2014 Fleet Service Discussion

[roabilly]

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.

Cargo,
 
What everyone is missing here is that the strike vote leverage may be of less value than the 30 day SCS filing. Please review the first paragraph of page 33 of the term sheet. It states...
 
“IAM agrees to file a single Carrier Application with NMB within thirty (30) days from date of ratification of this agreement”
 
Now -- the way I interpret this is “IF” the agreement is not ratified, (voted down) the IAM will NOT file for SCS. So here we go again with the whole SCS argument...
 
It appears the leverage would be the need for SCS (not a strike vote) “IF” we had to go back to the table. So YES... absolutely... it is a bridge agreement to get us to the JCBA with SCS as leverage!

 

[Tim Nelson]

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

Well, ill give you points for at least quoting partial clips of the letter. But im not impressed with a 90 day negotiation window so after 90 days of union suggestions, our union has to "tap out" because its only other business will be to pick an arbitrator. Notice, the arbitrators scope isnt to decide if the union or company is right as some agcs have said. The arbitrator scope is only to make modifications to the affected plans to keep the company from flipping the bill on the clear and future taxes. More troubling is that the arbitrator has to find modifications that give management a guarantee that such modifications will fit under these taxes.

Some think this is where the process will end with higher deductibles, cost, etc for the members. Maybe but none of us know. More troubling is the guarantee problem. If the arbitrator cant make the guarantee to management then management can terminate the plan and get "the new plan". Another troubling aspect of this process is that the company has a "reasonable time" for its final actions. Reasonable time can go on forever as we have seen at united that "reasonable time" now means at least 9 months.

Speaking of united, they negotiated a cap where their health care cost cant go up more than 9% a year. That sucks but at least that offers protections. More importantly, they didnt sign no dopey letter tossing everything up for grabs come 2018. If they did then their caps deductions and everything would be subject to modification by a thirdparty.

Call me crazy but i dont get warm fuzzies over third parties being brought in to figure out how to protect management from these cost with modifying my health care.

And you do know that our cost havent a damn thing to do with it so its not like the third party will be deciding if something cost too much for me. Nope. The third party will be brought in to guarantee that the company is safe from these clear and future taxes.

Blank checks with "See Management" health care. Now thats a real pisser!

 

[WeAAsles]

The International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers said that it negotiated seniority protection for many of the workers if they relocate, and that job losses will be limited.
 
Still, union spokesman James Carlson called the outsourcing a "race to the bottom. How can you compete with vendors paying $12 an hour?" He said United's top pay for the work is about $24 an hour.
 
United will hire other companies to handle the work at airports in Albuquerque, New Mexico; Buffalo, New York; Charleston, South Carolina; Charlotte, North Carolina; Columbus, Ohio; Des Moines, Iowa; Detroit; El Paso, Texas; Sioux Falls, South Dakota; Wichita, Kansas; Pensacola, Florida; and Salt Lake City.
 
Under the union contract, the airline will take back (Get back) about 400 jobs that had been outsourced at Denver, Honolulu, Phoenix, and Dulles International Airport in northern Virginia.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/united-shifting-jobs-12-airports-203712467.html

 

[WeAAsles]

Well, ill give you points for at least quoting partial clips of the letter. But im not impressed with a 90 day negotiation window so after 90 days of union suggestions, our union has to "tap out" because its only other business will be to pick an arbitrator. Notice, the arbitrators scope isnt to decide if the union or company is right as some agcs have said. The arbitrator scope is only to make modifications to the affected plans to keep the company from flipping the bill on the clear and future taxes. More troubling is that the arbitrator has to find modifications that give management a guarantee that such modifications will fit under these taxes.

Some think this is where the process will end with higher deductibles, cost, etc for the members. Maybe but none of us know. More troubling is the guarantee problem. If the arbitrator cant make the guarantee to management then management can terminate the plan and get "the new plan". Another troubling aspect of this process is that the company has a "reasonable time" for its final actions. Reasonable time can go on forever as we have seen at united that "reasonable time" now means at least 9 months.

Speaking of united, they negotiated a cap where their health care cost cant go up more than 9% a year. That sucks but at least that offers protections. More importantly, they didnt sign no dopey letter tossing everything up for grabs come 2018. If they did then their caps deductions and everything would be subject to modification by a thirdparty.

Call me crazy but i dont get warm fuzzies over third parties being brought in to figure out how to protect management from these cost with modifying my health care.

And you do know that our cost havent a damn thing to do with it so its not like the third party will be deciding if something cost too much for me. Nope. The third party will be brought in to guarantee that the company is safe from these clear and future taxes.

Blank checks with "See Management" health care. Now thats a real pisser!

