Questions for any IAM-M member

[N513AU]

It was a vote of no confidence in the IAM more than anything else. They put a pretty crappy proposal on the table, to say the least.

I probably would have voted for the T/A if they had removed the retroactive pay give back (what's mine is mine, thank you) and the vacation loss. I would have gone to five days vacation next year, which is unacceptable - particularly when you are a junior guy with midweek days off and as it is, have little life outside of your job. The little vacation time you get is extremely valuable to me.

If the IAM types had a clue, they would offer simple things, such as biweekly pay, compressed work weeks, etc. and call them concessions. However, it seems like the both the IAM and the company would rather not do original thinking.

 

[N513AU]

----------------
On 9/1/2002 4:22:18 PM

N513AU, I completely agree!!!. We are obviously in the same boat. I was acreeded into the IAM recently. (Against my will , I might add) From the time of the IAM being allowed to takeover my work group , things have only gone south rapidly. My so-called negotiated contract , nailed me to the wall. I negotiated a better salary from off the street..than what the IAM sold us out for. Now my 4 on 3 off , 3 on 4 off life is ruined. I lost out on 3 raises and a promotion during the "Negotiation" process...only to end up with less than what I had to begin with. Then you add in the loss of Union dues on top of that. I will also have poor days off like you. Now I will be working an additional 51 days a year by schedule...and only having 1 week of vacation for the next 2 years. This is a lose/lose scenario for a bunch of us. The lack of time off is bad...but at reduced rates , coupled to additional mileage being racked up to get to work 5 days a week...You see how this situation bids poorly for a lot of us. Labor and negotiations..."What a Joke". This is like allowing Hitler to be a spokesman for human rights issues. I hope the IAM is destroyed in place!!. I was better off representing myself. My abilities and work ethic , do not require Union Representation to maintain a job....and that aspect is trickling away for thousands!!. I hope the IAM burns in hell!!!.......AOG-N-IT [] [:devil:]
----------------

Aog-N-It,

I'm plagarizing here, but the unions are a lot like the mafia. You hate being a slave to them and paying your protection money, but not having one is a bad idea too - at least in US Airways. Ask the CSAs about how "well" the company treated them. There is good reason why pretty much every labor group has ran for labor protection.

Even with the IAM playing around, at least the company can't come in and tell you the way it is. At least you get to vote on the proposal and tell them where to put it if it sucks. At least you have recall and seniority rights. Ask around and see how nicely U treated people who weren't union members during the October Massacres of last year. U management ruined thousands of careers with no committment or concern about service or seniority. I know of people with 15 years that were out the door, no recall rights or anything else. Seeeya!

However, I do see the problems with the IAM and agree with you. They're interested in preserving jobs in Mecca (PIT) and filling their coffers. It wasn't a suprise that a proposal with money for the IAM was put out for a vote.

I don't know if AMFA will solve our problems either. They are a less top-heavy union in terms of management and aren't into big salaries, etc. However, the untold story about their "great" contract with NWA was that a ton of people got laid off because of AMFA agreeing to farm out work.

Honestly, until a single union can represent most mechanic and related groups at all airliens - and unionizes the sweatshops of contract maintenance, our wages will constantly be threatened. The enemy, per se, isn't the low cost carrier, it is TEMCO and the other places where airlines can farm their work to and pay people obscenely low wages to do it. When contract maintenance is union and demands airline wages for airline work, then there will be some sanity to our pay.

 

[Dark Wrench]

N513AU
I do agree with you and AOG-N-It.

But like nwa, ual and u have layed off workers.
Ual farms out a/c maint., u ships out parts to be repaired.
It does seem funny though how the only mechanics being asked for concessions right now are iam represented mechanics. SWA mechanics are looking at 22% raise and a retro check of approx $11,000.00.

Glad to see the "pork barrel t/a" got shot down.

My veiw we have a contract the leadership shouldn't even be at the table unless we were making more than industry standard.(average)

 

[nvrsaynvr]

Chip, I do not believe for one minute you are asking the IAM membership questions that you serioulsy want information from, but rather I think you wish to have it appear the IAM membership does not understand it's predicament. This membership has most likely done no more than exercise its rights in a negotiating process. Very simply put, the membership has voted its majority opinion that it can get a better deal. The particulars will develop as they occur. You or no-one else can know what will take place because things will change as the need arises. And quite frankely, I think it none of your affairs the particulars of our unions ongoing negotiations. Just sit back and wait, like we did when your union was negotiating. "..you get what you negotiate.....", and we will best negotiate with representation and within a timeframe when negotiations are still possible. Today this is still possible. I urge all IAM members to seek information thru the proper channels, and to promote unity and strength through the coming days. This is not a rehearsal and there will be no replay.

