IAM -- Fleet Service Thread 2/29-3/7

[Richard]

This will be the new thread for IAM--Fleet Service for the week. Please keep on topic and do not make it personal.

 

[Solidarity]

How can we get rid of the helping hand agreement? And whats the plan for the future

 

[diogenes]

Mods,

I think splitting FS and M&R is a good idea.

Thanks.

 

[robbedagain]

Does anyone know how long it will be before Canale leaves given that it sounds like he didnt receive a lot of votes given his poor record Also a friend of mine in CLT sent a msg to me and my fellow coworkers in ABE that the 60 day rule may be eliminated but im not so sure given the track record of the IAM represented Fleet Service

 

[wings396]

Hopefully the elimination of the 60 day rule will be a TRUE elimination, unlike the last T/A. :angry:

 

[lithuanian]

Thank you moderator for refreshing the forums.

The question of Mr. Hemenways letter to fleet employees on the Hub on the companys proposal that was denied by the NC was posed to Mr. Brickner (IAM International airline Coordinator)for an opinion. Here is his response posted Friday February 29:



I read the Company letter. It appears to accurately portray events, but is more notable for what it doesn’t say as opposed to what it says. We are a democratic union that submits all tentative agreements that modify existing terms to the membership for ratification. The Committee can only ultimately represent the will of the membership, and, thus far, the Company has not proposed anything that the Committee believes has any chance of ratifying. What good would it do the membership [east and west], the union, or the company for that matter, to bring another contract back for ratification to get voted down? Such would only serve to divide us, erode our solidarity, and serve no business purpose of US Airways. The Company has indicated they want to continue to bargain, so I’m sure we will continue to bargain, but the only contract that will ratify has to adequately address the issues of both east and west. We also recognize that it has to be within a rage of affordability for US Airways. We are not in the habit of negotiating contracts that kill the goose that lays the golden eggs.



The Company says they “put a full and reasonable offer on the negotiating table.†Our Committee tells me that the “offer†wasn’t nearly as generous as the Company offer that was rejected by the members [in many locations by overwhelming margins] last year. Obviously it’s not last year and circumstances have changed somewhat dramatically [CIC, the economy, price of oil, USA stock value, pending industry consolidation, and a whole lot of uncertainty] since we conducted that ratification. However, I have heard nothing that leads me to believe that the membership would settle for less than that which was offered in 07, so it seems to me the Company is frustrated because the Committee is accurately reflecting the will of the membership. Perhaps the letter is an effort to change the will of the members, or erode our solidarity, or cause the members to doubt the Committee. Perhaps the Company doesn’t trust the Committee to accurately portray their positions and proposals. I don’t want to speculate about their motivations. Whatever the reasoning behind the letter, the bargaining needs to take place at the bargaining table if we’re going to get an agreement.



If you, or anyone else, think otherwise, I certainly haven’t heard anything to that effect. It appears the members support the positions taken by the Committee. I continue to monitor the negotiations and remain hopeful. I’ve never been involved in a negotiation that didn’t culminate in an agreement. As long as reasonable men are talking there is hope for an agreement.



I have feeling that labor’s experience at US Airways [pilots and flight attendants still don’t have agreements either] is causing many to doubt the wisdom of further industry consolidation.



As always, thank you for your continued interest and support for the union.



In Solidarity,

Tom


(Are we going to be passing letters back and forth forever!)

 

[Tim Nelson]

How can we get rid of the helping hand agreement? And whats the plan for the future

Randy Canale continues to agree with Hemenway on a refusal to section 6 bargaining. Section 6 bargaining would provide another 'chip' for Labor but Canale doesn't want to put the resources into it.
In any case, hemenway's latest proposal is an explicit indication that he doesn't want a transition agreement so without section 6 negotiations at least alongside, there's no other plan.

It's mind boggling how Canale, due to his arrogance, can't rethink his position and change his course with traditional bargaining after 2 years of failed transition talks. What doesn't Randy understand? Try the transition talks but if it's apparent that the company doesn't want a transition agreement then, after a short time, get section 6 talks going alongside. But no, after two years there is no progress and a vast gulf between. Al Hemenway describes the gulf as, "...it became apparent that we were fairly far apart." FAR APART AFTER 2 FLIPPN YEARS RANDY!!! You are spinning your wheels and it's high time you recommence the section 6 negotiations. What is Randy's plan.....wait two more years until the east contract is up? Transition talks aren't keeping this company honest and it is plan for everyone to see but Randy. For Pete's sake Randy, admit you screwed up and move forward. It's never too late to do the right thing, we all make mistakes.

Geez, this is getting ridiculus! If you start section 6 and then Hemenway agrees to an equitable transition then fine BUT one thing is clear, Hemenway has refused in over 2 years to agree to anything that closely resembles an equitable contract. Randy actually knows this and he himself said that Hemenway's proposal 'unmistakably conveys the company’s disrespect and contempt towards its Fleet Service Workers.' So Randy, what is the plan....more transition talks??????? What's going to change the company's contempt? If it isn't traditional bargaining, what?

Do something Randy!

The Website for Change

regards,
Tim Nelson
IAM Local Chairman, 1487, Chicago

 

[pjirish317]

Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't shocker say we would get an "indusrty leading" agreement, because canoli would get us one. He would have agreed to the latest offer if not for the newbies on the NC standing up for us. That is the kind of lies and propaganda that canoli supporters spread. JMO though.

 

[perserverance]

We also recognize that it has to be within a rage of affordability for US Airways. We are not in the habit of negotiating contracts that kill the goose that lays the golden eggs.

