IAM Fleet Service topic

[Jester]

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.

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.

Tim,

I cited something that was posted from the AMFA website who obviously has had to deal with the issue of airline mergers as it affects their membership. Now I am more than willing to learn from another, especially in areas for which I have no expertise in the topic. However, retorting only towards with differing views as being "simply misinformed" or "you probably have no idea why it doesn't apply" while providing no citations of the law or even a related website which addresses McCaskill-Bond lends little creditability to your argument.

Frankly, even your discussion with Delaney on the matter might provide some insights to your understanding as to how McCaskill-Bond would not apply in the case of AA-US, but again... you provided nothing to support your position. Personally, I would not trust AA TWU leadership in handling seniority integration in even something remotely fair to the US side, so based upon my understanding of McCaskill-Bond and the relative size of AA to US FSAs, I would oppose dumping the IAM in favor of the TWU.

So Evinces Jester.

 

[blownkneesbob]

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.

Still waiting for your answer. If your answer is in the McCaskill-Bond then we REALLY are going to get screwed. Better come up with something better than that.

 

[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.

Say What,

You simply do not understand the McCaskill Bond. It's not that the McCaskill Bond will not necessarily protect anyone in a merger, but rather, it won't even apply to the us airways rampers in an american merger. I'll post more about this under my post to Jester that I will write after this one.

As far as reading contracts, are you suggesting that I don't know how to read a contract or don't understand the language or where it came from? Reading contracts is a big part of how one wins organizing drives, especially against another union. At any rate, the US contract can't be read alone since it doesn't mean what it says.

I agree with your statements that lump grievances with communication and transparency. So then, why don't we have transparency? Why hasn't the web page addressed the 2% and had enough respect to educate the members on what happened? why are you hiding behind a handle if you believe in transparency? If you are going to talk the talk and bust on me, then please walk the walk. It's easy if you lay down your fear, pride, and ego and decide you want to take on unnecessary bullets like I am from you.

At any rate, i think you are south of the mason dixon line and you ought to call me first and ask me straight up since you have my phone number, before posting under an alias. That would be fair[er]. Either that or you ought to be more transparent.

Oh, regarding where the pocket sized contract language went, I have maintained copies of all TA's to date but please save me the time of digging in my storage, and cite where we agreed to giving up the pocket sized contracts, and addendum A which protects BDL and PVD among other things. I've asked my AGC but he said he didn't know and told me to ask MC. You brought it up that all the company is required to do is produce an adequately bound contract so please cite in a previous TA where we agreed to that? Maybe you are right about that one but at least reference what you are talking about. Thanks in advance.

regards,

Tim Nelson

 

[Tim Nelson]

Tim,

I cited something that was posted from the AMFA website who obviously has had to deal with the issue of airline mergers as it affects their membership. Now I am more than willing to learn from another, especially in areas for which I have no expertise in the topic. However, retorting only towards with differing views as being "simply misinformed" or "you probably have no idea why it doesn't apply" while providing no citations of the law or even a related website which addresses McCaskill-Bond lends little creditability to your argument.

Frankly, even your discussion with Delaney on the matter might provide some insights to your understanding as to how McCaskill-Bond would not apply in the case of AA-US, but again... you provided nothing to support your position. Personally, I would not trust AA TWU leadership in handling seniority integration in even something remotely fair to the US side, so based upon my understanding of McCaskill-Bond and the relative size of AA to US FSAs, I would oppose dumping the IAM in favor of the TWU.

So Evinces Jester.

I know Jester, and I hear ya, but I was in the middle of eating a chilli dog when a few quoted post of mine came across my phone. I answered 'IAM member here' in a sorta truncated opinion based on the McCaskill Bond Act [MBA], but I hadn't the time to cite anything. I've also shut the football game off, and stopped scratching my balls on the couch, so I have some time to give a full response to explain to everyone how the MBA will have no effect on any US/Amr merger. To be sure, a response is needed since there are a few AGC's that I heard have been telling folks that MBA will certainly apply to US members. Even Say What seems to be 'off path'. Such AGC's are simply ignorant on the law. I don't mean that in a bad way but they are simply wrong. Me, being a professional organizer, I have had to deal with the MBA before in regards to mergers. At any rate, I have no problem if someone wants to copy and print this response since it is significant and there is nobody in the District leadership which is well versed on these items. The talk on the ramp is AMR so this post should be shared since it is a very hot topic current event.