Tim I quoted to you absolutely how much you will be making extra per month by the end of your CBA from where you are now, $720.00 per month. And if we are in line with UAL in a JCBA it will be over $900.00 per month.

I keep asking you really how much do you think your medical costs could possibly go up even if the Taxes for 1 plan were thrown on you totally? Again just the TAXES, Not the plan percentage.

 

[PHXConx]

Call me crazy but i dont get warm fuzzies over third parties being brought in to figure out how to protect management from these cost with modifying my health care.

And you do know that our cost havent a damn thing to do with it so its not like the third party will be deciding if something cost too much for me. Nope. The third party will be brought in to guarantee that the company is safe from these clear and future taxes.

Blank checks with "See Management" health care. Now thats a real pisser!

neutral arbitrator, you know thats what it is why do you keep saying third party?  oh yes because that sounds more ominous
 
without this letter, the company would right now...
 
 
right now
 
 
right now
 
have negotiated a new health care package where our plans right now would be changed to avoid an excise tax that may or may not come in 4 years...
 
Which would you rather have? 4 or more years of the current plans, or our plans currently abolished right now
 
right now 
 
right now
 
get it yet?
 
right now and a new plan put in place that would give us the non cadillac plans now and for the next four or more years... give us way substandard plans...
 
I dont want to have to go to the exchange for my insurance i enjoy my current plan... but you want them to negotiate a new one, for now through 2018 you are crazy...  id much rather wait and find out if one of our three plans MIGHT require tweaking in 2018.  but you want to bet the farm now... im sure the membership would love you for that... 

 

[roabilly]

neutral arbitrator, you know thats what it is why do you keep saying third party?  oh yes because that sounds more ominous
 
without this letter, the company would right now...
 
 
right now
 
 
right now
 
have negotiated a new health care package where our plans right now would be changed to avoid an excise tax that may or may not come in 4 years...
 
Which would you rather have? 4 or more years of the current plans, or our plans currently abolished right now
 
right now 
 
right now
 
get it yet?
 
right now and a new plan put in place that would give us the non cadillac plans now and for the next four or more years... give us way substandard plans...
 
I dont want to have to go to the exchange for my insurance i enjoy my current plan... but you want them to negotiate a new one, for now through 2018 you are crazy...  id much rather wait and find out if one of our three plans MIGHT require tweaking in 2018.  but you want to bet the farm now... im sure the membership would love you for that... 

Keep re-posting this until he "gets' it...
 
I wonder what part of "right now" he doesn't understand? Could it be the right... or the now?

 

[Tim Nelson]

Tim I quoted to you absolutely how much you will be making extra per month by the end of your CBA from where you are now, $720.00 per month. And if we are in line with UAL in a JCBA it will be over $900.00 per month.

I keep asking you really how much do you think your medical costs could possibly go up even if the Taxes for 1 plan were thrown on you totally? Again just the TAXES, Not the plan percentage.

I absolutely like the pay parity and I have no argument as far as that goes. You preach it, i'll turn the page on that one!  Pay parity is a very good thing in your contract and I'm glad they got it in our contract.  I absolutely expect pay raises to be imputed for the previous two years and for years moving forward, and,  potentially, going into joint talks with pay parity,  who isn't comfortable with that single issue?  Other issues I'm disappointed in. And my station has scope issues now which other stations do not.  Sure, nobody can be displaced, but I'm not comfortable with giving the TWU our work, if management wants.   And to answer your question, no, I don't think any potential health care increases in 2018 will add up to $720 more a month for me since I am not part time and I am topped out.   

 

[robbedagain]

Tim  I know how you feel about the PTers but let me ask you this..   if youre in a station  where the PTer who been hired on say in the last 5 or so yrs  who will be getting the bonus money and raises if this TA does indeed pass?   wouldn't that help with the medical thing youre hyped up about?   I mean a lot of them have not been thru what most of us have been 

 

[Tim Nelson]

Keep re-posting this until he "gets' it...
 
I wonder what part of "right now" he doesn't understand? Could it be the right... or the now?

Roabilly,
that letter is exclusive to excise taxes or other taxes that will come into play in 2018. Are you arguing that letter protects our current insurance from going up? Isn't there a 7% cap on yearly increases currently?  It seems as if you are suggesting that there are no current limits on how a company can increase cost to our current insurance, plus, you seem to be arguing that it can impute future cost as well without this letter.  Clarify please because if there is a 7% cap on yearly increases then that cap is waived for this one time 'get out of jail free' card exclusively in the hands of management.   And if there isn't a 7% cap on yearly increases then don't you think it would have been nice to negotiate a cap instead of agreeing to waive any and all future modifications/cost/deductibles [insert anything here] to a third party?

