Fleet Service apathy

[Tim Nelson]

Tim can you tell us how you intend to enforce the salary give-backs for the AGC's?

Roabilly,

I've answered this question numorous times but I'll do it again to catch everyone up.

Everyone on my ticket, i.e., running for a paid position, has signed a commitment letter saying that they will do so. To keep things accountable afterwards, we are going to post all the contributions on a monthly basis of each AGC/ST/Pres. If anyone is lacking, I will make sure that they understand. That is the only way to enforce it and it will be done. Giving money to non profit organizations is perfectly fine. There are differences though. If you give to your local church, it's a tax write off. If one gives to a Labor organization it is not. The AGC givebacks are approx $1,200 a month. Mine is approx $4,000. Don't get me wrong, none of us are going to go poor since the District picks up all health cost and provides a second pension by bylaw, and $85,000 still isn't a bad salary.

But, don't miss out on the point of this. We aren't giving up salary because we are nice fellas, we are sacrificing because we have to build trust and once we get the membership to trust the union, then and only then, can we move it forward in a solid way. I don't expect any of our members to believe that I'm going to give back to them $4,000 a month, because our membership simply doesn't trust anything. In fact, the more disbelief beforehand, the more belief and trust we will have when it is done.

Essentially, I need the membership to have my back, and right now the membership doesn't have any union person's back. Our membership is dialed out and is a beaten dog. Therefore, there has to be an immediate sacrifice to gain trust. I know of no other way to build a relationship other than sacrifice. There is a reason why you can shoot a cannon off in our locals and not hit a single person, and that's unacceptable. The company sees that and we must fix that. The only way to fix that is to start building relationships and including our members. The added benefit of the givebacks is that we will be able to free up our locals to actually educate more members as we apply the givebacks back to the locals [most are broke].

FWIW: I've been fighting the 6 figure salaries since 2000. Myself, Paz, Connolly, Brown, all drafted a bylaw change and were elected as District delegates from ORD back in 2000. We won the election over Karen and Rich who didn't get enough votes even though both were AGC's. Myself and Alex G stood up on the floor and presented a AGC salary cut bylaw but it was defeated. Both of my opponents voted against it.

FWIW [2] This past January, the District raised its dues, along with the INTL. IMO, that is unacceptable, especially when there is so much fat and so much waste in the District that I happen to know about since I was there. We have targeted over $2 million in cuts to bring things back to financial health and to draft bylaws to cut the per capita. Our district has one of the highest per capita taxes out of all districts. Do you know how many of our members are off the job on your dime because of 'favors'? Thousands of dollars are being wasted due to political favors. Also, what does the S/T do???? The S/T is suppose to go over the expense reports of this district but instead has decided to staff 3 bookkeepers, all making over $50,000 to do his job. We need to keep the professional accountant but I will immediately eliminate the bookkeepers and close down our second office in SFO and save close to $250,000 a year by actually having my S/T do his job, and moving the financial office over to our main office instead of burning thousands more on rent.

Everyone at the District knows about the cash burn but, because of political favors and promises, the cash burn is off the charts.

Onward!

 

[Tim Nelson]

Another question for Tim...

How do you intend to accelerate, and refine negotiations when you are legally bound by the Railway Labor Act?

The Railway Labor Act is an act that the unions supported and drafted, and through it, countless leading industry contracts have been signed over the decades. Those who are making the RLA a devil are doing so to justify their ineptness. The RLA provides a distinct advantage to solidarity and is much superior and union friendly than the NRLA. Nonetheless, your question....

Refining negotiations involves building solidarity, and negotiations is all about leverage. We must build our leverage and be continual in it. One way to build leverage is to make sure your company understands that we are solid and that we are not going to further any merger, without first gaining consideration for our members. We also must stand strong on such items as retro. Negotiations were shortened at Continental, immediately before a merger, when the unions at Continental insisted on retro, as opposed to signing bonus'. And we must necessarily be active, and that is the responsibility of the President to make sure there are legal 'actions of solidarity' to help open up the ears of management. There are countless actions that do not violate your labor contract. The alternative is to keep the present course at Co/UA/US and not engage the membership; not inform the membership; not involve the membership; not do anything with the membership. So, in this case, it's not a matter of refining negotiations but rather recessitating [sp?] negotiations.

