IAM Fleet Service topic

[unionworks]

Mr. Brown,

I told you several months ago that little will change with the New Direction Team, because as others have rightly posted, I am not seeing the changes in the trenches out on the ramp, so why might I expect to see something different at the bargaining table?

We have had this Attendance Policy in place now for over two years, and while I know the process takes time, I honestly could not tell you based upon this issue or other matters if there was the New Direction Team or the old Boss Canale team still running the show! I only know it is the New Direction Team because I see lanyards hanging around rampers' necks with the party name printed on the strap.

Something concrete from the New Direction Team would be a good starting point. For example... their proposal to clean-up the language in the CBA in order to remove the many gray areas. I know everyone is interested in pay, benefits, scope, etc., but something as non-threatening and non-provocative from the Management point of view would be a good start without violating private discussons by negotiating within the public arena.

So Advocates Jester.

You have it right !!!!!!!!!!!!! something concrete like who's going to bargain for the clean up of this contract.... thats the first starting point. if they choose DUMMIES then were in trouble out of the gate.

 

[pjirish317]

Mr. Brown,

I told you several months ago that little will change with the New Direction Team, because as others have rightly posted, I am not seeing the changes in the trenches out on the ramp, so why might I expect to see something different at the bargaining table?

We have had this Attendance Policy in place now for over two years, and while I know the process takes time, I honestly could not tell you based upon this issue or other matters if there was the New Direction Team or the old Boss Canale team still running the show! I only know it is the New Direction Team because I see lanyards hanging around rampers' necks with the party name printed on the strap.

Something concrete from the New Direction Team would be a good starting point. For example... their proposal to clean-up the language in the CBA in order to remove the many gray areas. I know everyone is interested in pay, benefits, scope, etc., but something as non-threatening and non-provocative from the Management point of view would be a good start without violating private discussons by negotiating within the public arena.

So Advocates Jester.

Jester,

The attendance policy was out in place prior to the new direction taking over. The policy was a cram down from canoli and his merry band of thieves. Unfortunately there is not a whole lot the ND people can do about as it was agreed upon by our leadership AT THE TIME. And at the time it was canoli and crew, not the new direction guys. With that said, I hope you are sitting down because I actually agree with the last paragraph of your post. You are correct that we need to axe the grey areas. Well said.

 

[charlie Brown]

find out who is the leader in PHL and ask him what problems they are having in PHL. He might say everything OK their.
BUT if not and they are haveing problems i sure as HELL don't want him at our talks................

I know what happened in Phl, I agree with you some good leaders may have been voted out, but you were talking about the next contract, I was stating that what you seem to be afraid of, we have already been living, under this current contract. Your 14.00 dollar hr jobs. How much do you think all the furlough people are making per hour, due to working under the current contract.They have all lost their jobs . Our current contract is terrible. And that came from leaders that you may or may not have supported, but my point is, we cant do any worse than the POS contract we have in place now. Maybe you supported that also???

 

[charlie Brown]

Mr. Brown,

I told you several months ago that little will change with the New Direction Team, because as others have rightly posted, I am not seeing the changes in the trenches out on the ramp, so why might I expect to see something different at the bargaining table?

We have had this Attendance Policy in place now for over two years, and while I know the process takes time, I honestly could not tell you based upon this issue or other matters if there was the New Direction Team or the old Boss Canale team still running the show! I only know it is the New Direction Team because I see lanyards hanging around rampers' necks with the party name printed on the strap.

Something concrete from the New Direction Team would be a good starting point. For example... their proposal to clean-up the language in the CBA in order to remove the many gray areas. I know everyone is interested in pay, benefits, scope, etc., but something as non-threatening and non-provocative from the Management point of view would be a good start without violating private discussons by negotiating within the public arena.

So Advocates Jester.

Jester,

Please tell me what part of the contract ( article and paragraph ) you believe the Attendance Policy violates. While I dont believe you will post one, I do believe that some of the New Direction should have gave better information as to what part they think it violates. I have said all along, that we will never win a arbitration hearing on the attendance policy, because IMO it dosent violate our contract. As far as seeing much change? We have a contract ( as bad as it is ) that has our hands tied on a lot of issues, its not hard to make a statement that " you wont see much change " when you have to abide by the contract. The change that you would see from different leadership would come when that leadership gets to negotiate a contract. As to all the gray in the current contract? I agree with you 100%.

