IAM Fleet Service topic

[wings396]

The way I read it, we get 2% in Jan, and another 2% July 1st if there isn't a new CBA by that time. Not sure what had developed since the hand out booklet was printed....

 

[Tim Nelson]

First off, that's one hell of an accusation based off of two second hand rumors. Somebody comes on the board and asks "Is it true?", the other says "I heard it from someone else." I'm paraphrasing, but that's the gist. Is there anyone that's actually heard this remark? If so, from whom?

Regarding the "misprints" from a few years ago, when RD and his crew was in LAS I was told that that the Company stated that Canale agreed to the changes. I mention that the website needs to be updated to that and the membership informed. I was also told that the Company was asked to show the letter agreeing to those changes and at the time that letter had not materialized. We DO need an update on this. Trying to play that the "Canale did it" on a subject like this is a weak excuse is itself a weak excuse. If Canale did it, he did it, and there's nothing the ND can do to change that. Facts are facts unless you're in a political campaign. Then they become whatever the side using them wants them to be.



You're right on your analysis that if it happens now it may happen again. So IF the rumors are true this needs to go through the grievance process. I can't imagine any arbiter, even a Company one, not recognizing the BS of a "typo". The Company got the contract printed and distributed over three years ago. I can't imagine any Judge believing that the Company "just now" realized it, especially in combination with the "approved changes".

I really wish this was a bad nightmare or that it wasn't true. Unfortunately, the LC from CLT is telling everyone that you have to go by the Tentative agreement and not the contract. He is laying claim that it supercedes all previous agreements, however, the contract isn't previous. Also, since when does the LC of any station bring in a tentative agreement and not a contract when fighting grievances?

My understanding is that no letter exists where Canale or Chandlee signed off on contract changes and when the AGC's are backed into the corner they say it disappeared. Folks, they can't have it both ways, if they are going to say that Canale signed off then show us the LOA. All Letters of agreements are included in the district files so if it exists then surely they can produce it. Why say it disappeared? Something is wrong.

regards,

Tim Nelson

 

[Tim Nelson]

I really wish this was a bad nightmare or that it wasn't true. Unfortunately, the LC from CLT is telling everyone that you have to go by the Tentative agreement and not the contract. He is laying claim that it supercedes all previous agreements, however, the contract isn't previous. Also, since when does the LC of any station bring in a tentative agreement and not a contract when fighting grievances?

My understanding is that no letter exists where Canale or Chandlee signed off on contract changes and when the AGC's are backed into the corner they say it disappeared. Folks, they can't have it both ways, if they are going to say that Canale signed off then show us the LOA. All Letters of agreements are included in the district files so if it exists then surely they can produce it. Why say it disappeared? Something is wrong.

regards,

Tim Nelson

also, all the contract discrepenices and an accompanying letter were posted on the IAM141 website until this topic of 2% started gaining steam. Why did they remove it? Don't worry, it was previously copied.

regards,

Tim Nelson

 

[Jester]

My understanding is that no letter exists where Canale or Chandlee signed off on contract changes and when the AGC's are backed into the corner they say it disappeared. Folks, they can't have it both ways, if they are going to say that Canale signed off then show us the LOA. All Letters of agreements are included in the district files so if it exists then surely they can produce it.

I would think the real professionals in this equation, The Company, would have any LOA in their records, especially those that benefit them financially. It would seem to be an obvious solution for someone in the New Direction leadership to make a call to Tempe and ask them about the matter and if there is a LOA, and to kindly provide a copy. Granted, it is probably an embarassing admission, but it would more embarassing to push this to being a legal matter, only to find a signed document which dismisses any claims.

So Recommends Jester.

 

[roabilly]

also, all the contract discrepenices and an accompanying letter were posted on the IAM141 website until this topic of 2% started gaining steam. Why did they remove it? Don't worry, it was previously copied.

regards,

Tim Nelson

The plot thickens…

Apparently, the argument arose over a discrepancy between the T/A that we were all provided with prior too actually ratifying the agreement, and the printed ratified version of the CBA that was distributed to the membership.

