Nov/Dec 2013 Fleet Service Discussion

[robbedagain]

PreZ I wish u and the entire team good luck in the upcoming weeks and happy holidays to you all. I would hope that any kind of ta includes enhanced scope job security enhanced wages etc may be even more put into the pension or may be a 401k match

 

[Tim Nelson]

Personally, I am not seeing a lot of impatience in PHX amongst FSAs as some are suggesting.  Plenty of questions, and to PRez's credit, he has made himself very available in breakrooms with informal Q&A sessions amongst whoever wants to join.  I think there is a sense more of annoyance at the Tempe Boys giving AA FSAs a raise and a piece of the New American with stock upon approval of the merger, but that's not translating into "hurry-up and get a contract!"
 
I don't see this as a repeat of 2008 when West eyeing sizable raises pushed through the T.A., as even the most liberal of outsourcing rules for all but the hubs would not translate into anything approaching the previous T.A. wage gains.  I am hearing more of deliberate sense of the details, and again to PRez's credit, he has been very careful in repeating the issues not related to pay raises.
 
My bigger concern as some have mentioned in the forum is what to prevent those above the NC from accepting a Management proposal which the NC rejects?  I am happy enough in the existing CBA, and any mention of outsourcing such that fleet becomes an "Alice in Wonderland" cheshire cat, where the last thing seen being the grin of just the hubs, will never get my support with a new T.A.

If the NC is circumvented, the "Top people" lol who do it would still have to come to the NC and ask for a recommendation of the TA or rejection, by bylaw.  Our bylaws say that any TA must come with a rejection recommendation or acceptance recommendation from our NC.

 

[Tim Nelson]

Tim,
 
When you are part of a team you can argue, cuss, anything you want to get your opinion heard but when you are part of a team you don't go throw the rest of the team under the bus if the team agrees on something else. What kind of respect do you build when you throw individuals under said bus? I am not going to get in a back and forth discussion in this forum on these issues. For you to claim I am bought because I won't discuss on this forum is a punk move. I have always fought hard to advance the wages and benefits of employees I represented at AW and now US. Been involved for almost 20 years starting with organizing in the mid 90's. Most of my career was unpaid so I don't need to prove my dedication to the cause.  
 
What I am willing to do is to get in a one on one conversation with you or anybody else discussing issues with US or the industry and possible solutions. I am always thinking about how things could be better and realize that somebody other than me may have the solution. 
 
Regarding part time caps, don't think you need to worry about that.
 
P. Rez   

Nah, it's not a punk move. You think you are tossing your team under the bus if you, as an elected official, say anything out of line regarding the United contract?  It hasn't always been that way.   IMO, there needs to be dissenting voices, not kumbuya circles, in those offices.  Unanimous support by the eboard for a dopey ramp contract at United within the district office is bothersome to me.
 Who thought about the United airline membership?
 
At any rate, good to hear about the part time stance. In these talks, and/or in joint talks, management will definitely want to challenge our part time caps in negotiations.  Very important for us to hold on to them through joint talks and then point to them in the next round of United negotiations.  Someones gotta start raising the bar around here as I am mega disappointed and mind boggled as to why so many concessions at United during record profits.

 

[P. REZ]

Nah, it's not a punk move. You think you are tossing your team under the bus if you, as an elected official, say anything out of line regarding the United contract?  It hasn't always been that way.   IMO, there needs to be dissenting voices, not kumbuya circles, in those offices.  Unanimous support by the eboard for a dopey ramp contract at United within the district office is bothersome to me.
 Who thought about the United airline membership?
 
At any rate, good to hear about the part time stance. In these talks, and/or in joint talks, management will definitely want to challenge our part time caps in negotiations.  Very important for us to hold on to them through joint talks and then point to them in the next round of United negotiations.  Someones gotta start raising the bar around here as I am mega disappointed and mind boggled as to why so many concessions at United during record profits.

Tim,
 
I will reiterate that I have no problem ever getting into a discussion with you on issues that affect employees and possible solutions. If you are ever interested PM me.
 
P. Rez  

 

[Tim Nelson]

Prez,
when you pass by the ORD gates next time, just give me a call. I'll stop up and see ya.
 
I'm sure you and the NC could use this holiday break as negotiations with AH must be a mind job. 
 
Merry Christmas

 

[roabilly]

One observation I have made is this...
 
When the majority of us put Josh on ignore, and it was learned the only way readers here would see what he had to say was for someone to quote him—Nelson began to have reciprocal conversations with him post for post, averaging three posts per page. Bingo, now a person who claims to be a banker with no interest in fleet is suddenly back in the forum, courtesy of Nelson!
 
