IAM Fleet Service topic

[no more cuts]

got a few things I want to get of my chest. I agree with the poster that said the ND team was all about PROTECTING JOBS
what a bunch of Political Fodder also they said they were going to Transparent. another bunch of Political Fodder
I totally agree that we the members need to hold the officers accountable. Unfortunately most folks are afraid to speak up
for fear that the leadership would not represent them if something happens. Isn't it about time that US members actually have
some representation hell we pay our dues just as much as UA but yet we have like 5 agcs and united has I think 20 some.
I understand they are a bigger group but its time for US to get as much as UA has in representation . this outsourcing crap has got
to stop. I am in my 5 city in 11 years and I have had enough. to the boys and girls that work in the hubs I really hope you read any
proposal s carefully because if you don't think your HUB couldnt be next think again ask PIT and LAS. And whoever said the President and
Sec.treasuer HAVE to BE UA people. I really believe that is why US doesn't get the same amount of represntation as UA does. I say its time
for a change put some US people in there that know what the hell there doing. one last thing about the pay schedule for AGC's I think
thats a great idea after all they DIDNT take a paycut when we were in BK did they . I heard they got a raise when we signed the POS back
in 07.

there Im done back to the Tim and PJ show

 

[Ramp Rogue]

PJ,
The reason why it will be imperative that my ticket keeps their word after we get sworn in is because I must assume that the Teamsters will be back at United ramp to try raiding DL141 again. Our ticket would be short lived if we lied to everyone and DL141 would be no more if the Teamsters were successful.

What is stopping the Teamsters from raiding US, if they can raid UA?

 

[Jester]

The US AIRWAYS membership is tired of being 'second best' as RD's primary focus is United.

I think that is going to be your biggest problem.... why would the United guys support someone from US, especially as you claim you would provide more focus to the US side. Hate to say it, but it is almost as if US needs to be separate or alone instead of the redheaded step child of the organization.

So Considers Jester.

 

[dexter]

Jester has a valid point for once
since those on have challenged the salary cuts split the ticket for President-one for UA-one for US
Put it out to the constitution committee for a vote by the membership--
A two for one in each category splitting the salaries and strengthening solidarity on both sides

 

[Tim Nelson]

I think that is going to be your biggest problem.... why would the United guys support someone from US, especially as you claim you would provide more focus to the US side. Hate to say it, but it is almost as if US needs to be separate or alone instead of the redheaded step child of the organization.

So Considers Jester.

Jester,

The United membership hates RD. Bottom line. The UA dogfight will most likely be between me and Karen. In fact, two years ago, the whole ND10 team would have lost if the US AIRWAYS membership didn't come to the rescue. Now, it's worse, ORD is fed up with AG and RD. Period. I believe I have a great ticket lined up with ORD commitments already but time will tell who gets the nomination in ORD, i.e., Me, Karen, or Rich. I don't believe UA folks will be offended voting for me since I delivered the UA ramp from the Teamsters and they understand that there is nothing wrong with treating US AIRWAYS members as their equals. Throw on the Continental dance partner and IMO, RD is going to suffer a serious pounding worse than Canale. I could be wrong because alot can change between now and June. If RD finally comes through on the $27hr that he promised to United rampers then he will kick my butt and Karen's. If he does that then GREAT! If he can extend the job protections of the 19 stations instead of running his mouth about Canale, then that would be great also! I really wouldn't mind a good ole butt kicking because of the union boss finally doing his job. In the end, the membership will decide and they will decide based on what has been done, and not all the goofy promises that have come up empty. That's how it always goes.

Whatever happens, I believe the salaries are thoroughly insulting and that no glorified Local chairman should be making over $100,000+. I also think the District should focus on saving money by reallocating the money for in house attorneys instead of pissing it away on high priced outside attorneys. The reason why they hire the outside law firms that bill the memberships dime at ridiculous rates is because certain folks get perks, free tickets, etc., if they keep being cozy with outside law firms. If you hire an in house attorney then all the perks die. I like to think of myself as an educated guy with a masters education but I'm bright enough to know that I don't have a law degree, so my administration is going to make sure that we not onlly recoup the money saved from getting rid of outside attorney fees [and all the personal perks] but that we hire an in-house professional labor attorney to make sure our members have an attorney presenting their arbitration. It will also allow further resource support for your negotiations team by providing an attorney in negotiations that understands the language. Not saying myself or your AGC's are dumb, but we don't have law degrees and it's about time that we recognize that and quit pounding our chests that "We da man". Sorry, we don't need anymore of this breakroom attorney mentality. Other unions have attorneys that do arbitration cases and so should we.

