Where is IAM update/info/link?

[pitguy]

Biff,

Why won't the union allow the vote count at each station to be released? Allot of the membership think it is part of the cover up. In PIT it appears that the union does not want anyone to get involved. We are lead through intimidation. I feel you will have a hard time defending them. Especially in regards to dishonesty.

 

[wings396]

I hate to speak out against the union that is supposed to be supporting us, but this is not the case of the smaller stations. They have never looked out for our concerns since all involved are from the hub cities. When some of the reps came to go over the concession package, they did nothing more than cram Mid Atlantic down our throats. So we have gone thru with the cuts and now maybe we can be lucky enough to take yet another big hit to work for them. All said and done we can still pay dues to the IAM for all of this job protection at Mid Atlantic when and if they ever start flying. This is like paying for car insurance and having a wrecked BMW replaced with a Yugo. Case in point the fleet service jobs lost to outside contractors in SDF & AVP..and I'm sure there are more. Are we getting what we are paying for here????????

 

[wings396]

I hate to speak out against the union that is supposed to be supporting us, but this is not the case of the smaller stations. They have never looked out for our concerns since all involved are from the hub cities. When some of the reps came to go over the concession package, they did nothing more than cram Mid Atlantic down our throats. So we have gone thru with the cuts and now maybe we can be lucky enough to take yet another big hit to work for them. All said and done we can still pay dues to the IAM for all of this job protection at Mid Atlantic when and if they ever start flying. This is like paying for car insurance and having a wrecked BMW replaced with a Yugo. Case in point the fleet service jobs lost to outside contractors in SDF & AVP..and I'm sure there are more. Are we getting what we are paying for here????????

 

[Biffeman]

I cannot speak for how people vote, but I know the vote in CLT went with no problems even had "NOs" as tellers and "NOs" observe the count. The company is pissed that they lost and are fighting the us every step of the way.

 

[Biffeman]

I cannot speak for how people vote, but I know the vote in CLT went with no problems even had "NOs" as tellers and "NOs" observe the count. The company is pissed that they lost and are fighting the us every step of the way.

 

[Biffeman]

From what I know, the union did not want the company to know the results at each location so there would be no retaliation or favortism, but if you went to your local some of the numbers were available. I saw the numbers, there was no cover up either vote and that I know is fact.

 

[Biffeman]

From what I know, the union did not want the company to know the results at each location so there would be no retaliation or favortism, but if you went to your local some of the numbers were available. I saw the numbers, there was no cover up either vote and that I know is fact.

 

[Biffeman]

The difference is the UA deal was a negotiated settlement, not the company's final offer. And I cannot speak for the IAM, but I was at the Chairmans conference in August (covering it) and there is no doubt in my mind the judge would have abrogated our contract in a heartbeat.[BR]Ask youself these simple questions:[BR]The first day of BK the judge abrogated $600,000,000 in aircraft leases and debt, what would he have done to us?[BR][BR]They way the DIP was written if the company did not get concessions or an abrogation the $500 Million, the $900 Million in ATSB and the $240 Million in post BK investment would have been pulled and the company liquidated. Now the judge has only two responsiblities in court, one to ensure the company emerges bk with a succesful business plan and two make sure the creditors get as much as possible paid to them.[BR][BR]Also 6 out of 7 employee groups agreed to concessions all ready, therefore the M&R vote was jepordizing their jobs and the liquidation of the company.

 

[Biffeman]

The difference is the UA deal was a negotiated settlement, not the company's final offer. And I cannot speak for the IAM, but I was at the Chairmans conference in August (covering it) and there is no doubt in my mind the judge would have abrogated our contract in a heartbeat.[BR]Ask youself these simple questions:[BR]The first day of BK the judge abrogated $600,000,000 in aircraft leases and debt, what would he have done to us?[BR][BR]They way the DIP was written if the company did not get concessions or an abrogation the $500 Million, the $900 Million in ATSB and the $240 Million in post BK investment would have been pulled and the company liquidated. Now the judge has only two responsiblities in court, one to ensure the company emerges bk with a succesful business plan and two make sure the creditors get as much as possible paid to them.[BR][BR]Also 6 out of 7 employee groups agreed to concessions all ready, therefore the M&R vote was jepordizing their jobs and the liquidation of the company.

 

[pitguy]

Ok Biff then next question. When asked about why the IAM would not recommend a yes or no vote on this latest vote for our concessionary contract we were told that the union could not make a recommendation because of some bylaw that the United guys put in place in our district. ((Please note though the union worked 'very' hard to sell the contract but would not recommend a yes vote for it.)) Now the question. Why is the same union now recommending a yes vote for the United mechanics and related on their contract if the union is not allowed to recommend a vote? I feel they are just caught up in another one of their lies.

--P.S. Thanks for the replies.

 

[pitguy]

Ok Biff then next question. When asked about why the IAM would not recommend a yes or no vote on this latest vote for our concessionary contract we were told that the union could not make a recommendation because of some bylaw that the United guys put in place in our district. ((Please note though the union worked 'very' hard to sell the contract but would not recommend a yes vote for it.)) Now the question. Why is the same union now recommending a yes vote for the United mechanics and related on their contract if the union is not allowed to recommend a vote? I feel they are just caught up in another one of their lies.

--P.S. Thanks for the replies.

 

[tug_slug]

Pitguy,

The District convention was held in either September or October (I cant remember which) at any rate during our negotiations one of the bylaws stated that the District Officers could not use their position to influence the membership on how to vote. By the time United negotiations had begun that specific bylaw had been changed.

 

[tug_slug]

Pitguy,

The District convention was held in either September or October (I cant remember which) at any rate during our negotiations one of the bylaws stated that the District Officers could not use their position to influence the membership on how to vote. By the time United negotiations had begun that specific bylaw had been changed.

 

[pitguy]

Thanks for the replies.

 

[pitguy]

Thanks for the replies.