The "Skinny" on what the newest Court Proceedings mean
- Thread starter Tim Nelson
- Start date
OP
- Thread Starter
- #17
What does a deal have anything to do with this greivance? Are you saying the IAM was ready to throw out the grievance and waive it for a negotiated deal? Remember, the arbitration is a grievance, it's in the agreement already and NON NEGOTIABLE. It's bought for and paid for ALREADY by the "PRIOR" sacrifices of the hard working men and women of fleet serice and M & Related. For the IAM to do the asinine and cowardly by subsidizing a new agreement with yet another concessionary contract for more members would be pathetic. Why sign a concessionary contract after your company makes 1/2 billion big ones?
Remember, even if the IAM Shakes on $19hr it is a concession since the contract spells out over $22hr based on the change of control. Just because the company refuses to pay it doesnt mean it isn't theirs.
I would side you though 700 and say you're probably right. Because, in the end, I wouldn't be the least surprised if Fleets negotiators fold and accept a deal as it waives the grievance. I think the mechanics hang tight and go to arbitration and don't sign yet a 4th concessionary contract.
In any case, if the IAM settles, it will be completely unjust if the result of such settlement is paid for by 'prior negotiations' and the IAM subsidizes things by cashing in the arbitration. Obviously, the IAM is NOT going to get the $439 million from the company by coming to a handshake across the table.
But any subsidizing and misnegotiations is consistent with the unions of today. THey are worthless in the end and that is why workers continue to vote them out. Just this last year, organized labor lost another "Full" 1/2 pt by going from 7.9% of the private sector to now only 7.4%. And it's not because of Bush. This slide started Waaaayyyyy before Bush.
regards
OP
- Thread Starter
- #19
Easy 700, I was simply asking a clarification, thanks for clarifying. It makes sense.
My spin, no way were they close to a deal, not with the bottom falling out like it did. With the company's actions in court, no way were they close to a deal unless the deal provided for the waiver of this grievance. They may have been close to signing off on everything from wages, to training cost, but it looks like it hit a major snag if the arbitration waiver wasn't included.
I do not trust the IAM one iota on this and I'm still convinced they will piss the arbitration away, but I've been proven wrong before. If they stick to thier guns then this case work will be a classic example of a union giving members what they pay for. At some point a union has gots to stand...I doubt the IAM stands on this but I certainly hope they do. Sorry to be so pessimistic on this one.
regards,
libertybell
Senior
- Jan 5, 2003
- 320
- 9
Tim,
I think you are right on the money with this thought, I have spoken to a few mechanics and in no way will they take yet another 4th concessionary screwing they will proceed full speed towards Arbitration. As far as the Fleet group they have been heard saying they want Arbitration but could fold and take yet another concession package waiving this important grievance all you need to look at is the past history of this group. I hope I'm proved wrong this time but I'm not holding my breath.
OP
- Thread Starter
- #21
The IAM has a tremendous opportunity that carries far beyond US AIRWAYS property. My guess is they will blow it.
I can see the IAM INTL attorney and other laptop people coming into a room with your negotiators and basically saying, this arbitration could go either way so you better negotiate this arbitration away and take the concessions. I bet the meeting wouldn't last 15 minutes with only a token question. If anyone was bright enough to ask the right questions it would be Lolly [that's why he probably isn't an AGC now also] but then the others would silence him. That's how I've seen things play out before.
Anyways, I also believe there is a conflict of interest with one of the negotiators on the negotiations team but that's for another time.
regards,
We have dealt with Hemenway many times and the IAM knows what he is all about.
Answer this?
Did the IAM negotiate away the Airbus Arbitration?
Did the IAM negotiate away the 401K Arbitration?
Did the IAM negotiate away the HMO Arbitration?
When it comes to Arbitration the IAM's record is pretty stellar. The IAM has always prepared very well and dotted all "i"s and "t"s when it comes to arbitration.
The IAM has never even had the Change of Control Arbitration on the table, they refused to discuss giving it up.
Speaking to GLRs,GCs and AGCs, the arbitration is seen as payback to the company for the raping of both group in the bankruptcy court.
The day the CBAs were abrogated I cleary remember one GC telling the smug Head-in-the-way, "You might have won this round, but we will be back and you won't like it!"
Answer this?
Did the IAM negotiate away the Airbus Arbitration?
Did the IAM negotiate away the 401K Arbitration?
Did the IAM negotiate away the HMO Arbitration?
When it comes to Arbitration the IAM's record is pretty stellar. The IAM has always prepared very well and dotted all "i"s and "t"s when it comes to arbitration.
The IAM has never even had the Change of Control Arbitration on the table, they refused to discuss giving it up.
Speaking to GLRs,GCs and AGCs, the arbitration is seen as payback to the company for the raping of both group in the bankruptcy court.
