any case, if there is some future movement and Delaney can actually build enough leverage to get negotiations into the second inning, then switching pitchers isn't going to bring you back to the first inning.

regards,

Tim,

Do you plan on getting rid of current US negotiations committee and starting over?

 

[Tim Nelson]

I am surprised someone doesnt ask Tim how the IAM saved his job when he was getting fired for advocating a slowdown on his "Big Picture" web page and how he filed short on cards and caused great pain to FSA and CSA when they was a one year bar on becoming unionized.

Ask Tim how many times he tried to start his own union and oust the IAM only to fail.

And RD doesnt lead negotiations at the other carriers, now does he?

Arent they led by the AGCs off of the respective property and members?

700UW,

Huh?

If I was an IAM member, I would fully assume the IAm would fight if my job was on the line, but please refresh my memory on exactly what you are talking about????

I never filed short on any cards for FSA, but didn't the IAM file short on cards in 1997 for the same group you are accusing me of filing short on? Inquiring minds wanna know.

Yes, I was a member in bad standing for trying to change collective bargaining agents when the IAM violated our members with pay seniority and second class pay. What's the big deal? At any rate, it didn't seem to bother the IAM because they appointed me as Director of Organizing immediately afterwards and I proceeded to bag thousands of members for them. So what's the fuss? If I was such a dope, why did RD put his IAM membership card in my hands?? It's called Trust!

RD leading negotiations? What I said is that RD has no negotiations experience nor is there any evidence to support otherwise. That is true. Please support your opinion with evidence. Does he sit on a negotiations team like you did? Certainly, but sitting in a negotiations room doesn't make someone experienced at negotiations any moreso than sitting in dunkin donuts makes someone a police officer. Negotiations are about leverage and that is attained outside the negotiations room.

regards,

 

[Tim Nelson]

Tim,

Do you plan on getting rid of current US negotiations committee and starting over?

First off, nobody is starting over. Does a game start over when you change pitchers??? Nope. Did the CO/UA Pilots start over when they voted their lead negotiator out? SayWhat, that's not how it works with the RLA. Are your own USAPA starting over if they vote out their lead negotiator this month? NOPE. So why do you presume there is any starting over when the law is clear on this? C'mon maaannnn, your bias' from being on RD's ticket is showing lol!

I have no reason to necessarily get rid of any of the current negotiators other than I'm going to probably add another LC or two and remove an AGC. Having one AGC in negotiations is enough as all the other AGC's should focus on the backlog of grievances. I am big on having LC in negotiations since they are the ones who will actually be under any contract. Actually, me and RD don't disagree on that point other than the small tweak of removing an AGC from negotiations. Besides, I communicate with most of the negotiators on a weekly basis anyways, i.e., the majority of them.

Onward www.occupyiam141.com

Tim

 

[saywhat]

First off, nobody is starting over. Does a game start over when you change pitchers??? Nope. Did the CO/UA Pilots start over when they voted their lead negotiator out? SayWhat, that's not how it works with the RLA. Are your own USAPA starting over if they vote out their lead negotiator this month? NOPE. So why do you presume there is any starting over when the law is clear on this? C'mon maaannnn, your bias' from being on RD's ticket is showing lol!

I have no reason to necessarily get rid of any of the current negotiators other than I'm going to probably add another LC or two and remove an AGC. Having one AGC in negotiations is enough as all the other AGC's should focus on the backlog of grievances. I am big on having LC in negotiations since they are the ones who will actually be under any contract. Actually, me and RD don't disagree on that point other than the small tweak of removing an AGC from negotiations. Besides, I communicate with most of the negotiators on a weekly basis anyways, i.e., the majority of them.

Onward www.occupyiam141.com

Tim

Tim,

Chill, just asking. You paranoid or what? You said you wanted a lawyer in negotiations and if the lawyer wasn't there for the language already presented just wondered if you would redo that language. Have you told people that if you win, negotiations would be delayed from June until October at least?

 

[700UW]

You filed short on cards before any real election on the property , like 91ish.

So your denying when they company tried to fire you for the Big Picture?

Shall I get JC or JR to come post the details, as they know them first hand.

How can the IAM file short on cards in 1997 when they were certified on Fleet at US in 1995?

Your inexperience is showing again, the very people for the company that hear the grievances once it gets to third step where the AGC handles it, are the very same people negotiating the CBA for the company.

So I guess the AGCs will meet with no one to handle the backlog as Labor Relations will be in CBA negotiations.

 

[niblet]

You filed short on cards before any real election on the property , like 91ish.

So your denying when they company tried to fire you for the Big Picture?

Shall I get JC or JR to come post the details, as they know them first hand.

How can the IAM file short on cards in 1997 when they were certified on Fleet at US in 1995?

Your inexperience is showing again, the very people for the company that hear the grievances once it gets to third step where the AGC handles it, are the very same people negotiating the CBA for the company.

So I guess the AGCs will meet with no one to handle the backlog as Labor Relations will be in CBA negotiations.

You seem to know a lot about DL141 and the Fleet Service contract. Why dont we use a lAWYER NOW IN STEP 3'S OR ARBITRATION OR NEGOTIATIONS. Just asking.

 

[BLUTO]

You filed short on cards before any real election on the property , like 91ish.

So your denying when they company tried to fire you for the Big Picture?

Shall I get JC or JR to come post the details, as they know them first hand.

How can the IAM file short on cards in 1997 when they were certified on Fleet at US in 1995?

Your inexperience is showing again, the very people for the company that hear the grievances once it gets to third step where the AGC handles it, are the very same people negotiating the CBA for the company.

So I guess the AGCs will meet with no one to handle the backlog as Labor Relations will be in CBA negotiations.

That’s what everyone is saying at work. Tim has a long history of trying to push his own ideas and self interest while the people end up suffering. We belived him when fought to get Delaney and the folks we have now into office. Now he does a complete turn around and sys they are no good. he just wants to be #1 for his own ego. he says Delaney never negotiated a contract then come to find neither has HE. He claims there are too many united people but his ticket is full of them. But when someon like me question any of this he and his team accuse me of being a union person from the district. tyo me people that are paranoid like this are troubled.

 

[700UW]

From my experience in arbitration cases for 141, when we were members there, 141M and 142 we used a lawyers for arbitration cases and negotiations.

The reason why there is more UA folks, is UA is by far the majority membership at 141, they represent Ramp, Stores, CSA and RES. Not too hard to figure that out.

31,500 UAL members and what, 6,000 US fleet?

Doesnt take a rocket scientist to figure out where the power base is.

 

[niblet]

From my experience in arbitration cases for 141, when we were members there, 141M and 142 we used a lawyers for arbitration cases and negotiations.

The reason why there is more UA folks, is UA is by far the majority membership at 141, they represent Ramp, Stores, CSA and RES. Not too hard to figure that out.

31,500 UAL members and what, 6,000 US fleet?

Doesnt take a rocket scientist to figure out where the power base is.

And where do you fall in that. DL141 what part? Your Fleet Service in what city? There are no lawyers in any arbitration cases. Not from DL141. The company does and have asked me why we dont.