What's new

Fleet Service apathy

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,

Tim,

Not on any ticket. I support a bylaw change to reduce salaries but what you are professing to happen is BS and you know it. What happens when one then two and so on stop giving back? They all start dropping like flies. Plus, $4500 a year more because you don't do the bylaw change is not very smart. It will doom the giveback. Get real and keep trying to fool us and we will keep calling you out.
 
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

"Big Picture" TN , I was the lone LCC vote at L-1781. Occupy was not even on the ballot. RD and most of their slate won by a LANDSLIDE ! OM was the independent UAL/CO winner for AGC. LCC F/S is DIS-FUNCTIONAL,DIS-FRANCHISED, and APATHETIC system wide. Many of US see YOU and OCCUPY only as a protest vote against the STATUS QUO . As I have stated before RD will win as D-141 President in June. The "BIG PICTURE" for LCC FS is who will be our AGC 's ? When will we get rid of the POS! CBA "WE" all suffer under by the LCC Slave Masters "WE" currently work for ? The TRUE ENEMY of LCC F/S. "WE" should have the best paid and most experienced IAM MEMBERS negotiating and representing " US " at LCC. NOT disgruntled LCC IAM protesters who have axes to grind and scores to settle. Good Luck ! TN and OCCUPY, it sounds like there is a lot of work and educating to do in PHX? It appears you have found your SAVIOR ?
 
In all honesty,

I'll bet that Tim knows this deep in the recesses of his own mind... It simply makes for a good sound bite when you are trying to garner support for election purposes. The reality of actually seeing the give-back program work is questionable at best.

I'll also bet Tim is completely aware of how contract negations work under the RLA... the odds of forcing the company to waive the NDA's are not good. An attempt to leverage the company to do this could lead to further delays and possibly an impasse.

One last question for Tim, or anyone on his ticket... How many of 27 people running under Tim are UA?
We have 11 US AIRWAYS members, including me, on our ticket and 17 United members.

I am also completely aware that everything on our platform is not original and has been put to practice under RLA negotiations, just not with IAM 141. The only thing that may be original with the entire platform is the giveback program. The giveback program is much more than a sound bite Roabily and it is primary to the other 10 points on the platform.

At any rate, keeping the current structure has already proven that nothing fair is going to happen. And the ND hasn't even put out a platform ever. Here's a good idea, instead of spending all their time disputing my platform, how bout they have the decency to put out their own platform and also answer if they will support Delaney in a US/AMR merger if he makes the same decisions as he did at UA/CO. Tell me Roabily, do you know what Delaney did at UA/CO??? Do you know how he threw the UA ramp into transition talks immediately after the IAM/IBT vote? Roabily, if you take Delaney's actions at UA/CO, then you will have to conclude that your present negotiations are a fraud and will continue to be a fraud for 2 or 3 years. Then compare Delaney's actions with the actions of the AFA or the IBT. Do you know the casework Roabily? Do you know what happened and how the UA ramp got zippo to support management into transitions, but the stews and mechanics demanded consideration before entertaining such talks? AFA received $40 million in consideration which included an immediate 10% pay raise. The mx recieved $59 million in consideration, JUST to enter transitions and they STILL are at the table for more. Supporting Delaney, especially with the risk of a merger, can only be accompanied with ignorance on his actual actions in such a situation. Never mind that he doesn't have any seniority on the line, and we have already seen what happens when a UA prez doesn't have any profit sharing on the line either.

Your negotiations aren't going anywhere and BTW the negotiaitons committee has no authority to change that. Delaney will drag out negotiations for a few years then toss them and start brand new with transition talks if he is privileged to be the president by then. That's exactly what he did at UA. In fact, Delaney hasn't done squat in 4 years and there was nobody that wanted him to succeed more than I did.

Onward!
 
We have 11 US AIRWAYS members, including me, on our ticket and 17 United members.

I am also completely aware that everything on our platform is not original and has been put to practice under RLA negotiations, just not with IAM 141. The only thing that may be original with the entire platform is the giveback program. The giveback program is much more than a sound bite Roabily and it is primary to the other 10 points on the platform.

At any rate, keeping the current structure has already proven that nothing fair is going to happen. And the ND hasn't even put out a platform ever. Here's a good idea, instead of spending all their time disputing my platform, how bout they have the decency to put out their own platform and also answer if they will support Delaney in a US/AMR merger if he makes the same decisions as he did at UA/CO. Tell me Roabily, do you know what Delaney did at UA/CO??? Do you know how he threw the UA ramp into transition talks immediately after the IAM/IBT vote? Roabily, if you take Delaney's actions at UA/CO, then you will have to conclude that your present negotiations are a fraud and will continue to be a fraud for 2 or 3 years. Then compare Delaney's actions with the actions of the AFA or the IBT. Do you know the casework Roabily? Do you know what happened and how the UA ramp got zippo to support management into transitions, but the stews and mechanics demanded consideration before entertaining such talks? AFA received $40 million in consideration which included an immediate 10% pay raise. The mx recieved $59 million in consideration, JUST to enter transitions and they STILL are at the table for more. Supporting Delaney, especially with the risk of a merger, can only be accompanied with ignorance on his actual actions in such a situation. Never mind that he doesn't have any seniority on the line, and we have already seen what happens when a UA prez doesn't have any profit sharing on the line either.