 

[pjirish317]

Jester,

Please tell me what part of the contract ( article and paragraph ) you believe the Attendance Policy violates. While I dont believe you will post one, I do believe that some of the New Direction should have gave better information as to what part they think it violates. I have said all along, that we will never win a arbitration hearing on the attendance policy, because IMO it dosent violate our contract. As far as seeing much change? We have a contract ( as bad as it is ) that has our hands tied on a lot of issues, its not hard to make a statement that " you wont see much change " when you have to abide by the contract. The change that you would see from different leadership would come when that leadership gets to negotiate a contract. As to all the gray in the current contract? I agree with you 100%.

Charlie Brown,

I believe that the attendance policy violates Atricle 13D.

 

[charlie Brown]

Charlie Brown,

I believe that the attendance policy violates Atricle 13D.

Article 13D talks about how the company has a right to ask you confirmation of illness when in doubt of a bona fide claim. Is that what you are saying it violates.

 

[pjirish317]

Article 13D talks about how the company has a right to ask you confirmation of illness when in doubt of a bona fide claim. Is that what you are saying it violates.

Yes. If you bring in a note from a doctor, they still assess the points and progress up the levels if you acrue enough. I would say a note from a doctor is a "Bona Fide" claim wouldn't you?

 

[charlie Brown]

Yes. If you bring in a note from a doctor, they still assess the points and progress up the levels if you acrue enough. I would say a note from a doctor is a "Bona Fide" claim wouldn't you?

Yes I agree with you on that. But, article 13d was in place under the old attendance policy also. Jester was talking about the new attendance policy that went into effect. As for clt, I know for a fact that while in the past they may have advanced with a Doctors note, the grievance committee has been pretty successful in not having them advance with a Doctors note for awhile now. IMO they should not adavance unless it is NOT a Bona Fide claim. But like I said, that was in effect on the last attendance policy. Im asking what part the New Attendance Policy violates.

 

[pjirish317]

Yes I agree with you on that. But, article 13d was in place under the old attendance policy also. Jester was talking about the new attendance policy that went into effect. As for clt, I know for a fact that while in the past they may have advanced with a Doctors note, the grievance committee has been pretty successful in not having them advance with a Doctors note for awhile now. IMO they should not adavance unless it is NOT a Bona Fide claim. But like I said, that was in effect on the last attendance policy. Im asking what part the New Attendance Policy violates.

Like I said, I believe that BOTH attendance policies violate 13D. But I guess it depends on the station manager/director if he/she wants to concur that a doctor's note is a bona fide claim or not. Charlie Brown check your PM.

 

[Jester]

Jester,

Please tell me what part of the contract ( article and paragraph ) you believe the Attendance Policy violates.

Mr. Brown,

The most obvious issue is enforcing the program's retroactivity, and placing many fleet agents on a Level 3 from the first day! Now that may not be in the contract for starters, but a reasonable person would consider retroactive enforcement to be a suspect violation of due process in the termination of employees who are covered under a CBA. Where were the REQUIRED notifications of Levels when an employee was unknowingly on their way to Level 3? That's in the company policy, and yet, it was not done, but agents were getting Level 3 warnings from Day One? In essence, the Company violated its own rules!

How many people lost their jobs eventually because they were on a Level from the first day this program was announced? Once someone is on a Level, it is difficult to get off of it, and even a Level 2 which allows no more than 1.5 points (one sick day equaling 1 point and each late day equaling 1/2 point) during the next 12 months leads to Level 3 and starts a whole new 12 month probationary period of near required perfection to get back down to Level 0. Employees are being punished, even though there was no known violation of a policy which was not offered for either employees or the unions to be informed until after the fact!

Next issue becomes one of earning sick days, but unable to legitimately use them due to one being subject to termination, even if they were never late? What is the point of earning sick days, but unable to use them? Outside of FMLA providing the proper notification, if one is on a Level, then one is highly unlikely to use their sick days if it is at all possible. A reasonable arbitator can not only see it is an afront to the practice of Constitutional law as it violates ex post facto restrictions as it relates to criminal code, but the lack of dealing in good faith as required in Federal labor law with collective bargaining agreements by offering "benefits" for which cannot used!

My point being is that not everything needs to be stated in the CBA to be a grounds to overturn a Company policy or action, but rather there are other legal protections, not to mention, plain common sense which would provide the basis to a favorable ruling.

So Offers Jester.

 

[nascarjoe]

find out who is the leader in PHL and ask him what problems they are having in PHL. He might say everything OK their.
BUT if not and they are haveing problems i sure as HELL don't want him at our talks................

I heard that there has been a couple dozen terminations in PHL this year and it's only the beginning of march. Is this true or not?

 

[joeypitmann]

I heard that there has been a couple dozen terminations in PHL this year and it's only the beginning of march. Is this true or not?

