The AFA is also pursusing it and the CWA/IBT sold its membership out in order not to have a union vote as the company was preparing to challenge the alliance, they gave it up in exchange for the company to recognize the alliance and not go to the NMB and force a representational vote.
Transition Agreements and Seniority
- Thread starter rat tales
- Start date
Jester
Veteran
You would be surprised. We aren't all dumbasses. In fact, some of the rampers are attorneys, economists, MBAs, and CPAs, not to mention nurses, engineers, scientists, writers, although I am unsure of any arbitors.
btw... "Change of Control" had a very different definition in Jerry Glass' contract than in the CBA.
So with whimsy speaks Jester.
I know what the language in the CBA says, it is similar, not the exact working but basically the same.
I think Sharon Levine, Bob Bush, David Niegus and the rest of the attornies who worked on the case know a bit more about it than you.
Seems to me you are sounding like a company man.
You sound just like all the naysayers who said the IAM would lose the Airbus Outsourcing Arbitration, funny thing is we won it.
I think Sharon Levine, Bob Bush, David Niegus and the rest of the attornies who worked on the case know a bit more about it than you.
Seems to me you are sounding like a company man.
You sound just like all the naysayers who said the IAM would lose the Airbus Outsourcing Arbitration, funny thing is we won it.
Jester
Veteran
You got me now! You got me now! Of course, I am a "company man"! That's why I have been calling for Section 6 and calling for the chance to strike for wage parity to push Parker into action! Of course, it is all so clear! Is this all part of an anti-intellectual movement to call someone a "company man" because one might have an education while eschewing groupthink responses... Egads!
By the way, I have never commented upon the "Airbus Outsourcing Arbitration" as that issue was before my association with US Airways, but thanks for that attempt at a straw man argument.
So riles Jester.
CWA/IBT gave up the CIC grievance for immediate and future pay and benefit increases.
The thought of a union-bussing group on US property and an 4th union vote and putting all your eggs in an arbitrator hands was and is a calculated move. If IAM wins the CIC and its members get immediate pay and benefit increases to exceed the CWA/IBT and the HP’ers group then there strategy was a risky won victory GOOD LUCK!!!!!! It will give all union groups something to work off of.
Time will tell who gets egg on their face
Ramp Rogue
Veteran
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2002
- Messages
- 724
- Reaction score
- 81
Would someone, or a group from the east challenge the iam on this? We as a group need to have our seniority rectified to what it should truly be. Hire Date! Case history shows what is fair. The west is going to integrate into the east with their hire date seniority. When that happens, east employees will be pushed farther down the totem pole. Once it hits you in the face that someone else with less seniority than you is now above you on the system seniority list, maybe you'll come to grips with reality. What it means is if there is another furlough, more junior employees will still be working while you may possibly have to hit the streets. The same could be said in the event of another merger with an airline that goes strictly by hire date. Since the iam doesn't give a damn, it is time to take them to court on this matter. Case precedence has already been set. There are hundreds, if not thousands of us that are ready to fight this battle. What is needed is for someone from the east to start the ball rolling. Are you listerning EAST?
Ramp Rogue
Veteran
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2002
- Messages
- 724
- Reaction score
- 81
If you are one of the lucky ones that uses date of hire seniority, you are not in jeopardy. If you are one that goes by classification seniority, yuo are in double jeopardy. Once the integration with west happens, you are possibly going to go farther down in seniority depending when your classification date is.
The Bagfather
Senior
Ramp Rogue: I want to know how these guys financed thier legal
action. Did they come up with money up front or did they
convince the lawyers to start for free with the reward on down the
line. If that's the case then the case has to be strong. Go for
it and good luck.
action. Did they come up with money up front or did they
convince the lawyers to start for free with the reward on down the
line. If that's the case then the case has to be strong. Go for
it and good luck.
The Bagfather
Senior
Jester: You were making so much sence befor you started talking about the COC.
Although anythings possible I'm confident of a favorable COC outcome for basically
all the same reasons that 700 outlined. Especially note the other labor groups that
bargained away there's.
So for me the question is why is 141 so limp on the COC. During one union
meeting a 141 AGC right after we voted down the TA made the COC out
to be a big pain in the butt..something we'll just have to go along with to make
a couple of greedy rampers happy.
I could be wrong on this but I think the reason that M&R are going to see the COC
through is the east M&R is stronger than the west M&R and the West M&R is not
in near as bad of shape as is the west ramp.
Too bad IMO. And again I won't critisize anybody for voting for the Jan TA if 141
has the nerve to put it out. But I will continue to blast the IAM for letting this
happen. Thanks BF
Although anythings possible I'm confident of a favorable COC outcome for basically
all the same reasons that 700 outlined. Especially note the other labor groups that
bargained away there's.
So for me the question is why is 141 so limp on the COC. During one union
meeting a 141 AGC right after we voted down the TA made the COC out
to be a big pain in the butt..something we'll just have to go along with to make
a couple of greedy rampers happy.
I could be wrong on this but I think the reason that M&R are going to see the COC
through is the east M&R is stronger than the west M&R and the West M&R is not
in near as bad of shape as is the west ramp.
Too bad IMO. And again I won't critisize anybody for voting for the Jan TA if 141
has the nerve to put it out. But I will continue to blast the IAM for letting this
happen. Thanks BF
Jester
Veteran
BG,
It was simply my opinion in terms of the CIC and we'll see the results in a few months, but I'll continue to believe in my position that Boss Canale & Company figure this to be a loser and they were desperately looking for a way to save face by offering the TA with a raise as a solution. I don't hold to the conspiracy theorists that Canale and Parker are golf buddies looking to screw over membership. As I said early on in my first post to this board, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" and I have not seen that.
