ramp contract

[Ramp Rogue]

It's all about getting everything back and then some. The wages of 2001 and pensions had nothing to do with bankruptcy. the pension of this group was frozen long before bankruptcy. And the wages were only modest.
You don't know what you are talking about in regards to labor.


regards,

Tim'

When are the elections taking place?

Rogue

 

[Tim Nelson]

Tim'

When are the elections taking place?

Rogue

Nominations are in March. Election is in June. It all starts in March.

Onward Occupy 141

 

[necigrad]

Why would you talk in such absolute terms that there must be give and take?

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/negotiating

"to arrange for or bring about through conference, discussion, and compromise <negotiate a treaty>"

It is not negotiating if you go in and say "This is what we want, and we are taking it. Type up the contract and we'll pass it to the membership. That example lacks conference, discussion, and compromise, and thus is not negotiating. I am NOT saying one needs to give up X to get X back. Negotiations can involving giving up X to get Y, or taking 1/2 X and getting 1 1/2 Y in return. If you really think negotiations do not involve any give and take I will seriously have to call into question your mental fitness for your CURRENT job as well as the one you are seeking.

I agree with what else you said (accidentally snipped it out of this), when times are good we should get more because the company will want to take when times are bad. I also agree that when times are bad sacrifices must be made. I'm also well aware that the company will be in 'dire straights' in negotiations even when the company is doing quite well. My point, however, still stands. There MUST be give and take. It IS absolute, because for there not to be give and take it's not negotiations, it's simply demands. I'd prefer people representing me be mature and negotiate then be childish and issue ultimatums. Let the company sink to that level.

 

[Tim Nelson]

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/negotiating

"to arrange for or bring about through conference, discussion, and compromise <negotiate a treaty>"

It is not negotiating if you go in and say "This is what we want, and we are taking it. Type up the contract and we'll pass it to the membership. That example lacks conference, discussion, and compromise, and thus is not negotiating. I am NOT saying one needs to give up X to get X back. Negotiations can involving giving up X to get Y, or taking 1/2 X and getting 1 1/2 Y in return. If you really think negotiations do not involve any give and take I will seriously have to call into question your mental fitness for your CURRENT job as well as the one you are seeking.

I agree with what else you said (accidentally snipped it out of this), when times are good we should get more because the company will want to take when times are bad. I also agree that when times are bad sacrifices must be made. I'm also well aware that the company will be in 'dire straights' in negotiations even when the company is doing quite well. My point, however, still stands. There MUST be give and take. It IS absolute, because for there not to be give and take it's not negotiations, it's simply demands. I'd prefer people representing me be mature and negotiate then be childish and issue ultimatums. Let the company sink to that level.

Compromise, in your current situation may mean the ramp asking for $27 and compromising on something less but still significant. Whatever the final score, it must necessarily mean that the ramp also obtains a portion of the profits and/or commissions like other groups. US AIRWAYS members have always been treated second best by UA presidents. It's time that US AIRWAYS ramp take charge themself this time because following the lead of UA Presidents have NOT benefitted US AIRWAYS rampers or even United rampers. The UA rampers just got bigtime hosed by the New Direction in negotiations. So we take that information and we apply it in assessing how the New Direction will apply negotiations to a potential AMR or other airline merger with US AIRWAYS. Like I said, all of your AGC's and potential VP's are on here and I challenge any of them to debate me on these topics. Whatever the case, why doesn't any of the New Direction candidates support any of the Occupy 141 platform points? It's because they are bought and each and every one of them knows it. They have to do what Rich tells them to support and Rich basically bought them off. Others have taken back their knee pads.

The New Direction has failed miserably by losing Aloha to the Teamsters when Delaney lied through his teeth to them. Hawaiian airlines despises the New Direction after Delaney lied through his teeth for their vote when he repeatedly told him "Equal pay for equal work" for part timers who got paid half what full timers got paid. In 2010, when Hawaiian was profitable I might add, Delaney hosed Hawaiian airline members by agreeing to wages below $20 and signing on for 45% part time plus creating a whole new part time reserve classification that he got off of non union Delta, and that new part time classification doesn't even count against the 45% cap. In fact, Delaney agreed to like 4 different part time classifications, weekender part time, regular part time, reserve part time, and 'who's your momma' part time [joking about the last one]. And agreed with management that regular part time should only top out at about 60% of full time. I think it's like $12 buck an hour now. Never mind that other part time classifications top out at $10 buck.

