July - IAM Fleet Service Discussions

[mike33]

The problem is that Roabily is comparing the $81 monthly level, which was decent. The reason why I was never for the IAM pension and Roabily screamed about how good it is, is because there is no guarantee. We learned with our first defined benefit from the company, and now our members been bitten twice with a defined benefit from the union. What is even more troubling, is that we can't even calculate future defined benefit levels since the $81 benefit level was whacked to a dreadful $48 and also subject to future cuts. Throw in the nasty pension level for part timers who only get half the full time level and everyone should be able to see how inadequate things are.

Never mind the huge spousal offset if our members, and other suspensions as it is fixed in concrete and can't be used for college, mortgages, etc.

regards,

I believe all Credits earned of 81$ per yr. ( as a iam member ) will still be in place up till a new contract is negotiated or jan 2014 at the latest. There are good, bad, and risks to every investment no matter what it is. So maybe the wise investment is to split the difference and put some $$ away in a 401k. I don't give $$ advice to anyone because that is a risk of its own as in " But You Said ?"..................
By the same token it doesn't mean that it will always stay at 48$, which is not 50% btw.............
Lets not forget that every .10$ that is negotiated increases an amount aprox of 1.50$ amount to the 48$.

The only sure thing is that the IRS will get their money !!!!


"All benefits accrued under Schedule A will remain under Schedule A benefit values. In other words, previously accrued benefits (benefits you have already earned) will not change. Once a new Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) that replaces the CBA in effect on January 1, 2011 is ratified, your future benefit accruals will be under Schedule B. However, all Plan participants will accrue future service benefits under Schedule B (or a custom schedule derived from Schedule B) starting no later than January 1, 2014. "

 

[roabilly]

I believe all Credits earned of 81$ per yr. ( as a iam member ) will still be in place up till a new contract is negotiated or jan 2014 at the latest. There are good, bad, and risks to every investment no matter what it is. So maybe the wise investment is to split the difference and put some $$ away in a 401k. I don't give $$ advice to anyone because that is a risk of its own as in " But You Said ?"..................
By the same token it doesn't mean that it will always stay at 48$, which is not 50% btw.............
Lets not forget that every .10$ that is negotiated increases an amount aprox of 1.50$ amount to the 48$.

The only sure thing is that the IRS will get their money !!!!


"All benefits accrued under Schedule A will remain under Schedule A benefit values. In other words, previously accrued benefits (benefits you have already earned) will not change. Once a new Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) that replaces the CBA in effect on January 1, 2011 is ratified, your future benefit accruals will be under Schedule B. However, all Plan participants will accrue future service benefits under Schedule B (or a custom schedule derived from Schedule B) starting no later than January 1, 2014. "

You are correct "33"...

The simple fact of the matter is this… Fleet Service currently enjoys one of the best retirement plan options in the industry! No amount of convoluted Nelsonian negativity will change that!

We have a decent pension plan… AND a decent 401k option to supplement it! The three legged stool analogy is correct… what this means is diversification between these two available options provides our members with a viable supplementation to Social Security Benefits.

This is not an argument of 401k over Pension… it’s an argument to KEEP all the options we currently have, and hopefully improve on them through collective bargaining!

There is only one guarantee in life…and that is... “If it has IAM on it… Nelson will be against it”!

 

[Tim Nelson]

I believe all Credits earned of 81$ per yr. ( as a iam member ) will still be in place up till a new contract is negotiated or jan 2014 at the latest. There are good, bad, and risks to every investment no matter what it is. So maybe the wise investment is to split the difference and put some $$ away in a 401k. I don't give $$ advice to anyone because that is a risk of its own as in " But You Said ?"..................
By the same token it doesn't mean that it will always stay at 48$, which is not 50% btw.............
Lets not forget that every .10$ that is negotiated increases an amount aprox of 1.50$ amount to the 48$.

The only sure thing is that the IRS will get their money !!!!