The Company says they “put a full and reasonable offer on the negotiating table.†Our Committee tells me that the “offer†wasn’t nearly as generous as the Company offer that was rejected by the members [in many locations by overwhelming margins] last year. Obviously it’s not last year and circumstances have changed somewhat dramatically [CIC, the economy, price of oil, USA stock value, pending industry consolidation, and a whole lot of uncertainty] since we conducted that ratification. I don’t want to speculate about their motivations.

If you, or anyone else, think otherwise, I certainly haven’t heard anything to that effect. It appears the members support the positions taken by the Committee. I continue to monitor the negotiations and remain hopeful. I’ve never been involved in a negotiation that didn’t culminate in an agreement. As long as reasonable men are talking there is hope for an agreement.

I have feeling that labor’s experience at US Airways [pilots and flight attendants still don’t have agreements either] is causing many to doubt the wisdom of further industry consolidation.

In Solidarity,

Tom

This is exactly what I've been saying. This is a perfect example of the IAM speaking on the behalf
of the company. ''We are not in the habit of negotiating contracts that kill the goose that lays the golden eggs.'' I haven't seen one of these eggs in over 7 years...stop acting like were the enemy
here. TB talks of the loss of the CIC, oil prices and stock. This is Al's hand up the back side of our
union getting his word out through the puppets'. ''Our Committee tells me that the “offer†wasn’t nearly as generous as the Company offer that was rejected by the members [in many locations by overwhelming margins] last year.'' What is wrong with you people, my ideas of generous are
far different than yours and I seem to be in the majority. You seem to think you deserve our thanks
and apologies. You just don't get it and come June I hope our message will finally be heard or at
least begin to be heard.
''As long as reasonable men are talking there is hope for an agreement.''...the key word being
reasonable.


Thanks

 

[Tim Nelson]

Thank you moderator for refreshing the forums.

The question of Mr. Hemenways letter to fleet employees on the Hub on the companys proposal that was denied by the NC was posed to Mr. Brickner (IAM International airline Coordinator)for an opinion. Here is his response posted Friday February 29:

Perhaps the Company doesn’t trust the Committee to accurately portray their positions and proposals. I don’t want to speculate about their motivations. Whatever the reasoning behind the letter, the bargaining needs to take place at the bargaining table if we’re going to get an agreement.



If you, or anyone else, think otherwise, I certainly haven’t heard anything to that effect. It appears the members support the positions taken by the Committee. I continue to monitor the negotiations and remain hopeful. I’ve never been involved in a negotiation that didn’t culminate in an agreement. As long as reasonable men are talking there is hope for an agreement.
As always, thank you for your continued interest and support for the union.
In Solidarity,
Tom
(Are we going to be passing letters back and forth forever!)

Lith, thanks again for your email service.

I think Tom understands our resolve but unless I'm misreading him, it appears his statements indicate we are a bit greedy and that we may kill the golden goose. If that's true then United's goose would have already been cooked since their present wages and benefits would still be more than what our NC just proposed, even though we both went bankrupt. Our NC offered a proposal that was modest and fair and would have only brought us up to wages and benefits that still trail UA, WN, AA, CO, significantly. The truth of the matter is that our lack of a transition has nothing to do with the members but everything to do with management. Tom missed this point but Canale hit it spot on when he described the company's latest proposal as,

"a proposal that unmistakably conveys the company’s disrespect and contempt towards its Fleet Service Workers....the company enjoys $3 billion dollars in cash reserves it refuses to fairly compensate the very workers responsible for returning the company from the brink of extinction. US Airways executives continue to reap huge salaries and bonuses while they try to inflict further economic hardship upon its workforce."

Randy must find a solution and develop a better plan if fleet service is going to obtain fairness. To that end, I would hope that Tom would release the IAM resources needed to recommence section 6 traditional bargaining.

regards,
Tim Nelson
IAM Local Chairman, 1487, Chicago

 

[freedom]

Lith, thanks again for your email service.

I think Tom understands our resolve -------- --------- -------- so on and so forth

regards,
Tim Nelson
IAM Local Chairman, 1487, Chicago

great post Tim , i completely agree !

 

[lithuanian]

To a degree, one would have to think this entire "debacle" rages on because we have companies with little leadership quality.

Not ONE party involved with US AIRWAYS wants to take the initiative to make decisions and all parties involved continue to "Pass the Buck".

Could anyone wonder if the leaders of both company and union have no military leadership experience.

Lord, hope there will never be a WWIII. We have no direction!

 

[necigrad]

If anything the Companies letter had probably created MORE solidarity. More solidarity to wait for the right agreement. More solidarity in believing the Company has no respect for it's employees. More solidarity that Canale needs to go. Huh, maybe this was a good thing.

 

[Henderfuzz]

How can we get rid of the helping hand agreement? And whats the plan for the future

I completly agree. In fact what needs to happen is since there are now West metal and East metal flying around our system into the Hubs On the east in say CLT and PHL we should make it clear that
east guys should only work East metal A/C. In Phx the same but in reverse.
When East metal comes in well you figure it out.
Now Im saying thats what Canale should tell the company not of course just do it but yes the helping hand needs to go. When we transistion than we can talk than an only than.

 

[mike33]

I completly agree. In fact what needs to happen is since there are now West metal and East metal flying around our system into the Hubs On the east in say CLT and PHL we should make it clear that
east guys should only work East metal A/C. In Phx the same but in reverse.

I guess you don't work in phx. It's been the norm for awhile.......