Then he promised US AIRWAYS that he would bring in more AGC's to support the US AIRWAYS membership and that he was going to 'fix' the attendance policy. Yeah, right! Never mind how he pounded his own by waiving off 3 years of negotiations and redoing new proposals and new surveys again. And at United, UA management just proposed a regional airline contract to him because of his loss of leverage. And don't even get me started at his total ineptness of involving the membership on any ole thing. He is BOSS and he doesn't want you to know squat. He makes the rules and us rampers are too damn stupid for him. We don't need a president that hasn't worked the ramp in the last 30 years and meets with management more than rampers.

Onward Occupy 141

 

[Dog Wonder]

Could you just post a stump speech and a link to it? How many times do you need to say some one lied, some one didn't listen to you, you are the solution to all your problems.

Carry on.

 

[Jester]

Hawaiian airlines despises the New Direction after Delaney lied through his teeth for their vote when he repeatedly told him "Equal pay for equal work" for part timers who got paid half what full timers got paid. In 2010, when Hawaiian was profitable I might add, Delaney hosed Hawaiian airline members by agreeing to wages below $20 and signing on for 45% part time plus creating a whole new part time reserve classification that he got off of non union Delta, and that new part time classification doesn't even count against the 45% cap. In fact, Delaney agreed to like 4 different part time classifications, weekender part time, regular part time, reserve part time, and 'who's your momma' part time [joking about the last one]. And agreed with management that regular part time should only top out at about 60% of full time. I think it's like $12 buck an hour now. Never mind that other part time classifications top out at $10 buck.

As much as I told this board nearly 4 years ago that the ND08 Team would be woefully inept, even I am having a difficult time believing anyone agreed to allow one group in the membership to be paid at nearly HALF the rate for other people doing the same work, all else being equal. I know there has been some mentality inside the East and IAM that part-time people have this job not as a serious job to pay bills, thus they can be paid less and they are not entitled to some of the same rights as full-time people under the CBA. We have guys in PHX who are "part-time" and some are pushing 60 hours a week (sounds like they are trying to pay the bills) and Delaney thinks it is acceptable those people should have a payscale of half of the full-time agents? Any President of this organization who believes in such disparity between part and full-time, has absolutely no business representing the membership and should be removed from their position, as obviously, they are incapable of representing the group as a whole.

Tim, do you have links to your claims, because as I said earlier... even I am having a difficult time believing anyone would agree to such an arrangement.

So Disbelieves Jester.

 

[Tim Nelson]

As much as I told this board nearly 4 years ago that the ND08 Team would be woefully inept, even I am having a difficult time believing anyone agreed to allow one group in the membership to be paid at nearly HALF the rate for other people doing the same work, all else being equal. I know there has been some mentality inside the East and IAM that part-time people have this job not as a serious job to pay bills, thus they can be paid less and they are not entitled to some of the same rights as full-time people under the CBA. We have guys in PHX who are "part-time" and some are pushing 60 hours a week (sounds like they are trying to pay the bills) and Delaney thinks it is acceptable those people should have a payscale of half of the full-time agents? Any President of this organization who believes in such disparity between part and full-time, has absolutely no business representing the membership and should be removed from their position, as obviously, they are incapable of representing the group as a whole.

Tim, do you have links to your claims, because as I said earlier... even I am having a difficult time believing anyone would agree to such an arrangement.

So Disbelieves Jester.

Hawaiian contract

Go to IAM141.org and click airlines then hawaiian and then look at all the updates like the October update and november update where Rich maintained that the unions position was "equal work equal pay" and that he was going to 'fix it'. That's what he ran on and that's how he got their support. Although they immediately voted down Delaney's putrid first contract that agreed with management, he circled it back and gave them a second contract with the same sorta things and told them, "Take it or leave it" and tried to install fear so him and management could push it through.

