IAM Fleet Service topic

[wings396]

Ah once again your wrong.

The IAM was certified in 1995 and ratified their first CBA in 1999.

Try again.

Ok, so it took 4 years to get our first pos...

 

[wings396]

Several posters here have finally just began to hit on the truth… the enemy is not your Union! People like Nelson have been at war for decades with the Union Leadership. It doesn’t matter who they are… we are told they are corrupt, in bed with company, inept etc.

What this rhetoric does is create distrust with the Membership, thus weakening solidarity! I think it was Dog Wonder that finally told the truth… you can not rely on the Union Leadership to hold your hand. We all have a brain… look at your tentative, ask questions before ratifying anything… and stick together on it. That is exactly what the Flight Attendants just did!

The company doesn’t care about what any committee wrangles at the table until the Membership rejects it, and demands better! That is our ONLY solution!

The longer you keep chasing these crazy dreams of resolving everything by throwing out the Union Leadership… the farther behind you will get us in obtaining a decent agreement. It’s time to get educated on the process of Collective Bargaining… like 700 keeps telling you! Until you take the time to study your options regarding this process in this industry… the company will continue to eat you alive!

And wings396… are you on the Company’s payroll? Supporting Nelson will benefit the Company more than it will Fleet!

I doubt that the company can benefit much more than they already have. What are they going to do, outsource some work?
You speak as if the company hasn't taken advantage of us in the past, now that's outright funny.....

 

[roabilly]

I doubt that the company can benefit much more than they already have. What are they going to do, outsource some work?
You speak as if the company hasn't taken advantage of us in the past, now that's outright funny.....

Actually…what is "outright funny" is that there are a handful of “posters” here that parrot the Nelson ideology over and over. This occurs in increasing intensity when proven wrong with facts and/or case history!

Further… when Tim is called out on the facts, another one of these ‘posters’ will attempt to refute, or distract from the original item. I’ve been watching this pattern for weeks… It leaves one with that …”Hmmmm… I think I know what’s up feeling”!

Onward!

 

[wings396]

Fwiw, I don't personally know Tim, nor have I ever met him in person. I am not campaigning for him either. I have followed his material over the years, and agree with him in most cases. I do applaud him for having enough confidence to post by his real name, something that no other candidate has had the balls to do.
All of you that bash him and his ideas fail to disclose who you are backing as a candidate instead. I know that some of you are running for an elected position on another ticket, but choose to hide behind a screen name.
If you are going to be a voice for the membership, we need to know who you are. If you want to be secretive now, I'm sure that you will continue on that path if elected.

 

[niblet]

A 401k is not a defined benefit plan, how many times do I have to explain this to you?

A fleet service worker does not have to use his/her money for their pension.

The CWA does not have a pension, and you have to contribute your own salary into a 401k.

And what happens when the market tanks again and your 401k loses its value?

And Fidelity can change the 401K plan terms at any time without the CWA being able to do a thing about it.

And this has occurred all ready at US once before.

700, you should clarify #2
Fleet Service workers CANNOT fund their pension. The IAMNPF can ONLY be funded by a company and has to be negotiated by contract. 401 K"s are vouluntary contributions made by employees. Our company chooses not to make any match. Contract or not if they wanted to match they could. Contractualy you could have both or other investment options. The market runs all investments.

 

[niblet]

Several posters here have finally just began to hit on the truth… the enemy is not your Union! People like Nelson have been at war for decades with the Union Leadership. It doesn’t matter who they are… we are told they are corrupt, in bed with company, inept etc.

What this rhetoric does is create distrust with the Membership, thus weakening solidarity! I think it was Dog Wonder that finally told the truth… you can not rely on the Union Leadership to hold your hand. We all have a brain… look at your tentative, ask questions before ratifying anything… and stick together on it. That is exactly what the Flight Attendants just did!

The company doesn’t care about what any committee wrangles at the table until the Membership rejects it, and demands better! That is our ONLY solution!

The longer you keep chasing these crazy dreams of resolving everything by throwing out the Union Leadership… the farther behind you will get us in obtaining a decent agreement. It’s time to get educated on the process of Collective Bargaining… like 700 keeps telling you! Until you take the time to study your options regarding this process in this industry… the company will continue to eat you alive!

And wings396… are you on the Company’s payroll? Supporting Nelson will benefit the Company more than it will Fleet!

Would you agree that most of the membership want to have reps in positions for their best interests? I think we all distrust the company at every angle. So the membership would like a sense of security with their reps. Locally and District wide.

 

[roabilly]

Would you agree that most of the membership want to have reps in positions for their best interests? I think we all distrust the company at every angle. So the membership would like a sense of security with their reps. Locally and District wide.

Niblet,

There is a huge difference between “saying” you have the best interest of the Membership in mind, and actually following through on it. Tim is asking us to dismiss our Leadership before they have even had a chance to follow through since they were elected in 2008.

We are at critical point in negotiations… and there is no way Tim, you… or anyone else for that matter can convince me that tossing the team currently at the table to the curb will benefit Fleet. It just is not rational thinking!

Look at what Cargo has been saying… he makes more sense than anyone running thus far. Ponder his philosophy for a while… there is always room for a few AGC’s to join the N/D folks!

