Fleet Service apathy

[pjirish317]

Explain this, fleet is in district 141, which is fleet, res and csa, your officers are fleet, your negotiating committee is fleet. Mechanic and related are in district 142, nothing to do with fleet at all. The gvp was fleet.

So explain if your district has no mechanics and the gvp was fleet and there are more fleet in the iam, then how do you take a back seat?

And a few ignorant mechanics are not the iam

700,

When Fleet Service voted in the IAM we were placed into DL142.....MTC formed 142M since they did not want any part of Fleet Service being paired with them in the same union. And it was MTC AGC's and such that negotiated our very first CBA. After that we were placed into DL141. I may be wrong on the timeline but I am pretty sure that is how it went....and truth be told...MTC obviously didn't want utility with them either...otherwise you may have still been employed here today I don't know.

 

[necigrad]

Kinda interesting at how all these allegations are made (and I'm not saying they're false, nor that they are true) and yet no one has filed for a DFR. If DL141 is not equitably representing their members then evidence must be collected, legal representation retained, and a DFR filed.

 

[Tim Nelson]

Kinda interesting at how all these allegations are made (and I'm not saying they're false, nor that they are true) and yet no one has filed for a DFR. If DL141 is not equitably representing their members then evidence must be collected, legal representation retained, and a DFR filed.

DFR's are hard to do and it requires you taking your own personal time to do it. IMO, the leadership support of the continual lockout of those 5 stations could be grounds for a DFR but since the President of the District has the sole and exclusive authorities to sign LOA without consent then I find such a DFR tough to win. There were some charges filed against this district since 2000, and both involving criminal offenses against elections. First, in 2002 when Canale broke the labor law and kicked qualified candidates off of the ballot. Then in 2010, when Delaney decided to have some 'laughs and giggle's and booted BK off of the ballot. BK ended up going to the Labor department and it found that Delaney had broken the federal labor codes. The settlement was that all spots would be 'up for grabs' in this election. So instead of only having 10 or 12 spots up for election, there are 28.

The LM2's also so that this district was sued and had to spend thousands last year to settle a case in Cali. Not sure which settlement that was but it was kept quiet. Not sure if that was the result of a DFR or what. But it cost the members $45,000 additional dollars.

The District President is a fraud. Only an antiunion management type would sign a contract to pay part timers half of full timers and also introduce the Delta scab ready reserve system at Hawaiian airlines. Only a antiunion manager would support managements desire to abolish 3 years of talks at UA. Only an antiunion manager type would sign a LOA that supports management locking out 5 stations at US AIRWAYS. Only an antiunion pro management person would sign a no strike clause at Airtran two weeks after they were promised that they would get fair representation.

regards,

 

[robbedagain]

then lets vote DELANEY and crew out of office and while we r at it why not form our oun union with our own. time for the delaney crew to go

 

[pjirish317]

then lets vote DELANEY and crew out of office and while we r at it why not form our oun union with our own. time for the delaney crew to go

Vote however you want. I am not ready to "change" again and start back from square 1. Nobody on here except for Tim, wants to nor, IMO, has the ability to do what the AGC's do. With that said, if we try to form our own union or even change unions, we take the chance of a decertification, and if that happenes we all better grab our anlkes, so I doubt you would get much support to do that at this point.

 

[Dog Wonder]

we r at it why not form our oun union with our own.

Its been tried, with ugly consequences.

 

[Tim Nelson]

then lets vote DELANEY and crew out of office and while we r at it why not form our oun union with our own. time for the delaney crew to go

Robbedagain,

we have the IAM shell, we just have to gut the deadwood and the management leaders we have.

PJ is wrong, nobody starts from square one. This is a baseball game where Delaney is the starting pitcher that can't get out of the first inning. A careful review of all his his actions, as opposed to his bedtime stories, clearly shows that he is not only a fraud but that he is incapble of getting out of the first inning. The case can even be made that we are presently two steps back from where we were in 2008. Certainly, nothing has been advanced as shown by his recent support letter supporting management's lockout of 5 more stations.

I doubt PJ's own station even supports the New Direction since RDU is a strong lean to another UA ticket. I know several from Continental ramp in his local, and the UA RDU local chairman is running on a ballot against Delaney also. I will give PJ points for squeeking out a narrow victory for the ND back in 2010 [23-18]

At any rate, since the NMB rules appears to be changing once again, it now is going to flip the representational dispute status if there is a merger with AMR. Thus, the McCaskill Bond Act will be triggered if there is no representational dispute. Remember, IAM 141 would have to secure 50% of the eligible if this rule changes and that means it will need about 3,000 cards. THere will be no election if that is not achieved and the US AIRWAYS ramp will be accreted into the TWU ramp with monster seniority issues that will be entirely settled by contractural matters that currently favor the sacredity clauses of the TWU workers. Without a president that knows how to organize, the US AIRWAYS ramp would clearly suffer. If the IAM won an organizing campaign, then seniority WOULD be protected through the union's internal date of hire policy. So, whether you love or hate Delaney, if he wins, I seriously doubt he can come through on the most important matter that would SERIOUSLY affect ALL US AIRWAYS rampers.....seniority.

