IAM Fleet Service topic

[15CAG45BLJ]

Not an arguement. A debate

a dissociation about it right? why? you guys should be so PO'ED.........

 

[saywhat]

I dont understand. Why would that be any different. I mean some of the language is the same. Most of the contract was not even in consideration so it stayed the same but when it changes the company makes out. why?

The TA highlighted what was changing, it doesn't spell out every change. You would have to talk to one of the people in the transition negotiations for more clarification. I am definetely on the side of the Union. The contract says what it says. I would love to get a 2% raise in January and July but that isn't what is written.

 

[Hope777]

Hello, I'm new and i will be posting soon.......... but i just got one question why are you Argue over 2% ? we lost it when that POS contract was signed.. So what we going to do about it ? think brothers... 😀

Your Funny. POS.... The POS was When the so called Union Brothers/Sisters sold the Class II cites under the bus. You got what you deserved as did we.

 

[15CAG45BLJ]

Your Funny. POS.... The POS was When the so called Union Brothers/Sisters sold the Class II cites under the bus. You got what you deserved as did we.

why would you want to attack me brother ? lol Kool aide is you favorite drink?

 

[15CAG45BLJ]

The TA highlighted what was changing, it doesn't spell out every change. You would have to talk to one of the people in the transition negotiations for more clarification. I am definetely on the side of the Union. The contract says what it says. I would love to get a 2% raise in January and July but that isn't what is written.

+1

 

[niblet]

+1

The contract says what it says? Then 2% in Jan and Jul. Or the contract says what the company wants it to say when it suits their needs and f the rest of us. Back to drawing board grieve it and see what happens. Thats the comments from managers as they run up and down our backs. I say let an arbitrator decide whats legal and binding according to what is written in the contract.

 

[blownkneesbob]

PJ,
remember it says "if we don't come to a new agreement by Jul." so since the company in the T/A printed
out a schedule on the pay table, it is assumed they (The company) have no intention in securing a new
contract before Jul. So why did we waste our time and supposedly start negotiations in jul. I'm telling ya
I smell a rat here.

IAM member here,
you still haven't answered my question , what is RD doing to secure our seniority in the upcoming
AA merger. Glad to see that you already won the PCE election is that why your aloud to post on
public forums again or are you doing this against your boss RD back. Why don't you go over to the UA
page and leave the US members to fend for themselves as we always have had to.

As far as the 2 percent , I believe Roabilly spelled it out correctly a few pages back .
the companys got an extra 2 percent to play with now. so if they offer 4 percent
we suppose to believe thats a great deal when really its WHAT WE WERE SUPPOSE
TO GET ANYWAY.

 

[necigrad]

The TA highlighted what was changing, it doesn't spell out every change. You would have to talk to one of the people in the transition negotiations for more clarification. I am definetely on the side of the Union. The contract says what it says. I would love to get a 2% raise in January and July but that isn't what is written.

You're right, and yet wrong at the same time. You're certianly right in that the TA wasn't verbatim for everything. Where you're wrong is that the CBA represents what was passed. The TA is what was voted up or down. If the TA said "All employees will be provided apples at lunch", the company couldn't change it to read "All employees will be provided fruit at lunch". We voted on the TA. That's what everyone is accountable for.

I'm telling ya I smell a rat here.

And what sucks is no one actually knows who the rat is. The company says one thing, Canalle said another, Delaney says a third, and TN says a fourth. Who's right, who's wrong, and who's partially right? We can't tell. So much of union business (partially out of necessity) isn't public. We don't see transcripts of every discussion that's been had between the union and company, and we shouldn't. We SHOULD, however, know what's going on overall, and legitimate gripes need to be looked into, not dismissed. RD says (maybe the ND, dunno for certain) that the contract errors are being claimed by the company as negotiated changes. Great, show us the agreement. TN is rightly bringing this point up. No one is saying, however, how to fix this. Is the union working on it? Have they given up? We can't trust the union according to TN, we can't trust TN according to the union. I don't trust any of them. Sad #### state of affairs, isn't it?

 

[saywhat]

You're right, and yet wrong at the same time. You're certianly right in that the TA wasn't verbatim for everything. Where you're wrong is that the CBA represents what was passed. The TA is what was voted up or down. If the TA said "All employees will be provided apples at lunch", the company couldn't change it to read "All employees will be provided fruit at lunch". We voted on the TA. That's what everyone is accountable for.



And what sucks is no one actually knows who the rat is. The company says one thing, Canalle said another, Delaney says a third, and TN says a fourth. Who's right, who's wrong, and who's partially right? We can't tell. So much of union business (partially out of necessity) isn't public. We don't see transcripts of every discussion that's been had between the union and company, and we shouldn't. We SHOULD, however, know what's going on overall, and legitimate gripes need to be looked into, not dismissed. RD says (maybe the ND, dunno for certain) that the contract errors are being claimed by the company as negotiated changes. Great, show us the agreement. TN is rightly bringing this point up. No one is saying, however, how to fix this. Is the union working on it? Have they given up? We can't trust the union according to TN, we can't trust TN according to the union. I don't trust any of them. Sad #### state of affairs, isn't it?

Huh, I'm not wrong, read the language.

 

[Jester]

What is RD doing to secure our seniority in the upcoming AA merger.(?)

