IAM Fleet Service topic
- Thread starter Edward
- Start date
- Status
Jester
Veteran
What's the purpose of the International besides beer and bratwurst leadership parties?
So Ponders Jester.
Tim Nelson
Veteran
The INTL's legal team is a tremendous resource. Just today it fought successfully for the voting rights of 1,000 UA members. The IAM INTL's political muscle often makes itself known and I'll give it credit where it deserves credit. I have no problem with the professionals within the IAM INTL. One of my big gripes is that the District needs to quit pounding its chest saying "I da man, and I knows my stuff" and needs to secure professionals in-house and actually present in negotiations. The District representation is just cruddy and unprofessional and it's completley profane for me, Delaney, or any AGC to suggest that we know the legal languages good enough to not have an attorney in negotiations or arbitrations as an additional resource and a cost savings measure. Our District simply is not professional and that simply will not change unless the masses occupy the union. As an educated man, I have no problem admitting that I don't have a law degree and that I need to surround myself with professionals. There is a reason why the contract has so much gray in it that you can paint a USS Battleship. Cripes, we couldn't even get the 2% right and who knows how many non precedence LOA Delaney signed. WHen is your contract, really not your contract?
regards,
robbedagain
Veteran
- Joined
- Oct 13, 2003
- Messages
- 11,125
- Reaction score
- 2,676
i recently heard (think 2 weeks ago fromour local union rep) that the company and the IAM pulled out the 99 agreement and theyre "working on building on that" rather than the 08 agreement
Kev3188
Veteran
Agree 100% on both counts. The drive at NW/DL was, IMO, completely fumbled by the DL & GL.
See more below...
... And here's where I disagree w/you, Tim. The problem is rarely at the local level. It's sometimes at the DL level, but usually at the INT'L level. It's fairly easy to change the first one, sorta hard for the 2nd, and almost impossible for the latter. Until that happens, the IAM membership will continue to run into the same brick wall.
The first part, and the 2nd are often in conflict with each other. I agree 100% on paying for pro negotiators, and legal help, but none of that does much good-or can even occur- until that "I'm da man" mindset is purged.
Tim Nelson
Veteran
Tim Nelson
Veteran
pjirish317
Veteran
- Joined
- Sep 21, 2007
- Messages
- 1,240
- Reaction score
- 743
Tim,
I would like to address, or rather, give my thoughts on the occupy141 platform.
Item 1, isn't AGC base pay $98k a year? And if so, where are you getting the $125k figure? And is it not true that you once stated that you couldn't be paid enough to be an AGC? Why the sudden change of heart regarding AGC pay? And just to clear the air, you are asking for VOLUNTARY pledges, not an actual pay cut correct. To do an actual pay cut for the AGC's, the by-laws have to be changed correct? So I just want to be clear, this "pledge", is not an actual pay cut, and really not enforceable correct?
Item 2, 3, & 4, IMO, you wont be able to collect the deductions so these items are moot.
Item 5, Isn't the Eboard comprised of all the elected officials from DL141? How would you "create" this diversity? The Eboard right now is pretty diverse, wouldn't you agree. Or will it be because it's not the eboard of your choice, and by your choice, I mean the slate you are putting together, it is not diverse enough?
Item 6, You know my thought on this, IMO, I think this is just you grandstanding, preying on the ignorance of the "masses" to think that you can accomplish this. I know that you can't deliver this promise, and deep down I think you do to. What do we get when you can't deliver this campaign promise? I'll tell you what we get, squat, nadda, zero, nothing, just you saying "I tried".
Item 7, Agree
Item 8, See items's 2, 3, & 4
Item 9, Agree, but with some understanding that they will assist other stations/AGC's if/when and as needed.
Item 10, Agree with some reservations.
Item 11, Agree
I would like to address, or rather, give my thoughts on the occupy141 platform.
Item 1, isn't AGC base pay $98k a year? And if so, where are you getting the $125k figure? And is it not true that you once stated that you couldn't be paid enough to be an AGC? Why the sudden change of heart regarding AGC pay? And just to clear the air, you are asking for VOLUNTARY pledges, not an actual pay cut correct. To do an actual pay cut for the AGC's, the by-laws have to be changed correct? So I just want to be clear, this "pledge", is not an actual pay cut, and really not enforceable correct?
Item 2, 3, & 4, IMO, you wont be able to collect the deductions so these items are moot.
Item 5, Isn't the Eboard comprised of all the elected officials from DL141? How would you "create" this diversity? The Eboard right now is pretty diverse, wouldn't you agree. Or will it be because it's not the eboard of your choice, and by your choice, I mean the slate you are putting together, it is not diverse enough?
