Fleet Service apathy
- Thread starter ograc
- Start date
Interesting, US has around 17% of the total membership. How many US should be on a slate? If TN or one of his kool-aid drinkers can't do that math I'll respond later.
Tim Nelson
Veteran
So where is the fiction then?
At any rate, from your perspective, you haven't educated yourself on how Delaney has handled negotiations at Hawaiian, United, Airtran, have you? If so, then you couldn't possibly keep our negotiations on a collision course. Couldn't possibly!!! Nobody is starting over, Canale needed to be replaced, and we always have to prune the tree to make it grow. You just don't plant something then go with it forever without a constant prune. Before you can make such statements, with any validity, you need to educate yourself on how the ND just handled the UA/CO merger, and how they proceeded in HAL. And, since you don't have a horse in the race, you ought to receive my phone calls or call me so you can be 'objective'. You are wrong roabily for not accepting my calls. Flat out wrong and very subjective when you only listen to one side. Bottom line. Collect the information and have your ears open to both sides. I mean how could you possibly make any statements about negotiaitons, with any validity, if you don't have the information about how the ND handled 3 sets of negotiations from the time of our party onward???
As far as United members on my ticket, of course there are more United members. Where is the fiction??? But the per capita between US AIRWAYS and United is now equal, as reflected on the occupy slate. Even the ND believes in changing and pruning. The problem is that they have pruned one more spot off of US AIRWAYS and given to United. What is your opinion of that? The occupy slate has 11 US AIRWAYS spots on it, including 8 AGC spots. The N/D took a spot so it is now down to 7 spots with only 5 AGC's. There is a reason why there is a backlog of grievances and it has nothing to do with Canale.
Watch Tim's Video of "Why I'm Running"
Onward!
Tim Nelson
Veteran
LOL
700UW, I'm not sure why but almost everything you have said over the past week has been a complete exercise in misinformity. Sorry 700 but counting thousands of new continental workers as 'members' is not true. They are not members until they pay dues. Once we get an agreement with these two non contract groups that we represent [stores and PCE], our membership roles will swell. But don't call these folks members until they are. And you never got back with me about how your IAM filed short on cards in '97. Your response? Sheesh
Why I'm Running
regards,
Tim Nelson
Veteran
SayWhat,
It's pretty sad when your argument for the ND team means that you actually have to argue for less representation at US AIRWAYS. Lol
How about advocating for your own peeps and take your political blinders off on this one. Argue against me all day but there is a backlog of grievances and it is because of the limitation and restrictions of how many reps the ND thinks US AIRWAYS members should have. Cripes, your boys actually eliminated one more US AIRWAYS spot, and YOU are backing it! Puh leeeeasssssssseeeeeeeee!
Oh, and instead of 'fessing up' and admitting how Delaney was the chief negotiator at Hawaiian and worked things out with management, including the destruction of part time, you are saying that he had no knowledge or that he somehow wasn't in charge? Really Saywhat? Seriously???? Isn't that HIS NAME on the contract? And were you there in the District offices when he was on the conference calls working out all the side bar deals with Hawaiian management? Were you there when me and him got into one of our MANY hallway arguments when we were almost constantly fighting with eachother over his ineptness [starting with his HAL sellout?] I was there Saywhat and the guy is a complete fraud and is NOT a labor guy. He has taken the management sword and speared it right into the side of our Hawaiian members, and Airtran, and now our UA/CO members. If he isn't a fraud then he can't possibly be anything more than 'very soft'. Never mind that he agreed to the continual lockout of those 5 stations and never wanted that secret LOA made public on our website.
Video: Why Tim Nelson is Running
Onward!
Oh yes I did, the IAM was certified in 1995, so how could they file short in 1997?
And we know you filed short before.
We also know you failed how many times you failed with the IBT, the USWA, your FSU that you started.
Stop deflecting and just come clean.
And we also know you were tried and found to be a member in bad standing, removed from office. And we know you have always despised the IAM, yet you jumped at any opportunity to get power within it.
And we know you filed short before.
We also know you failed how many times you failed with the IBT, the USWA, your FSU that you started.
Stop deflecting and just come clean.
And we also know you were tried and found to be a member in bad standing, removed from office. And we know you have always despised the IAM, yet you jumped at any opportunity to get power within it.
Are the CO people voting? I would call them members now. Do the math with whatever numbers you have bro. Does US management deal with contractual timelines on grievances? Maybe that is the problem? I don't know? That is what I hear and what needs to be changed. Get real and quit deceiving the members.
