Should the IAM Push For Section 6
- Thread starter Couldbewrong23
- Start date
how can you honestly say that... show me one cba the iam has walked into the company and was signed off immediately. as i have said before, the company knew of the impending buy out during negotiations, do you think they were going to settle ( unless we capitulated ) on everything we wanted. i know this is against everything the iam stands( more like beg the company for under the) for
do you think the next sec 6 with this company is going to be any quicker??? 12-31-09 is the amendable date, so 2-3 years of negiating will make it to 2012 is it worth waiting for
The Bagfather
Senior
700UW: As explained by AW I don't think your making any sense. Unless
your reasoning involves something you haven't explained in this context.
Are you saying section 6 negotiations are always worthless or just in this case?
The only alternative as I see it would be to bargain away the COC for a TA either before
or after the ruling. Either way what would the east be giving up? My guess[and
it is obviously a guess] is that for FS the loss would be about 40%.
It's too bad they didn't ask you opinion of the value of the COC from the start of the
merger because then it would have been clear that the west would have to resume
section 6. If that would have happened we would have been coming to the end
of it about now. But it's never too late IMO. And if the west had been in section 6
at the time of the Aug TA wouldn't it have been quite a bit more attractive?
Although it's a simplification I take it as given that the company is out to make
money any way it can. Why shouldn't FS have the same attitude? The only
way I can understand your possition is to assume that FS should not expect
thier union to take any risk for them. I don't feel like the companies money is
my money but I do take the attitude that my union dues are my money. It's
hard not to conclude that your position revolves mostly around saving the IAM
from any extra stress. If the IAM is in a bad financial position and can't
afford anything for the west well then just let them admit it and we'll move on.
your reasoning involves something you haven't explained in this context.
Are you saying section 6 negotiations are always worthless or just in this case?
The only alternative as I see it would be to bargain away the COC for a TA either before
or after the ruling. Either way what would the east be giving up? My guess[and
it is obviously a guess] is that for FS the loss would be about 40%.
It's too bad they didn't ask you opinion of the value of the COC from the start of the
merger because then it would have been clear that the west would have to resume
section 6. If that would have happened we would have been coming to the end
of it about now. But it's never too late IMO. And if the west had been in section 6
at the time of the Aug TA wouldn't it have been quite a bit more attractive?
Although it's a simplification I take it as given that the company is out to make
money any way it can. Why shouldn't FS have the same attitude? The only
way I can understand your possition is to assume that FS should not expect
thier union to take any risk for them. I don't feel like the companies money is
my money but I do take the attitude that my union dues are my money. It's
hard not to conclude that your position revolves mostly around saving the IAM
from any extra stress. If the IAM is in a bad financial position and can't
afford anything for the west well then just let them admit it and we'll move on.
The Bagfather
Senior
And let's be sure we all understand what that's costing FS as a whole.
BF, it is UW that said it would be a waste of time. after the nmb ruled IAM as the union for the combined group, the iam decided not to pursue or even continue sec6 on behalf of the west, they wanted a t/a to their bk cba. unionism is about what members want, not what the leaders of said union want. had sec 6 been continued, there might be a better cba in place....
this we will never know due to the fact that the lap dog union rolled over for the company....again
this we will never know due to the fact that the lap dog union rolled over for the company....again
AW,
Wrong the IAM did not want the Final Offer to be the T/A, the NC met with the company numerous times, the company wants to outsource more work, the NC stood firm and said no.
The company does not want to reach a deal for a T/A, but I guess you dont read the updates from the NC.
And there is nothing to really negotiate till Bloch rules on the COC Arbitration.
142 M&R Updates.
Pay close attention to the September 7th update.
Wrong the IAM did not want the Final Offer to be the T/A, the NC met with the company numerous times, the company wants to outsource more work, the NC stood firm and said no.
The company does not want to reach a deal for a T/A, but I guess you dont read the updates from the NC.
And there is nothing to really negotiate till Bloch rules on the COC Arbitration.