"All benefits accrued under Schedule A will remain under Schedule A benefit values. In other words, previously accrued benefits (benefits you have already earned) will not change. Once a new Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) that replaces the CBA in effect on January 1, 2011 is ratified, your future benefit accruals will be under Schedule B. However, all Plan participants will accrue future service benefits under Schedule B (or a custom schedule derived from Schedule B) starting no later than January 1, 2014. "

That is true, Mike33, but I said future benefit levels. The current ones will be good till Jan 2014 hopefully. Hopefully, because it could be accelerated, depending on a new contract. Remember, a new contract with a modest pay increase will be eaten up by an automatic pension reduction of future benefit levels if signed before January 2014. The retirement level at $48 sucks, even if some want to praise it. $48 a month x 20 years doesn't even get a member $1,000 a month in 2032. And part timers only get about 50% since Canale only has management contributing .65 an hour. That's about $3 a day for part time, and about $9 a day for full time. Never mind the spousal offset that whacks things further. And no 401k fixed or match contribution by the company, nor any profit sharing. We have the worst retirement options.

In negotiations, IMO, we leave the IAM pension alone and negotiate retirement increases by getting the company to participate in a match or a fixed level contribution into the 401k.

regards,

 

[ograc]

To my fellow IAM represented Fleet Service co workers at US I submit the following question for your respective feedback:
Given all that has been lost through 2 bankruptcies and one Transition Agreement what issues should be the focus of improvement in current contract negotiations? Much has been lost and much needs to be regained. IMO... not all will be regained with one contract... so for the sake of honest discussion... let us prioritize and share opinions on what battles we feel should be chosen. Going forward let us learn from mistakes of the past. The lines are open.
ograc

 

[700UW]

I am not fleet, but the most important thing is Scope, without scope, everything doesnt really matter if you dont own the work.

 

[ograc]

I am not fleet, but the most important thing is Scope, without scope, everything doesnt really matter if you dont own the work.

Very true. "Strong and clearly defined" language concerning scope is indeed the cornerstone to any CBA. Thank you for the input.

 

[blownkneesbob]

To my fellow IAM represented Fleet Service co workers at US I submit the following question for your respective feedback:
Given all that has been lost through 2 bankruptcies and one Transition Agreement what issues should be the focus of improvement in current contract negotiations? Much has been lost and much needs to be regained. IMO... not all will be regained with one contract... so for the sake of honest discussion... let us prioritize and share opinions on what battles we feel should be chosen. Going forward let us learn from mistakes of the past. The lines are open.
ograc

I think one of the must have improvements other than the obvious . is Penalizing the company for not living up to time lines on grievances, anyone that's a committee person or shop steward knows what I am talking about. for example. If the union does not
file the grievance within the 5 day window it is thrown out . However if the company doesn't answer a step II in the set time than oh well
we will get to it when we get to it. there should be some monetary penalty or a favorable outcome towards the grievent if the company doesn't follow the rules. That's one of the main reasons it takes so long to get a resolution mean while the company continues to violate the contract while the process moves at a snails pace

 

[blownkneesbob]

I believe all Credits earned of 81$ per yr. ( as a iam member ) will still be in place up till a new contract is negotiated or jan 2014 at the latest. There are good, bad, and risks to every investment no matter what it is. So maybe the wise investment is to split the difference and put some $$ away in a 401k. I don't give $$ advice to anyone because that is a risk of its own as in " But You Said ?"..................
By the same token it doesn't mean that it will always stay at 48$, which is not 50% btw.............
Lets not forget that every .10$ that is negotiated increases an amount aprox of 1.50$ amount to the 48$.

The only sure thing is that the IRS will get their money !!!!


"All benefits accrued under Schedule A will remain under Schedule A benefit values. In other words, previously accrued benefits (benefits you have already earned) will not change. Once a new Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) that replaces the CBA in effect on January 1, 2011 is ratified, your future benefit accruals will be under Schedule B. However, all Plan participants will accrue future service benefits under Schedule B (or a custom schedule derived from Schedule B) starting no later than January 1, 2014. "

I for one don't want to eat up the majority of our negotiations trying to get back to where we are now , only to have the IAMNPF come around in 5 more years and cut it once again. I remember the company was really balking at even increasing the pension by a nickel last time so in order to get back to close to where we were at would take close to 1.85 to 1.90 . I think we should look at other options keep what we have but have options so the employee can decide. for some they may want more going into the pension for others they may want a 401k increase.. I am the first to admit that I am not a expert in this field but feel that when one has options the employee feels more in powered to become more proactive. If you talk to alot of the younger guys they have no clue about retirement which to some extent I understand many moons ago I was more worried about keeping the lights on .