Ironically, Josh shares the same disdain for the IAM leadership as Nelson, and has extensive knowledge of the structure of the union. He even names it leaders, and their respective positions.
 
It doesn’t take a whole lot thought to see what this forum has regressed to...
 
If anyone here actually trusts Nelson -- I feel for you!

 

[wings396]

As I have said before, I have no problem being patient for a decent contract as long as there is retro pay involved. To enable the company to benefit from dragging things out isn't acceptable. If there is one message that I would like to get through to those of you on the NC, this is it.

 

[Harry Callahan]

One observation I have made is this...
 
When the majority of us put Josh on ignore, and it was learned the only way readers here would see what he had to say was for someone to quote him—Nelson began to have reciprocal conversations with him post for post, averaging three posts per page. Bingo, now a person who claims to be a banker with no interest in fleet is suddenly back in the forum, courtesy of Nelson!
 
Ironically, Josh shares the same disdain for the IAM leadership as Nelson, and has extensive knowledge of the structure of the union. He even names it leaders, and their respective positions.
 
It doesn’t take a whole lot thought to see what this forum has regressed to...
 
If anyone here actually trusts Nelson -- I feel for you!

This & and am I the only person who thinks "Josh" is a company plant ? Otherwise why would he hang around here ? I sure as hell am not on a banker forum.
Harry

 

[P. REZ]

Prez,
when you pass by the ORD gates next time, just give me a call. I'll stop up and see ya.
 
I'm sure you and the NC could use this holiday break as negotiations with AH must be a mind job. 
 
Merry Christmas

Tim,
 
Despite our disagreements, I still want to wish you Merry Xmas and Happy Holidays.

 

[ograc]

I appreciate everyone's input on here, I really do. And maybe PRez or myself haven't made it clear that we are mostly in agreement with what you guys state on here. But also I would caution that just because it's stated on here, doesn't mean that's the majority. I mean we have what maybe 10 people that post regularly on here. And some people say that some have two or three different avatars. So it may not even be 10 people posting regularly. I think our biggest challenge from traveling to many stations, is keeping the members all focused and not let the company split the membership. As far as your NC is concerned, we are focused on what the membership has said. We will stay strong, I have no doubt!! Does that mean everyone will approve of the T/A that we get? Of course not. We have to do what we think is best for the membership as a WHOLE. Remember there are some posting on this board that swore Delaney would take us straight into joint negotiations like he did at UA without getting nothing beforehand. Well that hasn't happened. Even though people was 100% sure it would. We must work on keeping all of fleet focused on what's important. That's what we should be working on with these post.

CB and the rest of the negotiating committee, 
I caution you to not make the same mistake as past leadership teams and dismiss the views expressed on this forum as being those of a minority of the membership. Canale and team made that mistake. Loook where they are now. There are some who post on this forum who express the views and concerns of many of the members you represent. If you want to keep the membership focused on the common good I would suggest giving credence to certain posters and the concerns brought forth. There will be tough questions to answer. IMO...the truth and transparency is always the best course in building solidarity. I agree, in the end, the NC should not be expected to please everyone. The NC is expected to live up to fighting for the common good of the membership. Not the common good of the district or international. Until a NC reverses this trend in contract negotiations we will continue to experience job loss, reductions from FT to PT and countless hardships borne by dues paying members. I'm focused. The members I represent are focused. Let's get it done!

 

[mike33]

One observation I have made is this...
 
When the majority of us put Josh on ignore, and it was learned the only way readers here would see what he had to say was for someone to quote him—Nelson began to have reciprocal conversations with him post for post, averaging three posts per page. Bingo, now a person who claims to be a banker with no interest in fleet is suddenly back in the forum, courtesy of Nelson!
 
Ironically, Josh shares the same disdain for the IAM leadership as Nelson, and has extensive knowledge of the structure of the union. He even names it leaders, and their respective positions.
 
It doesn’t take a whole lot thought to see what this forum has regressed to...
 
If anyone here actually trusts Nelson -- I feel for you!

yeah...thats a good idea. Ill take it and not quote him or swamt anymore.

