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