2014 Fleet Service Discussion

[WeAAsles]

You haven't refuted anything because you can't.  I made it simple and pasted the language. You offered up your opinion that the IAM attorneys are solid and would surely make sure there are protections.  Not hardly, again, please use the language and show me the protections?   And stop blaming the attorneys, this was a deep concession offered up by the IAM negotiators in exchange for the wage bump. 

DO NOT twist words with me. I said that the attorneys more than likely wrote and absolutely approved the letter since they are paid to represent their clients, in which case YOU.  I have nothing to refute since many who are better versed than I am have already done so but you agree to disagree with them ALL. There was and is NO deep concession as your urgency of writing style attempts to push. 

As far as your money numbers, I have already agreed that my wage increase should cover the health care increases, but that's for topped out employees only.  Everyone else just got a few quarters, not a few dollars in increases.  And part timers have "Double or nothing" insurance so 2x for them with the blank check. 

I also do not like the PTers paying double for medical and subsidizing the rates for FTers (Or myself for that matter) BUT I am quite positive that a good portion if not all of that issue will be rectified in the JCBA talks. As far as more people seeing gains once they reach the top out rate, that is how it is and always has been and will continue. We all went through it and we all eventually got to that finish line. Are you trying to imply that maybe the new hire should just walk in the door making the top out rate? Not going to EVER happen.
 
Again, instead of all of the "Tim Sucks",  "Tim is stupid",  "IAM has Top Attorneys",  please quote the language and let's further the discussion using the language.  Show me in the health care LOA where any member is protected?
 
You do know that ACA is on shifting sand as well, yes?  The Republicans are hot on it and if they get their way next week, they can dig against the state exchanges and cause even higher tax burdens on those who are in the ACA.
 
God only knows if they get to dig at other things in Obamacare.  Nobody knows what ACA will look like in 3.5 years.  We could be paying hundreds of dollars more in health care, and a high deductible will further erode any wage gains. 

The road ahead is always paved with uncertainties Tim. But you look at the unknown through negative eyes rather than considering the positives. Sad way to live a life if you ask me. 

 

[WeAAsles]

My sword stays up against management trying to get favorable language.  Everything else is my expressions that witness me as a no vote, brother.  I have a few questions that have gone unanswered to AGC's.  Hopefully, a clarification will come.  I fault nobody for voting yes.  And once the TA passes, my conversation will move forward just like it did in 2008 and not blame any rank and filer for how they voted.  But this ACA will be a big problem in 3.5 years and can't be rightfully discounted.

Just like you did with the UAL folks? Yea right. My arse.

 

[Tim Nelson]

 

You haven't refuted anything because you can't.  I made it simple and pasted the language. You offered up your opinion that the IAM attorneys are solid and would surely make sure there are protections.  Not hardly, again, please use the language and show me the protections?   And stop blaming the attorneys, this was a deep concession offered up by the IAM negotiators in exchange for the wage bump. 

DO NOT twist words with me. I said that the attorneys more than likely wrote and absolutely approved the letter since they are paid to represent their clients, in which case YOU.  I have nothing to refute since many who are better versed than I am have already done so but you agree to disagree with them ALL. There was and is NO deep concession as your urgency of writing style attempts to push. 

As far as your money numbers, I have already agreed that my wage increase should cover the health care increases, but that's for topped out employees only.  Everyone else just got a few quarters, not a few dollars in increases.  And part timers have "Double or nothing" insurance so 2x for them with the blank check. 

I also do not like the PTers paying double for medical and subsidizing the rates for FTers (Or myself for that matter) BUT I am quite positive that a good portion if not all of that issue will be rectified in the JCBA talks. As far as more people seeing gains once they reach the top out rate, that is how it is and always has been and will continue. We all went through it and we all eventually got to that finish line. Are you trying to imply that maybe the new hire should just walk in the door making the top out rate? Not going to EVER happen.
 