regards,

Tim Nelson
Cell: 224-234-5414

 

[necigrad]

Tim, I've got two questions for you. It's very true that RD has made DL141 look lke DLUA, and the other airlines are also mentioned. That's important stuff, but the contract far more so. We all know what Canale did to us with the TA. We haven't seen what the NC will put forth nor will we likely know how much input RD will have in what's presented. My understanding is that the NC will be deciding on the up and up, not some back door deals. My first question is why should we assume that RD will provide a poor contract which (at least to me) is far more important then the union posting about the furloughs (which I was in fact pissed off about as well). The second question is what's to say that you will honor your commitment. I do not mean to offend, but q

 

[niblet]

Jester,

The United membership hates RD. Bottom line. The UA dogfight will most likely be between me and Karen. In fact, two years ago, the whole ND10 team would have lost if the US AIRWAYS membership didn't come to the rescue. Now, it's worse, ORD is fed up with AG and RD. Period. I believe I have a great ticket lined up with ORD commitments already but time will tell who gets the nomination in ORD, i.e., Me, Karen, or Rich. I don't believe UA folks will be offended voting for me since I delivered the UA ramp from the Teamsters and they understand that there is nothing wrong with treating US AIRWAYS members as their equals. Throw on the Continental dance partner and IMO, RD is going to suffer a serious pounding worse than Canale. I could be wrong because alot can change between now and June. If RD finally comes through on the $27hr that he promised to United rampers then he will kick my butt and Karen's. If he does that then GREAT! If he can extend the job protections of the 19 stations instead of running his mouth about Canale, then that would be great also! I really wouldn't mind a good ole butt kicking because of the union boss finally doing his job. In the end, the membership will decide and they will decide based on what has been done, and not all the goofy promises that have come up empty. That's how it always goes.

Whatever happens, I believe the salaries are thoroughly insulting and that no glorified Local chairman should be making over $100,000+. I also think the District should focus on saving money by reallocating the money for in house attorneys instead of pissing it away on high priced outside attorneys. The reason why they hire the outside law firms that bill the memberships dime at ridiculous rates is because certain folks get perks, free tickets, etc., if they keep being cozy with outside law firms. If you hire an in house attorney then all the perks die. I like to think of myself as an educated guy with a masters education but I'm bright enough to know that I don't have a law degree, so my administration is going to make sure that we not onlly recoup the money saved from getting rid of outside attorney fees [and all the personal perks] but that we hire an in-house professional labor attorney to make sure our members have an attorney presenting their arbitration. It will also allow further resource support for your negotiations team by providing an attorney in negotiations that understands the language. Not saying myself or your AGC's are dumb, but we don't have law degrees and it's about time that we recognize that and quit pounding our chests that "We da man". Sorry, we don't need anymore of this breakroom attorney mentality. Other unions have attorneys that do arbitration cases and so should we.

regards,

Tim Nelson
Cell: 224-234-5414

I agree with being treated as equals. Sounds like Rich is very interested in getting United a large contract. Ok sounds great for them, but where does that leave us at USAirways? Are we not as important? We are at the negotiating table right now. My understanding is that Rich has not put the effort for US. He wasn't even there. I dont think we want to be bigger or better, just equals. My dues are the same as a United's dues. I expext the same treatment.

 

[wikileaks]

Tims not even eligible to run for a greivance committee person, he cant even get elected. but he wants to become president!!!!!!!!!!!!!! LOL

 

[Jester]

I also think the District should focus on saving money by reallocating the money for in house attorneys instead of pissing it away on high priced outside attorneys. The reason why they hire the outside law firms that bill the memberships dime at ridiculous rates is because certain folks get perks, free tickets, etc., if they keep being cozy with outside law firms. If you hire an in house attorney then all the perks die. I like to think of myself as an educated guy with a masters education but I'm bright enough to know that I don't have a law degree, so my administration is going to make sure that we not onlly recoup the money saved from getting rid of outside attorney fees [and all the personal perks] but that we hire an in-house professional labor attorney to make sure our members have an attorney presenting their arbitration. It will also allow further resource support for your negotiations team by providing an attorney in negotiations that understands the language. Not saying myself or your AGC's are dumb, but we don't have law degrees and it's about time that we recognize that and quit pounding our chests that "We da man". Sorry, we don't need anymore of this breakroom attorney mentality. Other unions have attorneys that do arbitration cases and so should we.