142 M&R Updates.
Pay close attention to the September 7th update.
The Bagfather
Senior
700UW: I think we all agree that M&R was more judicious in the persuit of a TA
that FS was. When the FS TA came out Canale wrote a glowing review of it in the
messenger. But for either group. what was the chance of coming up with something
that was fair for both the east and west. Answer: .02% Why? Because the company
knew that the west was hurting and ready for almost anything especially FS.
Any aggreement would would sacrifice the COC outcome for the sake of the west.
So what's the only answere? Section 6 for both M&R and FS. And since the west
contracts have both been amendable for some time back pay issues are growing.
Why wouldn't the NRLB the President of the President's dog be fair to these
groups? It's not as if the west M&R and FS have been robbing anyone blind.
I get real tired of the IAM blaming the LLC for thier problems. They have two
incredibly valuable tools at thier disposal. Th COC and Section 6. M&R seems
to have placed a much higher value on the COC than the FS. But neither
has given any thing more that lip service to section 6.
Now as I said before mabey it comes down to the IAM not being in a financial
possition to pursue section 6. Like I said before, If that's true admit it and move
on. I'm willing to listen to arguements against section 6 for M&R and FS but
IMO nothing has been offered so far except to say they are essentially worthless.
Unions were founded on the premise of collective bargaining and the ability to strike.
Obviously there is the NRA in this case. But to make a blanket assumption that
everything will go the company's way IMO is wrong and unproductive. But ,as I
say. to expect it to cost the IAM more than they can afford or want to spend makes
sense. I think this was one of the main reasons for FS wanting a new union.
Thanks BF
that FS was. When the FS TA came out Canale wrote a glowing review of it in the
messenger. But for either group. what was the chance of coming up with something
that was fair for both the east and west. Answer: .02% Why? Because the company
knew that the west was hurting and ready for almost anything especially FS.
Any aggreement would would sacrifice the COC outcome for the sake of the west.
So what's the only answere? Section 6 for both M&R and FS. And since the west
contracts have both been amendable for some time back pay issues are growing.
Why wouldn't the NRLB the President of the President's dog be fair to these
groups? It's not as if the west M&R and FS have been robbing anyone blind.
I get real tired of the IAM blaming the LLC for thier problems. They have two
incredibly valuable tools at thier disposal. Th COC and Section 6. M&R seems
to have placed a much higher value on the COC than the FS. But neither
has given any thing more that lip service to section 6.
Now as I said before mabey it comes down to the IAM not being in a financial
possition to pursue section 6. Like I said before, If that's true admit it and move
on. I'm willing to listen to arguements against section 6 for M&R and FS but
IMO nothing has been offered so far except to say they are essentially worthless.
Unions were founded on the premise of collective bargaining and the ability to strike.
Obviously there is the NRA in this case. But to make a blanket assumption that
everything will go the company's way IMO is wrong and unproductive. But ,as I
say. to expect it to cost the IAM more than they can afford or want to spend makes
sense. I think this was one of the main reasons for FS wanting a new union.
Thanks BF
The Bagfather
Senior
PS: Someone pressed the wrong button on thier vote. Perhaps
the moderator could change this for you.
the moderator could change this for you.
The NLRB does not handle unionized workers at the airlines, that would be the NMB.
The IAM has the money to pursue it, but it would be wasted as the company wont settle with your group knowing they have to still negotiate a single agreement.
The East might have better wages for fleet, but sick and vacation and other items are better in the West CBA.
Apparently you never been in negotiations with this group, ie Hemenway and Glass, I have been and they did not want to settle in the last BK and got the abrogation they sought.
What incentive does the company have to settle the West CBAs?
The NLRA does not cover Airline Workers, that would the RLA, maybe you need to educate yourself on the process before you post.
The IAM has the money to pursue it, but it would be wasted as the company wont settle with your group knowing they have to still negotiate a single agreement.
The East might have better wages for fleet, but sick and vacation and other items are better in the West CBA.