Yes, this is true!!!! The new CC (G.A.) here in PHL and some of his staff think that this attendance policy is a local agreement. He is mis-informing our junior agents that the last CC "signed off" on this policy and it is not in any other station! He promised during his campaign that he would either get this policy out, or a 10 min grace period which neither has happened!

I just hope that when we do go to the table that well informed CC's will be heading the charge because with leadership like this, we will never end up with a better contract! Someone mentioned "this is a joke" Well "this" is a joke!!!

 

[charlie Brown]

Mr. Brown,

The most obvious issue is enforcing the program's retroactivity, and placing many fleet agents on a Level 3 from the first day! Now that may not be in the contract for starters, but a reasonable person would consider retroactive enforcement to be a suspect violation of due process in the termination of employees who are covered under a CBA. Where were the REQUIRED notifications of Levels when an employee was unknowingly on their way to Level 3? That's in the company policy, and yet, it was not done, but agents were getting Level 3 warnings from Day One? In essence, the Company violated its own rules!

How many people lost their jobs eventually because they were on a Level from the first day this program was announced? Once someone is on a Level, it is difficult to get off of it, and even a Level 2 which allows no more than 1.5 points (one sick day equaling 1 point and each late day equaling 1/2 point) during the next 12 months leads to Level 3 and starts a whole new 12 month probationary period of near required perfection to get back down to Level 0. Employees are being punished, even though there was no known violation of a policy which was not offered for either employees or the unions to be informed until after the fact!

Next issue becomes one of earning sick days, but unable to legitimately use them due to one being subject to termination, even if they were never late? What is the point of earning sick days, but unable to use them? Outside of FMLA providing the proper notification, if one is on a Level, then one is highly unlikely to use their sick days if it is at all possible. A reasonable arbitator can not only see it is an afront to the practice of Constitutional law as it violates ex post facto restrictions as it relates to criminal code, but the lack of dealing in good faith as required in Federal labor law with collective bargaining agreements by offering "benefits" for which cannot used!

My point being is that not everything needs to be stated in the CBA to be a grounds to overturn a Company policy or action, but rather there are other legal protections, not to mention, plain common sense which would provide the basis to a favorable ruling.

So Offers Jester.

Jester

Ok now I understand, I agree with you if those things were done, then I do think those cases should be grieved. I can assure you though, thats not or wasnt done in every city. I thought you were saying the attendance policy in itself as a whole, violated our contract. Thats what I was disagreeing with. I do believe individual cases need to be grieved, and last time I talked to one of the AGC,s thats how they intended on pursuing things, was based on the individual case. As far as our sick policy goes, I again agree, how we can be disciplined for using days that we have accrued from the company has always amazed me. But that brings me back to my point. We are stuck with the current contract, some of these things cant be changed until the next contract, and last time I checked it wasnt the new guys that put this contract together. Let me ask you another question? What power does the Union have as far as getting some of these cases heard, when the company decides to stall and stall, unless the workers give the Union that power? The answer is not much. The work group is where the power comes from, if not there, then nowhere !!

 

[nascarjoe]

Yes, this is true!!!! The new CC (G.A.) here in PHL and some of his staff think that this attendance policy is a local agreement. He is mis-informing our junior agents that the last CC "signed off" on this policy and it is not in any other station! He promised during his campaign that he would either get this policy out, or a 10 min grace period which neither has happened!

I just hope that when we do go to the table that well informed CC's will be heading the charge because with leadership like this, we will never end up with a better contract! Someone mentioned "this is a joke" Well "this" is a joke!!!

WTF, the membership believed him! That's sad. Hopefully he knows how important his position is and realizes he has to fight for and protect the membership. His true colors will come out soon enough. Good luck PHL, sounds like your going to need it!

 

[LAS2PHX]

Yes, this is true!!!! The new CC (G.A.) here in PHL and some of his staff think that this attendance policy is a local agreement. He is mis-informing our junior agents that the last CC "signed off" on this policy and it is not in any other station! He promised during his campaign that he would either get this policy out, or a 10 min grace period which neither has happened!

I just hope that when we do go to the table that well informed CC's will be heading the charge because with leadership like this, we will never end up with a better contract! Someone mentioned "this is a joke" Well "this" is a joke!!!

thats just great I am assuming this G.A is the same that is on the negotiating team representing PHL.. with him and this arrogant p*ick out here in phx. thinking he can go around and threaten people
we are screwed with up coming negotiations. Hope the others have a level head and some knowledge of our contract and what the membership wants.