I have a copy of the printed version of the T/A that was negotiated in 2008. Within this agreement are two things in the language that are causing this mess…

First, the pay scale clearly shows a 2% progression for the years 09, 10, and 11. The last column that addresses 2012 contains ONE 2% increase to be awarded on July1, 2012 if no agreement has been reached by the amendable date. There is absolutely NO mention of a 2% increase on Jan 1, 2012 as we see in the distributed CBA copies provided to the membership.

Now… the second item regarding this issue is a clause in the tentative that actually ensures that any discrepancies between the printed CBA, and the original tentative will be resolved by giving the T/A precedence that supersedes any conflict in terms between the two.

The language reads as follows…

This letter of Agreement:
(A) Governs in case of conflict between one of its terms and a provision of the existing US Airways fleet service Collective Bargaining Agreement, as amended.

Of course this was all negotiated by Canale at the time, and now Delaney does not feel that we have a legal case to challenge it. My question is this… how did we go for four years without either the Union or the Company realizing this major discrepancy in terms?

I could see an oversight if it were something small or irrelevant, but this is freakin PAY here!

 

[Tim Nelson]

The plot thickens…

Apparently, the argument arose over a discrepancy between the T/A that we were all provided with prior too actually ratifying the agreement, and the printed ratified version of the CBA that was distributed to the membership.

I have a copy of the printed version of the T/A that was negotiated in 2008. Within this agreement are two things in the language that are causing this mess…

First, the pay scale clearly shows a 2% progression for the years 09, 10, and 11. The last column that addresses 2012 contains ONE 2% increase to be awarded on July1, 2012 if no agreement has been reached by the amendable date. There is absolutely NO mention of a 2% increase on Jan 1, 2012 as we see in the distributed CBA copies provided to the membership.

Now… the second item regarding this issue is a clause in the tentative that actually ensures that any discrepancies between the printed CBA, and the original tentative will be resolved by giving the T/A precedence that supersedes any conflict in terms between the two.

The language reads as follows…

This letter of Agreement:
(A) Governs in case of conflict between one of its terms and a provision of the existing US Airways fleet service Collective Bargaining Agreement, as amended.

Of course this was all negotiated by Canale at the time, and now Delaney does not feel that we have a legal case to challenge it. My question is this… how did we go for four years without either the Union or the Company realizing this major discrepancy in terms?

I could see an oversight if it were something small or irrelevant, but this is freakin PAY here!

Roabilly, what letter of agreement are you referring to? And why does MF/MB say that BC signed off on all the discrepencies but can't seem to produce a letter of agreement from BC? Cripes, they keep all the LOA on file, surely MF and MB can produce the letter????? Delaney has been making Mike look really bad as Mike can't even say that the IAM Pension Trustees hosed his membership. It's truly amazing what $100,000 does to some folks. Also, ask mf if he's yielded to Roach, in negotiations, on dumping increased contributions into the IAM pension when that money will be more secure going into wages, benefits, days off, or other retirement options that are already in your contract.

I mean, if your pension is $81 a month, and then the IAM Pension trustees loot the hell out of it 3 days after the NW members voted the union out, so that your pension rate is now $47, at what point does it make any sense at all for MF and MB to just pile more of your hard earned money into the hands of the 'good hands people'? I still have Roach's letter guaranteeing the future 'defined' benefit which isn't so defined. Ask MB if he's supporting Delaney on dumping in more of your money into the IAM pension fund? Ask him, then you should be able to figure out what is going on in CLT.

And why are we still talking about all of these discrepencies after 3 years that the new direction said they were going to 'fix' them? If the T/A is what we need copies of now, then where is my pocketsized contract? These guys simply are way over their heads and don't know at all what they are doing.