 

[AOG-N-IT]

Dark Wrench, Your views are most correct Sir. Outsourcing of work has become more and more evident ,especially since the reciept of the Airbus fleet. The Gadgetry is all "Vendor Repair" items...as is the Messier-Dowty landing gear systems. The days of a call to INT for this or that are drawing down with each departing Boeing. This is but the tip of the iceburg sorta speak. The downside is the turn time for this out sourcing. A given vendor has not a clue about our urgency for spares...and they could frankly care less. This scenario creates constant needs for more actual "Capitol Goods" on the shelves...but this not being a financial choice, leads us to constantly "Rob" parts..or borrow from other carriers in a pinch. Don't get me wrong...the other guy is doing it too. The sad part is the excessive downtime involved. The labor issues of robbing this aircraft for that one...and installing , paying for..then having to remove borrowed or even leased items , does not seem to factor in to the "Bean Counters" abacus. Lost motion, duplicate effort and the alike , all play into the financial scheme. Admission of these facts , does not seem to carry the same wieght as keeping people and goods off the inventory list. By and large..it's amazing that any airline can gross a dime tyhese days (WN as a prime exception) It seems that one financial philosophy defeats the other. That is made clear by many airlines financial conditon of present....Had soundness been apart of the picture? Most carriers would have been in a position to ride out the current storm....The contrary being the case...leaves us and many others exactly where we are at now. [:blackeye:] Hopefully to heck..something will be learned by all of this...but I highly doubt it.[(]

 

[WNjetdoc]

Hey AOG, its a shame that no one will listen to you or any other person who works the "floor", if you know what I mean. The people making all the decisions think they know it all and we know nothing. Good post AOG.

 

[AOG-N-IT]

Guys, Thanks for the kind words. I agree that the atmosphere here needs a little "Shake-Em-Up" I wish to christ that the labor issues...and the alike were something put waaaaay behind us. However...from reflecting back on better days in this industry....It was still heavily laiden with the "My Contract This" ," My Grievances are that" type of moaning and whinning.....Hell Fire!!...I'm damn glad to have a job in the industry of my choice. Some may ask....Hey AOG, why do you speak out about this or that?....If you are so happy about your job? Awnser- I care enough to try to expose the flaws....and hope for affirmative changes. The days of "Ideas that fly" are over at U. Hopefully Dave will re-institute a program of this type....and that does not only hold true for USAirways. Many airlines have people at the top , that if you approached them with cost saving measures or ideas...They would label you as a "Radical" or a "Threat"...and you endanger only yourself. I have no desire to be a threat to anyone.....and if thinking about smoothing out the bumps in the road makes me a "Radical"???.....So be it!! I can be labled the biggest urban guerilla since the advent of King Kong , if that assertion pleases you?. The few that actually know me in person here....will tell you. I don't play favorites....and I call a spade a spade. I'm not running a popularity contest in real life ..or in the cyber-world. My intentions are always the best...or at least honest. . []

 

[W:EXCH:INVOL]

AOG... Thanks for all the info on parts/spares lately. After all the same tripe on these pages, it's actually nice to learn something new for a change. Especially regarding Airbii....very interesting.

Geezzz...you'd think after 19 years I'd know everything[:bigsmile:]

 

[Steiner]

I don't know if AMFA will solve our problems either. They are a less top-heavy union in terms of management and aren't into big salaries, etc. However, the untold story about their "great" contract with NWA was that a ton of people got laid off because of AMFA agreeing to farm out work.
----------------

The farmouts at NWA started while the IAM was still representing the mechanics and related. It was an inherited problem for AMFA, a case of trying to get the cows back in the barn, the cows the IAM let out. For a while one of the farm out shops was IAM represented. Hmm.....