Tim Nelson
Veteran
PJ,
I keep answering your repeated questions, especially the one about the attorney. I'm proud of the Occupy 141 platform and yes it is diversified. With 23 full time positions, we have incorporated all voices, including part timers. FWIW: Gus Gamboa is a part timer. The bigger question is why has the N/D excluded any african american from the full time positions [Pres, S/T, AGC]. NONE. Something is wrong with that when that group makes up close to the majority of our membership. More troubling is that Delaney has opted to pass over the only two African American's on his team that are serving as VP's. Instead he chose to add new AGC's and bypass them. Something is wrong with that when NONE are from one of the largest demographical groups in our union.
As far as the attorney, We actually save legal cost BIGTIME with the insourcing. As you already know, our legal expenses were $193,00 as noted on the public LM 2 reports. Unfortunately, by contracting out our legal services, three things happen. 1. We are billed at premium rates. 2. Most servieces are reduced to phone calls and not 'present representation. 3. Big perks for the Officers, i.e., limo rides, executive suites, sports tickets.
By insourcing our legal services, the meter will NOT be running and 3 things will happen: 1. No officer 'perks'. 2. An in house attorney who is present and an employee of IAM 141 to be used as an additional resource of help for our AGC's and President [almost all other unions do this btw]. 3. We reduce cost. As a matter of reference, on the public LM2 reports, the IAM INTL Chief Deputy counsel, Carla Seigal made $150,088, and the second in command, i.e., David Neigus, made $114,705. Both are 'experts' on the RLA, and even if we sought to employ an attorney like Neigus who has 25 years of RLA experience, the going rate would be only $115,000. PJ, if you further your research and see how much the IBT pays for their in house attorneys, you will discover that RLA Labor attorneys avg around $110,000 with a low of $85,000 and a high of around $150,000 for the "Top Dogs". All of this is very objective so I'm not sure why I have to keep repeating myself to you PJ??? Our platform was based on research and academics and I encourage you to educate yourself to the fact that when we insource our legal expenses, as opposed to blowing our members money by outsourcing them, the savings are considerable!! Over 4 years, by actually insourcing our legal services, we should save our membership close to $250,000 and actually increase our resources! That's how inept our District currently runs. So, next time, when your AGC says I am increasing cost by hiring an attorney, please educate yourself on the fact that we already have legal expenses, and all I am trying to do is cut cost while at the same time increasing resources. It's actually mind blowing that I have to even discuss this as this is the exact thing that practically all other unions do.
See Platform Video that discusses the insourcing of our legal services
Onward!
Tim Nelson
Veteran
You and 700 have complete misinformation, either through ignorance or deception. No, the numbers that make up 30,000 are not all members and neither are many of them able to vote in this officer election. The numbers that make up 30,000 United members would necessarily have to include 8,000 former continental PCE who are represented by the IAM now but are not only non members but have no voting rights to anything. The number also includes some store keepers at CO that we represent. Remember, just because we represent a group of workers doesn't make them members. And we have to eliminate some dues payers at United who are also objectors since they aren't members either. But my presumption is that you know all of this so why are we even talking about it? What's the fuss?
Check out Tim Nelson's Video on "Why he's running"
Onward!
It was a combination of grassroots organizing, legal prowess and sophisticated communication tactics that produced this week’s organizing victory for nearly 17,000 Passenger Service and Reservation Employees at the new United Airlines.
The election increases IAM membership in all classifications at United to 31,500 and marks the third consecutive airline organizing victory for the IAM Transportation Department. In addition to this week’s victory, previous wins among United Ramp & Stores (14,785) and ExpressJet Flight Attendants (2,200) brings the number of IAM members organized during the past eight months to nearly 34,000.
“We are extremely fortunate to have working in the IAM today some of the most dedicated and innovative organizers in the entire labor movement,” said Transportation GVP Sito Pantoja. “That includes staff and volunteers at the local, district and headquarters level. My sincere thanks go out to everyone who made these wins possible.”
The most recent IAM campaign at United took place in the shadow of an aggressive effort by right-wing politicians to restrict workers’ voting rights under the National Mediation Board (NMB), which governs representation elections for airline and railroad workers.
The Machinists campaign at United also had to overcome a legal effort by United to remove nearly 1,000 union supporters from the voter eligibility list. Within days of the initial ruling to remove the employees, the IAM Legal Department filed a comprehensive appeal that successfully reversed the ruling and restored full voting rights to all eligible employees.
In addition to the campaign’s legal and legislative components, was the sustained and sophisticated effort at the District and Local level to measure support for the IAM among eligible voters. With thousands of potential voters in hundreds of airport and reservations locations across the country, the job of accurately measuring support was as important as it was challenging.
The task of reaching every eligible voter extended far beyond the workplace, with more than 2,000 eligible voters on furlough status at the start of the campaign. Tailored mailings and person-to-person outreach reminded furloughed United employees that not only were they eligible to vote, but that their contractually guaranteed lifetime recall rights depended on it.