Now, his new part time classification, that he liked from Non-Union Delta, are not only underpaying part timers, and separate and unequal, but also they are using the reserve part time to hog up the vacancies and overtime. It's a super sized mess. Also, would it be wrong if any New Direction people answered the question of how Delaney's second in command HAL negotiator even got placed on different seniority rosters at different airlines?

Yet, the New Direction folks, i.e., those who continue to place Delaney above the membershp, keep telling folks not to pay any attention to all the screw ups on EACH property. And they will gladly continue to push the New Direction even if it means less resources for US AIRWAYS rampers. They have over $100,000 reasons to push 'Delaney only' and refuse to accept any of the points on the Occupy 141 platforms that our members have been begging for. Even in LAS, I betcha some of them want a gig and will push Delaney again, even with all the screw ups and second best treatment at US AIRWAYS. And with US AIRWAYS continual pursuit of a merger, along with Delaney's concession to transition talks at UA, every US AIRWAYS member knows exactly what will be coming their way if they stay objective. UA negotiations became a mirage and were scrapped after 3 years of talks so management could 'restart' transition talks. Other unions decided that before transition talks, that they would put a pricetag on 3 years of talks and got their members extra compensation and half of their givebacks before cashing in their position and leverage outside of transition talks.

Again, I challenge any New Direction regime member or supporter to challenge me on any of what I have said. Otherwise, they should all stop running at the lip saying "New Direction" "New Direction" "New Direction". Never mind if the New Direction finds a good way to lose another 9,000 union jobs with a blown save from the current UA PCE election.

Onward Occupy 141

 

[necigrad]

Could you just post a stump speech and a link to it? How many times do you need to say some one lied, some one didn't listen to you, you are the solution to all your problems.

No doubt. We were talking about the US Fleet Service contract and Tim's making it into a campaign speech. I stand by my statements that I expect there to be some give and take. I'll add that I also expect the contract to net positive in the end.

Tim, I hate politicians. I hate them because their arguments tend to be solely based on the failings of their opponent. Every single point you have made (with one exception) has been of this type. Only once have you stepped up and said something good about your opponent, and that was because the comparison was to Canale. I'm not saying that you need to campaign for your opponent, but all your campaign has done is taken shots at him. You're just like a Democrat or Republican saying all the bad things his opponent has done, while ignoring his own failings. It's not about why you're RIGHT for the job, but why your opponent is WRONG. We dont' care why Delanely may be wrong, we care about why you may be RIGHT. It's childish, and I'm not interested in a child running my union.

You also take everything on this board and make it part of your campaign. This isn't your campaign website, it's a a forum to discuss US Airways. Pay for your own website to dispense your propaganda.

 

[Tim Nelson]

No doubt. We were talking about the US Fleet Service contract and Tim's making it into a campaign speech. I stand by my statements that I expect there to be some give and take. I'll add that I also expect the contract to net positive in the end.

Tim, I hate politicians. I hate them because their arguments tend to be solely based on the failings of their opponent. Every single point you have made (with one exception) has been of this type. Only once have you stepped up and said something good about your opponent, and that was because the comparison was to Canale. I'm not saying that you need to campaign for your opponent, but all your campaign has done is taken shots at him. You're just like a Democrat or Republican saying all the bad things his opponent has done, while ignoring his own failings. It's not about why you're RIGHT for the job, but why your opponent is WRONG. We dont' care why Delanely may be wrong, we care about why you may be RIGHT. It's childish, and I'm not interested in a child running my union.

You also take everything on this board and make it part of your campaign. This isn't your campaign website, it's a a forum to discuss US Airways. Pay for your own website to dispense your propaganda.

I think I responded to an individual that was talking down to rampers and presented himself/herself as a passenger. Then I got a few questions.

At any rate, there is nothing childish about the Occupy 141 platform. The centerpiece of that team isn't me, it's the platform. As far as candidates, the best thing to do is to compare each candidate not with what he/she has said but what he/she has done while YOU were paying him/her. Not just experience but production with experience. If they were childish on your dime or not acceptable on your dime then they are not deserving of your vote.

As far as ramblings, yeah, you got me on that one. But if we are going to talk about a ramp contract and why nobody has been told what we are asking for, then it must necessarily involve representation matters and the paternalism that continues to be associated with our UA presidents.