 

[WeAAsles]

I absolutely like the pay parity and I have no argument as far as that goes. You preach it, i'll turn the page on that one!  Pay parity is a very good thing in your contract and I'm glad they got it in our contract.  I absolutely expect pay raises to be imputed for the previous two years and for years moving forward, and,  potentially, going into joint talks with pay parity,  who isn't comfortable with that single issue?  Other issues I'm disappointed in. And my station has scope issues now which other stations do not.  Sure, nobody can be displaced, but I'm not comfortable with giving the TWU our work, if management wants.   And to answer your question, no, I don't think any potential health care increases in 2018 will add up to $720 more a month for me since I am not part time and I am topped out.   

Ok now this one I consider to be a reasonable response that doesn't come across like an agenda of some sorts. Back to one point for a second though. You are uncomfortable with the 90 day negotiation? Would you have proffered that to be open ended and then there absolutely would have been no emphasis for the company to seek out an alternative for any affected plan or plans? The 90 day language actually should give you comfort that a resolution will be sought to avoid interruptions in your medical for the following enrollment year. 

On the cross utilization I do see your point of view in fairness. Your hubs will be a non issue on that because we don't even have any of our people working in most or all of them currently. Being in ORD as you currently are I can absolutely understand your trepidation on the issue though. But I have heard in many of your smaller stations you are working severely understaffed currently? Here in MIA a few days ago they tried to ask our people to go and do one of your flights (NO) so our management I heard went out and had to do it. Management touching aircraft makes me very uncomfortable.

Again I think that letter will be extended over to us as well? (What we get out of it is the question?) And I think it's meant to prevent over hiring that would possibly have to be let go once we have a JCBA? 

There can be and are questions that cross utilization bring up but I don't think there are enough cities to prevent a yes vote for what is otherwise a pretty good TA.   

 

[WeAAsles]

Roabilly,
that letter is exclusive to excise taxes or other taxes that will come into play in 2018. Are you arguing that letter protects our current insurance from going up? Isn't there a 7% cap on yearly increases currently?  It seems as if you are suggesting that there are no current limits on how a company can increase cost to our current insurance, plus, you seem to be arguing that it can impute future cost as well without this letter.  Clarify please because if there is a 7% cap on yearly increases then that cap is waived for this one time 'get out of jail free' card exclusively in the hands of management.   And if there isn't a 7% cap on yearly increases then don't you think it would have been nice to negotiate a cap instead of agreeing to waive any and all future modifications/cost/deductibles [insert anything here] to a third party?

Tim I do not believe your cap would be waived but of course anything can be negotiated for the plan affected if it were agreed to remain in place? The issue would be if the plan is worth it and if there is a better one out there? And if it were to remain instead of an alternative being presented, who will bear the brunt of those taxes? If it is just taxes on the overage of the dollar amount that's been talked about through this thread, how much could that actually be anyway? It could wind up being a very miniscule amount that may wind up having you laughing in the end that you made such a big deal out of it?

 

[roabilly]

Roabilly,
that letter is exclusive to excise taxes or other taxes that will come into play in 2018. Are you arguing that letter protects our current insurance from going up? Isn't there a 7% cap on yearly increases currently?  It seems as if you are suggesting that there are no current limits on how a company can increase cost to our current insurance, plus, you seem to be arguing that it can impute future cost as well without this letter.  Clarify please because if there is a 7% cap on yearly increases then that cap is waived for this one time 'get out of jail free' card exclusively in the hands of management.   And if there isn't a 7% cap on yearly increases then don't you think it would have been nice to negotiate a cap instead of agreeing to waive any and all future modifications/cost/deductibles [insert anything here] to a third party?

I'm not arguing anything PHXConx is... and doing a pretty good job I may add....

 

[Tim Nelson]

neutral arbitrator, you know thats what it is why do you keep saying third party?  oh yes because that sounds more ominous
 
without this letter, the company would right now...
 
 
right now
 
 
right now
 
have negotiated a new health care package where our plans right now would be changed to avoid an excise tax that may or may not come in 4 years...
 
Which would you rather have? 4 or more years of the current plans, or our plans currently abolished right now
 
right now 
 
right now
 
get it yet?
 
right now and a new plan put in place that would give us the non cadillac plans now and for the next four or more years... give us way substandard plans...
 
I dont want to have to go to the exchange for my insurance i enjoy my current plan... but you want them to negotiate a new one, for now through 2018 you are crazy...  id much rather wait and find out if one of our three plans MIGHT require tweaking in 2018.  but you want to bet the farm now... im sure the membership would love you for that... 