I would welcome any debate from ANY of our AGC's, 'straight up" anywhere but they don't come out. They would rather hid behind PM's since they know I would force them to clarify their Bull Crap. It really wasn't suppose to be this way but some folks don't know who their boss is. Ask Billy K who the AGC's say is their boss. They say it's Rich Delaney but their boss is the MEMBERSHIP and the membership is who paid them and me. They just don't get it. Anyone who has IAM blood and bows down to the labor organization as opposed to having the blood of the masses and serving the masses, just won't 'get it'.

At any rate, we need to occupy 141 and take out the greed and management out of this union. The IAM is a vehicle we can use because of its democracy but before we can affect change we must occupy. Over the next few months, we will be developing a webpage that will bring forth how we will be bringing the IAM back to the masses like it has never been before. And it's going to be exciting and it will give the masses the opportunity that it has NEVER had before in this district.

regards,

Tim Nelson

 

[roabilly]

Tim,

My understanding is that the LOA is actually the T/A itself. I'm looking at the header and it reads as follows...

Printable Version of Tentative Agreement
Letter from District 141 President & General Chairman Randy Canale
LETTER OF AGREEMENT
Between US AIRWAYS, and AMERICA WEST AIRLINES INC.
and the
FLEET SERVICE EMPLOYEES

The language in my previous post came directly from this T/A (letter of agreement)

 

[Tim Nelson]

Tim,

My understanding is that the LOA is actually the T/A itself. I'm looking at the header and it reads as follows...

Printable Version of Tentative Agreement
Letter from District 141 President & General Chairman Randy Canale
LETTER OF AGREEMENT
Between US AIRWAYS, and AMERICA WEST AIRLINES INC.
and the
FLEET SERVICE EMPLOYEES

The language in my previous post came directly from this T/A (letter of agreement)

Oh that one. MB and MF are going around misquoting it and using it completely out of context. They are saying that it governs your current contract and they are blowing smoke up folks ass using page 2 of the T/A. However, page 2 of the T/A is ONLY talking about the 'existing contract', i.e., before the T/A. Your current contract wasn't even born until afterwards. Cripes, it wasn't even ratified yet! Thus "A" is talking about the previous contract that was the existing contract at the time.

"B" is talking about your current contract. The company's action [not the union's] was to provide a contract to each worker containing the language changes within 6 months after ratification. So who's fault is it that the company presumably screwed up? And ask MF if Delaney had to sign off on this 2% with a letter of clarification to get the company off the hook. See what he says for a chuckle.

These guys are in way over their heads and are just spouting what Delaney briefed them to say. They simply don't know what they are doing. At any rate, something is wrong when the New Direction sides with management quickly over misprints that are beneficial to the masses, but has done absolutely nothing in fixing the misprints that go against the masses. These guys are bought and paid for and flipped like pancakes.

regards,

Tim Nelson

 

[roabilly]

Oh that one. MB and MF are going around misquoting it and using it completely out of context. They are saying that it governs your current contract and they are blowing smoke up folks ass using page 2 of the T/A. However, page 2 of the T/A is ONLY talking about the 'existing contract', i.e., before the T/A. Your current contract wasn't even born until afterwards. Cripes, it wasn't even ratified yet! Thus "A" is talking about the previous contract that was the existing contract at the time.

"B" is talking about your current contract. The company's action [not the union's] was to provide a contract to each worker containing the language changes within 6 months after ratification. So who's fault is it that the company presumably screwed up? And ask MF if Delaney had to sign off on this 2% with a letter of clarification to get the company off the hook. See what he says for a chuckle.

These guys are in way over their heads and are just spouting what Delaney briefed them to say. They simply don't know what they are doing since they have placed themselves so far up Delaney's butt.

regards,

Tim Nelson

I hear yahh Tim...

Elections will be interesting to say the least!

Keep on keepin' on!

 

[Tim Nelson]

I hear yahh Tim...

Elections will be interesting to say the least!

Keep on keepin' on!

