IAM Mechanic & related 3/7-3-14

Status
Not open for further replies.
You are making things up.

There was no backroom deal, the IAM did not get what they want.

The IAM could never agree to a TA with the company that eliminated 50% of the jobs.

Dont put words into my posts.
No back room deals, now thats funny right there! Look what you just posted, the IAM could never agree to a TA that eliminated 50% of the jobs but yet they wouldn't make a recommendation either way on outsourcing all utility except 50 total, eliminating pensions, outsourcing 3 heavy checks and half of another, eliminating holidays, cutting sick time, I can go on and on. You had a local lodge president telling members he wished he could vote no which was an endorsement to accept it because he knew of the pending merger and would be getting a promotion! You yourself said that reps from CLT and PHL reccomended a no vote but one city wouldn't go along and it just so happened to be the city where the local president got a promotion was from, how about that! What it all boils down to is the LEADERSHIP of the IAM like so many times failed, they are to concerned for themselves and don't care about their MEMBERS all they care about are dues flowing in so they keep getting paid period!! :up:
 
First of all know one on the NC knew anything about the merger.

Second, there was a split amongst the NC about a reccomendation, I will tell you I voted no and in ATL and CLT I told them at the ratification meetings how I was voting.

If the IAM cared about the dues, they would have not said vote for it as it eliminated 46% of the M&R workforce.

Don't let the facts get in your way.
 
Must have missed it, care to elaborate?

I'd say you're sharper than that. I was refering to the cross contract sharing of the profit sharing. That action would lead me to react very negatively to the IAM having anything to do with my retirement funds beyond the present extent of their involvement.
 
Do you not understand the IAMNPF is totally seperate from the IAM?
 
In my opinion, crooked people appointing crooked people to positions of control over lots of money. Actually quite like our politicians of late. I'm afraid it's a cash cow for somebody, just not the poor workers piling precious dollars into it. Again, my opinion.
 
In my opinion, crooked people appointing crooked people to positions of control over lots of money. Actually quite like our politicians of late. I'm afraid it's a cash cow for somebody, just not the poor workers piling precious dollars into it. Again, my opinion.

You are not alone - by a long shot. But who are we to change the good ole boy system?
 
I'd say you're sharper than that. I was refering to the cross contract sharing of the profit sharing. That action would lead me to react very negatively to the IAM having anything to do with my retirement funds beyond the present extent of their involvement.
Good Point, Totally Agree.....
 
Does anyone know why neither side would immediately release
the details? No need to reply. The answer is that both
sides need to carefully preface and spin things so
the stupid workers can be manipulated. When it comes
out and is scrutinized and is deemed a decent contract
I will come on here and appologize to all. Barring any
pressing motivation by the company why would they
offer something decent?
 
A decent contract watch very close because what they are about to give you should make you ask, What is this going to cost me? The company isn't giving anything that the IAM hasn't given them something for!
 
Same company offer before the CIC went to arbitration in Sept.....reworded, repainted so it looks better (like our planes) but the same ole' offer. The company believes from the bottom of their stone heart that we should lower our expectations.... They will be sure to protect the base mx though = no furlough for them, everybody else can swing in the breeze.
 
It takes time to get it all on paper, get it to the Grievance Chairs then hold meetings to explain it then vote.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top