Fleet Service apathy

[Tim Nelson]

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?

What do you mean, starting over?

Why do you presume section 6 would be suspended? Please reference. What are your thoughts on the UA/CO negotiations? Hawaiian? Why continue with ineptness? Any representational dispute would most likely be at least 2 years from the announced bid, if successful. I have no idea who would support the TWU. Legally, what has to happen is that the IAM would need about 3,000 cards just to have an election and to trigger a representational dispute. If that doesn't happen, then you will be accreted into the TWU without an election.

Remember, the bar of obtaining a representational dispute has just been raised to a 50% threshold. And, the entire negotiations process should not be a wasted effort, but with Delaney, you already know that it will be since his actions are his witness. Again, what are your thoughts on the ND's actions in negotiations at Hawaiian and UA/CO merger? Before we can unpack anything to do with negotiations, we must first agree on the history of those you continue to support. Right?

Onward!

 

[ograc]

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!

Tim,
Some of the confusion regarding the CO members' eligibility to vote in the upcoming election seems to be coming from which newly organized groups are dues paying members at this time and which groups are not. The newly organized PCE group at CO was formerly non union, therefore, they are not under a CBA and as a result have not begun to pay dues. This status will deem them ineligible to vote in June. The newly organized former CO Ramp group had previously elected the Teamsters, who quickly got them a CBA (carbon copy of the company policy), and had begun paying dues to the Teamsters and now the IAM. Since the ramp, at former CO, remains under their CBA and they are dues paying members it is my understanding they will be considered eligible voters for the election in June.

 

[Tim Nelson]

Tim,
Some of the confusion regarding the CO members' eligibility to vote in the upcoming election seems to be coming from which newly organized groups are dues paying members at this time and which groups are not. The newly organized PCE group at CO was formerly non union, therefore, they are not under a CBA and as a result have not begun to pay dues. This status will deem them ineligible to vote in June. The newly organized former CO Ramp group had previously elected the Teamsters, who quickly got them a CBA (carbon copy of the company policy), and had begun paying dues to the Teamsters and now the IAM. Since the ramp, at former CO, remains under their CBA and they are dues paying members it is my understanding they will be considered eligible voters for the election in June.

ograc,
you are correct by all accounts.

Onward!

 

[Dog Wonder]

ograc,
you are correct by all accounts.

Onward!

The only way to silence Tim is to agree with him.

Carry on.

 

[necigrad]

Regarding the new UA "members" they should be treated as such even if they aren't dues paying because they are! They may not be paying dues yet, but that's because they just became our brothers and sisters. They aren't doing anything (that I've heard about) to deceptively avoid paying dues or anything, the details just haven't been worked out yet.

I'll also say that calling Tim to the carpet for not factoring them into his ratio of slate members is stupid. This just happened. What's Tim supposed to do about it, especially if you're going to criticize him bout diversity, so soon before the election and after their representational vote? He could add more UA members, but then y'all would be bitching that it's not diversified because he doesn't have any of the new members on his ticket. Had that been settled six months ago it might be different, but it's not.

 

[john john]

700...

You just touched on something I've been thinking about for some time...

This is a "What if" scenario... as you stated, 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 acknowledge this to be the TWU)...

Would we not then be lead into 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.

What contract is better TWU at AA or IAM at US. Transition to TWU/AA or IAM/US

 

[IAM Informer]

Tim,

You are avoiding the questions posed to you here. Plus a few others that I asked. So here they are again, I thought you were not one to shy away from a "debate". You speak highly of a diversified E-Board, how many women from US are on your ballot? UA? I counted 4 out of 27 positions that are women. Are they all UA? How is that a diversified E-board when there are a large amount of women working at US Fleet, UA Fleet and PCE? Any part-time employees on your ballot? Why are they not represented on the E-board? And how again were you going to pay for the "In-House" attorney? Was it with the alleged "givebacks"? How will you pay for said "In-House" attorney when these "givebacks" dont come to fruition? You would think that these would be easy questions to answer for a guy like you, so why are you avoiding them? Perhaps you dont want the "masses" to fully understand that these are just empty political promises that you have no way to enforce or keep?