At any rate, we aren't even out of the first inning in negotiations and I'm not sure we would want to trigger a 40% future pension loss unless we can offset it and gain considerable wage/benefits. Therefore, we must be careful of getting a 'quickie' contract that ends up being concessionary in nature due to the pension trigger that will adversely affect your members. The primary focus needs to be on the attainment of a 'sacredity clause' in your seniority like the TWU has at AMR. We must pursue that vigorously or risk losing seniority for our members in any US/AMR combo. And having a UA president with no seniority on the line doesn't help. Remember, when you had a UA president in other matters who had no profit sharing on the line, it became very easy for him to share your profit sharing, then to abandon it altogether.

Over the past two weeks, I have unified PHX, CLT, and PHL by securing their nominations and we must stick together and move forward in hopes of making sure that US AIRWAYS members will stop becoming second best. This is also represented on the slate card as we have shifted resources to make things equal between per capita representation on United as well as US AIRWAYS. Unfortunately, the ND team has taken representation away from US AIRWAYS with its newest slate card that shifts one VP spot over to United. There is a reason why there is a backlog of grievances and at this point it has nothing to do with Canale.

Onward www.occupyiam141.com

 

[700UW]

History. The RLA was enacted in 1926 as the joint work product of rail labor and management. It was amended slightly in 1934 and 1966, and expanded to include airlines in 1936. 45 U.S.C. §l5l et seq . Special bargaining dispute resolution procedures applicable to publicly owned and operated rail commuter carriers was added in 1981. 45 U.S.C. §159a. The RLA is administered by the National Mediation Board ("NMB") , an independent Federal agency.

 

[Tim Nelson]

Just remember this is the guy that pushed the New Direction team, and they didnt do anything different than how Canale operated, could be worse even.

Myself, CLT, PHX, PHL all pushed Rich Delaney, US AIRWAYS entire supported Delaney. One man, one guy, doesn't bring in a new leadership. That said, it was certainly time for Canale to go and there are no regrets on my part for the total elimination of a labor guy who signed concessionary deals that were worse than what non contract makes. Second class stations and pay seniority were anti union and totally destructive so I think CLT, PHX and PHL did the right thing by eliminating Canale altogether. Why would anyone have voted for Canale back in 08?? He was terrible.

At any rate, Delaney and the ND are not entitled to votes, much less their jobs. They breached our trust so that the US AIRWAYS hubs that all supported and nominated Delaney back in 08 are now against him. Remember, just because you vote for someone 4 years ago, in any phase of life, doesn't mean you owe that person a vote the next time. Votes must be earned and there are no entitlements in this union.

regards,

 

[roabilly]

Roabilly,

I've answered this question numorous times but I'll do it again to catch everyone up.

Everyone on my ticket, i.e., running for a paid position, has signed a commitment letter saying that they will do so. To keep things accountable afterwards, we are going to post all the contributions on a monthly basis of each AGC/ST/Pres. If anyone is lacking, I will make sure that they understand. That is the only way to enforce it and it will be done. Giving money to non profit organizations is perfectly fine. There are differences though. If you give to your local church, it's a tax write off. If one gives to a Labor organization it is not. The AGC givebacks are approx $1,200 a month. Mine is approx $4,000. Don't get me wrong, none of us are going to go poor since the District picks up all health cost and provides a second pension by bylaw, and $85,000 still isn't a bad salary.


Everyone at the District knows about the cash burn but, because of political favors and promises, the cash burn is off the charts.

Onward!

Tim... were there attorneys present to validate the legality and regulation of the letter concerning the give-backs? You always said we need attorneys present for everything...

