us east airbuses

[planejane]

This thread drifted off about MOC and then roadtrips. I was just stating some info I've been told by people who work there. Don't ASSUME things from my post. There was nothing said about MOC's work, in fact they are all very experinced and professional. None of the MOC people have been sent to factory engine school. Costs too much, they need that money for arena renaming.

 

[PITMTC]

I'll stop assuming that you are the person who got denied the DAT when you stop assuming that lowered moral = we get what we pay for. You stated it. If it is what you heard, then how can you speak to the moral or work performance of the MOC group?

 

[planejane]

What part of "I've been told by people who work there" don't you comprehend? Or should we assume they are lying?

 

[PITMTC]

Nope. I would believe someone got a pay cut or denied a DAT in a heart beat. What I wouldn't believe is that their proffesionalism or concern for safety would be compromised by those things.
Don't get upset. I am just giving my fellow employees the benefit of the doubt. Since you do not work there but only hear things, then forget about it. 😉

 

[700UW]

Per the CBA, the company has to grant a DAT if it is submitted on time and does not go over the vacation allotment.

 

[planejane]

700 they were submitted well within the guidelines also it was not over the allotment. The company cited needs of service
(in other words it would create overtime) they are over budget. Employees have earned DAT's to use to spend with family through the holidays and are told no. The company had to use that money for arena renaming - I guess.

 

[diogenes]

Planejane, the DAT situation you are describing happens on a regular basis on fleet service.

The only way agents could get their DAT's was to get a p/t agent to cover the full shift.

Here's a MOC question.

When the marshalling agent (in a non-maintenance station) calls in unnoted damage to MOC, what happens next?

 

[700UW]

We had the same problem in CLT, we filed a grievance and it was resolved that if the vacation allotment was not filled the DAT was granted.

 

[MOC A320]

700 they were submitted well within the guidelines also it was not over the allotment. The company cited needs of service
(in other words it would create overtime) they are over budget. Employees have earned DAT's to use to spend with family through the holidays and are told no. The company had to use that money for arena renaming - I guess.

The company Pulled this a few years ago also.

 

[delldude]

We had the same problem in CLT, we filed a grievance and it was resolved that if the vacation allotment was not filled the DAT was granted.

i agree but in many areas members fail to file for fear of some type of 'reprisal'.....made their own bed then IMHO. :down:

 

[MOC A320]

We had the same problem in CLT, we filed a grievance and it was resolved that if the vacation allotment was not filled the DAT was granted.

MOC has been filing grievances for years but the IAM has never given MOC the same urgency that the others get.

 

[diogenes]

Actually, a grievance WAS filed on this very issue, and prosecuted out of the station into the hands of the AGC and labor relations. Where it was never heard from again.

700, so it was settled in CLT doesn't mean a thing elsewhere. Why?

Page 61 of the agreement says grievances settled at the oral or first step are "non-precedential." That means an agreement between the IAM and US in CLT is not binding elsewhere.

Which was exactly what the AGC quoted when asked about why CLT got their DAT days and class II stations couldn't.

Dude, with all due respect, there was never an unresolved grievance in the local that didn't go thru step I,II and III, and there was never a violation called to the the attention of the committee that didn't get grieved.

The committee paid a high price for their advocacy.

There certainly are some chickennecks in the union, but not all. Paint with narrow strokes next time.

 

[MOC A320]

Actually, a grievance WAS filed on this very issue, and prosecuted out of the station into the hands of the AGC and labor relations. Where it was never heard from again.

700, so it was settled in CLT doesn't mean a thing elsewhere. Why?

Page 61 of the agreement says grievances settled at the oral or first step are "non-precedential." That means an agreement between the IAM and US in CLT is not binding elsewhere.

Which was exactly what the AGC quoted when asked about why CLT got their DAT days and class II stations couldn't.

Dude, with all due respect, there was never an unresolved grievance in the local that didn't go thru step I,II and III, and there was never a violation called to the the attention of the committee that didn't get grieved.

The committee paid a high price for their advocacy.

There certainly are some chickennecks in the union, but not all. Paint with narrow strokes next time.

Well said.

 

[diogenes]

Thank you,MOC A320.

 

[700UW]

Dio,

It was a mechanic and related grievance, not fleet.