2014 Fleet Service Discussion

[WeAAsles]

so u would vote for the iam being able to do your work but you cant do iam work, and you would do so on your belief that management will eventually give you the same thing. I see.

Tim if you live off OT solely it could be a concern somewhat? But the $2.50 raise by September should offset some of those concerns? They're not going to lay people off if that's what you're thinking. #1 they have to allow people to move somewhere and #2 they have to pay for the move. Just not worth it. The only places where the issue could be troublesome is in stations where the workforce is fairly equal?

But in all honesty your concern is noted.

 

[Tim Nelson]

Tim,
 
True, there is not going to be a strike vote for either maintenance or fleet. This is not a secret. False, we would not be going into joint talks with nothing. Would be going back to NMB.
 
P. Rez

pat
without a strike vote this round of negotiations is over and the members would be tossed into joint talks with nothing. For that reason, i hate to say, you have put the gun to our heads.

 

[WeAAsles]

pat
without a strike vote this round of negotiations is over and the members would be tossed into joint talks with nothing. For that reason, i hate to say, you have put the gun to our heads.

Pat you evil monster you. I bet you even ignore cute little puppies when they come up to you with their tail wagging?

And NO it doesn't matter that the freakin TA will pass overwhelming since it's very good. 83% is my guess. Who's got the odds?

How could you????

 

[ograc]

The emphasis by the membership should be on the totality and the certainties of the tentative agreement. Does the agreement represent a positive change for the US members prior to entering into JCBA negotiations? Does it secure DOS pay parity with TWU represented AA? Does it secure job protection, through scope language, until a JCBA is signed? Does this agreement achieve gains, job security and leverage going into JCBA talks? These are the issues the membership needs to consider prior to the ratification vote. Granted; it does not provide improvements to all of the expectations of the membership, but that is negotiations. It's a two way street folks. It's a bridge agreement until we accomplish a JCBA.

 

[700UW]

Somebody finally gets it and its you cargo, it is a bridge agreement and the IAM has been saying that since last summer.
 
Nothing is ever good enough for timmie, as he didnt negotiate it, and is not in the "club", lol.
 
Timmy is just jealous and angry as for the past 20 years he cant get elected to the District or International.
 
With Timmie, its all about timmie and not whats best for the members.
 
And that is why he will never get elected.

 

[robbedagain]

The emphasis by the membership should be on the totality and the certainties of the tentative agreement. Does the agreement represent a positive change for the US members prior to entering into JCBA negotiations? Does it secure DOS pay parity with TWU represented AA? Does it secure job protection, through scope language, until a JCBA is signed? Does this agreement achieve gains, job security and leverage going into JCBA talks? These are the issues the membership needs to consider prior to the ratification vote. Granted; it does not provide improvements to all of the expectations of the membership, but that is negotiations. It's a two way street folks. It's a bridge agreement until we accomplish a JCBA.

Orgac  I (just my own opin) do think this is a big upgrade contract that will hold us over til the JCBA.   No we did not get every single lit thing we want but I do think this TA is one of the better ones that we've had in so long.  The scope itself is one of the best scope ive seen.  While the retro/signing bonus is what it is and to make up for the failed raise in 2013  it cld of been better but me thinks there will be better things to come in the JCBA

 

[P. REZ]

pat
without a strike vote this round of negotiations is over and the members would be tossed into joint talks with nothing. For that reason, i hate to say, you have put the gun to our heads.

And the award for best dramatic actor goes to......................(drum roll)....................................Tim Nelson.

 

[WeAAsles]

Somebody finally gets it and its you cargo, it is a bridge agreement and the IAM has been saying that since last summer.
 
Nothing is ever good enough for timmie, as he didnt negotiate it, and is not in the "club", lol.
 
Timmy is just jealous and angry as for the past 20 years he cant get elected to the District or International.
 
With Timmie, its all about timmie and not whats best for the members.
 
And that is why he will never get elected.

700 why do you keep saying someone finally gets it? We ALL got it. It's only little Timmie who either doesn't get it or likes being left out in the cold?

Come in from the cold Tim. We'll make you some hot chocolate if you like. And none of your friends in management or that union busting firm who pays you are allowed.

 

[700UW]

Its called sarcasm WeAA, lol.
 
If things are so bad Timmie, why dont you retire and find another job?
 
I mean no one is forcing you to stay and then you couldnt bash, lie and insult people anymore, and you wouldnt LOSE again in your quest for power, that has failed over and over.
 
You know what they say about the definition of insanity?
 
Do the same behavior over and over and expecting different results.

 

[Tim Nelson]

And the award for best dramatic actor goes to......................(drum roll)....................................Tim Nelson.

whether or not someone likes the contract or not, this is one big masquerade without a strike vote as that has major implications that the union leaders have unlocked and will go into joint talks with nothing if this is rejected. Disappointing but with that gun to the head you leave little choice to members.

 

[700UW]

whether or not someone likes the contract or not, this is one big masquerade without a strike vote as that has major implications that the union leaders have unlocked and will go into joint talks with nothing if this is rejected. Disappointing but with that gun to the head you leave little choice to members.