Back to the original topic. Did anyone else notice this line from the link?
"Unlike in Rakestraw, plaintiffs here do not suggest that IAM acted improperly merely by dovetailing the seniority lists."
So is or was it the policy of IAM to dovetail seniority lists or just to play it as it serves their best interests and the interests of East? I cannot see a 20-year West ramper being on par with a 40-year East ramper. As I understand, IAM is pushing for Date-of-Hire which provides little in the way of protection for West stations as Easties bump and flush Westies from their jobs. Given that most Westies could not afford to hang around much for these anemic wages over the decades at AW, not to mention the relative corporate ages of US and AW, the average length of company time for Westies would be fairly short compared to the average Eastie. Date-of-Hire is just a staple job for West. It seems that if IAM was all that concerned about West, then a fence for several years would be adequate, in particular, the West's hubs and larger outstations. Just another example of how Westies are nothing more than a disposable tool to IAM... I would sign a card from the Amalgamated Clothing and Textile Workers Union at this point.
And finally, I thought it was a class act by the IAM towards Lee Seham, former AFMA plantiffs' attorney:
"The substance of Seham’s testimony at trial was that he had been subject to hostility and animus from IAM as a result of his representation of AMFA. Seham testified that beginning roughly in 1991, IAM officials repeatedly and publicly accused him of being a liar and of being 'in it [just] for the money' for no reason other than his relationship with AMFA. In addition, he testified that meetings at which he spoke were frequently interrupted by catcalls from IAM representatives. He also testified that various written materials produced by IAM had depicted him as a liar who was controlling AMFA for his own financial gain."
Good to see that some things at IAM never change, as with the attempts of the IBEW organizers who were accused trying to get cards signed because of "their own selfish gain." If the IAM cannot address the issues, then attack the messenger. Intellectual dishonesty, lying, name calling and cat calling... all part the IAM legacy.
So deems Jester.
It was simply my opinion in terms of the CIC and we'll see the results in a few months, but I'll continue to believe in my position that Boss Canale & Company figure this to be a loser and they were desperately looking for a way to save face by offering the TA with a raise as a solution. I don't hold to the conspiracy theorists that Canale and Parker are golf buddies looking to screw over membership. As I said early on in my first post to this board, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" and I have not seen that.
Back to the original topic. Did anyone else notice this line from the link?
"Unlike in Rakestraw, plaintiffs here do not suggest that IAM acted improperly merely by dovetailing the seniority lists."
So is or was it the policy of IAM to dovetail seniority lists or just to play it as it serves their best interests and the interests of East? I cannot see a 20-year West ramper being on par with a 40-year East ramper. As I understand, IAM is pushing for Date-of-Hire which provides little in the way of protection for West stations as Easties bump and flush Westies from their jobs. Given that most Westies could not afford to hang around much for these anemic wages over the decades at AW, not to mention the relative corporate ages of US and AW, the average length of company time for Westies would be fairly short compared to the average Eastie. Date-of-Hire is just a staple job for West. It seems that if IAM was all that concerned about West, then a fence for several years would be adequate, in particular, the West's hubs and larger outstations. Just another example of how Westies are nothing more than a disposable tool to IAM... I would sign a card from the Amalgamated Clothing and Textile Workers Union at this point.
And finally, I thought it was a class act by the IAM towards Lee Seham, former AFMA plantiffs' attorney:
"The substance of Seham’s testimony at trial was that he had been subject to hostility and animus from IAM as a result of his representation of AMFA. Seham testified that beginning roughly in 1991, IAM officials repeatedly and publicly accused him of being a liar and of being 'in it [just] for the money' for no reason other than his relationship with AMFA. In addition, he testified that meetings at which he spoke were frequently interrupted by catcalls from IAM representatives. He also testified that various written materials produced by IAM had depicted him as a liar who was controlling AMFA for his own financial gain."
Good to see that some things at IAM never change, as with the attempts of the IBEW organizers who were accused trying to get cards signed because of "their own selfish gain." If the IAM cannot address the issues, then attack the messenger. Intellectual dishonesty, lying, name calling and cat calling... all part the IAM legacy.
So deems Jester.
Seham is not as prolabor as you would think.
He represented EL Al and Alitalia against the IAM in the stike/lockouts that occured there.
Seems to me no labor union would want a lawyer who represents companies against unions.
He also lost a case for ACA against AMFA, every single time before this case when a newly group organizes the status quo provisions of the RLA applied, well he took the case to court and lost, so since then any carrier is free to do whatever they want to a group before they get their first CBA.
Seham is a raider and is out to line his pockets, check AMFAs LM-2s and you will see how much money he has made off of them.
He represented EL Al and Alitalia against the IAM in the stike/lockouts that occured there.
Seems to me no labor union would want a lawyer who represents companies against unions.
He also lost a case for ACA against AMFA, every single time before this case when a newly group organizes the status quo provisions of the RLA applied, well he took the case to court and lost, so since then any carrier is free to do whatever they want to a group before they get their first CBA.
Seham is a raider and is out to line his pockets, check AMFAs LM-2s and you will see how much money he has made off of them.
Hadenough
Senior
I'm one of the ones that have two dates. A hire date and a adjusted date but mine just happens to be seven months apart and in the same year. I did not spend much time as a part time agent.