Your negotiations aren't going anywhere and BTW the negotiaitons committee has no authority to change that. Delaney will drag out negotiations for a few years then toss them and start brand new with transition talks if he is privileged to be the president by then. That's exactly what he did at UA. In fact, Delaney hasn't done squat in 4 years and there was nobody that wanted him to succeed more than I did.

Onward!
TN did you here about the election for 17,000 UAL/CO PCE ? and D-141 WON ! Contracts for ALL in 2012.
 
First of all, I'm no expert, just one that applies logic and what knowledge I have. I have one Associates, am back in school for more, and none of it is in labor education.

From what I understand, there would be some but little value having an attorney attending negotiations. The simple fact is that at the end of the week everything goes to the lawyer on both sides anyway. It certainly would be convenient to have an attorney there (I think the company in fact does), but think about that; would you really want to discuss things with the attorney at the table? No. Sidebar? Sure, but if it's a simple question it can wait, and if not it likely needs to be researched in which case I want legal in their office, not at the table or in a back room working on a laptop.

That said I think there is value to having an inhouse attorney. I've HEARD that the DLs have full and complete access to GL legal, but I don't know how well that does or doesn't work. If it works then we don't need our own lawyer, if it doesn't, well, we need adequate legal counsel.

Yes, some things need to go by a lawyer. Actually all things, but only some things would likely require word for word input for negotiation. In fact, think about it. Do you want a lawyer writing your contract? Wouldn't you prefer someone who actually speaks English and will get you a contract that you can understand? Run it by the lawyers to make sure it's good, but keep them away for the most part. And THAT is something I've had experience with in some contracting that I was involved in. The CUSTOMER needs to be happy with the result, not the lawyer. In my case we (a small construction project) were buying (in part) windows. Our contract from the manufacture actually said we would not get the best price. Our lawyer said that was wrong, they should be giving us the best. Our logic, that we are a small customer (say 1000 windows) that is undeserving of the better rates they give to companies that buy far more (like KB Home or Pulte). The fact that the manufacturer already did a competitive bid and was the lowest didn't matter to the lawyer, nor that we would have lost the deal entirely due to that point.



The other day I asked if anyone knew how many people worked for the company in Labor Relations. From what I've been told, it's like five. I was wondering this because someone said we weren't meeting with the company enough. Well, since there are FIVE employees (plus however many lawyers, didn't ask that) currently negotiating with most union workgroups on new contracts do the math. It's not possible to meet more then something over once a month. We are not the only ones out there. They need to negotiate with us, the FAs, MX, DX, CSRs, even the pilots if that group ever grows up... It simply can't be done. Once negotiations are done they need to put together new proposals in response to our proposals, plus proposals on the new sections of the contract. Plus, don't forget about managing the contract issues and grievances that are existing now. There would be a valid argument for the company to hire more people for that department, but that's not our call, and not the fault of anyone in the union.
We have access to INTL attorneys for some items, and that wont' change. But, each District does have their own law firm, including ours currently. The question is one of outsourcing/insourcing. Instead of outsourcing our law firm, like we currently do at the sum of close to $150,000 a year, we will insource it and same some money on salary but actually increase the resource of insourcing our legal like other unions do. As far as 'english', I'm sorry but the language of law is veiled thick in the english language and it is vital for me to have an attorney next to me in negotiations. The attorney isn't going to be negotiating, since an attorney has no idea what a ramper is worth, but as someone who can clarify or interpret some legal languages incorporated in spoken language. At any rate, yes it is vital and the company knows it is vital and brings professionals to negotiations and so should we, especially since it actually saves us money also. Again, our in hose attorney isn't substituting for INTL attorneys, we are simply insourcing the legal help we already have. Having an attorney in negotiations is vital enough to make sure that we can prevent contracts where 2% doesn't really mean 2%. There is a reason why your contract is wishy washy and has so much gray in it that you can paint a USS battleship with. Arguing a position that takes professionals out of negotiations is typical IAM 141 but mind boggling to most unions. I'm really not sure why we have to continue discussing it?? This is a no brainer! Except for a few folks who don't want me as President will continue arguing against anything I propose, even if it makes good sense.

Onward!
 
Tim,

To be clear, how are you going to pay for this "in-house" attorney? Is it with to alleged "givebacks"? How will you pay this attorney when, not if, the givebacks do not happen? Also, you stated "diversity on the E-board". Again how will you accomplish this? Any part-timers on your ticket?
 