 

[Kev3188]

I am not fleet, but the most important thing is Scope, without scope, everything doesnt really matter if you dont own the work.

^THIS^

Everything else flows from there...

 

[ograc]

I think one of the must have improvements other than the obvious . is Penalizing the company for not living up to time lines on grievances, anyone that's a committee person or shop steward knows what I am talking about. for example. If the union does not
file the grievance within the 5 day window it is thrown out . However if the company doesn't answer a step II in the set time than oh well
we will get to it when we get to it. there should be some monetary penalty or a favorable outcome towards the grievent if the company doesn't follow the rules. That's one of the main reasons it takes so long to get a resolution mean while the company continues to violate the contract while the process moves at a snails pace

Couldn't agree more. The current contract lacks any defined automatic remedial action if the company chooses to violate the contract. It's time to put some teeth in the contract. Maybe then the company will take it seriously. I've been Committee Chair for years and have seen this disregard too often. It's frustrating and embarrassing.
ograc

 

[Kev3188]

Taking the proverbial red pen to the words "can," shall," may," and "at management's discretion" should also be an overarching goal...

 

[Jester]

Taking the proverbial red pen to the words "can," shall," may," and "at management's discretion" should also be an overarching goal...

Kev,

It is not so much those parts of the CBA that bother me, because afterall, for example, we are not getting back all lost stations (if any), and language which says to the effect that Management "may" use contractors in the event of a certain number of average weekly mainline flights vs. Management "must" use contractors. Somethings do require some degree of discretion, but I am more bothered by ambiguous and vague language and when entire sections are absent from a standard contract, thus leaving Management the assumptive authority to make their own policies.

However, I think we can hope for the best, but I will continue to expect the worse, because the underlying expertise of those handling our contractual affair are far from ideal. We still have an "Amateur Hour" NC and our EC wouldn't be qualified to manage a few convenience stores, let alone a nationwide organization of tens of thousands of union members.

For example, here's our EC's accomplishments in higher education according to their own bios:

R. Thomas Buffenbarger: No College Education Listed.
Dave Ritchie: No College Education Listed.
Lynn D. Tucker, Jr.: No College Education Listed.
Robert Martinez, Jr.: No College Education Listed.
Richard P. Michalski: No College Education Listed.
Philip J. Gruber: No College Education Listed.
Gary Allen: No College Education Listed.
Mark Blondin: No College Education Listed.

And the two bright points....
Robert Roach: “Bachelor of Science degree in Labor and Management Relations at the Empire State Labor College and is a graduate of the Labor Studies program at the Cornell School of Labor.”
Sito Pantoja: “Bachelor's Degree in Labor Studies from the National Labor College.”

Mr. Roach's appears to have a reasonable level of education from a SUNY program, although I did find it rather odd that the correct name of his school as listed from the official college website as the “School of Industrial and Labor Relations," but maybe names changed over time. The Cornell listing is impressive, but having been around academia, I smell weasel language as "the Labor Studies program" appears to be a continuing education program, and as there to be no mention of a Bachelor, Masters or Doctoral degree conferred with his studies.

Mr. Pantoja's program is suspect, in my opinion. The National Labor College has only a regional accreditation starting in 2004 through the Middle States Association of Colleges and Schools, and I have serious doubts that most of the college credits would be transferable or recognized in more established programs due to the lack of academic standards. Furthermore, as 2004 was not that long ago, when was Mr. Pantoja part of the student body, as he is not exactly a young man?

So our Executive Committee, the Gang of 10, has a total of ONE 4-year degree program from any Nationally recognized institute of higher learning? Even if we were to be generous and include Mr. Pantoja's program, that's a total of two college degreed people as the overseers to our CBA? Hell, for all I know, our NC might be better educated!