Tim,

You and I will probably disagree on more things than we agree upon in terms of an overall macro social/political/economic agenda, but we can agree that the gross inefficiencies with the overpayment of union leaders and the use of outside lawyers are somethings for which we as an union membership can ill afford. Like you, I am "lettered" with my background being business related, including management positions, and I would not think when I was a manager in attempting to represent the company in important legal matters without attorneys as support or leading the matter. Unfortunately, and I have said this for years on this board, we risk our very employment with the hope, as you put it, "breakroom attorneys", know what they are doing. I met a few of the ND team prior to their '08 run, and great guys to share a few beers, but I have no faith in their abilities to represent me in an arbitration. Unfortunately, guys like, "Oppie" took offense but there is world of difference between a guy who butchers hogs for a living vs. a micro surgeon who practices vascular repair after a decade of formal training.

Let's keep in mind that one of the strongest arguments as to the need for an union and the benefit of an union is that it allows an individual employee the ability afford expert legal advice as it relates to their job security and to obtain excellent representation in the event of an unjust termination of employment. Can we honestly say, we as an union, are being given that expert legal advice on those matters which affect our employment? I think the answer is very clearly "No," based upon the flawed CBA, the questionable attendance policy, lack of professional representation at arbitrations, and continued contracting of stations.

If your motives are as sincere as you state, and your mission isn't just another power trip by another union official, then I wish you the best in your objectives.

So Bestows Jester.

 

[Tim Nelson]

Tim, I've got two questions for you. It's very true that RD has made DL141 look lke DLUA, and the other airlines are also mentioned. That's important stuff, but the contract far more so. We all know what Canale did to us with the TA. We haven't seen what the NC will put forth nor will we likely know how much input RD will have in what's presented. My understanding is that the NC will be deciding on the up and up, not some back door deals. My first question is why should we assume that RD will provide a poor contract which (at least to me) is far more important then the union posting about the furloughs (which I was in fact pissed off about as well). The second question is what's to say that you will honor your commitment. I do not mean to offend, but q

DL141 has never stood up for US AIRWAYS like they do United. Why would we expect RD to be any different? On the contrary, what we have been seeing is just the same ole. The web page is all about United almost always. When RD doesn't go into the first section 6 negotiations for the first time in 12 years, but instead stays in ORD for a ND10 meeting, something is wrong. It sends a terrible message to management that you are an afterthought. Also, when ND10 was voted in, it was to prevent further job loss. However, in your first negotiations, your company kicked them off by announcing 250 more IAM US AIRWAYS jobs GONE. They don't have to respect you or the negotiations team since they already know that RD is more concerned with United. What's even more troubling is that there are 19 stations that will lose their protections, and 3 cargo centers, on December 31. I'm not saying that he's going to be able to sign an exhaustive contract in 6 months, but he needs to have enough juice to effectively negotiate a LOA to extend those protections. Unfortunately, he simply does not know how and I base that on his lack of understanding on how to build solidarity. Solidarity is the juice, not me or RD.

How do you know I will keep my committment. I'll stand by my record of how I worked for you with your dime. When I told you guys that I was going to take over the organizing leadership by Directing 141's organizing department, I told you guys that I would give you my word that I would do my best and bring home the troops into the camp and NOT Lose any to the enemy, which after all, is management. I did and I completed the job like NONE before me. While I was under your dime, I produced like no other IAM offical produced for you. And I did it by empowering the masses and allowing them to participate and finish the job. I organized 17,000 troops into this district at a time when everyone was saying the IAM was dying and dead. I took on alot of bullets in Atlanta for Airtran when the IAM got hammered on Delta but I was still able to secure the position for DL141 and 2,000 of the 3,200 airtran workers who were based in ATL. It's called building solidarity and giving folks vision and something to believe in by lifting them up and giving them hope and self worth. I would submit to you that you already know that I will honor my commitment because I already did one tour of duty for you and brought everyone back.

regards,

Tim Nelson
Cell: 224-234-5414

 

[Tim Nelson]

Tims not even eligible to run for a greivance committee person, he cant even get elected. but he wants to become president!!!!!!!!!!!!!! LOL

Wikileaks, you are correct, I was out of town the entire 2011 and most of 2010 spending my days in IAH and ATL organizing and missing Local meetings in ORD, so I can't run for a Local job. Sorry but I'm not much of a Robert's rule of order type of guy and I think the Local chairman in ORD is doing fine anyways. My focus is on changing this district. Hey sister, good luck with your election also, I hear you are running again.