 

[Harry Callahan]

I do believe you said you are not a FSA so please quit tell us what is and isnt a waste of time. You don't work under and don't know the intent of
our contract either . Our contract is a joike. and please give it a rest about how you negotiated this and that . You negotiated yourself out of job
is what you did but yet you seem proud of that. That is what I would call a real LOSER.

If you don't realize an attorney is pulling the wool over your eyes , how would you know to call an attorney remember attorney's are like car salesmen
they can spin things to make it sound good to you but throw in a word here or there and your screwed. that's how we got screwed on our 2% raise.

700 was not fleet service but a lav dumper.

 

[700UW]

The main purpose of the RLA is to prevent the disruption of Interstate Commerce. Read the book Strike and it gives a detailed history of all the wildcat strikes and how federal troops were used to man the railroads. That's how the RLA came about. Just compare it to the NLRA and its quite clear.

 

[Tim Nelson]

Cargo,

I supported Tim in the past. I fought hard to get the N/D folks into office. I never asked for any favors... nor do I have any political aspirations to advance myself within the IAM. I simply believe that dues paying members should get the best representation available to them.

I am not supporting the Occupy Ticket nor am I endorsing the N/D ticket ... this is a democracy... and hopefully the Membership will choose the correct path... however... I think that every promise should be considered just that... a "promise".

The team that Tim helped to assemble years ago has yet to be given a chance to prove their mettle in section six negotiations. I know many of the people that are negotiating for the next agreement, and I have full confidence in them as well as respect for their integrity.

Best wishes for both slates!

Roabilly,

the problem with the current AGC's at US AIRWAYS is that they needed to be stronger against Rich, and they weren't. When MC fought to get an arbitration grievance against the attendance policy, Delaney slammed the door on that and said he will only argue a case by case grievance to protect managements new policy. After MC insisted upon it, Delaney hosed MC and hammered his station assignments. He did the same thing with Karen A. He paid her $100,000 to only represent 100 members because he hated her guts and wanted to limit her scope. IMO, that forced MC to dial out in a huge way so I am not at all suggesting that MC provided the best possible representation. MC had other things going on but there is no excuse for the sorta representation he gave. But, the other US AIRWAYS agc's saw the iron fist of Delaney and have stood down against him ever since. Delaney crossed us all early. NH was put in the lead AGC spot but when he was too aggressive against management, Delaney changed him out. Delaney shouldn't have done that. IMO, NH was the guy who has the most leadership qualities of all the AGC's and puts the biggest fear in management when compared. But, over 4 years, your AGC's have been beaten down so that now Delaney can get away with supporting a management lockout of your stations.

Take for instance the more visual things like the ND ballot. Your LC fought to get 6 AGC's on the Delaney slate from US AIRWAYS but the US AIRWAYS AGC's had no juice to stand strong against Delaney. Delaney got pissed off and immediately took a VP spot from US AIRWAYS and threatened to take more if the US AIRWAYS AGC's didn't stand down. So they did. The end result was one less US AIRWAYS representative on the ND slate. What's even more troubling is that the more your AGC's fought, the more Delaney got stubborn. And Delaney Bit&& slapped them and put Prez on the ballot. I'm not going to throw names out there but the entire negotiations committee and the entire list of AGC's, save one, made it very clear to Delaney that they could in no way support Prez. In fact, MM and other AGC candidates on the ND ticket 'stood down' and refused to show up in PHX to support Prez nomination, forcing Delaney himself had to show up and take a huge beating. And PHX stood up loud and clear and denied Delaney and Prez the nomination in PHX. Cripes, it wasn't even close and Prez was actually on two ballots and still got his arse handed to him by over 2-1. I like Prez as a person but there is a reason why PHX came out strongly against him.

So, Roabilly, there is no leadership among the present US AIRWAYS AGC's. If they couldn't voice the cries of the US AIRWAYS rampers and didn't have the 'juice' to even keep the representational spots that you currently have, what makes you think that they will be able to control or move Delaney on anything else? I'm not saying I couldn't work with them if I got in and they got in, because I do respect all of them and keep in contact with them, but I am supporting those candidates who support the Occupy platform. The occupy platform is a requirement that needs to be installed if we have any chance at all to obtain justice. We shouldn't expect anything to change if we just switch out names, we must take an academic approach and switch out this 1940 style of unionism with a style that adapts it into this century.

