Rather than explain what the membership would be voting on, the IAM (violating the KISS principle) spent their time comparing the 'old' final offer to the new final offer. They took credit for the improvements. Yet while they apparently negotiated, and are putting it before the membership for a vote, they refused to make a recommendation on the proposal - a violation of their by-law. The IAM did not explicitly recommend a yes vote, but they sure put a lot of lipstick on the pig. Tellingly, precious little time was spent giving the membership pertinent information should a strike occur. Perhaps this is because a wide majority (68%, according to one source) of the votes are in the Class I stations.
Whenever tough questions were asked, the IAM answered by blaming the company, making the influence the IAM took credit for appear capricious or arbitrary. When we were advised that PVD and BDL had just been added to the Class I list, even though they do NOT have the flight activity to justify it, a member asked how that came to be. The response was, "the company offered it." Are we to believe the IAM knew nothing about it, or had no input? That the company was suddenly magnanimous? Certainly, less than a transparent answer. One member said his station was 8 flights short of Class I status, and could there some of the same consideration that PVD and BDL got. He never got a straight answer.
Another member pointed out that the effect of the proposal was to outsource senior employees, while junior agents in the class I stations would remain on the job. This due to the fact that most 40-something agents are not going to uproot their family in CHS and transfer to PHL to follow a failing company. The member asked had thought been given to furloughing the junior agents in place, and replace them with a 'C' scale to meet the bogey number. First, the IAM touted the fact agents could transfer to PHL and DCA (interestingly, the same stations the company is touting on this board). Then, the truth slipped out. The GC said, "you can't hit the bogey number with junior agents."
Here, I think it's important to give some history of the out-stations and the IAM. The IAM has a spotty record of supporting fleet service in the out stations.
There are precious few local lodges in any of the 1999 class II stations, or the current outsourced stations. The local lodge decides who goes to training seminars, REGARDLESS of whether they have been elected as stewards or committeemen. Basically, if you do not attend meetings, you are SOL. All well and good, unless your local is hours away, as is the case for far too many members. One local covers 5 states! Added to this was the fact that up through 1999, mechanics ran the locals, and did not welcome fleet with open arms. The PIT mechs refused to seat fleet in their local; fleet was forced to start their local from scratch. Thus, there was much internicine warfare, rather than dealing with the company.
The hubs and class I stations got proper training to enforce the contract, and received district support for their grievances. The out-stations had to fight their locals for training (and the district was well aware of the situation), and received little to no district support for their grievances. There are some locals that, from 1999 to now, had ZERO GRIEVANCES ARBITRATED. Even TERMINATION GRIEVANCES. Even while D142 (the former D141M) grievances in the same local WERE arbitrated.
The out-stations have been an administrative nightmare for the IAM. They have been unwilling or unable to support them. Is it possible that the IAM made a business decision, and cut their losses?
Whenever tough questions were asked, the IAM answered by blaming the company, making the influence the IAM took credit for appear capricious or arbitrary. When we were advised that PVD and BDL had just been added to the Class I list, even though they do NOT have the flight activity to justify it, a member asked how that came to be. The response was, "the company offered it." Are we to believe the IAM knew nothing about it, or had no input? That the company was suddenly magnanimous? Certainly, less than a transparent answer. One member said his station was 8 flights short of Class I status, and could there some of the same consideration that PVD and BDL got. He never got a straight answer.
Another member pointed out that the effect of the proposal was to outsource senior employees, while junior agents in the class I stations would remain on the job. This due to the fact that most 40-something agents are not going to uproot their family in CHS and transfer to PHL to follow a failing company. The member asked had thought been given to furloughing the junior agents in place, and replace them with a 'C' scale to meet the bogey number. First, the IAM touted the fact agents could transfer to PHL and DCA (interestingly, the same stations the company is touting on this board). Then, the truth slipped out. The GC said, "you can't hit the bogey number with junior agents."
Here, I think it's important to give some history of the out-stations and the IAM. The IAM has a spotty record of supporting fleet service in the out stations.
There are precious few local lodges in any of the 1999 class II stations, or the current outsourced stations. The local lodge decides who goes to training seminars, REGARDLESS of whether they have been elected as stewards or committeemen. Basically, if you do not attend meetings, you are SOL. All well and good, unless your local is hours away, as is the case for far too many members. One local covers 5 states! Added to this was the fact that up through 1999, mechanics ran the locals, and did not welcome fleet with open arms. The PIT mechs refused to seat fleet in their local; fleet was forced to start their local from scratch. Thus, there was much internicine warfare, rather than dealing with the company.
The hubs and class I stations got proper training to enforce the contract, and received district support for their grievances. The out-stations had to fight their locals for training (and the district was well aware of the situation), and received little to no district support for their grievances. There are some locals that, from 1999 to now, had ZERO GRIEVANCES ARBITRATED. Even TERMINATION GRIEVANCES. Even while D142 (the former D141M) grievances in the same local WERE arbitrated.
The out-stations have been an administrative nightmare for the IAM. They have been unwilling or unable to support them. Is it possible that the IAM made a business decision, and cut their losses?