The day the CBAs were abrogated I cleary remember one GC telling the smug Head-in-the-way, "You might have won this round, but we will be back and you won't like it!"
OP
- Thread Starter
- #23
If what you're saying is true then I can only applaud the IAM if the arbitration is seen as a payback. There is indication of what you are saying might be true as the company broke off or never showed up for talks. It just gave me the creeps when you said fleet was close to an agreement, when I figure the company would never be close to an agreement without a waiver of the $439million 'mega million winning ticket'.
At any rate, I do believe there is a difference between Fleet's IAM and M & R. I can't remmeber fleet fighting in arbitration for anything, although I'll give the M & R IAM district points for the airbus award. I also believe Canale fights moreso with his beloved United members as opposed to US AIRWAYS members. The different agreements are evidence.
regards,
Tim,
The M&R do have a longer history at US then fleet when it comes to representation, 1949. Fleet has not had a language dispute fo to arbitration in the short history of the CBA.
The good thing is the M&R are the lead group on the arbitration, both Districts are working together under the auspices of the Grand Lodge.
I know one GC and one GLR who want payback against Hemenway and Glass and they are very involved in the arbitration, Canale has no choice but to go along.
And I do agree if it is not UAL and PHL, Canale might have a differant outlook if the M&R group was not pushing so hard for a win in the case.
The M&R do have a longer history at US then fleet when it comes to representation, 1949. Fleet has not had a language dispute fo to arbitration in the short history of the CBA.
The good thing is the M&R are the lead group on the arbitration, both Districts are working together under the auspices of the Grand Lodge.
I know one GC and one GLR who want payback against Hemenway and Glass and they are very involved in the arbitration, Canale has no choice but to go along.
And I do agree if it is not UAL and PHL, Canale might have a differant outlook if the M&R group was not pushing so hard for a win in the case.
OP
- Thread Starter
- #25
This is good news and it represents the things unions are suppose to do.
Onward!
regards
flyingcat
Veteran
- Oct 10, 2005
- 658
- 0
It was nice having profit while it lasted.
P.S. if you get that much back how much will pilots ask for?
:unsure:
OP
- Thread Starter
- #27
It's not like the IAM members would be getting or gaining anything back, it is already possessed in the agreement. Just because the company has chosen to deny this change of control doesn't mean anyone is getting anything back.It was nice having profit while it lasted.
P.S. if you get that much back how much will pilots ask for?
I'm not sure of your question. I mean why would the pilots then want more if fleet and M & R are only getting what 'is' already theirs?
regards
Didn't the CWA save a lot of cities from falling under the express label, didn't the west employees do very well under the agreement? IM not so sure any one was sold out here. There are a lot of senior employees still in mainline express stations still making mainline wages that would have had to bumped into CLT. And there are still agents in CLT that would have been booted.
I have no inside knowledge and this is my own opinion but the only way they could have been close to a deal is if the company had sweetened the pot so much that the IAM was close to pulling the grievance. USAirways would never agree to a deal without having the change of control grievance pulled (hopefully the IAM has the same stance). If indeed the company didn't show up for negotiations the reason surely was because they just couldn't sweeten the pot enough for the IAM to agree so the company decided to throw the dice. Remember if the company loses (and it will be a huge loss) you can forget about ever seeing any of the true "semi snapbacks" (vacation, holidays, premiums, full sick pay, etc etc etc) that the company was putting on the table during negotiations. But the change of control award, if won, would trump all those by far. Even if the IAM loses they will probably still get the "other snapbacks" in a transition agreement. So the IAM has nothing to lose going after the change of control grievance and with the pot odds they are getting they would be crazy to fold and not call the companies all in raise.
OP
- Thread Starter
- #30
What the CWA/IBT did was negotiate the arbitration away as a political move. The CWA/IBT got automatic recognition without a union vote. That's what the labor representatives got to protect thier interest and they did this without a vote I believe.
Regarding the CWA/IBT negotiations, the company wanted and needed a 'seamless' transition agreement so it wouldn't have to operate two ticket counters, two of everything. Certain items were compensated to get this done.
OTOH, the IAM worked things out politically with the TWU and didn't have to give the company any 'lovn' to get recognized on both the west and east property.
By working things out with the TWU, as opposed to the company, the IAM has positioned itself to hold onto the grievance and not worry about its interest being damaged in an election.
Therefore, the IAM positoned itself better to go forward with the greievance and, so far, rightly recognizes the arbitration as a grievance and a non-negotiated item.
Keeping it separte from negotiations doesn't preclude the fact that the company and union must still work out a transition agreement to make the fleet service and M & R departments 'seamless'. Getting a seamless transition will in fact still cost the company, separate from the grievance.
At any rate, it can't be denied that winning the arbitration case strengthens the hand of the 'westies' and other stations.
regards,
Similar threads
