Not quite, the line Presidents were agreeable to give up the Baker Letter in exchange for either keeping something else for the members, like the week of vacation or perhaps adding a Taxi premium. Stores got the week back, Maint didn't because the company refused to negotiate with the line. So the company took both, or should I say you gave them both? the fact is we knew we could survive without the Baker letter by making changes on our own. The IEC, which has only ex presidents decided to make that decision for us, and our members.
And how would the new stucture fix that? It would add three Fleet service Locals and take out four maint locals?
Jim never spoke to me , nor did he Email me in reagrds to the Email I sent out. If profanity was against the rules then Gillespie would be gone, he uses it all the time, mostly directed toward people from Aircraft Maintenance.
Yes I had discussed it on numerous occasions with Jim Little, and at several "strategy sessions" held by the TWU and Mark Richard, and I pointed out how the SWA model worked and ours didn't and why and how to fix it. What they presented to us, without us even having the option to vote on it is not a structure similar to SWA, is a gerrymandered version of what we have now, designed to silence Line maintenance.
Actually Gilboy and Luis were discussing it as well, at least as far back as 2009, IIRC they didnt want Title II and it was one maint local, not just the line, funny those two Ex Presidents are two out of the three ex maint reps on the IEC, there are no current Maint reps on the IEC. This plan was put together for Line AMTs, Stores and Title II without any say whatsover from any of those groups. Is that democratic?
