What's new

IAM Fleet Service Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
Tim, at least give out the accurate details of the mechanics offer. The company did not offer the mechanics a 16% pay raise.

We are being offered a 10% base rate pay raise. Are license pay increase was due in Jan 2009, it is being moved up 7 months or so. Having an A&P license is a requirement for allot of our job functions so any raises that we get in our licenses are not going to be given to other groups across the board, that is something that we earned. Maybe you should push for a seperate premium for having a valid drivers license? :up:

Its apples to oranges from us to yous guys, pay, scope etc etc etc. The holidays and many other benefits should be the same for each groups, but you can't compare are license premium payments into your own raise. Apples and Oranges.
Perhaps the reason Tim made the pay raise mistake is because your first mention
of a pay raise was 16%. With licences. Maybe you should have explained it like
you did here. But that might not have produced the effect you wanted. BTW
did the figures you mentioned for yourself as to how much extra you would
make include these premiums?

But I'm confused as to what your overall motives are. Do you want FS to settle
for a poor contract? What for? It's beyond me to understand why you would
be threatened by FS. OK I know your not threatened by anybody. So then
whats the deal? Is this some sort of gambit to get your contract
passed?
 
My contract wish list would be;

2. DOH seniority. The mechanics have it, passenger service has it, flight attendents and pilots are fighting for it, we should have it too!
Mechanic and Related do not have DOH, it is Date under the CBA in the classification.

If you were not hired as a M&R you dont get your DOH for seniority.

Shift, days off and work area are bid by date of classification.

Vacation is accured by Date under the CBA and bid the same as well.
 
chill,
very good point.. But you really need to stay out of that AZ sun your looking a little leathery :lol: :lol:
 
"There were 3 informational meetings today in CLT, at the one I attended the turnout was pitiful!! Not sure about the other 2! I read these boards and I see all the bitching and moaning then you go to a meeting and nobody shows up what a joke! Im not sure if that is because everyone already has their mind made up or just don't care but you guys are paying to be represented. I'm no fan of the IAM but I at least try to be involved in the process. I'm not trying to sell this T/A either way but at least go to the meetings and hear your union explain why they think you should accept it, and tell them why you think we shouldn't. This is your livelihood we are talking about you would think people would want to have a say in how it turns out!"

I got this post off another thread. and thought It rang true for all union threads.
 
I'm going to try to paraphrase what Piney Bob has been saying over
on the M&R thread. If I knew how to cut and paste I do that. So at the
risk of missrepresentation here goes:

The first point to be made is about the economy. It may be to our advantage
to wait until 2009. With full blown section 6 and possibly a rising
economy we would be in the driver's seat.

Point two is something I came up with. It has to do with the price
of oil. The ever rising price of oil is directly linked to the weak dollar.
It depends more on that in recent times than oil production. The
recent spike in the price of oil has to do with investors jumping on
the rising oil bandwagon. At some point in the not to near distant
future the investors will reach a point of diminishing returns and
will back off. It is also interesting to note the Arthur Laffer is
calling for oil to be back to 60 to 70 dollars a barrel in the not
to distant future. At any rate no one really knows for sure.

Point number three has to due with any prospective TA. A
good question is why now? Why all of the sudden after two
years of nothing do we get all this activity. I don't know
the answer to that but the point is our leaders and us
should be trying our best to figure this out. Otherwise
were shooting in the dark. And mabey missing opportunities.

Point number four is look at the whole contract point by point
in detail. Assign a value to each point as best you can and
add up the pros a cons. I know its very difficult but each
contract should be able to be put in a dollar value for it's
duration and year by year. But Piney's point is to look at
it from your own point of view. Before you vote make
sure you understand what it means specifically to you.
Part of this may include what you want for FS as a whole.

Point number 5 is another one of my own. And that is
consider inflation. Over the last few years it's been
going at around 2.6%. There is also something called
the cost of living which includes other things not included
in the inflation index and that's been slightly higher.
Some more radicle ecomonmists say inflation is actually
much higher that these figures and points to the fact that
the government hides much of the inflation. These people
say it will bite us big time soon enough. IMO the M&R
3% yearly increase will just keep up with inflation.