Again, instead of all of the "Tim Sucks",  "Tim is stupid",  "IAM has Top Attorneys",  please quote the language and let's further the discussion using the language.  Show me in the health care LOA where any member is protected?
 
You do know that ACA is on shifting sand as well, yes?  The Republicans are hot on it and if they get their way next week, they can dig against the state exchanges and cause even higher tax burdens on those who are in the ACA.
 
God only knows if they get to dig at other things in Obamacare.  Nobody knows what ACA will look like in 3.5 years.  We could be paying hundreds of dollars more in health care, and a high deductible will further erode any wage gains. 

The road ahead is always paved with uncertainties Tim. But you look at the unknown through negative eyes rather than considering the positives. Sad way to live a life if you ask me. 

 

Again, I'm not voting on negative or positive[ness] or whether some mythical attorney had my back.  The witness to what I'm voting on is the TA, on paper.  I understand you have interest in this passing because you can have access to doing IAM work in MIA, and joint talks can commence for your group, but if you are going to talk to me, logically and sensibly, then you must focus on what is written in the TA as opposed to saying you are right because Roabilly and some others on here agree with you.
 
To that end,  kindly quote the TA language and base your argument off of that, with reference, as opposed to referencing some internet poster who agrees with you. Cripes!

 

[WeAAsles]

Again, I'm not voting on negative or positive[ness] or whether some mythical attorney had my back.  The witness to what I'm voting on is the TA, on paper.  I understand you have interest in this passing because you can have access to doing IAM work in MIA,

Tim as an individual I could care less about being able to do your work. I have 550 FTers under me here and don't work OT either. IMO it's yours and you can have fun with it.

and joint talks can commence for your group, (And yours)

Let's get that ball a rollin.

but if you are going to talk to me, logically and sensibly, then you must focus on what is written in the TA as opposed to saying you are right because Roabilly and some others on here agree with you.
 
To that end,  kindly quote the TA language and base your argument off of that, with reference, as opposed to referencing some internet poster who agrees with you. Cripes!

You may have to give me a few days to dig up my swami hat and crystal ball to tell you what is going to happen with "The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act" All I know is IMO you're making a termite hill out of an ant hill. The issue is not going to be a termite hill even if you believe it is.

 

[700UW]

So tim, Where did you get your law degree? Where did you get your license to sell insurance? So you aren't a lawyer, you aren't an account, you aren't a licensed insurance broker and you aren't an actuary. So where is you expertise in what you are posting? How many airline labor contracts have you negotiated?

 

[737823]

So tim, Where did you get your law degree? Where did you get your license to sell insurance? So you aren't a lawyer, you aren't an account, you aren't a licensed insurance broker and you aren't an actuary. So wjere is you expertise in what you are posting? How many airline labor contracts have you negotiated?

 
What are your answers to many of those questions?  
 
 

As for your pop quiz, I notice that you've been giving plenty of "facts" yet can't answer "yes" to most of those questions either. Do you have an A&P license? Are you an aerospace engineer? Are you an FAA inspector? Unless you can answer those all with "yes" it seems your own criteria leaves you no room to have an opinion on this subject...

Jim

 

 
 
Josh

 

[700UW]

 
What are your answers to many of those questions?  
 
 
 
 
 
Josh

 

[WeAAsles]

So tim, Where did you get your law degree? Where did you get your license to sell insurance? So you aren't a lawyer, you aren't an account, you aren't a licensed insurance broker and you aren't an actuary. So wjere is you expertise in what you are posting? How many airline labor contracts have you negotiated?

Let's interject a little common sense into this topic of conversation for the readers to think about. And I'll even leave room for Tim's response.


Why would any elected official agree to a letter that is potentially catastrophic to the membership knowing that they also would have to live under it's terms?


Does anyone think that this letter was just thrown at their NC in one day and agreed upon in a moments notice?


Does anyone actually believe that the IAM Legal dept did not go over this letter with a fine toothed comb before agreeing to it? Or as I proposed that they may have even been the one's to co-write it with the company?