The compounded problem for US AIRWAYS agents would be that, if Delaney is voted in, the US AIRWAYS agents would have a president who not only is clueless on organizing but also not as passionate about focusing on changing the US AIRWAYS contract to match the sacredity clause of the TWU contract. Either, the TWU loses its sacredity clause in bankruptcy, or the US AIRWAYS negotiations team is going to have to obtain a sacredity clause in the US AIRWAYS contract, otherwise, no TWU employee will be adversely affected and the US AIRWAYS rampers will take a true pounding. These are absolutely serious matters and we have already seen Delaney circumvent each other negotiations team to cut deals. That will not happen with the Occupy 141 platform.

Perhaps the greatest potential for protecting the seniority of US AIRWAYS rampers most definately would be to beat the TWU in an election and to have the IAM internal Date of Hire policies put in place. Again, NOBODY, and Im not saying that arrogantly, NOBODY can organize AMR and gain the cards better than the Team that I would have in place. My record is UNMATCHED in that area.

At any rate, if Delaney wins, then I doubt he would be even semi strong enough to sustain another assault from the Teamsters at UA, let alone a TWU assault on the US AIRWAYS workers. The guy is a fraud by his actions. OTOH, while I was on the membership dime, I did exactly what I said I was going to do in that leadership position.

regards,

 

[necigrad]

Vote however you want. I am not ready to "change" again and start back from square 1. Nobody on here except for Tim, wants to nor, IMO, has the ability to do what the AGC's do. With that said, if we try to form our own union or even change unions, we take the chance of a decertification, and if that happenes we all better grab our anlkes, so I doubt you would get much support to do that at this point.

I've got to agree with Tim that changing DL leadership won't be "square one". However, I also agree with you 200 times over that any move for a new union (completely new or just new to us) could be disastrous.

 

[pjirish317]

Robbedagain,

we have the IAM shell, we just have to gut the deadwood and the management leaders we have.

PJ is wrong, nobody starts from square one. This is a baseball game where Delaney is the starting pitcher that can't get out of the first inning. A careful review of all his his actions, as opposed to his bedtime stories, clearly shows that he is not only a fraud but that he is incapble of getting out of the first inning. The case can even be made that we are presently two steps back from where we were in 2008. Certainly, nothing has been advanced as shown by his recent support letter supporting management's lockout of 5 more stations.

Tim,

You should have said "I think PJ is wrong", not that I am wrong. I will disagree with you here. I firmly believe, that if anybody other than RD wins the prez spot all of DL141 is going to go 10 steps back. Especially here at USAirways. Let's use the occupy 141 ticket as an exaple. How much time will your ticket have to spend at placid harbor for classes? How many grievance's do you think will be ignored, well, set aside anyway, during that time by the new AGC's? Not to mention the backlog of grievances already filed waiting for hearings/arbitrations. How long will you personally delay negotiations by not signing a confidentiality agreement? Do you really think the company would allow that? What would you do when they said no negotiations until you sign? Would you hold the entire group hostage to prove your point? Then you have to hand pick your negotiating team, who again have to go to class, more time spent not getting a new CBA. And you have no idea who my station supports, maybe you do for UA, but you have no idea who US supports do you? I did it once before, do you not think I can do it again? I have a proven track record with my station, are you gonna try to disrupt that by pushuing your own agenda here and dividing the group even more? I may or may not see you at the LL on nomination day, I'll certainly be there, will you? So I would have to say, that in YOUR opinion, I am wrong, lets see how many others think I am.

neci,

maybe not square one, but certainly close. That is of course MY opinion.

 

[saywhat]

Tim,

You selected the ND ticket and now you are going to select a new ticket. So, can you tell us who you are selecting and why they are so much better than the ND? The more I read your messages the more it sounds like you have an axe to grind and you'll support anyone to get the ND out. This is not the direction I want to go. Voting your ticket will set us back 10 years.

 

[Tim Nelson]

Tim,

You should have said "I think PJ is wrong", not that I am wrong. I will disagree with you here. I firmly believe, that if anybody other than RD wins the prez spot all of DL141 is going to go 10 steps back. Especially here at USAirways. Let's use the occupy 141 ticket as an exaple. How much time will your ticket have to spend at placid harbor for classes? How many grievance's do you think will be ignored, well, set aside anyway, during that time by the new AGC's? Not to mention the backlog of grievances already filed waiting for hearings/arbitrations. How long will you personally delay negotiations by not signing a confidentiality agreement? Do you really think the company would allow that? What would you do when they said no negotiations until you sign? Would you hold the entire group hostage to prove your point? Then you have to hand pick your negotiating team, who again have to go to class, more time spent not getting a new CBA. And you have no idea who my station supports, maybe you do for UA, but you have no idea who US supports do you? I did it once before, do you not think I can do it again? I have a proven track record with my station, are you gonna try to disrupt that by pushuing your own agenda here and dividing the group even more? I may or may not see you at the LL on nomination day, I'll certainly be there, will you? So I would have to say, that in YOUR opinion, I am wrong, lets see how many others think I am.

neci,

maybe not square one, but certainly close. That is of course MY opinion.