Item 6, You know my thought on this, IMO, I think this is just you grandstanding, preying on the ignorance of the "masses" to think that you can accomplish this. I know that you can't deliver this promise, and deep down I think you do to. What do we get when you can't deliver this campaign promise? I'll tell you what we get, squat, nadda, zero, nothing, just you saying "I tried".
Item 7, Agree
Item 8, See items's 2, 3, & 4
Item 9, Agree, but with some understanding that they will assist other stations/AGC's if/when and as needed.
Item 10, Agree with some reservations.
Item 11, Agree
bagchucker
Senior
Amen to that! I am one of those 250 that furloughed this last round. I emailed my AGC to inquire about a few things including the "supposed" grievance award for our stations getting axed prematurely. Do you think I have heard a peep from him...NOPE! It is incredible to imagine the level of responsibility one takes on when they become an AGC, and then to see what they actually do in return! Why do we even have AGC's? The one for my area is a ghost and doesn't respond to member inquiries. What a joke this freakin union is! The union dues are simply a legal form of extortion for the permission to work on the US Airways property. Then when you need them (See: BUF example back in December), where the "EFF" are they?
I'm really not sure about that, Tim. I'm not having confidence in the negotiating skills of this district.........
As I stated before, these two events I stated before matters a lot. AA will be resetting costs. WN will be in that mindset depending on what happens to AA. Look, Jeff said publicly that he is not going back to old UA costs. So where does that leave us? This coming June, our base (for top out on the CO side) will be 22.29. UA's old rate was around 25.00. You think that THIS negotiating team can get that? I don't think so. (full disclosure: I don't know what the offers and counter offers are, but rumor is that the company wants to work off the IBT contract.) And the issue of UA retro. They should have gotten at least a bump up during negotiations.
Sorry to rant on a US board, but I feel that the AA bk will affect us all in one way or another.
Tim Nelson
Veteran
I personally spoke to Delaney last night after he dropped 3 F bombs on me. Nonetheless, here is the firsthand news for your group.
1. In 3 years of negotiations, Delaney admitted that UA only offered a 2.5% wage boost.
2. When he decided on giving up more leverage and entering transition talks, things have now deteriorated to even less. UA is now only offering a pay cut from where your CO ramps are currently making. And UA management is asking for the ability to contract out all jobs as they see fit. UA management has also hedged its position by getting IAM 142 airline Air Wisconsin to place bids on contracting out work at 250+ United operational stations. Delaney didn't mention retro last night at all which is a strong indication that his AGC's retro retreat is true.
Amazingly, when he was asked what a leading industry contract was, he pointed to Southwest and said that he wouldn't sign that because even though they are at $26.50, those agents have to pay all their health care cost and don't have the IAM pension and have less vacation, so the total package is less than what he considers suitable. REALLY RICH? Well, obviously, he can crap folks all day in a town hall meeting since I didn't have a southwest contract with me but here is the truth:
1. guaranteed scope for all ramp jobs and most freight jobs. Thus southwest ramp works all their own jets.
2. up to 10% part time max but doesnt' even have that.
3. $26.50 [another 3% profitability raise]
4. best profit sharing in the entire industry
5. 401k 8.3% that blows the doors off of United's IAM C Scale Pension
6. 12 sick days at FULL PAY per year [united paid at reduced levels]
7. 12 holidays
8 25 vacation days [united 30]
9. Health care, paying a couple hundred bucks [United is mixed, depending upon HMO or CO]
10. Double time for all mandatory overtime.
I sign that contract tomorrow and so would he. Key is the scope, part time levels, wages/benefits that we can only dream about with Delaney.
At any rate, Delaney also said he swung UA talks into transition talks to protect the CO ramp. I asked him how did him giving up leverage to protect the CO ramp turn out? He went into a semi tirade that essentially said, "What the F are you talking about?". Ok, whatever. The facts are that going into transition talks not only didn't save any jobs but it is likely to give tons of jobs up. We've seen this before at US AIRWAYS.
He did admit that talks are farther away than ever and could drag on for years. Let's get one thing straight, Delaney is NOT going to get any contract anytime soon at United unless he agrees to a minimal pay increase and more job loss. Amazingly, he said after one round of negotiations that he asked the mediator to be released. That was a lie and there is no way that any union guy will ask the mediator to be released after just one negotiations session. No other negotiations are scheduled although he is hopeful that March 6,7,8 he can schedule them.
His only defense that he kept using was "Tim you are a ** ******* employee, this is about United". I reminded him that by his reasoning he should excuse himself from talks at other airlines. True enough I don't believe for one minute that he gives the sCO or US AIRWAYS members anything other than second best. Cripes, he throws his own under the bus also when he supports management.
regards,
- Status