Onward Occupy 141

 

[blownkneesbob]

necigrad
I usually agree with most of your post but have to disagree on your point about give and take. I realize you coming from the west you got a pretty good
win fall agreeing to the last T/A but I'm sorry we have done nothing but give , give and give some more. Although we missed our opportunity 2 years ago to go
into sec 6 because of the T/A . I fully expect the negotiation team to get everything we have lost over the years and then some. The concession stand is closed
and if you aren't willing to fight in solidarity to back the negotiators then we as a collective group will never get anything close to what we had long before you came onboard

 

[necigrad]

We did get a good deal on the TA as west employees; in fact I voted for the first one (but against the second). I'm also well aware that the long time East employees (I work with several 30 year plus employees) and agree that a lot (probably too much) has been taken. I'm not, however, implying that every dollar given should result in a dollar being taken. I'm saying that the negotiating committee needs to give (up) some of their requests in the process in order to get something else. Let's, for example purposes, say that they're seeking more holidays and an extra weeks vacation. It should be perfectly acceptable to give up three EXTRA holidays for a weeks vacation, right? We net positive on that. Remember, the companys base proposal is likely "We like the things the way they are, don't touch a thing." They KNOW we're getting more, it's just a question of how it gets to us.

 

[tom barry]

I would very much prefer some serious changes to the attendance policy, as hundreds of FSAs have lost their jobs as a direct result of this punitive and arbitrary system foisted upon the membership and without much of a fight from the IAM leadership during that time.

I tell people that do not work in the industry about the hundreds of sick hours I have acquired over the years, but then mention the attandance policy which may make it impractical or impossible to use those hours if ill. They think it is crazy to have earned the hours, but unable to use them for legitimate use in fear of being terminated.

I could have a decade of very good attendance, but one bad year of illness, car breakdowns, non-work related injury, and suddenly the company treats me like a new employee who is looking to game the system for sick time. The policy is a complete slap in the face by the Company to those workers who have put in decades of service, often times working while sick outside, and then targeted by an attendance policy designed primarily to eliminate people from the ranks.

So Rants Jester.

When are some of you CLOWNS ever going to Smarten Up and get yourself Incremental FAMILY LEAVE ?

1. They cannot Fire you for attendence issues
And
2. They'll be the ones Begging you to use your saved up sick time every time your out, BUT it's your choice if you want to or not. Who says ? The FEDS say so. Problem solved !!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Jester]

When are some of you CLOWNS ever going to Smarten Up and get yourself Incremental FAMILY LEAVE ?

1. They cannot Fire you for attendence issues
And
2. They'll be the ones Begging you to use your saved up sick time every time your out, BUT it's your choice if you want to or not. Who says ? The FEDS say so. Problem solved !!!!!!!!!!!!

I have never jaked an illness or injury in my life, and I am not going to start now. Personally, I think there is a fair amount of contempt for people who game FMLA because:

1. It was meant for those who truly had a serious medical condition for themselves or their family, and the co-workers becomes unreliable with too many "sick" days.

2. It justifies the Company being a-holes with new Draconian attendance policies when employees abuse sick policiies and Management says, "Problem solved!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

So Lists Jester.

 

[necigrad]

Actually, looking at the little world of LAS, I'd say the attendance policy was implemented because of all the grievances for attendance. People were getting written up for several occurrences, others weren't even being spoken to for PAGES of occurrences. LAS management was not very proactive about attendance for most people, but those who were not liked or were too valuable to the operation were targeted. The rest just got their behavior reinforced by inaction.

 

[tom barry]

I have never jaked an illness or injury in my life, and I am not going to start now. Personally, I think there is a fair amount of contempt for people who game FMLA because:

1. It was meant for those who truly had a serious medical condition for themselves or their family, and the co-workers becomes unreliable with too many "sick" days.

2. It justifies the Company being a-holes with new Draconian attendance policies when employees abuse sick policiies and Management says, "Problem solved!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

So Lists Jester.

A Question Jester.
Would you change your mind...IF...an unfair attendance policy resulted in you being Terminated ??