The MBA truly was signed into law to help bring about the chance for 'more' fairness than the AA/TWA merger did. But it was carefully written insomuch that it wasn't intended to get in the way from representational disputes + internal union policies so there are exceptions in the MBA.

You did well to cite AMFA's cliff note version of the MBA but it is only a cliff note. It doesn't cite the exception clause that yields to internal union policies when both groups are in the same union. Therefore, let me explain a few cases and models that should help unpack what that means, and specifically what that will mean to our District's US membership.

1. The Airtran/Southwest merger. In this model, MBA does in fact apply. It applies to AMFA, the TWU, the IAM, the IBT, and a few other unions on the Airtran/Southwest property. It fits the AA/TWA model and is exactly the sorta thing that the MBA was drafted for. The reason why the MBA applies is because there are NO representational disputes, i.e., no union on airtran can file for an election with 35%+ support. Without a representational dispute, the MBA most certainly applies.

2. Continental/United merger: The MBA does not apply since there were representational disputes. In each case, a union could trigger a representational dispute because it had more than 35%. Notice, a representational dispute will force a choice between two unions. Correct? This will also be true with US/AMR fleet service since the IAM will represent about 6,400, and the TWU will represent around 9,000 or less. THere will be an election. Bottom line. The significance of an election is that after an election there will only be one union chosen. Thus, under the MBA, it does not apply when both sets of employees have the same union.

That brings up another interesting question in the process, i.e., what is the TWU internal union policy, and what is the IAM's?

The TWU has a 'fair and equitable' policy that is based on various things in various situations. The IAM's internal policy is date of hire, even though we know that date of hire can mean alot of different things.

More importantly, are the two contracts. The IAM has historically failed to negotiate any sacredity clauses to protect its members in mergers. Most IAM contracts simply have the lazy knee jerk, Alleghany Mohawk citations which simply do not go far enough. The TWU's seniority provisions in the AMR contract and the WN contract are very clear with sacredity, i.e., in the case of a merger, their members can not be affected adversely.

How will that apply in an AMR/US merger? What we know is that the MBA will not apply if the IAM triggers the 35%+. So, you won't be able to lean on the MBA. What we don't know is which union you will have and which leadership you will have.

If the TWU wins the presumed election, then they will most certainly be able to determine what is fair and equitable by applying it to the 'adversely affected' clause. I couldn't imagine that coming out < advantage US AIRWAYS fleet.

OTOH, what does a United airlines President have to lose if he/she has no US blood or seniority? Nothing against you Jester, but we have already seen how a UA President willingly dumped the east profit sharing into the westies hands. Yes, that benefitted the westies but maybe next time a UA union prez will give into seniority as opposed to profit sharing.

I should note that the seniority language in the TWU AMR contract may be subject to change in bankruptcy, so alot does remain to be seen presuming a merger.

regards,

Tim Nelson

edit: **** The MBA does NOT apply in the Airtran/Southwest merger for the ticket agents since they are already in the same union. Same with the stock clerks who are both IBT. end of edit***

 

[saywhat]

Say What,

You simply do not understand the McCaskill Bond. It's not that the McCaskill Bond will not necessarily protect anyone in a merger, but rather, it won't even apply to the us airways rampers in an american merger. I'll post more about this under my post to Jester that I will write after this one.

As far as reading contracts, are you suggesting that I don't know how to read a contract or don't understand the language or where it came from? Reading contracts is a big part of how one wins organizing drives, especially against another union. At any rate, the US contract can't be read alone since it doesn't mean what it says.

I agree with your statements that lump grievances with communication and transparency. So then, why don't we have transparency? Why hasn't the web page addressed the 2% and had enough respect to educate the members on what happened? why are you hiding behind a handle if you believe in transparency? If you are going to talk the talk and bust on me, then please walk the walk. It's easy if you lay down your fear, pride, and ego and decide you want to take on unnecessary bullets like I am from you.