 

[ograc]

With or without a strike vote; if the TA is rejected by an overwhelming margin it will serve as a clear message to the company and the NMB. IMO... I don't think this will be the case. It's a respectable agreement and I believe the membership will see it as such.

 

[PHXConx]

please quote the part of this ta that backs up what u are saying. Kindly let us all know what negotiayion rights we have other than making suggestions for 90 days prior to explosion? I want you to educate me.

Maybe the negotiation committee should have actually negotiated something. You ever hear of health care caps? Go review the terrible iam united contract but at least they limit yearly increases on health care. Please show me anywhere in this ta that restricts our health care cost from going higher over the next 3 years? And please share with us the language that backs up your statement that our union will negotiate changes? The members want to know.

 
 
ok ill educate you
 
 

have you read the letter timmy if you did this above would not have been written 
 
besides where it says that they will negotiate in good faith... i guess you missed that part... also
 
in the letter it says an "arbitrator shall immediately be selected in accordance with the Collective Bargaining Agreement" 
 
ARTICLE 21 our CBA
 
In compliance with Section 204, Title II of the Railway
Labor Act, as amended, there is hereby established a System
Board of Arbitration (the Board) for the purpose of adjusting
and deciding grievances which may arise under the terms of
this Agreement.
The Board shall consist of three (3) members; a neutral
referee, a member selected by the Company and a member
selected by the Union. Upon timely receipt of appeal from
the Union to the Company's Director of Arbitration, Labor
Relations, or following submission of a Company grievance
by the Vice President of Labor Relations to the Union and
Company members of the Board, the Company's Director of
Arbitration, Labor Relations or his designee shall contact the
designated representative of the Union to select a mutually
agreeable arbitrator to serve as the neutral member of the
Board.
The neutral arbitrator shall be selected by the Company and the union.  
 
you can read all of it.... im not going to post the entire arbitration process here... but your fears are unfounded again...
 
so unlike your lies the union will be able to negotiate in good faith, will have a say in who is the arbitrator... because its in the contract you apparently have failed to read 

 
you wonder why the negotiating committee didnt negotiate something now,, they cant  actually negotiate something until it knows what it is negotiating and  because you fail to read the TA letter, the Contract, or the LAW you are completely in the dark and you are blindly throwing darts at a wall hoping something will stick..  
 
Because the excise tax is put into place to lower health care costs by limiting unions ability to negotiate so called Cadillac plans.  the idea was to force unions and companies to make it too expensive for the company to have these plans(your government at work) but since you wont educate yourself to learn that you don't understand why its necessary to be able to work with the company to work within the law, and our contract (arbitration process) to keep our plans under the threshold that would require an excise tax, for now, and  the next 4 years, and 2018 and after 
 
It protects our members by saying that the only way this letter comes into action, is if after 2018 an excise tax is pushed on to the company by the IRS, then the company and the union will negotiate a change to keep the affected plan as close as possible, and make changes to avoid the excise tax, then if the union and company can not come to an agreement after 90 days then and only then using the arbitration process already in our contract(article 21) a neutral arbitrator will be chosen by the company and the union.  the power of the neutral  arbitrator (according to the letter) will only be about the affected plan, if the other plans do not have an excise tax put on them then its not part of the process.  
 
 
so quit fear mongering about  all our plans being abolished, stop fear mongering the membership about saying that we wont have control of the arbitrator you are wrong again...  but that's nothing new

 

[Tim Nelson]

With or without a strike vote; if the TA is rejected by an overwhelming margin it will serve as a clear message to the company and the NMB. IMO... I don't think this will be the case. It's a respectable agreement and I believe the membership will see it as such.

i absolutely agree this will pass. I cant overlook not having a strike vote because in the small chance that it doesnt pass, not having a strike vote is not only a missed opportunity at solidarity display and message, but more importantly it suggest strongly that entering joints talks without a ta is likely.

My station and your station are different, and each station has different things to vote on.
Jax has scope and if i was in jax i wouldnt want to change that with a joint contract anytime soon.
for my station, we will have cross utilization. Yuck. I have to consider that along with other things that i mentioned so from my perspective i cant vote yes. im ok with being in the minority from my perspective

 

[PHXConx]

show me in the letter where im wrong at. Sorry 700 i dont go by what you say. Exactly where does management have to listen and agree with union?

Cite the language where management loses the right to terminate plans if 3rd party modifications cant guarantee management from taxes? The members wanna know.

the third party is a mutually agreed upon neutral arbitrator selected through the arbitration process of the CBA  something you obviously haven't read
 
and the only way that the arbitrator can terminate a plan is if and only if there is no way to avoid an excise tax... you do know how to read don't you Timmy?
 
we dont have just  one plan, its the multiple plans we have in our insurance package... and the arbitrator can only modify  a plan if its going to have an excise tax imposed...   so no we arent going to lose all our insurance, unless the law changes and all our plans are affected.. 
 
keep spinning timmy