Freedom…
Ever stop and wonder why the IAM never pursued section six for you guys out west? Well… here’s my opinion for what it may be worth.
The current negotiating environment (Transition Talks) is the consequence of a carefully engineered…orchestrated…chess game that is designed to place Fleet Service in as compromising of a position as possible. This likely began even before the US/AWA merger was complete. Unfortunately, I feel that both the Union and the Company have played a major role in this.
The mind set of “Us vs Them†in terms of Fleet West & Fleet East, is exactly where the Company wants us to be! That is how they (Company & IAM) will try to slip as marginal of a T/A as possible for ratification to us.
The pre-engineered wage desperation of West Fleet is the “trump card†in inserting a T/A that is as close as possible to "cost neutral" as they can get.
The collective intelligence of the Solidarity Network… sees through this scheme.
That is why you see so much determination and resent from the East on this.
Why Mr. Roabilly! My vinegar-sauced, pork-eating friend! Greetings and Saluations!
Once again, I must disagree with not only your choice of BBQ sauce, but also your reasonings as to the IAM continued misrepresentations of West. In a phrase: Boss Canale does not care about West. As West is half the size of East, and to control the vote, he must only control the East hubs. Quite simply, find the base with the most votes, cater to them, as use the rest as cannon fodder, and if lucky, maybe use the minority for some leverage to benefit the primary constituents. Of course, Boss Canale would never be so brazen as to admit to this publicly as to violate his fiduciary responsibilities to West, but rather it is best to give public statements of brotherhood bromides along with his smarmy grill on the monthly "Messenger".
While you see some conspiracy of Boss Canale and Management, I see basic neglect of West by the IAM and frankly, an attitude from East of "West-Can-Wait-Until-East-Gets-Something-Good" attitude. Those in East pushing for West's Section 6 are not about parity for West, but rather how East can benefit from it. Don't believe it? Consider Mr. Nelson's adamant refusal to allow West to vote for the existing contract on their own, even if it did not lead to the closure of any stations. Then Mr. Nelson foist misinformation that West would support a new TA for a $1 raise while East would continue to make far more is an underestimation of West's intelligence quoient and I would suggest a nefarious attempt to marginalize those who disagree with him. Sorry, It's All About East. You complain about the "East vs. West" mentality, might it ever occurred to you that it is well-earned and well-deserved based upon the actions of the pro-East IAM and the many Easties on this board?
Finally, I find myself in the uncomfortable position of having to defend Boss Canale insofar as to what many in the East consider the possibility of an anemic contract proposal. If you recall from my prior post, I mentioned the concept of economic elasticity, for which, I must assume the IAM have competent economists and financial advisors, and maybe they know something for which many FSAs do not understand. While internet surfing, I came across a very insightful article, in part, on airline industry elasticity which might provide some useful insights:
FAIR USE: "...elasticity is one of the most powerful metrics in business. In a single number, elasticity pins to the wall the relationship between percent changes in price and quantity." For those who think one can simply raise fares to cover higher costs (fuel and labor), you might want to reconsider. Furthermore, the author, who is against airline mergers, hypothesizes in part, "...shareholder value can best be created organically. How? By maximizing the satisfaction of employees, passengers, suppliers, partners, and shareholders."
http://seekingalpha.com/article/69605-why-...rk?source=yahoo
So Illustrates Jester.