At any rate, i think you are south of the mason dixon line and you ought to call me first and ask me straight up since you have my phone number, before posting under an alias. That would be fair[er]. Either that or you ought to be more transparent.

Oh, regarding where the pocket sized contract language went, I have maintained copies of all TA's to date but please save me the time of digging in my storage, and cite where we agreed to giving up the pocket sized contracts, and addendum A which protects BDL and PVD among other things. I've asked my AGC but he said he didn't know and told me to ask MC. You brought it up that all the company is required to do is produce an adequately bound contract so please cite in a previous TA where we agreed to that? Maybe you are right about that one but at least reference what you are talking about. Thanks in advance.

regards,

Tim Nelson

Tim,

You need to go back and look at my posts. The only reference I have made to the MBA was in my last post. I said that the MBA wouldn't necessarily help anyone in a merger, which is a true statement. I also said that the TWU has a history of screwing fellow Union members, which is true. Regarding language in the 2005 CBA and the 2008 CBA, I said that you would have to talk to a negotiating member of the last talks to find out if the TA had every change spelled out or not. The TA governs misprints in the 2008 CBA. That is written in the TA. The TA isn't specific enough to know if any change had to be listed. I would grieve anything changed in the CBA not listed in the TA unless confirmed by negotiators from the last CBA that the TA didn't have everything spelled out.

 

[Tim Nelson]

Tim,

You need to go back and look at my posts. The only reference I have made to the MBA was in my last post. I said that the MBA wouldn't necessarily help anyone in a merger, which is a true statement. I also said that the TWU has a history of screwing fellow Union members, which is true. Regarding language in the 2005 CBA and the 2008 CBA, I said that you would have to talk to a negotiating member of the last talks to find out if the TA had every change spelled out or not. The TA governs misprints in the 2008 CBA. That is written in the TA. The TA isn't specific enough to know if any change had to be listed. I would grieve anything changed in the CBA not listed in the TA unless confirmed by negotiators from the last CBA that the TA didn't have everything spelled out.

Say What,

In your previous post, you quoted my comments about the MBA. I just fine tuned your rather safe but general 'not necessarily' to 'will NOT'.

Don't tell me who to talk to, I flat out talked to my AGC and he said he didn't know and to ask another AGC. That's not the type of leadership I want and it's the exact reason why I can no longer support them. We want answers, not the BS you just spewed that provides us no answer at all other than ask someone else. I asked you because you were so quick to be the company mouthpiece on the 2% and you FALSELY said 'adequately bound contracts' was permissible. You are starting to sound like Brickner.

I asked you two very pointed questions to weed out your BS. Let me recap your position first. You admit that the contract really isn't enforeable without the TA, so that any misprints in the contract will not apply if not first in the TA. I think most understand that. You also said that all the company has to do is produce an 'adequately bound' contract booklet, right? Therefore, I asked you to reference in any TA where the language changed from 'pocket size' to 'adequately bound'?

Your response wasn't to cite anywhere in any TA, since you can't, and instead you yielded to written notes. Am I right about this? Then you yielded the question and said I should just ask whoever negotiated the previous TA's. There are a few problems with that.

1. Why do you presume that all the company has to do is produce 'adequately bound' contracts? Remember, in a real debate, the onus will be on you to prove and substantiate your claim since it is your presumption. Are you following the same path you want us to follow? I asked you to clarify what LOA or TA changed the pocket sized language. Did you look at the written notes? How did you come up with the conclusion that all the company has to do is produce an adequately bound contract? This is a significant question because there are other problems in the contract. Again, why do you presume that the company only has to produce 'adequately bound' contracts? Please cite for us your source. Thank you in advance.

2. When I ask my AGC the same questions, he texted me that he didn't know and yielded to MC. Amazingly, my same AGC is dogging MC, so why does my AGC admit that MC has more knowledge than he does regarding these matters. Could you imagine MF going into your breakrooms telling your members, "Ask MC"? C'mon maaaaaaaaaannnnnn! My presumption at this point is that you have drank the kool aid and have been offered something. Time will tell and I admit I really don't know at this point. But you have definately changed. Hint: stop listening to Brickner also, that may help you.