Also a point I've made before is that in 2000 when we ratified
the TWU contract our top out was $15.20. In current terms
that equals about $19 or $20. So think back what did
$15 dollars feel like to you in 2000? In 2008 it takes
$19 dollar to buy the same amount of goods. Now due
to technology, Walmart, and other factors this is not
so easy to translate but my point is $15 was not so
much in 2000 and $19 dollars is not so much in 2008.

I recommend going over the M&R thread and reading
Piney Bob's posts. Much clearer and down to earth than
this and also just plain good advice on how to deal with
what's going on for us right now.. Thanks B F
 
I forgot one of the most important points PB made.
The company is going to do everything it can to
maximize profit and be of benifit to the shareholders.
They are a business. A more subtle but equally
powerful truth is that so is the IAM. We have to deal
with both and if we ignore reality were toast. One
example is the IAM pension fund. For better or worse
were stuck with it because it is a necessary part of thier
business plan. It would be vary difficult for us to negotiate
with them on this. Actually it would be impossible.
OTOH the company doesn't care about it and would be
glad to pay out a lesser or equal amont of cash to a 401K
plan.

Another example of the IAM being a business is there
desire to monopolize the labor market as much as they
can. So If that means lowballing an contract for the sake
of there own stabliity or growth they'll do it and IMO
that's what's being done. As Sinefeld says "not that
there's anything wrong with that" but it's just an example
of how we have to be on our toes and try to recognize what's
best for us( or you as an individual). To a certain degree
we benifit by the union being strong as a business, we just
have to be alert to their excesses.. Thanks BF
 
The first point to be made is about the economy. It may be to our advantage
to wait until 2009. With full blown section 6 and possibly a rising
economy we would be in the driver's seat.

I would be very careful what you wish for bag. Case in point is what happened to the AW M&R group.
There Teamster contract expired in 2003, at which time they started negotiating with AW under the railway labor act. (section 6) Then 2 years went by with no agreement, and they merged with Usairways. Then there was a long battle on who was going to represent us, which dragged out the transition talks, and now its been OVER FIVE YEARS and they are still making what their contract topped out at in 2003. :down:

So go ahead and roll the dice with that COC language, and then an arbitrator will side for the company after 3 more years, and your screwed all over again. The attorneys for these companys can circumvent that COC language to get around it if their is another merger. They know its there.

So, just be careful what you wish for guys, because in reality you could be a back seat passenger. :shock:
 
so if the COC is so easy to get around . Why did the IAM fight to have it put in our last contract in 05 and what did we in fleet give
up to have that so called crappy COC language. And it really seems that the company is really trying hard to get rid of the
coc language my question is why if its winnable for the company why worry about it. I say if they want the COC out then go back
and revisit what we gave up to have put it in there and give that back to us. does anyone know what we gave up for that language
in 05
 
The Nelson proposal is doable..........................Let's get it done and merge this POS
and get new mgmt in.
 
The Nelson proposal is doable..........................Let's get it done and merge this POS
and get new mgmt in.

A few notes of clarification after the bombardment of emails.

Item 1: The outcome must be controlled by fleet.
Nothing the company proposes or sez can change the outcome if fleet service knows what is fair and equitable. The outcome is clear, if the company enteres negotiations with an agenda to spread fear, disrespect, downtalking, etc., then negotiations should cease immediately. Fleet service deserves better than that. However, if the company shows respect and offers a contract that is at or above the line of fairness then the outcome will be a T/A. It's just that simple. If it's doable then fine, if not then the company isn't going to get what it has been asking for. Case Closed! The alternative is to flip like a pancake and change position, much like the previous negotiations teams. Remember the September mandate, Nothing has changed. Everything else is B### S###.