Any doubts as to why Fleet Service continues to get substandard language in our contracts, along with other issues?

So Reviews Jester.

 

[Kev3188]

Kev,

... but I am more bothered by ambiguous and vague language and when entire sections are absent from a standard contract, thus leaving Management the assumptive authority to make their own policies.

That's what I had in mind when I wrote that...

BTW, I'm not a fan of Roach at all. Don't really know enough about Pantoja to comment, other than to again point out that I find it odd that 2 ex-TWA people are so high up in the union. Why isn't someone from an existing carrier there???

 

[The Bagfather]

Kev,

It is not so much those parts of the CBA that bother me, because afterall, for example, we are not getting back all lost stations (if any), and language which says to the effect that Management "may" use contractors in the event of a certain number of average weekly mainline flights vs. Management "must" use contractors. Somethings do require some degree of discretion, but I am more bothered by ambiguous and vague language and when entire sections are absent from a standard contract, thus leaving Management the assumptive authority to make their own policies.

However, I think we can hope for the best, but I will continue to expect the worse, because the underlying expertise of those handling our contractual affair are far from ideal. We still have an "Amateur Hour" NC and our EC wouldn't be qualified to manage a few convenience stores, let alone a nationwide organization of tens of thousands of union members.

For example, here's our EC's accomplishments in higher education according to their own bios:

R. Thomas Buffenbarger: No College Education Listed.
Dave Ritchie: No College Education Listed.
Lynn D. Tucker, Jr.: No College Education Listed.
Robert Martinez, Jr.: No College Education Listed.
Richard P. Michalski: No College Education Listed.
Philip J. Gruber: No College Education Listed.
Gary Allen: No College Education Listed.
Mark Blondin: No College Education Listed.

And the two bright points....
Robert Roach: “Bachelor of Science degree in Labor and Management Relations at the Empire State Labor College and is a graduate of the Labor Studies program at the Cornell School of Labor.”
Sito Pantoja: “Bachelor's Degree in Labor Studies from the National Labor College.”

Mr. Roach's appears to have a reasonable level of education from a SUNY program, although I did find it rather odd that the correct name of his school as listed from the official college website as the “School of Industrial and Labor Relations," but maybe names changed over time. The Cornell listing is impressive, but having been around academia, I smell weasel language as "the Labor Studies program" appears to be a continuing education program, and as there to be no mention of a Bachelor, Masters or Doctoral degree conferred with his studies.

Mr. Pantoja's program is suspect, in my opinion. The National Labor College has only a regional accreditation starting in 2004 through the Middle States Association of Colleges and Schools, and I have serious doubts that most of the college credits would be transferable or recognized in more established programs due to the lack of academic standards. Furthermore, as 2004 was not that long ago, when was Mr. Pantoja part of the student body, as he is not exactly a young man?

So our Executive Committee, the Gang of 10, has a total of ONE 4-year degree program from any Nationally recognized institute of higher learning? Even if we were to be generous and include Mr. Pantoja's program, that's a total of two college degreed people as the overseers to our CBA? Hell, for all I know, our NC might be better educated!

Any doubts as to why Fleet Service continues to get substandard language in our contracts, along with other issues?

So Reviews Jester.

I never got a clear explanation nor was I able to research the problem language. Of course the messup on the raises I understood but the other mays and shalls I didnt follow. An AGC told me that every change of intent from what the union wanted was to the benifit of the company and not as your example. One thing I understood (may not have been completely reliable) is that Canali would not cooperate in any post contract discutions do to the fact that he was angry at the new team. For instance he would not produce his contract notes which may have shed some light on the language.

As to the education of the negotiating team or other union execs I would agree the more the better What I'm not sure of is exactly what skills they should have. Certainly they should understand contract language. I don't think thats too tough. Wading throught the RLA book which its 1200 cases would do the trick there. Other negotiating skill would be understanding where the company is coming from and exactly how they are computing their costs. And what any long term motives would be.