3. More importantly. BDL and PVD. Also, I'm starting to feel a little concerned about PVD or BDL and that they may very well be classified as class 2 stations by the company. I am concerned because MF has refused to get back with me about Addendum A and you yourself have yielded past the contracts and past the TA's to scribbled notes in boxes or files at the District. PVD and BDL were grandfathered into class 1, regardless of the amount of flights they had. In 1999, I asked Joe Maccarone for clarity about this since ORD had more flights. The bottom line was that the language said that the company would recognize PVD and BDL as class one stations. There was also other key language in that addendum. Where is the addendum? Why wasn't it incorporated into the contracts? Are you fighting this? I ask because my presumption is that since the company successfully made that language and entire addendum disappear, it will now be likely that BDL and PVD start getting treated like second class stations. Are they? [Anyone from BDL, PVD here...how did you do your vacation bidding? ]

Do I have the answers to these questions, not entirely and that's why I'm asking. It's not good enough for our AGC's to throw their hands up and say 'beats me' or 'we can't go by the contract or the TA and we have to call pevious negotiators and get their scribbles." Folks, it's gotten that bad because nobody gives a damn and nobody is doing their J.O.B.

Get answers and come back to the membership with them but don't sh** folks by saying "Canale..." and don't SH** folks and say "all the company has to do is produce adequately bound" when you haven't any written notes or TA's to reference. That's all I'm saying. Moving forward....get us the answers please. Come March, you better do a bit better than what you are doing now otherwise the breakrooms will turn on you and plenty.

regards,

Tim Nelson

 

[saywhat]

Tim,

Why are you so angry? A simple question to a negotiator from the past on whether the TA encompassed every change or not is all I said. I said I would grieve any omission unless verified that the TA didn't include everything. That doesn't have to be notes, it could be memory. I have a problem with AGC's not getting back to people but have you ever considered that anybody that talks to you knows you are going to blast it to the world what they said and why they are wrong?

 

[Tim Nelson]

Also, IMO, with the presumed coming of a merger, seniority needs to be moved up to the 'top' negotiated position. Has our negotiations team been addressing these items? Say What, has it?

I know pay/benefits/job security are all important but it's all going to hinge on seniority in a presumed merger with a group that has a sacredity clause in its binding agreement that can't be denied. Somebody needs to be at the wheel on this one BIGTIME. Hear LET ME SCREAM THAT::: BIGTIME. PRONTO!

Don't let the IAM leaders tell you that the MBA will protect you...IT WONT and IT WILL NOT APPLY. Don't let Delaney, Brickner, or my buddy Tom Reagon tell you that seniority will be worked out at a later date. One thing is for sure, the IAM INTL leadership doesn't give a rats ass and has proven to take the path of least resistance. Please, let us not take any more pension promises or seniority promises and lelt's make sure the 141 membership is educated.

I'm sure the AGC"s have read what I wrote and now realize they can't Sh** the membership over the MBA anymore. But, our AGC's need to educate the membership on the answers to the TWU contract at AMR. Hey, maybe there wont' be any merger, and that's fine, but we have to be proactive and take care of some things that probably should have been taken care of years ago. It's about time the IAM stop hosing folks in mergers and start doing what it ought to do with 'sacredity' clauses in its contracts. Folks, hasn't it been long enough dealing with AGC's who "Can't tell ya"? And always justify an excuse and become a company mouthpiece?

The masses have to overtake the union and occupy 141. Things have to be transparent, information and knowledge have to flow down to the masses for our strength to grow. Previously, I have always yielded to others on a District ballot, even though I could have easily taken a spot. So, this will be my first District ballot and the platform of the ballot is to hand over the district to the masses. Obvioiusly, the IAM nor the Company's want that but that's the only way and we have to occupy and get rid of the greed and management style unionisms.