Mr. Niblet,

If you guys actually want to win this election, you should to be completely transparent about your platform. I think the consensus here in this forum alone has dismissed most of the bullet points regarding the validity of the occupy agenda.

I'm sure Mr. Nelson will disagree with me on this... however... I'm a grown man... I can take it. Political rhetoric should not, and does not have any influence in advancing the interest of the Membership in Collective Bargaining!

If you want to bring positive change... demand more information from your AGC regarding negotiations updates. After all... this IS the information age... we have the internet... start your own e-mail updates like our guys do here. Better yet... demand system-wide e-mail updates to ALL Union Reps in the field from the District Lodge.

Wiping out everything that we fought for... and stating over is NOT the answer!
Cripes, so now I'm Mr Nelson? Geez, I didn't expect that from you. I would prefer you call me Nelson or Tim or brother nelson. Mr Nelson is disrespect. At any rate, the consensus is that I secured and blocked the nominations from all the US AIRWAYS hubs since they do not have political blinders on and understand the value of our platform, the transparency of it, and the non transparency of the ND. Politics aside, Roabily, can you not see the value of each item on our platform? I mean, take your belief out of the equation about whether or not givebacks will happen, and don't you see the honor of it and the reason why it has to happen? Don't you see the value of insourcing our legal? Don't you see the value of LOA that are signed and voted upon?

Onward!


Onward!
 
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.
And the unions agreed to it as it is more union friendly than the NLRA. It's a useful tool and there has been great success under it. So much success that this industry outpays most others. Anyone painting the RLA as a sorta devil is either delusional or just justifying poor negotiating skills.

regards,
 
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...
Huh? No I never said we need attorneys present for everything. What I said is that we need an attorney present for negotiations and arbitration. Is an honor system enforceable under civil laws? No, but I think I have been very clear, almost doggedly, that this is in fact an honor system and it will be posted each month. The dispute is whether you believe it will happen or not, and I certainly understand that.

Onward.....off to work now.
 
Who is their right mind would pay Federal, State and perhaps local tax on income they wont keep?

I think someone is blowing smoke up your rear ends.

And you better go educate yourself Tim, if you dont sign a confidentiality agreement you wont get all the data necessary, you havent been there, I have. Go educate yourself, your selling the membership magic beans, just like you pushed everyone for Daley and he screwed the US membership.

The unions dont agree to a law, they might have input how lobbying but they have no say in the process of a bill becoming a law. And there were no airlines in 1926, so how did they agree to it?

Congress put the airlines under it, the unions had no choice.
 
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.
Cripes, you and others making the RLA out as a devil is a real joke. Unions have incredible leverage under the RLA since it is a closed shop system that supercedes right to work laws. That's just one of the many advanatages, and that is HUGE.

onward!
 
And the International pays half of the AGC salaries, funny how you dont mention this fact Tim.
 
You talk about wanting save money.

So if US and AA merge, why would you still want to negotiate a Section 6 agreement when your gonna have to immediately turn around and negotiate a Transition Agreement then a combined CBA.

Wouldnt that be wasting money?
 
And the unions agreed to it as it is more union friendly than the NLRA. It's a useful tool and there has been great success under it. So much success that this industry outpays most others. Anyone painting the RLA as a sorta devil is either delusional or just justifying poor negotiating skills.

regards,
Are you kidding me?

The RLA is the worst piece of legislation for unions, there is no leverage from labor, the law is to prevent the stopping of interstate commerce, how many labor classes at college have you taken or at WWW?

Under the NLRA its a straight up or down vote, never was 50%+1 like it was for the RLA, which is going to be changed back to that thanks to Congress.

CBAs under the RLA dont expire, they become amendable and from 95 to 99 M&R went without a new CBA, 4 and 1/2 years with no raises or improvements, under the NLRA CBAs expire and you can strike right away.

Your lack of education on the RLA and how negotiations work are coming out and your going to hurt the members if you keep up the way you think things operate.
 
Cripes, you and others making the RLA out as a devil is a real joke. Unions have incredible leverage under the RLA since it is a closed shop system that supercedes right to work laws. That's just one of the many advanatages, and that is HUGE.

onward!
Once again, you still dont know, the RLA permits you to have a closed shop, a closed shop is negotiated between the company and the union, its not automatic.

I dont remember which airline, but they had an open shop, I believe it was AS.

And go ask NW PFAA, when they left the IBT and went to PFAA, Jerry Glass wouldnt transfer the dues money cause the CBA specifically said IBT not PFAA, they had to ask the member to voluntary contribute money to the credit union account, and then they had to make concessions with Glass to get Dues Check off.

Gee Fleet organized in 1995 and you didnt get your first CBA until 1999, please show the board how that is efficient especially since there is no stauts quo for newly organized groups under the RLA?

You really dont know what your talking about. Your lack of negotiating experience and your lack of knowledge on the RLA is really showing, you get worse with each post.
 
Back
Top