I'm on it Roabilly. We also got a shot this time for US AIRWAYS to finally be treated the same as our brothers and sisters at United. Delaney is all about United and 141 is all about United but it doesn't have to stay that way. Over the next few months I will have a webpage with the platform of how we will occupy 141. Once we get the greed and management out of 141, the membership will be proud of their union for the first time. No letters of agreement without the consent of the masses. No confidentiality papers will be signed, so your negotiators will be able to come back from negotiations and give you the full report. The savings of almost $500,000 in salaries through pledges of the new officers. Let's face it, the 6 figure salaries are a big overpayment, especially with dues going up once again. Employee observers in negotiations for 'full transparency'. Firing of the outside lawfirm and hiring of an in house attorney to be 'present' in EVERY negotiations and every arbitration. No more "Call an attorney". I'm an educated man but I realize having an additional resource in negotiations and in arbitrations that has a law degree can be a tremendous asset for our members when we need immediate clarifications or when he/she hears something that he/she picks up on and begs for clarification.

Your contract is a mess. A complete mess and there is so much gray in it that you can paint a US battleship with it. Cripes, it's such a mess that nobody knows what the hell you are going to be making in two months and you have Local Chairman running around carrying the T/A because they can't trust the contract. Jester is right about education and he must have some education. Because it takes an educated man to understand that having someone with a law degree at your side in negotiations isn't a threat on your manhood or intelligence. At any rate, alot of other good things are planned that reduce almost $1 million of cost of YOUR money. Having two District buildings also makes no sense at all. Eliminate the rent out in California and streamline.

Good things Roabilly, Good things.

regards,

Tim Nelson

 

[roabilly]

However, page 2 of the T/A is ONLY talking about the 'existing contract', i.e., before the T/A. Your current contract wasn't even born until afterwards.

This is certainly a key issue, as we are being told that this specific language (A) is what is legally binding us to the T/A, thus rendering the misprint in the CBA as invalid.

Speaking of education... let's all hope that this is yet another lesson learned for future reference. We are getting educated the hard way!

I like the idea of eliminating confidentiality agreements, they only serve to cloak the process from the Membership until they are presented with the final tentative. Historically, this final tentative will come with a recommendation to ratify from the Union.

I've been a little hard on Jester in the past, but I agree... he is obviously educated and has certainly contributed valid points through the years.

This one's for Jester... CAH...CHSSSS ... (sound of beer being opened)

 

[Kev3188]

I'm on it Roabilly. We also got a shot this time for US AIRWAYS to finally be treated the same as our brothers and sisters at United. Delaney is all about United and 141 is all about United but it doesn't have to stay that way. Over the next few months I will have a webpage with the platform of how we will occupy 141. Once we get the greed and management out of 141, the membership will be proud of their union for the first time.

How impossible would it be to say "F it," and move to 142?

 

[700UW]

Impossible, the International controls who is in what district, never gonna happen.

 

[roabilly]

This will be my last post regarding the Jan 1 raise issue. I just want to make it clear that the local G/C as well as our AGC have been 100% transparent in explaining the entire process regarding the misprint from start to finish.

I have personally spoken with them, and I’m satisfied that neither they… nor Delaney had anything to do with the issue.

I am not going to choose a position in any political side shows; I will still uphold the integrity of the N/D folks as before with objectivity. It should be clear that I never blamed anyone in particular for the oversight. I just wanted to ensure that nothing like this will ever slip trough the cracks again.

 

[Tim Nelson]

This will be my last post regarding the Jan 1 raise issue. I just want to make it clear that the local G/C as well as our AGC have been 100% transparent in explaining the entire process regarding the misprint from start to finish.

I have personally spoken with them, and I’m satisfied that neither they… nor Delaney had anything to do with the issue.

I am not going to choose a position in any political side shows; I will still uphold the integrity of the N/D folks as before with objectivity. It should be clear that I never blamed anyone in particular for the oversight. I just wanted to ensure that nothing like this will ever slip trough the cracks again.

Roabily,
make sure you talk to all sides. I returned your call. I want to talk to you 'objectively, about the actions of the ND, as opposed to what they say, and what it means for US AIRWAYS.

regards,

Tim Nelson