It's fairly simple. Bring in transparency, and dump information and knowledge to the masses instead of keeping things from them like the airlines want. Along the way, there also has to be some wisdom.

1. Get rid of the greed. My S/T and myself are pledging $75,000 salaries. Guess what....$75,000 is still pretty good isn't it so I will still be blessed to serve you guys. The Pres has a bylaw salary of about $126,000 so what this means is that I'm pledging back about $50,000 through charitable givings to the District. Myself and my S/T will make the least since we believe you lead by serving and being least. The AGC's will pledge back also. It comes out to between $400,000 - $500,000 savings. The money will be sent back to the locals in the form of educational scholarships [Placid Harbor] and seminars [two week extensive labor studies at top universities], and help subsidizing delegates to conventions so all locals can be represented. At any rate, our brothers and sisters in charge are making waaaaaaayyyyyy too much. Plus our membership is far away from connecting to its union since it has lost trust. We have to build trust and that always starts with sacrifice.

2. Letters of Agreement. There will be no more LOA without membership consent. Period. None of us know what the heck has been signed over the past couple years, that has to stop and it will. Inform the membership.

3. Letters of confidentiality. Abolish this practice in negotiations. With my leadership, we will take on the model of what other unions have taken on and inform the membership of the proposals, etc. We will also do what other unions do and have a rotation of employee observers to see how their negotiations team works.

4. Hire an In house attorney. We same thousands of dollars and provide greater resources when we fire the outside law firm that is 'just a phone call away' and hire an in house labor attorney. The company has attorneys sitting in negotiations and so should we...and they need to be in house attorneys, NOT the same contracted out attorneys who couldn't even get the 2% right in the contract.

5. Attorney used as an additional resource and present in arbitrations and negotiations. Folks, I am proud of my higher education but I have found that the more education I have, the more I need, so I recognize the value of providing our members with an attorney next to your AGC. The Attorney isn't going to take the place of AGC's or myself. The Attorney is not going to negotiate or be the main feature in arbitrations. I mentioned these things to Delaney but he just brushed them off and said he knew what he was doing. Folks, it isn't that Delaney is stupid or that I would be stupid, we don't have law degrees and neither does Tom Reagon or Brickner. Having an attorney 'just a phone call away' or 'coming into negotiations during the last couple sessions before a TA' will continually produce the type of mess that we see today. Having an attorney 'present' in negotiations may capture some of the clarification questions that I or Delaney or MF may miss. Certainly I don't want to rely on Brickner's interpretations since I don't trust that the INTL is going to do anything other than fine the easiest path for the company and union to get along [see dues]. IMO, this is a no brainer, especially since it provides ADDITIONAL resources at LESS COST. There is a reason why this isn't done, IMO, the IAM wants to keep folks stupid. Bottom line. Not busting on our union but I think that is the truth. We can fix it.

6. Streamline the district. There are a bunch of line items that can go on forever and save tons of money. Most of those I list will bore you guys so I will move on.

7. Communication. Ok, so this one is an easy one to promise, and Delaney promised it too and actually has done less communication than the previous regime. My promise is to be like the other unions and give the 'labor advisory reports' to the membership. I mean, not just the ALPA and CWA membership wants to know what Parker says when behind closed doors at the labor advisory meetings, our members want to know also. The communicator needs to start getting these reports online for all to see. Also, grievances. I can't say much good about Canale but he actually did provide the quarterly reports of ALL grievances. When I asked Delaney to start following the bylaws and provide the district quarterly reports of EACH grievance he said he would get back with me.....but he never did and to this day he refuses to follow the district bylaw and give out the quarterly report of all grievances. Our members want to know how the grievances are going and don't want to be placed on hold or answering machines. There is a reason why a union has to give quarterly reports. I hear all kinds of horror stories about the last 3 years how nobody gets back to anyone and how grievances go on forever and ever and even disappear. Remember, each grievance is suppose to have a closeout through resolution or dissolution. That's the leadership's job and even each of our AGC's have refused to put out the quarterlies or get Delaney to. OTOH, the district does put nice pictures up on the web page and does put up nice videos and pretty cool songs. But reducing a web page down to a sorta reality TV show is a joke when the District continues to refuse to communicate, even minimally, on items that matter.