Item 2
1. What does grandfathered mean?
To be sure, I am NOT a proponent of giving up any current station[including east stations like BUF], however, if any new fleet deal is going to uphold justice and at the same time recognize and include the same subcontracting language agreed to in September, and then drafted by Boss canale again this February, THEN and only then, should the following occur: Grandfather all the current members in those stations, i.e., protect them at their current station.
This will allow 2 things:
A. It will allow these west members to continue to come under the fleet service contract and enjoy all the wage/benefits as any other member, plus allow them to stay in their own particular station. As each member transfers, quits, retires, etc., they are replaced by non-contract and perhaps non-company employees. This is a model that has already been used when dealing with these tough issues. UA has some protections for its esop employees that are similar, and NW worked a contract that had grandfather rights.
This will also satisfy what the company has been asking for, especially as it may relate to a merger. However, if Hemenway wants the members contracted out along with the stations then myself and everyone should have a problem with that because then it will show that he really just wants to eliminate union members. At any rate, I find it totally appalling and impermissible for the IAM to give up 19 stations and give up the masses in those stations at a time when each of those stations are enjoying 'full protections' right now. At minimum, it must have grandfather rights attached to the language Randy Canale has drafted.

Considering the mechanic contract, which was signed when oil was at $112.75 barrel, I would presume that the company would be focused and respectful for fleet also. However, any talk by Hemenway about how fleet can't have squat because oil is at record highs and fleet lost the CIC, should fall on deaf ears. Didn't the mechanics lose the CIC also? Wasn't oil at record highs when the company signed the mechanic deal? I think the negotiations team will be able to hear the BS rather quickly or the respect. If the negotiations get tainted with B*** S*** then I don't find it useful to continue talks. In that situation an immediate section 6 should be field for the west. If it's not doable then it's more than risky trying to force it. Bottom line.

regards,
Tim Nelson
IAM Local Chairman, 1487, Chicago
 
A few notes of clarification after the bombardment of emails.

Item 1: The outcome must be controlled by fleet.
Nothing the company proposes or sez can change the outcome if fleet service knows what is fair and equitable. The outcome is clear, if the company enteres negotiations with an agenda to spread fear, disrespect, downtalking, etc., then negotiations should cease immediately. Fleet service deserves better than that. However, if the company shows respect and offers a contract that is at or above the line of fairness then the outcome will be a T/A. It's just that simple. If it's doable then fine, if not then the company isn't going to get what it has been asking for. Case Closed! The alternative is to flip like a pancake and change position, much like the previous negotiations teams. Remember the September mandate, Nothing has changed. Everything else is B### S###.

Item 2
1. What does grandfathered mean?
To be sure, I am NOT a proponent of giving up any current station[including east stations like BUF], however, if any new fleet deal is going to uphold justice and at the same time recognize and include the same subcontracting language agreed to in September, and then drafted by Boss canale again this February, THEN and only then, should the following occur: Grandfather all the current members in those stations, i.e., protect them at their current station.
This will allow 2 things:
A. It will allow these west members to continue to come under the fleet service contract and enjoy all the wage/benefits as any other member, plus allow them to stay in their own particular station. As each member transfers, quits, retires, etc., they are replaced by non-contract and perhaps non-company employees. This is a model that has already been used when dealing with these tough issues. UA has some protections for its esop employees that are similar, and NW worked a contract that had grandfather rights.
This will also satisfy what the company has been asking for, especially as it may relate to a merger. However, if Hemenway wants the members contracted out along with the stations then myself and everyone should have a problem with that because then it will show that he really just wants to eliminate union members. At any rate, I find it totally appalling and impermissible for the IAM to give up 19 stations and give up the masses in those stations at a time when each of those stations are enjoying 'full protections' right now. At minimum, it must have grandfather rights attached to the language Randy Canale has drafted.