 

[charlie Brown]

CB and the rest of the negotiating committee, 
I caution you to not make the same mistake as past leadership teams and dismiss the views expressed on this forum as being those of a minority of the membership. Canale and team made that mistake. Loook where they are now. There are some who post on this forum who express the views and concerns of many of the members you represent. If you want to keep the membership focused on the common good I would suggest giving credence to certain posters and the concerns brought forth. There will be tough questions to answer. IMO...the truth and transparency is always the best course in building solidarity. I agree, in the end, the NC should not be expected to please everyone. The NC is expected to live up to fighting for the common good of the membership. Not the common good of the district or international. Until a NC reverses this trend in contract negotiations we will continue to experience job loss, reductions from FT to PT and countless hardships borne by dues paying members. I'm focused. The members I represent are focused. Let's get it done!

Ograc
If I wanted to dismiss what is said on this forum, I wouldn't spend my time getting on here I can assure you. The point I was trying to make is, I know many people read this site, we all need to try and educate the membership and continue to stay strong. I've been to several cities, or talked to several cities, and I just don't want people to settle and give in. I think we need to keep in mind while we are debating things to also remind people reading that we must stay in section 6.

 

[psa8979]

Really ! Brothers /Sisters your concerned about some IDIOT named JOSH ? Believe me there are more eyes/ears/snitches working right beside you in your respected Stations. Bottom line, IAMATWU Association needs to save as many Stations as they can ? SCREW  ! the politics, and my speculation is the IAM LCC NC will be able to save about 30+ Stations ? Happy New Year and when will the GREED ! end ? SOLIDARITY WORKS .

 

[Tim Nelson]

Really ! Brothers /Sisters your concerned about some IDIOT named JOSH ? Believe me there are more eyes/ears/snitches working right beside you in your respected Stations. Bottom line, IAMATWU Association needs to save as many Stations as they can ? SCREW  ! the politics, and my speculation is the IAM LCC NC will be able to save about 30+ Stations ? Happy New Year and when will the GREED ! end ? SOLIDARITY WORKS .

We will have to save as many as we can by lowering the threshhold or grandfathering the station regardless.
I think we keep the other things (like catering) going into joint talks. But once in joint talks, management will come after caterirng hard.
I think we have some seasoned leaders in our breakrooms and a few networks that are very powerful now. Ive been able to work with key amr guys in ord as well and it is very important that we inform them of our catering functions and scope.

 

[Tim Nelson]

Perhaps the biggest Bull S post ever on facebook. None other than Joe Bartz talking about the Full Time commitment letter in the United contract that has absolutely no language at all to protect anyone, for any reason, to lose their full time job other than for being displaced to go back to back part time.  The letter itself has a fancy title but doesn't protect anything.  I warned folks, but unfortunately, the District was lying out of their arse like below.  The below post was date stamped and locked on facebook.

Joe Bartz
The purpose of the Full Time Commitment letter is to protect RSM from being forced into part time status, the fundamental concern of the use of part time employees. This letter limits the company's ability to make status changes for any reason other than severe loss of operations levels.

This protection is stronger than existing language and also replaces the concept of "ratios" that previous contracts relied on. The problem the current language creates is the ability of the company to staff up to an identified number, either by downgrading full time employees or hiring part time employees. The structure of the ratio system, through the use of system wide station categories, has permitted abuse of the ability to reduce full timers in specific stations - namely Denver - by measuring the total instead of the station numbers. This approach has proven to be more of a problem than a solution and has caused too many people to be forced part time.

What has become obvious is that the system of setting fixed numbers or ratios to address the part time question has not improved RSM's ability or right to full time work. A quick look at the way the 2 carriers have addressed part time is the best example. United has maintained restrictions on part time work since 1975, in differing forms; sometimes a set number and sometimes a percentage. In each instance the company has driven the number of part time to the allowable number. At Continental, there are no limitations or restrictions on the use part time. However, they have fewer part time RSM than United with roughly the same number of RSM. The reason is that the company determines the necessary number based on the operation, not on a fixed number.

This agreement returns the part time issue to a station decision, not influenced by any other station. The company must now deal with their staffing concerns based on current staffing per station. This agreement gives authority to local committees and management to work through scheduling issues that further protect full time positions. If the fear is that the company will hire part time RSM in the future, that can only happen through expansion of the classification making any new hire (part timer) the junior man and essentially returning the protection of the past.

In past agreements, the Union had to pay for the continued protection of full time RSM - and the price always went up. We have been paying (.25 cents per hour per man) for protection that didn't protect full time RSM; they still were reduced to part time. To now include the combined population of RSM under a single agreement would potentially demand even more payment from other parts of the contract. This agreement provides the increased protection of full time for all RSM without requiring us to divert money that rightfully belongs in wages and benefits.
Like · · Stop Notifications · October 22 at 12:33pm