I state co-write because of course the company wants some measure of protection from the TAX implications as well. The letter is meant to protect BOTH parties.
 

 

[robbedagain]

I could have sworn CB posted that letter some hundred posts back  and the way its written it had to go over 27500    not sure what the nbr was.. 

 

[Tim Nelson]

Let's interject a little common sense into this topic of conversation for the readers to think about. And I'll even leave room for Tim's response.


Why would any elected official agree to a letter that is potentially catastrophic to the membership knowing that they also would have to live under it's terms?


Does anyone think that this letter was just thrown at their NC in one day and agreed upon in a moments notice?


Does anyone actually believe that the IAM Legal dept did not go over this letter with a fine toothed comb before agreeing to it? Or as I proposed that they may have even been the one's to co-write it with the company?


I state co-write because of course the company wants some measure of protection from the TAX implications as well. The letter is meant to protect BOTH parties.
 

Dues.  That's why.  BTW< you could ask the same questions each time the IAM has effed us over the past 15 years.  You and others like you even asked the same questions at United.  Questions like, "Do you really think the union would sign that?".    Look, unions have been effing over memberships for the last x amount of years and it isn't exclusive to the airline industry.  Boeing is another example.  Union leaderships do stupid shitt all the time and logically you only look at the $$$ dues to figure out why.  Sorry but singing kumbuya to keep dues flow isn't the answer.
 
I see that you can't engage with me over what that letter says and instead side steps it and claims that the union really wouldn't sign such things.  We have been effed over for 15 years with the union signing stupid shitt. 

 

[roabilly]

ONLY Nelson would attempt to spin a decent agreement that sets the stage for an even better JCBA, into a "Concessionary Agreement" that is OBAMA and the IAM’S fault!
 
Gotta friggin' love it!

 

[737823]

ONLY Nelson would attempt to spin a decent agreement that sets the stage for an even better JCBA, into a "Concessionary Agreement" that is OBAMA and the IAM’S fault!
 
Gotta friggin' love it!

 
What will happen to catering in the JCBA?  Personally I'd rather see cargo (sAA) prevail over catering.
 
Josh

 

[WeAAsles]

Dues.  That's why.  BTW< you could ask the same questions each time the IAM has effed us over the past 15 years.  You and others like you even asked the same questions at United.  Questions like, "Do you really think the union would sign that?".

IF I said that and I agree that it could be highly probable. That was BEFORE I knew and understood the whole story. That story you know as well as I do now because we have talked about it in detail and you still continued to try and ignore it. The problem with you Tim is that you never concede an inch of any debate even after it's been irrefutably explained to you. It's probably your greatest weakness.  


Look, unions have been effing over memberships for the last x amount of years and it isn't exclusive to the airline industry.  Boeing is another example.  Union leaderships do stupid shitt all the time and logically you only look at the $$$ dues to figure out why.  Sorry but singing kumbuya to keep dues flow isn't the answer.

When and or if we can ever get 100% participation in what the Unions are trying to do to counteract the laws against us then we can start winning. You did see my news item the other day about the Million member protest in England right? Another problem is the morons (like yourself) that watch FOX news and believe all of that complete BS. The people who own and support that channel laugh their collective asses off at you every freakin day.  
 
I see that you can't engage with me over what that letter says and instead side steps it and claims that the union really wouldn't sign such things.  We have been effed over for 15 years with the union signing stupid shitt. 

It's already been covered over and over and over and over and over with you already. What more would I have to say and why in the world should I continue on with it? What's the point in talking to a wall. Walls don't talk back.

 

[700UW]

 
What will happen to catering in the JCBA?  Personally I'd rather see cargo (sAA) prevail over catering.
 
Josh

Personally you have no say in the matter.
 

 

[WeAAsles]

Oh here Tim. Here's another part of that UAL story. The membership in these three stations chose their path.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/united-airlines-agrees-keep-220-133455569.html