“This win would not have been possible without the unequivocal support from International President Buffenbarger and the entire IAM Executive Council,” said Pantoja. “Their willingness to commit significant resources was a testament not only to the importance of this particular election but to the value we all place on growing this great union.”
The election increases IAM membership in all classifications at United to 31,500 and marks the third consecutive airline organizing victory for the IAM Transportation Department. In addition to this week’s victory, previous wins among United Ramp & Stores (14,785) and ExpressJet Flight Attendants (2,200) brings the number of IAM members organized during the past eight months to nearly 34,000.
“We are extremely fortunate to have working in the IAM today some of the most dedicated and innovative organizers in the entire labor movement,” said Transportation GVP Sito Pantoja. “That includes staff and volunteers at the local, district and headquarters level. My sincere thanks go out to everyone who made these wins possible.”
The most recent IAM campaign at United took place in the shadow of an aggressive effort by right-wing politicians to restrict workers’ voting rights under the National Mediation Board (NMB), which governs representation elections for airline and railroad workers.
The Machinists campaign at United also had to overcome a legal effort by United to remove nearly 1,000 union supporters from the voter eligibility list. Within days of the initial ruling to remove the employees, the IAM Legal Department filed a comprehensive appeal that successfully reversed the ruling and restored full voting rights to all eligible employees.
In addition to the campaign’s legal and legislative components, was the sustained and sophisticated effort at the District and Local level to measure support for the IAM among eligible voters. With thousands of potential voters in hundreds of airport and reservations locations across the country, the job of accurately measuring support was as important as it was challenging.
The task of reaching every eligible voter extended far beyond the workplace, with more than 2,000 eligible voters on furlough status at the start of the campaign. Tailored mailings and person-to-person outreach reminded furloughed United employees that not only were they eligible to vote, but that their contractually guaranteed lifetime recall rights depended on it.
“This win would not have been possible without the unequivocal support from International President Buffenbarger and the entire IAM Executive Council,” said Pantoja. “Their willingness to commit significant resources was a testament not only to the importance of this particular election but to the value we all place on growing this great union.”
Tim Nelson
Veteran
700UW, we often cite newly represented folks as members but they aren't. You do realize this don't you? I mean, you realize these newly welcomed CO PCE are not members, right? I'm starting to worry about you 700 more than I thought I should because you don't seem to grasp the basic nature of union membership. Let me correct you and inform you that a newly organized group is NOT able to vote in officer elections and are not members according to the IAM INTL constitution. Kindly reference your INTL constitution on 'membership'. Why do we have to continue talking about this when this is so self evident that we simply do not have 30,000 members at United????
regards,
roabilly
Veteran
- Joined
- Feb 17, 2008
- Messages
- 2,136
- Reaction score
- 2,355
Tim,
I all honesty, and with all due respect... I find the argument that the president along with everyone below him should be completely replaced. I'm sure you know how much it cost this membership to send ALL of the existing N/D team through the necessary training to do their job properly.
This is not "pruning"... this ripping the tree up by the roots and planting a TN sapling in place of it. Further, I find it hard to dismiss fine union brothers like MF and MB just because they don't agree with you. These individuals are beyond reproach when it comes to integrity and transparency.
Especially in MF's case... in my opinion he is not even replaceable... brothers like him only come around once in a lifetime. I say this not for political reasons... but because I worked with him as union representative on many cases you know nothing about. He never takes credit... he just does his job... and there are scores of members that are still on the property because of that!
One last question... how many people on your ticket have never been so much as a Shop Steward or G/C member? How much of the membership's money will be needed to train these folks from scratch... all the way to AGC caliber?
I all honesty, and with all due respect... I find the argument that the president along with everyone below him should be completely replaced. I'm sure you know how much it cost this membership to send ALL of the existing N/D team through the necessary training to do their job properly.
This is not "pruning"... this ripping the tree up by the roots and planting a TN sapling in place of it. Further, I find it hard to dismiss fine union brothers like MF and MB just because they don't agree with you. These individuals are beyond reproach when it comes to integrity and transparency.
Especially in MF's case... in my opinion he is not even replaceable... brothers like him only come around once in a lifetime. I say this not for political reasons... but because I worked with him as union representative on many cases you know nothing about. He never takes credit... he just does his job... and there are scores of members that are still on the property because of that!
One last question... how many people on your ticket have never been so much as a Shop Steward or G/C member? How much of the membership's money will be needed to train these folks from scratch... all the way to AGC caliber?