PJ, you are simply wrong. Nobody is going backwards. Actually, the backlog of grievances is because Delaney refuses to bring the resources of US AIRWAYS up to UA standards. There will always be a backlog of grievances if you have to represent twice the amount of members as the counterparts at UA. Your statement is illogical. Cripes, I am actually addressing your concerns but you can't see past the new direction blinders.

Further, not signing confidential agreements isn't exclusive to me. Other airline unions have that principle. It's a technique that breeds transparency and it won't stop negotiations. Not sure what you mean by that but, at any rate, it's not like your company is negotiating anything anyways so????

The most important thing for ANY US AIRWAYS agent will be seniority and organizing. Quite simply put, if you don't get 3,000 cards from TWU members, your seniority will clearly take a hit. Gotta force an election and get the IAM seniority principles otherwise anything else negotiated really doesn't matter if you don't have a job because your seniority is cut.

Nobody will be able to put a team together as capable as I did and could. NOBODY. As far as RDU, I only said the truth, i.e., that the RDU Local Chairman for UA is going to run against the New Direction, and the GSO CO rampers aren't convinced of Delaney. You personally, I agree, you did a great job getting out the vote and you pulled it out.

regards,

 

[pjirish317]

Tim,

2 things. First, I asked what you would do when the company says "if you do not sign the confidentiality agreement, no talks", not what has happened at other airlines regarding this. I specificaly asked for US. Do you honestly think the company will agree to this? This company, you know the one we work for? With the history of, well you know the history. Because you and I both know the company will not go for not signing a confidentiality agreement, you just do not want to admit it. Do you remember when I first became local chairman in RDU? You were a tremdous help during that time. I considered you a true asset, I called you for advice, and for help writing a few grievances. Now, sadly, you sound like a bitter ex-wife that wants to destroy their ex-husband for leaving them. Also, I do not have blinders on, beause I disagree with you, I have a differing opinion than yours, and for that you say I am wrong. As far as the UA local chairman running, good for them, they are a solid union person and should be able to do some good over at UA for them. I may even vote for them. Did anybody meet you in PHX on your way to SAN? and Who is Gus anyway?

 

[700UW]

700,

When Fleet Service voted in the IAM we were placed into DL142.....MTC formed 142M since they did not want any part of Fleet Service being paired with them in the same union. And it was MTC AGC's and such that negotiated our very first CBA. After that we were placed into DL141. I may be wrong on the timeline but I am pretty sure that is how it went....and truth be told...MTC obviously didn't want utility with them either...otherwise you may have still been employed here today I don't know.

Totally wrong.

The mechanic and related at US was in District 141, not 142,and when fleet organized you were placed into 141 with the AMFA drives at NW and UA, the membership voted, fleet and mechanics to split the district, so 141 became for fleet, res and csa, and Mechanic and Related went into 141M. So you had Fleet in control of fleet and maintenance in control of maintenance.

I was stores, then utility and then stores again, I was on the negotiating committee as Utility during chapter 11 part II negotiations, so the district and the international didnt want to get rid of utility, we never reached deal and our CBA was abrogated. Which the company only kept 100 for the hangars.

Also your first CBA was negotiated by MTC agc and Fleet, Gerry Moore was Fleet AGC, Greg Bonar grievance chair, Tony Armedio and others, Alicino, you never reached a CBA when MTC was on your committee, they were removed when the district split and you voted down your first CBA.

I was stores when I left US, sorry to burst your bubble, but your facts are totally wrong.

When UA went AMFA we were the only Mechanic and Related in 141M so we didnt have enough members to support a district, so we were moved into 142, since they all ready had Mechanic and Related from several other airlines.

Hope this sets the record straight.

 

[ograc]

Vote however you want. I am not ready to "change" again and start back from square 1. Nobody on here except for Tim, wants to nor, IMO, has the ability to do what the AGC's do. With that said, if we try to form our own union or even change unions, we take the chance of a decertification, and if that happenes we all better grab our anlkes, so I doubt you would get much support to do that at this point.

pjirish317,

I respectfully disagree. There are plenty of candidates out there who would bring much more experience and ability to the AGC positions than what we currently have in office. Additionally, I respectfully agree, forming our own union or changing unions is not in the best interest of the group. The consequences of such a decision could be potentially devestating to our group. I'm sure the company would be licking their chops if we chose this course.
ograc

 

[saywhat]

pjirish317,

I respectfully disagree. There are plenty of candidates out there who would bring much more experience and ability to the AGC positions than what we currently have in office. Additionally, I respectfully agree, forming our own union or changing unions is not in the best interest of the group. The consequences of such a decision could be potentially devestating to our group. I'm sure the company would be licking their chops if we chose this course.
ograc

Name some better AGC's to support and which ticket are they on?