 

[roabilly]

Fwiw, I don't personally know Tim, nor have I ever met him in person. I am not campaigning for him either. I have followed his material over the years, and agree with him in most cases. I do applaud him for having enough confidence to post by his real name, something that no other candidate has had the balls to do.
All of you that bash him and his ideas fail to disclose who you are backing as a candidate instead. I know that some of you are running for an elected position on another ticket, but choose to hide behind a screen name.
If you are going to be a voice for the membership, we need to know who you are. If you want to be secretive now, I'm sure that you will continue on that path if elected.

Apparently, you are not familiar with the Company Ethics Guide. It is not really a good idea to post opinions in an on-line forum with a heading indicating a link to the company under your actual name. This could… and in the past has lead to disciplinary action. Further, I'm speaking for rational thinking... it's up to the Membership to decide if it has any validity!

And since we are speaking about this… what is your actual name?

 

[wings396]

I would also like to pose a question to any/all of you that are pro IAM members and/ or candidates. With a straight face, can you tell me that a majority of the membership has been satisfied with the IAM at ANY point since they have represented us? I have been around the entire time, and have yet to hear anyone that is, with the exception of those holding a position

 

[roabilly]

I would also like to pose a question to any/all of you that are pro IAM members and/ or candidates. With a straight face, can you tell me that a majority of the membership has been satisfied with the IAM at ANY point since they have represented us? I have been around the entire time, and have yet to hear anyone that is, with the exception of those holding a position

Can you name me ANY employee group ANYWHERE in this Industry that is satisfied with their Union... and their representation? I don’t think so… just click your little curser on any Airline Forum on this site under ANY organized work group… then come back with your findings.

We are not living in utopia; there are realities that must be acknowledged… refusing to do so will lead us down a path of wishful thinking… and an endless parade of leadership changes!

 

[Jester]

Apparently, you are not familiar with the Company Ethics Guide. It is not really a good idea to post opinions in an on-line forum with a heading indicating a link to the company under your actual name.

My Dear Mr. Roabilly,

And that is a red herring argument, as campaigning for a union position would not be a violation as to discuss the topics and issues which affect the Membership. Otherwise even the IAM webpage would be cause for termination, as it is online, right? Now personal attacks against the company or against management would probably get into a gray area; however, discussing what is right or wrong with the CBA or improvements to the overall condition of employment or how one would lead better than another would be acceptable. If what you said was true, then how is Tim Nelson still employed through US Airways, and don't tell me he was terminated so many years ago, and someone from the union saved him, as that was then... how about the last 4 years?

I posted in this forum a few months ago that maybe the mods could grant an exception to the multiple handle rule for those people running for a union position, so that they could state their agenda and qualifications under their real name? Given some of the childish name calling of "Dougweiser" and alike by some, I think they would want to avoid identifying themselves with their real names, as that would probably be grounds for termination.

So Proposes Jester.

 

[wings396]

Apparently, you are not familiar with the Company Ethics Guide. It is not really a good idea to post opinions in an on-line forum with a heading indicating a link to the company under your actual name. This could… and in the past has lead to disciplinary action. Further, I'm speaking for rational thinking... it's up to the Membership to decide if it has any validity!

And since we are speaking about this… what is your actual name?

I'm not running for any position, so my name would mean nothing to the readers here. Tim has been using his name for years, and hasn't been burned at the stake as far as I know. He identifys himself relating to union issues, not as an employee. I am well aware of the company ethics guide. Just sayin its hard to give any credability to anyone running for office when you don't even know who they are. Based on what some of you post, it appears as if you feel threatend by Tim.
Should I be looking for " roabilly" on the ballot?
I'm sure you get my point.


Good post Jester.....

 

[IAM Informer]

Roabilly
what "critical time in negotiations " are you referring to. They haven't even agreed on 1 article of the contract

 

[niblet]

Niblet,

There is a huge difference between “saying” you have the best interest of the Membership in mind, and actually following through on it. Tim is asking us to dismiss our Leadership before they have even had a chance to follow through since they were elected in 2008.

We are at critical point in negotiations… and there is no way Tim, you… or anyone else for that matter can convince me that tossing the team currently at the table to the curb will benefit Fleet. It just is not rational thinking!

Look at what Cargo has been saying… he makes more sense than anyone running thus far. Ponder his philosophy for a while… there is always room for a few AGC’s to join the N/D folks!

I,m not convinced we've made any strides in the contract talks to date. However the team in place will still be in place reguardless wich team wins in June. Maybe one or two new players but no real change there. I havent heard of any scope being discussed. Cargo and I know each other and have mutual respect for each other. I wont speak for him but I'm pretty sure that he would agree with being disappointed with the present Leadership.

 

[ograc]

I'm not running for any position, so my name would mean nothing to the readers here. Tim has been using his name for years, and hasn't been burned at the stake as far as I know. He identifys himself relating to union issues, not as an employee. I am well aware of the company ethics guide. Just sayin its hard to give any credability to anyone running for office when you don't even know who they are. Based on what some of you post, it appears as if you feel threatend by Tim.
Should I be looking for " roabilly" on the ballot?
I'm sure you get my point.


Good post Jester.....

wings396,

I ask for your patience. I am a candidate running on The Leadership For Progress team. I fully intend to disclose my name as soon as our website is up and running. The website will have bios for each candidate on the team. I want the members to be able to access this information on the website before I disclose. I think you will find the bios, for all of the candidates on the team, speak for themselves regarding qualifications for office and experience. I intend to run on my record. I do not believe in bashing other candidates in an effort to gain support. I ask for your patience and understanding. 32 years with US and running for AGC (2 year term).
ograc