I think with the advent of the McCaskill-Bond Amendment, the integration of unions will NOT be a staple job, UNLESS the two integration unions are represented by the same union. As AA has the TWU and US has the IAM, there are various means by which a "fair" intergration of work force may be completed. If you are interested in reading more about the topic, I would suggest the following link:
http://www.amfanatl.org/images/pdf_docs/20101124_mc_caskill_bond_amendment_flier.pdf

However, it does raise an important point for those who are considering dumping the IAM in favor of the TWU, because the protections of the McCaskill-Bond Amendment only apply if there are two different unions. Unfortunately, I am not aware of the internal policies of the TWU on integration of workforces if it should be done solely by DOH, but it would give me pause to consider the TWU as a replacement for the IAM.

Personally, I do not know what anyone expects from their union representation about a hypothetical merger which may or may not happen between the two carriers, except maybe some informal discussions and reviews of respective policies of the other union.

So Considers Jester.

 

[necigrad]

Huh, I'm not wrong, read the language.

That's my point. You're right, but when you say the CBA is what should be gone by you're wrong. The CBA is the companies interpretation of the TA. The TA is what was voted in, thus the TA is the standard.

 

[IAM Member Here]

I think with the advent of the McCaskill-Bond Amendment, the integration of unions will NOT be a staple job, UNLESS the two integration unions are represented by the same union. As AA has the TWU and US has the IAM, there are various means by which a "fair" intergration of work force may be completed. If you are interested in reading more about the topic, I would suggest the following link:
http://www.amfanatl.org/images/pdf_docs/20101124_mc_caskill_bond_amendment_flier.pdf

However, it does raise an important point for those who are considering dumping the IAM in favor of the TWU, because the protections of the McCaskill-Bond Amendment only apply if there are two different unions. Unfortunately, I am not aware of the internal policies of the TWU on integration of workforces if it should be done solely by DOH, but it would give me pause to consider the TWU as a replacement for the IAM.

Personally, I do not know what anyone expects from their union representation about a hypothetical merger which may or may not happen between the two carriers, except maybe some informal discussions and reviews of respective policies of the other union.

So Considers Jester.

Wonderfully pointed out Jester. Mr Nelson is spreading the deceit that somehow the McCaskill-Bond Amendment does not apply and that we better vote him in because somehow RD is going to rob our fine us brothers and sisters of thier seniority. Any merger between AA and US will have the protections of the McCaskill-Bond.

 

[Tim Nelson]

Wonderfully pointed out Jester. Mr Nelson is spreading the deceit that somehow the McCaskill-Bond Amendment does not apply and that we better vote him in because somehow RD is going to rob our fine us brothers and sisters of thier seniority. Any merger between AA and US will have the protections of the McCaskill-Bond.

Oh puh leeasseeee!

I hate to break it to you again, but you, Say What, and Jester are simply incorrect. The McCaskill Bond will not apply to any AMR/US AIRWAYS merger. McCaskill Bond was written as a result of the AMR/TWA merger and applies to mergers like Airtran/ WN. You, Say What, and Jester, are simply misinformed. It will not apply to AMR/US and it didn't apply to UA/CO.

You guys kill me how you simply do not understand how the laws were written and who they apply to, especailly you and Say What. You guys are killing us bros.

What's worse is that yoiu probably have no idea why it doesn't apply to any AMR/US merger, do you? And, FWIW: Delaney thought it applied also to CO/UA and I had to sit down with him and explain it to him.

regards,

Tim Nelson

 

[Tim Nelson]

Wonderfully pointed out Jester. Mr Nelson is spreading the deceit that somehow the McCaskill-Bond Amendment does not apply and that we better vote him in because somehow RD is going to rob our fine us brothers and sisters of thier seniority. Any merger between AA and US will have the protections of the McCaskill-Bond.

Oh puh leeasseeee!

I hate to break it to you again, but you, Say What, and Jester are simply incorrect. The McCaskill Bond will not apply to any AMR/US AIRWAYS merger. McCaskill Bond was written as a result of the AMR/TWA merger and applies to mergers like Airtran/ WN. You, Say What, and Jester, are simply misinformed. It will not apply to AMR/US and it didn't apply to UA/CO.

You guys kill me how you simply do not understand how the laws were written and who they apply to, especailly you and Say What. You guys are killing us bros.

What's worse is that yoiu probably have no idea why it doesn't apply to any AMR/US merger, do you? And, FWIW: Delaney thought it applied also to CO/UA and I had to sit down with him and explain it to him.

regards,

Tim Nelson

 

[saywhat]

Oh puh leeasseeee!

I hate to break it to you again, but you, Say What, and Jester are simply incorrect. The McCaskill Bond will not apply to any AMR/US AIRWAYS merger. McCaskill Bond was written as a result of the AMR/TWA merger and applies to mergers like Airtran/ WN. You, Say What, and Jester, are simply misinformed. It will not apply to AMR/US and it didn't apply to UA/CO.

You guys kill me how you simply do not understand how the laws were written and who they apply to, especailly you and Say What. You guys are killing us bros.

What's worse is that yoiu probably have no idea why it doesn't apply to any AMR/US merger, do you? And, FWIW: Delaney thought it applied also to CO/UA and I had to sit down with him and explain it to him.

regards,

Tim Nelson

What am I wrong about Tim? The language is what it is. If you think you want to be President of District 141 you had better get knowledge of how contracts read. Filing a 1000 grievances doesn't make you a good President. Knowing what a good grievance is and winning it along with communication, transparency etc., etc. will determine how good or bad you are. BTW, it is true that McCaskill Bond will not necessarily protect anyone in a merger. TWU has a history of screwing fellow Union members who aren't TWU.