A neutral arbitrator is a third party. Not sure why we have to discuss this.  But, the problem is compounded in that it isn't just a third party but after the third party gets selected, the remaining process shitt cans the union and it becomes a 2 party situation.  Sorta like a spouse getting to pick a divorce attorney for his wife but then he has to leave the building.   Remember, after the selection of the arbitrator, the remaining part of that letter is a two party relationship.  The only nouns are "Arbitrator" and "Company".  The only rights are "Company".   Below is the path, for your review and kindly show me where our union or us have any right in all of this.
 
Process:
1. Arbitrator determines any modification to ensure no taxes apply for company [not my words]
2. If Arbitrator can't guarantee modifications would offset the taxes for the affected plan then the company has the right [not my words] to terminate the plan.
3. If a plan is terminated then the arbitrator is empowered to designate [not my words] a new 80% plan.
4. If in the process, the arbitrator hasn't ruled yet, then the Company shall be permitted to implement and can make changes as it considers [not my words] necessary to avoid taxes.
5. Company shall have a reasonable time
 
As you see, the AGC"s are outright lying when they say that the union will be right there negotiating step by step.  The union will have to leave the building like Elvis.  It's in the letter and this will be NON NEGOTIABLE once the arbitrator is picked.  
 
And if you get the 'warm fuzzies' over the initial 90 day 'drop dead' negotiation window, then you might want to see how good that 90 day negotiating window did for those stations that were contracted out at United and pay attention to Brother Delaney's newest update where he has yet another Barbie tantrum saying the company is just "Wrong" to contract out our members because "I think we do a better job than vendors".   Sorry, but when the AGC's and Rich claimed greatness for negotiating sessions that are not longer than 'summer school',  I told folks it was all bull shitt then, like I'm telling you now that the 90 day 'summer school session' negotiations isn't going to do squat in 2018.  We will just have to bare the consequences that's all.  No cap, No nothing.  It's as simple as that.  
 
What I find truly interesting is how folks desperately want the money grab and become single issued.  I get it!  I already know what I'm going to do with the extra cash as well.  But let's not blow smoke up everyone's arse telling them that the union will have any power or authority with modifications or termination of plans once a third party is triggered. K?  And don't get me started on my retirement. 
 
To be sure, if I'm in JAX or any station subject to being contracted out, I vote for this, so I understand yes votes.  If I'm dying with bills and need a short term fix to feed 4 mouths, I get that.  But I'm in my 50's and health care, and pension are front and center with me.   Just respect my no vote, that's all.  I haven't busted any of you or the vast majority who will vote yes.   Will I engage when I hear bull shitt?  Your damn straight I will.

 

[WeAAsles]

I'm not arguing anything PHXConx is... and doing a pretty good job I may add....

Many people have been doing a great job at trying to explain the medical letter. To answer one part though about medical going up. Of course it goes up. It's been going up for years to a point that it's out of control nationwide. That is the intention that the ACA is supposed to finally address. For a supposed first world nation our medical system is in many areas worse than some third world systems.

Anyway the biggest issue for us is that we want our pay increases to go up by percentages to offset those costs and then some. The new TA in front of you absolutely succeeds in that area.

 

[Tim Nelson]

Ok now this one I consider to be a reasonable response that doesn't come across like an agenda of some sorts. Back to one point for a second though. You are uncomfortable with the 90 day negotiation? Would you have proffered that to be open ended and then there absolutely would have been no emphasis for the company to seek out an alternative for any affected plan or plans? The 90 day language actually should give you comfort that a resolution will be sought to avoid interruptions in your medical for the following enrollment year. 

On the cross utilization I do see your point of view in fairness. Your hubs will be a non issue on that because we don't even have any of our people working in most or all of them currently. Being in ORD as you currently are I can absolutely understand your trepidation on the issue though. But I have heard in many of your smaller stations you are working severely understaffed currently? Here in MIA a few days ago they tried to ask our people to go and do one of your flights (NO) so our management I heard went out and had to do it. Management touching aircraft makes me very uncomfortable.

Again I think that letter will be extended over to us as well? (What we get out of it is the question?) And I think it's meant to prevent over hiring that would possibly have to be let go once we have a JCBA? 

There can be and are questions that cross utilization bring up but I don't think there are enough cities to prevent a yes vote for what is otherwise a pretty good TA.   

Is it open ended if there is a 7% yearly cap currently? No.  If there isn't any current cap then the alternative would have been to negotiate a cap like the one just negotiated in the context of Obama at United.  Are the Obama taxes a real risk for the company? Yes.  Will the company have signed a TA without addressing this? No.    But handing a blank check is what I have a problem with because the letter becomes two party [arbitrator, company] once the arbitrator triggers any modifications or terminations.  I don't like the process.  It should have included the union, OR, the union should have negotiated a cap to limit whatever it is that is coming our way.