While AMFA is not perfect, so far what other choices do you have? ALPA-M? Decertify and write in another AFL-CIO group, such as the UAW? (Could end up like the Kittyhawk pilots, who voted down the Teamsters and voted in ALPA, only to have ALPA concede that it was Teamster territory in an AFL-CIO turf fight, so the Kittyhawk pilots didn't get the representative they voted for.)

Anyways, you'd think by now the IAM leadership would at least start to think about the membership first, given their recent history.

 

[chipmunn]

The issue is not that Dave Siegel is the hammer, the cuts are required by the investors who provided the DIP, emergence, & in the case of the government, the loan guarantee financing.

What everyone needs to recognize this negotiation is not about what we believe we are worth, how we believe we have been treated in the past, or who represents our CBA interests.

The issue is what are the required cuts to reach a 7 percent profit margin & the loan guarantee, as well as the requirements to meet the TPG, CSFB, & BOA requirements.

The company has no option but to meet these requirements or the creditors will likely seek to liquidate the company because they would likely obtain a higher ROR with asset divestiture.

Those stakeholders that are not willing to participate in the restructuring, from the Alabama Retirement Fund, KFW, or the unions are forcing Dave's hand to obtain court relief.

Without voluntary or court ordered accords, the DIP financing and loan guarantee will be in jeopardy and the likelihood of liquidation exponentially increases.

Again, could any IAM-M member to answer the questions that started this thread?

Chip

 

[AOG-N-IT]

Chip, I highly doubt that you will ever get your desired awnser...regardless of the continued attempts. Opinions here..will hardly add up to facts and results prior to 10 Sept. The IAM position is posted on thier website. They are duty-bound to represent the "Voted-View" of the 57% majority...they will have thier lawyers present on 10 Sept.02 ....just like the company lawyers will be present. The best that can be hoped for...is somekind of a middle ground being achieved , prior to that date. The fact that no further discussions have been spoken of , since 30 Aug.02 , does not speak well of either party (IMHO). I think everyone is painfully aware of the ramifications of a "Failed Agreement" with the IAM...and possibly the CWA too. I think you need to chill my friend. The hopes need to be with "Calmer Heads" prevailing in court.....unless again, both the company and the IAM/CWA get to talking quickly. I do not see fanning the flames ..and creating a more divided employee group , serving any possible good. The awnsers are obviously not "Cut and Dry"..or even within any of our capabilities here. Try to focus on the things we can actually impact in a positive manner in the meantime. Good luck to you Skipper....I wish it for us all!!!..........AOG-N-IT []

 

[cavalier]

Chip

You keep saying over and over Dave is not the hammer. Well given the fact he came to these terms with the big money people knowing what was required of labor, I would say that is a very big hammer he choose to swing. Trouble is, people have memories of the empty promises from management past. We have fought ever step of the way and won only by going to court in most cases. I could go into details here but every man knows what I am talking about. Dave comes in here and expects to change everything, healing all the wounds and making everything ok in a matter a few short months. That is a very ambitious and challenging task to accomplish to say the least, and I commend him for trying. But, you are dealing with PEOPLE who have been dumped on again and again, being human and not dogs, they just will not lay down and roll over for a new face from Harvard making all kinds of promises of happier and better times. I work with these people and know it’s true: People with 15 years or less seniority and even some with way more are so fed up with this airline and it’s antics from current management, the very management Dave wants to hand out bonuses to, they don’t really care anymore if voting no meant the end. You Chip, can’t seem to comprehend that fact, I guess that is why you keep asking the same questions, it’s just beyond your comprehension, period.

 

[chipmunn]

Cav:

It is likely Siegel had no choice but to accept the terms from the financiers. The financiers knew of the loan guarantee requirements, which now appears to be the same for both UA and US.

Without target labor cuts there will be no loan guarantee. Without the loan guarantee there will be no emergence financing to restructure, thus we could see a fragmentation/liquidation.

It is likely BOA, as a US loan guarantee consultant, CSFB, and TPG would not risk their capital, for a sinking ship. Would you?

Why should the investors put their money at risk if labor is unwilling to meet the conditions set forth by the ATSB per the percentage target concessions?

In regard to bonus payments, do you want good management to get higher profit sharing checks or bad management that could cause the airline to fail or deeper employee cuts to survive?

Again, it does not matter what happened in the past, who represents what group, the "pork", or if the company paid for negotiations.