PJ wouldn't it also be fair to ask the ND Prez why he hasn't diversified. I'm guessing your irish by your handle so u may feel they are already diversified having irish men from
different city's. Also What has the US ND AGC's done for the membership? did they speak up and out on Delaney for pulling the plug and screwing 5 stations on arbitration
that He personally "promised" those members, surely they didn't and you know this. The purpose of having "your guys" at the next level is so they will SPEAK UP for the membership
that is something that hasn't been done. And talk about campaign promises. how bout that attendance policy that the boss campaigned on and promised to arbitrate..
what happened there. please give us the scoop

 

[niblet]

What contract is better TWU at AA or IAM at US. Transition to TWU/AA or IAM/US

I work side by side with AA. They are strong union guys. They do not like DOH for anyone coming into their group. They also do not like their contract or what their Company has proposed in Bankruptcy Court. I have asked to see their contract. I am not a TWU supporter or willing to give up My senority/(juniorty 25yrs). I'm not too concerned with what they have in their contract except to see what they have. I am an IAMAW supporter

 

[700UW]

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,

You make this so easy, NMB 6435 is when the CWA was certified to represent Res and CSA.

Gee Tim, how can you be wrong again!!!!!!!

At East, the Communications Workers of America (CWA) represent the Passenger Service Employees pursuant to Board certification in NMB Case No. R-6435, US Airways, Inc., 25 NMB 1 (1997).

So lets see you explain this one, apparently your the one who doesnt get it, CWA Certified.

So your wrong again.

 

[roabilly]

I work side by side with AA. They are strong union guys. They do not like DOH for anyone coming into their group. They also do not like their contract or what their Company has proposed in Bankruptcy Court. I have asked to see their contract. I am not a TWU supporter or willing to give up My senority/(juniorty 25yrs). I'm not too concerned with what they have in their contract except to see what they have. I am an IAMAW supporter

Mr. Niblet,

I have personally spoken to a senior negotiator on the N/D negations committee regarding the possible merger. They are working on language that would protect seniority in just such a scenario with AA. My understanding is that they would like to include this language into a Letter of Agreement for protection in the current CBA. They also intend to carry this language into the T/A being negotiated as we speak.

 

[niblet]

Mr. Niblet,

I have personally spoken to a senior negotiator on the N/D negations committee regarding the possible merger. They are working on language that would protect seniority in just such a scenario with AA. My understanding is that they would like to include this language into a Letter of Agreement for protection in the current CBA. They also intend to carry this language into the T/A being negotiated as we speak.

Can I call Gil, and he will confirm this for me so I can inform the members? Why do you say T/A? Are you suggesting the negotiating committee is not negotiating a contract but a T/A with AA? Or both?

 

[roabilly]

What do you mean, starting over?

Why do you presume section 6 would be suspended? Please reference. What are your thoughts on the UA/CO negotiations? Hawaiian? Why continue with ineptness? Any representational dispute would most likely be at least 2 years from the announced bid, if successful. I have no idea who would support the TWU. Legally, what has to happen is that the IAM would need about 3,000 cards just to have an election and to trigger a representational dispute. If that doesn't happen, then you will be accreted into the TWU without an election.

Remember, the bar of obtaining a representational dispute has just been raised to a 50% threshold. And, the entire negotiations process should not be a wasted effort, but with Delaney, you already know that it will be since his actions are his witness. Again, what are your thoughts on the ND's actions in negotiations at Hawaiian and UA/CO merger? Before we can unpack anything to do with negotiations, we must first agree on the history of those you continue to support. Right?

Onward!

Tim with all due respect,

I'm certain you are intelligent enough to realize that not everyone is going to follow you like the pied piper!

I've been around some of the best BS'rs to ever "talk the talk". My best friend from childhood all the way through high school went on to become one the most prolific con-men to ever live. He could literally talk anybody into anything with his charisma, oratory presentation, intelligence, and tenacity. It eventually caught up with him, and it cost him his freedom. Unfortunately... he consequently left a long list of destroyed lives behind him.