Tim Nelson
Veteran
700UW,
Since you are the one insisting that the IAM didn't file short, the onus is upon your to prove it. However, in the spirit of furthering this discussion with you, I have provided the case record of the IAM's short filing, i.e., NMB Case No. R-6435. It was ruled by the NMB that your boys filed short on cards for the Customer Service agents and the their submission was finally dismissed in November, 1996. Further, the IAM has had a few dozen dismissals from filing short since 2000. I'm not busting on them because oftentimes unions file short and then dispute the eligibilities in hopes of securing an election. I myself filed with the Customer service group back in 1992 and we tried to get reservations off of the list but we were unsuccessful. I also filed short in 2009 at Airtran in hopes of getting an election and disputing a certain craft. So what's the fuss? It's normal and customary to file short as all unions do it. The opposite is to hold on to the cards and not file at all, which myself and most unions completely disagree with.
At any rate, I'm not going to continue being your librarian so when you want to further a conversation, in fairness to the audience, please use citations instead of unsupported accusations. K?
regards,
Tim Nelson
Veteran
Roabily,
Roabily, you should receive my calls to stay objective. Also, you have not answered any of the questions I posed at you. Please educate yourself on each negotiations, to date, with the ND. Then engage with me on your opinion that our negotiations aren't on a collision course. Along the way, focus on the actual actions of the ND and not personal friendships. In many of these cases, your friends are also my friends, so don't think otherwise. Actually, Delaney is a nice man, probably a nicer guy than me.
As far as MB, he's overqualified for a trustee. I asked him to be on the occupy ticket but he declined. I have respect for him. But, as trustee, that is going to screw CLT even more because Delaney will be taking the LC from CLT and having him fly to SFO one week a month to go over the expense reports for United airlines members. How is that any justice for CLT or MB??? Cripes, I would never put someone like MB as a trustee. Trustee is an entry level position that is administrative in nature and spends one week a month going over receipts and expenses. Then they are also responsible for checking in folks at conventions. A sorta 'welcome wagon' if you will. Having MB as a trustee does harm to CLT and the processing of grievances. Makes no sense having him leave CLT to do expense reports in SFO, does it? But hey, Delaney and MB both are supporting PRez in PHX who Delaney thought was more qualified than MB to be an AGC, LOL. FWIW: I think MB would have made a good AGC but Delaney didn't and chose Prez.
Funny but here's how politics has worked out on the ND. MB doesn't support Prez, neither did MF. PR gets his arse handed to him at his own station and no US AIRWAYS ND candidate showed up to support PR since they can't stand him. That forced Delaney to make a trip to PHX, which I enjoyed handing him his arse right in front of him.
The Occupy 141 team has secured and blocked all US AIRWAYS hubs with the support of the masses. This accomplishment was the result of hard work and education, and it meant that we had to bypass entire committees and other establishment remnants to get our nominations.
Onward!
roabilly
Veteran
- Joined
- Feb 17, 2008
- Messages
- 2,136
- Reaction score
- 2,355
Tim with all due respect,
Receiving calls will not change my perspective, written communication in this forum shows both sides of this entire concept of placing you into the presidency. As I said... for me... it won't make a lot difference either way... I'm short-time. This next agreement may very well be my last.
Having said that... can you give me your opinion on this hypothetical scenario?
This is a "What if" proposition... the entire negations process we are now in could become a wasted effort if we were to merge with another carrier like AA in the near future. Now, we also know that AA has another union representing the same workgroup as US Fleet.... (Let's assume this to be the TWU)...
Would we not then be lead into a scenario of a representation vote directed by the National Mediation Board? Simple math tells us who the majority would be in any such election. Which brings me to my next question... how would the occupy ticket react to this? Obviously, section 6 negotiations would be suspended pending the representation vote. Would there then be no way to leverage the company until this issue was resolved?
Further, who would jump ship, and attempt to assist the TWU in organizing US fleet? Would it be the disgruntled and displaced N/D folks... or disgruntled Occupy folks who lost an election?
My point here is that loyalty is often reactionary, and dependant on the personal interest of those capable of communicating it. Is this really the time to START OVER?
Receiving calls will not change my perspective, written communication in this forum shows both sides of this entire concept of placing you into the presidency. As I said... for me... it won't make a lot difference either way... I'm short-time. This next agreement may very well be my last.
Having said that... can you give me your opinion on this hypothetical scenario?
This is a "What if" proposition... the entire negations process we are now in could become a wasted effort if we were to merge with another carrier like AA in the near future. Now, we also know that AA has another union representing the same workgroup as US Fleet.... (Let's assume this to be the TWU)...
Would we not then be lead into a scenario of a representation vote directed by the National Mediation Board? Simple math tells us who the majority would be in any such election. Which brings me to my next question... how would the occupy ticket react to this? Obviously, section 6 negotiations would be suspended pending the representation vote. Would there then be no way to leverage the company until this issue was resolved?
Further, who would jump ship, and attempt to assist the TWU in organizing US fleet? Would it be the disgruntled and displaced N/D folks... or disgruntled Occupy folks who lost an election?
My point here is that loyalty is often reactionary, and dependant on the personal interest of those capable of communicating it. Is this really the time to START OVER?