Onward www.occupyiam141.com

 

[700UW]

700 was not fleet service but a lav dumper.

And that would befleet, then utility, and then a stock clerk. And once again, ones classification has nothing to do with their knowledge and education. Keep trying

 

[Tim Nelson]

This question is for either Tim or 700...

Are confidentiality agreements legally required in Collective Bargaining Agreement negotiations under section 6 of the Railway Labor Act?

Confidentiality agreements are certainly not a requirement, and since the stock crash of 1980's, the SEC has demanded more financial information to be made public, including future finances. So, as a baseline, a union has enough financial information about a company to make leverage assessments. If the company is losing money, your leverage decreases, if a company is making money, natural leverage increases. However, not in any case will a company grab the union by the arm and put on a laptop powerpoint presentation that shows the union that the airline is making alot more than its projections.

In the current predicament, it is widely known that your company is going to make a play against AMR and will find a way to obtain $5 billion. This certainly isn't a case of your company going bankrupt.

And I have no interest in signing any deal that involves a ESOP, which would most certainly trigger a confidentiality agreement. If, however, somewhere down the line, there is a situation where your company starts losing billions and re-enters bankruptcy and I felt that I needed to sign a LOA to protect your interest in bankruptcy, then I would sign the LOA and ask the membership to vote on it. The membership will have full empowerments along the way through their vote. I will NOT be signing ANY LOA that involves your wages/benefits or your working conditions without YOUR consent. Bottom line.

Onward!

 

[Tim Nelson]

roabilly, there's two separate issues in regards to confidentiality. The legal one is what 700 was talking about, any information regulated by the SEC must be kept in confidence. This could simply be gotten around by, as I believe several said NW did. Quite simply the company says "OK, we are about to discuss privileged information. Everyone that has not signed the confidentiality agreement (which are only signed by those that need to) must leave. Once that topic is done they can come back in.

The second part is actually the bigger problem with Tims plan. He's right, there's nothing that says negotiations must be confidential. There's also nothing that says they can't be either. If the company demands an NDA and the union refuses we have an impass, with neither side right or wrong. On the flip side, maybe Tim can say "Look, my members will not accept confidential meetings. If you can't accommodate this we'll be at an impass, so is there some way we can work this out?" If the company is open to this there is no problem. Now, tell me which was they'll go, and no one knows.

It's all going to depend upon the leverage we build outside the negotiations room. Most of the occupy platform, although alien to the IAM, is being practiced by other unions. Although the thoughts are not original, they sound quite profane to the ears of a group who have been oppressed with an obsolete union structure. Again, my point in all of this is that YOU will decide and is that such a bad thing? If I have to sign a LOA that addresses some of the concerns [presumably in a bankruptcy situation that doesn't currently exist] then I will to protect the interest of our membership but the difference is that you are going to vote on it.

Onward!

 

[pjirish317]

Roabilly,

I've answered this question numorous times but I'll do it again to catch everyone up.

Everyone on my ticket, i.e., running for a paid position, has signed a commitment letter saying that they will do so. To keep things accountable afterwards, we are going to post all the contributions on a monthly basis of each AGC/ST/Pres. If anyone is lacking, I will make sure that they understand. That is the only way to enforce it and it will be done. Giving money to non profit organizations is perfectly fine. There are differences though. If you give to your local church, it's a tax write off. If one gives to a Labor organization it is not. The AGC givebacks are approx $1,200 a month. Mine is approx $4,000. Don't get me wrong, none of us are going to go poor since the District picks up all health cost and provides a second pension by bylaw, and $85,000 still isn't a bad salary.


because of political favors and promises

Tim,

You have not answered this question, you skirted around it. So here are some more direct questions.