Apparently you never been in negotiations with this group, ie Hemenway and Glass, I have been and they did not want to settle in the last BK and got the abrogation they sought.
What incentive does the company have to settle the West CBAs?
The NLRA does not cover Airline Workers, that would the RLA, maybe you need to educate yourself on the process before you post.
The Bagfather
Senior
OK please walk me through this. FS has an amendable contract. Are you
saying the company has no obligation to engage in negotiations should the IAM
ask for them? Or are you saying that they wouldn't want to. It's hard for me
to think of a scenario where they would want to. Now if your saying that it would
be difficult and take time then understood. But at some time during this process
the right to strike comes up. right? Isn't that really the bottom line in negotating
section 6? Isnt that the most valuable part of collective bargaining?
Thanks BF
saying the company has no obligation to engage in negotiations should the IAM
ask for them? Or are you saying that they wouldn't want to. It's hard for me
to think of a scenario where they would want to. Now if your saying that it would
be difficult and take time then understood. But at some time during this process
the right to strike comes up. right? Isn't that really the bottom line in negotating
section 6? Isnt that the most valuable part of collective bargaining?
Thanks BF
Yes the company would have to negotiate, but they dont have to settle.
It can take years, for example one time for the M&R CBA we negotiated over four and half years and the NMB would not release us. We even voted a T/A down and the NMB would not release us.
When we went on strike in 1992 we negotiated over three years before the NMB would release us.
It can take years, for example one time for the M&R CBA we negotiated over four and half years and the NMB would not release us. We even voted a T/A down and the NMB would not release us.
When we went on strike in 1992 we negotiated over three years before the NMB would release us.
Jester
Veteran
700UW,
Normally I would respect your opinion, even if I disagree with it most of the time. Unfortunately, this time I would call it to be intellectually dishonest and a red herring.
First, I see plenty of East complaining about West better benefits, but frankly, I don't see any East willing to trade the IAM contract for the TWU. Who in the East is willing to trade this part-timer making less than $10/hour after 5 years of service, no pension, no sick days, no insurance for family with a profit sharing last year of under $150... any takers? The East had their chance to have the TWU as their representative and all I can say would be, "Season's Beatings" to this red herring argument.
Second, if Section 6 is a "joke" then what other LEGAL pressure would an union have available other that to withhold its services in the form of a strike? While the Bush Administration may be more than willing to order back to work, can you say that with the next President who has a very good chance of being a Democrat? Just think if Boss Canale continued Section 6 two years ago, Parker would be thinking about settling instead of worrying about a strike under a new probable labor-friendly President.
Third, East has a legally binding contract for two more years, unlike West with an amendable contract. Why the two groups are being tied together makes little sense outside they work for the same company and represented by the same union, but if that is true, then both groups who performing the same work, same aircraft, and at times, same stations should be working under the same contract. You can't have it both ways with the false argument by essentially claiming FS is separate as when it suits Boss Canale and Parker as it would be a "waste of time, money, effort and energy."
Fourth, if IAM is the representative of West, then they need to do something instead of doing what you consider to be a "moot point" in getting a raise. Why is West paying its dues to this inept group then?
Fifth, and probably the only thing I would slightly agree with you about, if not for the merger, West would be looking at a paltry raise, if any. However, since Parker hooked-up with East, he had to have realized that West was not going to be satisfied with a TWU pay scale, so I have little sympathy for Parker in this regard. Your argument of it being a "piece of crap CBA" is a non-sequitur insofar that was then and this is now. "Now" being two years after with an amendable contract, a merger, a company which can afford it, and a company which has even offered West pay parity (with the CIC condition). Furthermore, and here's a reality check, when the West CBA was approved, probably a large majority of the current West FS people never had the chance to vote upon it (given the average date-of-hire is under 4 years), including myself. How about giving West FS a contract they can approve instead of inheriting "a piece of crap CBA" approved by West rampers long gone?
So berates Jester.