Also noteworthy per an IAM letter written to all members on August 26, the IAM said, "Prior to the receipt of US Airways’ restructuring proposal(s), an agreement regarding reimbursement of professional expenses was reached between the carrier and unions representing ALPA, AFA, & the IAM.
US Airways agreed to pay all fees and expenses incurred by each union’s legal and financial advisors during discussions leading up to any restructuring proposal." See the letter below).

In my opinion, without the $1.25 million so called "pork payment", in what some IAM-M members object to, the membership could have to have been accessed a financial payment to cover the IAM legal and financial advisor expenses. Therefore, to vote no and against the restructuring agreement over this expense, to pay for your experts is confusing at best.

Without the $154 million IAM and $70 million CWA cut, either voluntarily obtained or court ordered, the agreements required by TPG, CSFB, BOA, and the ATSB will become void and 36,000 employees could lose their job when the company is forced by labor to liquidate without court intervention.

In my opinion because the parties know the risk, there could be an out of court settlement on the Section 1113 motion or the court will order current contracts null and void, which may enable the company to seek deeper cuts to further lower its CASM.

Chip

August 26, 2002

To All IAM Members at US Airways

Dear Sisters and Brothers:

In response to questions raised by members during recent meetings in Charlotte, Pittsburgh and Philadelphia, the following information is provided regarding company payment of union expenses during discussion of restructuring plan(s) at US Airways.

Prior to the receipt of US Airways’ restructuring proposal(s), an agreement regarding reimbursement of professional expenses was reached between the carrier and unions representing Pilots, Flight Attendants and Machinists.

US Airways agreed to pay all fees and expenses incurred by each union’s legal and financial advisors during discussions leading up to any restructuring proposal. The airline also agreed to continue paying such professional expenses during the implementation of any plan approved by US Airways employees.

The IAM believes its members’ dues dollars are intended for costs related to traditional contract bargaining and representation. The complex restructuring plan proposed by US Airways is not traditional collective bargaining. We believe it is our responsibility to protect our members from expenses incurred as a result of the ongoing restructuring debate at US Airways.

However, our responsibility to fully examine US Airways’ restructuring proposal is not diminished by the circumstances that brought it to pass. Accordingly, we selected legal and financial advisors to evaluate the company’s proposals – trusted analysts who would then provide the benefit of their study to union members and representatives.

We will continue to advise US Airways members regarding all aspects of the important discussions taking place between the IAM and US Airways. Our commitment to you is to provide good representation, sound advice and an aggressive defense against any unwise or unnecessary expenditure of member’s dues dollars.

In solidarity,

S. R. (Randy) Canale
President and General Chairman
District 141

 

[cavalier]

Like I told you before Chip, I did indeed vote yes to accept, didn't like it, but did. Trouble is, it's not all cut and dry as you make it seem in your postings. The emotional element played a big part causing this mess. And like I said before, I put the blame square on the bonus decision. I have heard MANY guys with years and years of service and God given common sense say that one element caused their no vote. After years of being dumped on, it shouldn't be a surprise. I have posted over and over it was wrong and undo it! That alone would probably put a yes vote over the top, since the rejection vote was not overwhelming at 57 percent. This and the day before the vote they threatened court action, equals the results we have. Like I said, we are people, NOT robots which don't have emotions, emotions that can over ride pure logic at times.

 

[chipmunn]

Hi Cav:

Cav said: The emotional element played a big part causing this mess. And like I said before, I put the blame square on the bonus decision. I have heard MANY guys with years and years of service and God given common sense say that one element caused their no vote.

Chip comments: Cav, we all know what can occur when people get emotional versus maintain logic. But, I believe the bonus decision is simple. If a no vote was submitted over senior management's bonus payment, then what the IAM-M member effectively said was I would rather have the odds increased for poor management than to have the company provide appropriate compensation to keep good people.

The issue I have with that argument is that for years employees have complained about having bad management, now some of the employees are willing to risk the loss of new/good management, the viability of the entire business entity, and the loss of 36,000 jobs over a means designed to keep and recruit good managers. In addition, this would likely cause the employees to hurt themselves by having lower profit sharing checks. Does this make sense?

I understand the issue of asking people to make sacrifices while others receive a bonus, but management is not a prisoner within the industry due to the seniority based system like organized labor.

Chip