This "commitment letter", is it legaly binding? A simple yes or no will suffice.
The sad fact is, is that there really is no way to keep "things" accountable is there?
How will you make sure they "understand"? What exactly will you do to them?
That is exactly what this is, a political promise that is in no way, shape, or form, enforceable is it? At least be honest
How is posting the "givebacks" on a website keeping them accountable?

 

[Tim Nelson]

The question regarding AGC give-backs is not in the mechanics or the logistics, but in the enforcement and regulation of them.

How can anyone guarantee the membership that everyone will participate in the program consistently month to month, year to year? How would the membership be able to confirm this is actually taking place after the Occupy Ticket is in office? What if an AGC was not very frugal, had a family illness or other unexpected expenses and decided he or she needs the full salary? Would there be provisions to waive and account for this in an honor system?

Roabilly,

there are no provisions to waive any of this. As I have said a number of times.....each month, on the website, we will be posting the givebacks to keep everyone accountable. I'm really at a loss of words as to why a few of you are fighting me on this???? I understand the disbelief and I don't have a problem with that since it's the exact sorta thing I would expect, but trying to reject this very good platform point, especially since it is a quick way to build trust through sacrifice, is mind boggling to me. Cripes, this is a refreshing idea, a noble one, an honorable one and we should be thankful that we have a slate that has signed on and given their written commitments to these very noble and sacrificial items.

Onward!

 

[Tim Nelson]

Let's assume everybody takes home 70% of their income for this excercise. $100000 x .70 = 70000/12= $5833 per month take home. Now, lets take $15000 out per year or $1250 per month. That would have Tim's guy taking home $4583 per month. ($5833-$1250) If the bylaws were changed to make the salaries $85000 then the take home would be $85000 x .70=$59500/12 =$4958. Tim's guy is taking home $375 per month less or $4500 per year by paying taxes on $100000 and then giving back as opposed to changing the bylaws to make $85000. Sounds brilliant (NOT). One Occupy guy is already saying he isn't giving squat back. Hey, these guys might still be ok even though they don't understand math. Get real.

Geez, consider it a sorta tithe. Folks, this is going to happen and it should happen. Nobody is going to go broke doing this. Each AGC will be giving back $1,200. It's a worthy thing to do. Some AGC's give back to the MNPL, or guide dogs, I want to focus more closely at home and make sure home is taken care of first. Our locals are broke. And the only math you need to know is that our AGC's are going to be getting paid fairly good, and they will not be going poor by giving back $1,200 a month. Throw in two pensions, and full medical, per diems, and you still have a very good situation for anyone. What's the fuss? Why are you fighting me on this other than the fact that you are on the other ticket???? You should applaud the sacrifice that a group of members want to do instead of trying to smash it down. Sheesh!

regards,

 

[necigrad]

I've answered this question numorous times but I'll do it again to catch everyone up.

Everyone on my ticket, i.e., running for a paid position, has signed a commitment letter saying that they will do so. To keep things accountable afterwards, we are going to post all the contributions on a monthly basis of each AGC/ST/Pres. If anyone is lacking, I will make sure that they understand. That is the only way to enforce it and it will be done.

Tim, you have NOT answered the question. You have answered a huge bit of it, but not all. You've explained, quite well, that all candidates on your slate will sign an agreement to do such, that you will show that they are abiding by the agreement, and that you'll talk to them if they're not. You're still avoiding the $64,000 question though. IF someone does NOT follow through on their promise, and you do not convince them to do so, what then? Fox example, let's say I'm on your slate, sigh the agreement, and get elected along with you. Great, we've got this in motion, however I have a change in heart. I finally realise this is a lot of money, money I want or need. I renege. What, if anything, can and will you do to force me to follow through. You can talk to me all you want, if I refuse, I refuse.

You need to say it Tim. You CAN NOT ENFORCE THIS! You can try to make anyone that backpedals to "see the light" but that's it. If I'm wrong tell us how. PLEASE! This is an especially important point because I've already heard from three different people that one of your slate has stated he will NOT do this!