Also they need to understand where the membership is coming from and maybe do some education to some of the special interest groups out there. For example maybe the part timers in PHX could get behind the priciple of limiting outsourcing. Whats really needed is a vision. And then sell that vision to the group.

We got slammed in the last negotions largely due to the circumstances . In the end groups pretty much voted in there own self interest and quite a few voted in their own self "desperation". It might be interesting to have seen what would have happened if there would have been twenty people on the negotiatiing team all just like Tim Nelson. Probably just short of an all out riot they would have been removed from office.

So what to do now? I agree that the first step is scope. There are tons of issues there but I would start by making it more possible to bring back stations with 50 mainline flights . That would be eight flights a day with a few inops. What do you think? Is this pie in the sky? Disregarding the Company, would the membership go for it?

Thanks BF

 

[Tim Nelson]

For example, here's our EC's accomplishments in higher education according to their own bios:

R. Thomas Buffenbarger: No College Education Listed.
Dave Ritchie: No College Education Listed.
Lynn D. Tucker, Jr.: No College Education Listed.
Robert Martinez, Jr.: No College Education Listed.
Richard P. Michalski: No College Education Listed.
Philip J. Gruber: No College Education Listed.
Gary Allen: No College Education Listed.
Mark Blondin: No College Education Listed.

And the two bright points....
Robert Roach: “Bachelor of Science degree in Labor and Management Relations at the Empire State Labor College and is a graduate of the Labor Studies program at the Cornell School of Labor.”
Sito Pantoja: “Bachelor's Degree in Labor Studies from the National Labor College.”

Mr. Roach's appears to have a reasonable level of education from a SUNY program, although I did find it rather odd that the correct name of his school as listed from the official college website as the “School of Industrial and Labor Relations," but maybe names changed over time. The Cornell listing is impressive, but having been around academia, I smell weasel language as "the Labor Studies program" appears to be a continuing education program, and as there to be no mention of a Bachelor, Masters or Doctoral degree conferred with his studies.

Mr. Pantoja's program is suspect, in my opinion. The National Labor College has only a regional accreditation starting in 2004 through the Middle States Association of Colleges and Schools, and I have serious doubts that most of the college credits would be transferable or recognized in more established programs due to the lack of academic standards. Furthermore, as 2004 was not that long ago, when was Mr. Pantoja part of the student body, as he is not exactly a young man?

So our Executive Committee, the Gang of 10, has a total of ONE 4-year degree program from any Nationally recognized institute of higher learning? Even if we were to be generous and include Mr. Pantoja's program, that's a total of two college degreed people as the overseers to our CBA? Hell, for all I know, our NC might be better educated!

Any doubts as to why Fleet Service continues to get substandard language in our contracts, along with other issues?

So Reviews Jester.

Jester,

Approaching Labor contracts with a list of leaders who are non-academics is more than troubling, it is insane and the sorta thing that we would expect from the resulting predicament the IAM and other unions see themselves in.

I haven't been a fan of Roach but when I worked with him, things got done. Don't get me wrong, he was a real prick at first dictating to the District about Airtran and United organizing but I 'communicated' with him [with Delaney's blessing], in a way in which Rich was frightened to, to protect the autonomy of the District Organizing department. And to Roach's credit, he yielded twice. Roach and the INTL have negotiations in their blood [as they should] and that means that District's, Local's and even their spouses must learn that negotiations never stop with these guys. Again, that's the way it should be for men/women in those positions.

As far as Roach's Cornell education, it has merit. It is an outstanding accelerated Labor studies program condensed in 8 weeks, and IMO, is awesome.

As far as our negotiators/leaders, most of them came from the ramp where they had to bust their arse just to make a living with little time to go to college. IMO, a sabbatical program available from our District/INTL for a select few who will be lead negotiators is very wise.

I know Roabilly has said that the two week AGC school with the accompanying "Scarecrow Diploma" is sufficient and puts them at 'even par' with company attorneys who spent 12 years of their life in school and still have recurring educational programs to tend to. I think most will disagree with Roabilly's assessment though.

regards,