ChockJockey
Veteran
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2008
- Messages
- 1,393
- Reaction score
- 1,350
Gotcha, thanks.
Fleet Service apathy
- Thread starter ograc
- Start date
Jester
Veteran
That to me is still one of the funniest concepts to cross-train people in very different job assignments, requiring completely different skill sets. Frankly, I wouldn't entrust some of my fellow FSAs to water a house plant on a daily basis, and someone would be comfortable with them handling a complex ticket transaction? Furthermore, I am unsure as how some CSRs remove their groceries from their car, given they can barely lift a moderately weighted bag while standing-up, but they are ready to work in a 3-foot high bin loading bags? I read on another thread on how under the old America West model in the early days, ramp agents were expected to work in-flight??? I would have paid extra for a ticket to see some of my co-workers working a tight aisle while dealing with the public. I am sure there are some people who are able to work above and below the wing, but I am sure they are relatively few in-between. For example, I could probably do both, but frankly, I would rather deal with passengers' bags than the passengers themselves, because the bags don't talk back.
However, it does raise an interesting question as to when someone becomes part of a craft, and thus, included as part of the election. I tend to say that outside of incidential involvment with the ramp and FSAs duties (for example, bringing down a last second gate check), or maybe the rare irregular operation, if the employee is doing the work, then that employee should be eligible for the election (assuming it is not a management position). Unfortunately, the matter becomes complicated if there are two different unions and two different CBAs, as to the employees' pay grade and work rules, and maybe that is the position the arbitrator's view on this issue, and allowing the Company to decide the employees work group.
So Views Jester.
Jester, that's how a lot of AWA folks were working for a long while. If you look at the old TWU contract you'll even see it defined. You find that especially in smaller stations where it's practical to have the flexibility. It does make good business sense, and the industry has done it for decades.
ograc
Veteran
- Joined
- Jan 30, 2012
- Messages
- 1,868
- Reaction score
- 1,624
Jester,
I agree the issue can be complicated by cross utilization, different CBAs, and potential new members to the union, pending the outcome of election results. The issue I have, is the NMB ruling as I see it, is contradictory in nature. The PCE agents at UA, who work a preponderance of their schedule on the ramp were ineligible to vote in the Ramp organizing election because they were deemed to be under the PCE Bargaining Agreement. Now, as ruled by the NMB, they are deemed to be ineligible to vote in the PCE election because the preponderance of their schedule is on the ramp. The end result of this ruling by the NMB has effectively denied IAM dues paying members, and there are many, their right to vote in either of the representation elections. How can that be justified or explained? Am I missing something?
ograc
Harry Callahan
Veteran
Dog Wonder
Veteran
I worked with him. On the ramp (well not really since he always bid ABR never saw him in a cargo bin), and on organizing.
Tim is about Tim.
baggage engineer
Member
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2010
- Messages
- 27
- Reaction score
- 28
OK here we go again , let me guess if we lose another 9,000 members then we can expect to get a nice letter
from our pension administrators that we will have to cut our pensions further and put us on a C schedule. History
has a way of repeating itself we lose the NW - DL election and a month later we get a dear john letter screwing
us on our pension and now another possible loss of membership , enough is enough. I really hope our negotiations
team is not trying to put more money in so they can rip us off again. Can anyone confirm if that is the case
Kev3188
Veteran
It's extremely efficient if done right, and obviously beats outsourcing to a vendor... NW used to have a ton of stations like that (they were called "4 hour rule" cities- as in if flight activity was below a certain amount in any given 4 hour period), but they were all wiped out in BK...
It would be hard to do at US because of the disparity of the CWA contact and IAM contact. CWA agents would have a lot to lose. Some IAM leadership on this board think differently. The reasoning being the IAM pension fund that Trustees can reduce the accrual rate of future benefits and cut existing benefits any time they want without a VOTE form the membership and the logic "fleet service and passenger service comparing apples to oranges, two different work functions and groups."
Kev3188
Veteran
I here ya on both counts. For cross-utilizing, I was just noting that it can- and has- been done by established carriers, as opposed to just start ups.
For the pension stuff, IMO it'll require a huge shift in mindset from all of us before anyone in a postion of power (trustees, etc.) can be bothered to move- right now it's too easy not to, and we all suffer from our our complacency. Just my .02.
For the pension stuff, IMO it'll require a huge shift in mindset from all of us before anyone in a postion of power (trustees, etc.) can be bothered to move- right now it's too easy not to, and we all suffer from our our complacency. Just my .02.
Tim Nelson
Veteran
IAM contract provides for cross utilized stations where a certain % of work can be cross utilized, I think it is something like 25% of a non covered employees schedule can come within the fleet service classification at some stations. Same with Southwest, there is some flexibility, and IMO, too much flexibility allowing management to do work. Piedmont airlines is all cross utilized isn't it? I know that Airtran was also all cross utilized. I think the CO/UA merger and any AMR/US merger would take on the current models that limit cross utilization.
regards,
Are you saying that all ABR'S are self absorbed? Or just they are all about themselves?
Tim Nelson
Veteran
He is right that I was almost exclusively ABR other than a few late night bag room lines. Ahhhh, us bad ABR people! He actually did make a rather reasonable point that I was self absorbed. I have to guard against all of my faults and much of what is incorporated in the Occupy 141 platform is beneficial not only to the member but also helps protect the officers from getting the big head or becoming too greedy. Further, I sacrificed my job and I will also be sacrificing personal onslaught against me. I can assure you that there is NOTHING selfish about that. Selfish are the AGC's who were under the same terrible representation as I was but chose not to sacrifice and chose to keep their mouths shut so they can continue selfishly collecting the $9,000 monthly checks. Nope, I checked the pride and ego at the door. After all the bloody darts thrown at me, all I ask is for the membership to look at the scoreboard, because it won't change. Don't buy the talk on the field. I will be put record on the members dime up against anyone...anyone. And I can also point to the scoreboard and show how Delaney has destroyed each property. One thing I won't do against Delaney or any other candidate is attempt to disqualify them because of things I have on them personally that have nothing to do with representation matters. But anything to do with representation is fair game on this field and I will hit him hard on all of his support for management.
His latest support for management is the LOA he signed which can be viewed on our webpage.
Onward www.occupyiam141.com
Tim