regards,

Tim Nelson
cell: 224-234-5414

 

[Tim Nelson]

Tim,

You and I will probably disagree on more things than we agree upon in terms of an overall macro social/political/economic agenda, but we can agree that the gross inefficiencies with the overpayment of union leaders and the use of outside lawyers are somethings for which we as an union membership can ill afford. Like you, I am "lettered" with my background being business related, including management positions, and I would not think when I was a manager in attempting to represent the company in important legal matters without attorneys as support or leading the matter. Unfortunately, and I have said this for years on this board, we risk our very employment with the hope, as you put it, "breakroom attorneys", know what they are doing. I meet a few of the ND team prior to their '08 run, and great guys to share a few beers, but I have no faith in their abilities to represent me in an arbitration. Unfortunately, guys like, "Oppie" took offensive, but there is world of difference between a guy who butchers hogs for a living vs. a micro surgeon who practices vascular repair after a decade of formal training.

Let's keep in mind that one of the strongest arguments as to the need for an union and the benefit of an union is that it allows an individual employee the ability afford expert legal advice as it relates to their job security and to obtain excellent representation in the event of an unjust termination of employment. Can we honestly say, we as an union, are being given that expert legal advice on those matters which affect our employment? I think the answer if very clearly "No," based upon the flawed CBA, the questionable attendance policy, lack of professional representation at arbitrations, and continued contracting of stations.

If your motives are as sincere as you state, and your mission isn't just another power trip by another union official, then I wish you the best in your objectives.

So Bestows Jester.

Jester, my sincerity regarding what we needed to do in the organizing arm are matched with my sincerity of what we need to do with the representation arm. We had to scrap the IAM's organizing 101 because it was moronic and quite honestly intellectually insulting. Just terrible.
Our representation arm was also intellectually insulting to me and I'm running for President to finish the job. Cutting out the 'outside attorneys' also cuts out the free limo rides and perks of the 'qui pro quo' but that's ok. Bringing the legal work 'in house' saves tons of YOUR money and also provides additional resources and professional representation in negotiations and arbitration cases. Pledging back ridiculous salary levels will also free up $500,000 that can be put back into educating members and having more resources to help assist Locals. Your locals are broke, and barefoot. Acting on the pledges will also help us build trust. The Teamsters are coming back at United ramp in about one year so it will make no sense for anyone to run for District President only to lose the District to another union. IMO, if the leaders sacrifice the 'big money' then that ought to build a seed of trust. It's a reasonable pledge because it's not like anyone is going to go broke making $75,000 instead of $125,000. But, in leadership, it has to start with sacrifice and serving, and the leaders have to present themselves as servants, which is their reasonable service.

regards,

Tim Nelson
cell: 224-234-5414

 

[kingjggff]

It's only R & D, what happens with the U.S. GATS was silent from them too.

 

[roabilly]

Tim, just a few thoughts...

As far as the break room attorneys go… I will agree to an extent. Unfortunately, I’ve seen people practicing law that are worse than some of our best AGC’s. Just because someone has passed a bar exam, and is licensed to practice law, does not always mean that they will do a better job at representation.

Tim… are you telling me that not one single person from the original ND folks are getting your support? I think MF and MB should be an exception if that is the case.

I do agree that something should be addressed regarding the exorbitant salaries that are being paid by the membership to our AGC’s and officers. From my observation, this “pot of gold” salary promise makes the political process ruthless and flawed. I have seen entirely too many candidates that are focused on the gold, and not the Membership!

Lastly, Tim… when will we know who you have chosen for your ticket? How will that intermesh with the negotiations process? I’m pretty sure that we will not have an agreement of any kind for at least a year. Would that mean that the current team would be removed, and yours inserted? Would your team resume talks anew, or would you attempt to build on any progress that was made by the previous team? In other words… could this lead to a longer period without a tentative agreement?

 

[necigrad]

Tim, thanks for answering my questions. Whether one agrees or disagrees you, unlike the joke called a pilot group, can answer some yes and no questions. You did make an error however:

What's even more troubling is that there are 19 stations that will lose their protections, and 3 cargo centers, on December 31

PHX, LAS, and LAX DO NOT lose Cargo at the end of the year. It's there unless it's negotiated away. This is a myth that's been going around for far too long. It's not even a misinterpretation, no where in that paragraph does it refer to a date for a change on that other then May 8, 2008 as a start date for that condition.