I learned early on in life not to get blinded by talk... if not... I would probably have followed him... and ultimately have lost my freedom as well. Further, I still apply those life lessons into my interactions, and personal decisions to this very day.

That is why I question your motives... are you about the Membership... or are you about Tim? If you were really concerned about the present regime, you would simply be supporting a President, and a group AGC's of your choice... just as you did in the past with the N/D... with NO personal interest! Incidentally... that's actually why I supported you the last time in the N/D campaign.

Now, everything has changed... you want us to support you in an endeavor that places you into the Presidency without regard to your experience in negotiations... not to even speak of of the fact that you have never even been an AGC. What happened to working your way up on merit?

Tim... I actually like you... but don't you think it's time to put the ego in check?

 

[roabilly]

Double post... deleted by poster.

 

[roabilly]

Can I call Gil, and he will confirm this for me so I can inform the members? Why do you say T/A? Are you suggesting the negotiating committee is not negotiating a contract but a T/A with AA? Or both?

They are currently negotiating your/our tentative agreement aren't they? How could they be negotiating with AA? It's about M&A language to protect seniority in the EVENT that there is a merger. This was even discussed openly in the break rooms when the G/C made their rounds... it's no secret that strong M&A language is needed to protect members in possible future mergers!

 

[Tim Nelson]

Tim with all due respect,

I'm certain you are intelligent enough to realize that not everyone is going to follow you like the pied piper!

I've been around some of the best BS'rs to ever "talk the talk". My best friend from childhood all the way through high school went on to become one the most prolific con-men to ever live. He could literally talk anybody into anything with his charisma, oratory presentation, intelligence, and tenacity. It eventually caught up with him, and it cost him his freedom. Unfortunately... he consequently left a long list of destroyed lives behind him.

I learned early on in life not to get blinded by talk... if not... I would probably have followed him... and ultimately have lost my freedom as well. Further, I still apply those life lessons into my interactions, and personal decisions to this very day.

That is why I question your motives... are you about the Membership... or are you about Tim? If you were really concerned about the present regime, you would simply be supporting a President, and a group AGC's of your choice... just as you did in the past with the N/D... with NO personal interest! Incidentally... that's actually why I supported you the last time in the N/D campaign.

Now, everything has changed... you want us to support you in an endeavor that places you into the Presidency without regard to your experience in negotiations... not to even speak of of the fact that you have never even been an AGC. What happened to working your way up on merit?

Tim... I actually like you... but don't you think it's time to put the ego in check?

Why do you presume that this is all about my ego? What if it isn't and you are wrong?

At any rate, answer the previous questions that I asked you Roabily. I have been trying to get you to focus on the predicament from an objective point of view. If you can't answer the questions in the slightest, your bias will shine through. Answer the questions before we can unpack our current negotiations. Do you agree with how Delaney destroyed the HAL negotiations? Do you know what happened in the HAL negotiations? Do you have the slightest idea on how he screwed up the UA/CO negotiations, and can you compare it to the other unions on that property? Tell me Roabily, is it worthy of a labor man to sign a no strike clause at Airtran immediately after organizing this group? This is like the 4th time I have asked you to focus objectively, yet you come back with remarks that you like me, like the negotiations team, like everyone. It hasn't a thing to do with who you like. Jobs, wages, and lives are at stake. BTW, if it was about me, I'd just sat back in the union job I already had instead of putting my knee pads on again.

Answer the questions then we can proceed to discuss the predicament of the current US AIRWAYS negotiations and you will see that it is not me who is talking and BS ing but Delaney himself. Have the decency to answer the questions and educate yourself on the history of ND negotiations. Then and only then will you come to the realization that your friend you described has a likeness to Delaney and not me. You will not be able to come to any logical conclusion to support Delaney once you fully understand his actions. If you need information about each negotiation that Delaney partook in, ask me. Otherwise, stop busting my balls and equating me to a friend of yours who apparently did harm.

Further, please mention the negotiations experience of Delaney, and I bet my negotiations experience far exceeds his. Exactly what negotiations experience are you talking about that Delaney has, and what is its witness?

And your post was very disrespectful but I didn't take it personal.

Onward Occupy141