8. Seniority, Seniority, Seniority

9. Equal resources for ALL members, not just United members. It's time folks.

10. Each Hub will have their OWN AGC who is NOT responsible for ANY other station. Right now this is impossible since Delaney broke his promise and didn't reduce the per capita down to the United airlines level. To be treated fairly, US would need a minimum of 8 AGC's to be comparable to the UA ramp. Just need to be treated equal and not the red headed step child. That's all and that's a fair thing to do.

regards,

Tim Nelson

 

[Tim Nelson]

Tim,

Why are you so angry? A simple question to a negotiator from the past on whether the TA encompassed every change or not is all I said. I said I would grieve any omission unless verified that the TA didn't include everything. That doesn't have to be notes, it could be memory. I have a problem with AGC's not getting back to people but have you ever considered that anybody that talks to you knows you are going to blast it to the world what they said and why they are wrong?

Why do you presume I am angry? I'm actually quite lucid. Why should an AGC be concerned about something he answered that deals with PVD or BDL? Is he saying different things to different people? I'm not sharing texts that are outside the scope of his job. I went firsthand to him and asked him. Fine, I will ask him next time in the breakroom. Sheesh.

regards,

Tim Nelson

 

[Tim Nelson]

No, our current CBA is what we go by but if there is a typo from what the TA says, the TA trumps the typo in our current CBA. Per our current CBA, we get an adequately bound contract not pocket sized. The language in the current CBA is what we go by, not the 2005 CBA.

Again, where did the 'adequately bound contract' language come from? It isn't in the TA you quoted, nor was it in any TA's. Why are you such the company mouthpiece on the 2% and say tell the membership that it has to go by the TA, but neither you or any of the ND have pursued the other flaws in the contract? I will ask again, where did the 'adequately bound contract' language come from because it darn sure didn't come from any TA and you know that. I'm sure you also have MC's list of discrepencies that were legit. Is PVD or BDL a class 1 station, I'm asking you straight up.

If you can't answer me yes or no towards the PVD and BDL question then you are now full blown like your buddy.

regards,

Tim Nelson

 

[700UW]

McCaskill-Bond is used for all airline mergers, it is followed.

United States Court of Appeals Civil Transportation -- McCaskill-Bond Amendment Airlines’ seniority lists must be merged when one airline purchases another. “Nothing in the text of the statute asks whether one of the merging carriers is bankrupt and about to vanish when the transaction closes. There’s a good reason for the omission: this statute grew out ...

Courts reaffirm this.

Story

And the salaries are set by the bylaws, you cant change anything unless the membership proposes a bylaw change.

And you wont be able to negotiate unless you sign a confidentiality agreement, the company will not disclose financial information to the union and the negotiators unless you sign one.

How many negotiation committees and contracts have you been part of and negotiated?

Attorneys and actuaries are part of negotiations, the actuaries are there and attorneys are used on a as need basis.

 

[saywhat]

Again, where did the 'adequately bound contract' language come from? It isn't in the TA you quoted, nor was it in any TA's. Why are you such the company mouthpiece on the 2% and say tell the membership that it has to go by the TA, but neither you or any of the ND have pursued the other flaws in the contract? I will ask again, where did the 'adequately bound contract' language come from because it darn sure didn't come from any TA and you know that. I'm sure you also have MC's list of discrepencies that were legit. Is PVD or BDL a class 1 station, I'm asking you straight up.

If you can't answer me yes or no towards the PVD and BDL question then you are now full blown like your buddy.

regards,

Tim Nelson

Tim,

I can't speak for whether the TA was the end all or not. I am vaguely familiar with the fact that there were some discrepancies with the new CBA. Tim, there are omissions which I would hope that past negotiators could answer but when it comes to the 2% raise the TA is clear on that. I also know how the contract reads on adequately bound contracts etc., whether that should have been changed, ask a past negotiator. Tim, you have a lot of good ideas and make a lot of valid points but I think you are letting your agenda get to you. Why haven't you announced the ticket? Do you have another MC on the new team?