The Bagfather
Senior
700UW: Thanks for that info. What was the timing of these events? It seems
to me that prior to BK , or the the threat of BK, all US labor groups were doing
exceptionally well. So whatever the unions and the NMB were doing then must
have been OK. The point is that this is a different situation.
But here's the main problem IMO. The East stands to gain greatly from the COC.
IMO and probably most impartial observers agree that east and west have helped
each other in this merger. The question is one side contributing more that the other
side? Each labor group is different [the pilots, for instance, where seniority is
so important], but I think M&R and especially FS don't have a huge fight between the
east and west. I think they do or at least should appreciate thier respective contribution.
But for FS any TA is going to be greatly compromised due to he hunger of the west for
decent wages. The TA gave the hubs decent wages, at least to the middle
seniority group. But this sold away quite cheaply the value of the COC. And although
the bargaining power of the COC grows daily any TA will reflect the hunger of the west.
The only way around that is for the IAM to start negotiating for the west. I don't
see why the NMB would be on the companies side to the degree that has been your
experience. At any rate do you dissagree that the process wouldn't influence the
value of any TA coming down the road?
This is a very complex issue and I appreciate your feed back. One big question I
have is if the COC is won is there any way other that a TA negotiated with the company
for the west to benifit? Could the IAM do anything unilaterally like they did with
profit sharing? Thanks BF
to me that prior to BK , or the the threat of BK, all US labor groups were doing
exceptionally well. So whatever the unions and the NMB were doing then must
have been OK. The point is that this is a different situation.
But here's the main problem IMO. The East stands to gain greatly from the COC.
IMO and probably most impartial observers agree that east and west have helped
each other in this merger. The question is one side contributing more that the other
side? Each labor group is different [the pilots, for instance, where seniority is
so important], but I think M&R and especially FS don't have a huge fight between the
east and west. I think they do or at least should appreciate thier respective contribution.
But for FS any TA is going to be greatly compromised due to he hunger of the west for
decent wages. The TA gave the hubs decent wages, at least to the middle
seniority group. But this sold away quite cheaply the value of the COC. And although
the bargaining power of the COC grows daily any TA will reflect the hunger of the west.
The only way around that is for the IAM to start negotiating for the west. I don't
see why the NMB would be on the companies side to the degree that has been your
experience. At any rate do you dissagree that the process wouldn't influence the
value of any TA coming down the road?
This is a very complex issue and I appreciate your feed back. One big question I
have is if the COC is won is there any way other that a TA negotiated with the company
for the west to benifit? Could the IAM do anything unilaterally like they did with
profit sharing? Thanks BF
The Bagfather
Senior
JESTER: I've come to two conclusions over the last few moments.
1. Your clarity of thought exceeds mine by a factor of 100.
2. The other one I forgot. It had something to do with the
IAM.
1. Your clarity of thought exceeds mine by a factor of 100.
2. The other one I forgot. It had something to do with the
IAM.
Henderfuzz
Senior
- Joined
- Mar 29, 2006
- Messages
- 305
- Reaction score
- 0
Let me just give all you guys my MHO. Once the COC is decided on.
1 Company wins. We will have no agreement until 2009 or later.
2 IAM wins than the company holds the award up in court for the forseeable future.
Also if you think FS would ever even consider a walkout just remember only about 43 percent of the eliagable voters even voted on the T/A . We dont have the numbers to walk out.
The company knows it and so does the IAM.
We had our chance to get all we are going to get until 2009 or later.
So keep up your dreaming boys casue it aint going to happen.
Just MHO.
1 Company wins. We will have no agreement until 2009 or later.
2 IAM wins than the company holds the award up in court for the forseeable future.
Also if you think FS would ever even consider a walkout just remember only about 43 percent of the eliagable voters even voted on the T/A . We dont have the numbers to walk out.
The company knows it and so does the IAM.
We had our chance to get all we are going to get until 2009 or later.
So keep up your dreaming boys casue it aint going to happen.
Just MHO.