Considering the mechanic contract, which was signed when oil was at $112.75 barrel, I would presume that the company would be focused and respectful for fleet also. However, any talk by Hemenway about how fleet can't have squat because oil is at record highs and fleet lost the CIC, should fall on deaf ears. Didn't the mechanics lose the CIC also? Wasn't oil at record highs when the company signed the mechanic deal? I think the negotiations team will be able to hear the BS rather quickly or the respect. If the negotiations get tainted with B*** S*** then I don't find it useful to continue talks. In that situation an immediate section 6 should be field for the west. If it's not doable then it's more than risky trying to force it. Bottom line.

regards,
Tim Nelson
IAM Local Chairman, 1487, Chicago

Tim,
I admire your proposal but you can't possibly expect to gain what our mechanics just gained. I hope our fleet members understand this? The fundamental reason for this is because our mechanics gave up much more than fleet service back in 2003 and the current tentative agreement captures a portion of what they gave up.

On the other hand, grandfathering the workers in those stations is an interesting idea that I'm sure the IAM would be willing to look into and incorporate into a proposal. It would be an interesting and flexible solution that I think the company should consider.

I will add that I do think that fleet service has plenty of solidarity at the present, and I will finally agree with you that any new tentative agreement would be improved from the one in August. I have been to various stations on both coasts over the past several weeks and the solidarity that exists between the west and east, hub and spoke, has been quite an interesting discovery.

The IAM and Randy Canale are not against solidarity, it has never been displayed before with our fleet service members.

The August agreement will be enhanced with solidarity as the leverage.
 
"The IAM and Randy Canale are not against solidarity, it has never been displayed before with our fleet service members.

The August agreement will be enhanced with solidarity as the leverage."


that would be because past and some still current IAM leaders want it that way.. The less the membership is educated the less they will ask questions.

just keep in the dark and feed S*it .. just like a mushroom..


So District don't be misguided in thinking that this solidarity is coming from Randy's camp. because it is 100% not.
 
Tim,
I think Blownknees has a point any way of finding out what the coc language cost us in 05 and what about trying to bring that back if its tangible.
 
Tim,
I admire your proposal but you can't possibly expect to gain what our mechanics just gained. I hope our fleet members understand this? The fundamental reason for this is because our mechanics gave up much more than fleet service back in 2003 and the current tentative agreement captures a portion of what they gave up.

On the other hand, grandfathering the workers in those stations is an interesting idea that I'm sure the IAM would be willing to look into and incorporate into a proposal. It would be an interesting and flexible solution that I think the company should consider.

I will add that I do think that fleet service has plenty of solidarity at the present, and I will finally agree with you that any new tentative agreement would be improved from the one in August. I have been to various stations on both coasts over the past several weeks and the solidarity that exists between the west and east, hub and spoke, has been quite an interesting discovery.

The IAM and Randy Canale are not against solidarity, it has never been displayed before with our fleet service members.

The August agreement will be enhanced with solidarity as the leverage.
so you're saying that fleet service can't expect the same gains because of what the mechanics had previous to bankruptcy? Didn't the judge put everyone back to ground zero? Sounds like you want to re-establish the inequities and big gulfs between groups again to me. Elitist are not welcomed in this thread.
The mechanics aren't getting anything back because of the pre bankruptcy days, they are getting things back because of the upcoming industry consolidation that will have to happen with oil so high. If the company can afford to give mechanics back 3% raises for the next 5 years then please share with me why fleet should accept Randy Canale's opinion that the IAM should only ask for 2% for the next two years.
 
df,
Why has fleet not earned what Tim has lined out? We gave up plenty in BK2. As did MTC. Whay can't we gat back some of what we lost? I really do not think what Tim proposed on here is unreasonable. Considering the company WANTS the CIC language gone, for "merger mania", the company WANTS our profit sharing for themselves, and a 2 year extension. If what Tim proposed is not "doable", restart section 6 for the West and we can wait untill 2009. BTW Orioleman is 110% correct canoli has nothing to do with the solidarity that Fleet has right now. We did that all on our own, much to canoli's and obviously your dissappointment. If a T/A is aggreed upon by both parties, I hope it does not resemble the Aug/Sept T/A. If it does, a no vote across the board!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Back
Top