 

[niblet]

I'm not sure your saying the same thing you said the other day. I have the 2005 agreement and the T/A and the 2008 agreement. You said typos are trumped by the T/A. But if there were omissions to the 2008 that was not addressed in the 2005 then we dont get them back. Now you seem to be saying something else. I think your confused more than me. I say we grieve the jan raise and let the arbitrator figure it out. The membership deserves to reep from any mistake that was made for the good since we have to suffer for the bad ones.

 

[niblet]

SAYWHAT. I say what? what? everytime to you say something. Your handle suits you.

 

[Tim Nelson]

McCaskill-Bond is used for all airline mergers, it is followed.


Courts reaffirm this.

Story

And the salaries are set by the bylaws, you cant change anything unless the membership proposes a bylaw change.

And you wont be able to negotiate unless you sign a confidentiality agreement, the company will not disclose financial information to the union and the negotiators unless you sign one.

How many negotiation committees and contracts have you been part of and negotiated?

Attorneys and actuaries are part of negotiations, the actuaries are there and attorneys are used on a as need basis.

700UW,
Who said anything about changing the bylaws? Kindly reread my statement 700. Last I checked there is no bylaw that says I can't give $50,000 back to the district as a gift. Myself and all of my agc candidates are pledging this money since the bylaws simply are not good enough and we are NOT going to hide behind the bylaws on this one.

And as far as confidentiality agreements, I am not signing any of them. I would like to take credit for that innovative thought but I'm afraid that other unions have already beat me to it. AMFA for one.

Admittedly, the refusal to sign confidentiality agreements is clearly a paradigm shift in negotiations but the tradeoff is a HUGE benefit to the masses. Over the last 20 years, the SEC rules have changed so much that companies have to release boatloads of financial information and are alot more transparent, and confidential papers have become less significant. Besides, let's not kid ourselves, the company is hoping we sign confidential forms so we can hear the violins playing and see all their laptop boys come in and show how bad the company is doing. It's called brainwashing. Brickner, Canale, Delaney, these guys go into negotiations and start believing that the companys are 'doomed' after hearing how high the price of oil is and how the future projections came in so much lower. I wonder if the company would ever share the truth, like "Wow, these were our 2012 projections and they are so much higher than we projected that we have X amount of more money to throw at the rampers." Nah, you don't get that information from confidential papers. The company can take any confidential papers and shove them right up their arse because I'm not signing the BS. If someone is uncomfortable with that then I encourage them to vote for someone else. Besides profits are profits. US AIRWAYS is kicking butt right now and kicking Southwest butt. United is kicking everyone's rear. WHat confidential papers do I need to see that tells me how bad things are when a company comes up with billions of dollars to buy another airline? And millions of dollars to pay its CEO? Sorry 700 I'm not going to drink that kool aid.

Confidentiality agreements were at their high during the years of ESOP's. And, to be sure, if we were going to do some stock swap or entertain some fashion of employee stock then the masses might consider its leadership signing the confidential forms. But I do not subscribe to employee stock through negotiations NOR do I subscribe to Board of Director seats. Employees always get screwed in those deals. If the masses are wanting someone who supported ESOPs then they should vote for Delaney or Karen.

As far as attorneys, you apparently have misread my statements. While I realize that attorneys are on the union's side in a 'as needed' basis, that's not good enough. Nothing against Delaney, but how does he know when he is going to need an attorney in negotiations? How would I? Both me and Rich have higher education and can discern things but what about the legal things that may fly over our heads? Sorry 700, but having an attorney a phone call away presumes that I realize I need a clarity. I do not have a law degree so what about the times when I don't think I need a clarity because I think I understand a legal term but I really don't? Having higher edcuation makes me appreciate and makes me know that other disciplines and other professions are essential if we are going to provide the full resources to the masses. Therefore, you better believe that I'm going to have an attorney every step of the way PRESENT in negotiations. Who knows, maybe that nudge by our attorney and whisper in my ear that I better get something clarified will be the result of millions of dollars to the masses.

regards,

Tim Nelson