2014 Fleet Service Discussion

[WeAAsles]

the violations that the international found involved violations involving 14 our of 45 locals. The international determined that the process affected at least the potential of 700 votes since it ruled in favor of all positions being rerun. The dol isnt done with its investigation, so thing may pile up. The person responsible for a rerun is the person who committed the crimes against workers, not the members who fought against the crime.

How many members fought against the crime Tim? You mean you don't you, lol? Do you feel that your running mate Tracy should be charged with a crime also since she had a hand in all that monkey business?

Any rerun may not occur until 2016. At any rate, im not sure how elections prevent or stall the Association. Im sure many of the local presidents of the twu gotta run for election, and im sure the iam will have boatloads of elections prior to negotiations. As a member, i fail to see how a democratic union will impede the Association. The exception may be on the international level where the authoritative powers of the association lies. Locals and districts have no authoritative powers over the association, so those elections are benign in regards to Association decisions imo.

We'll see?

Ill put the intl decision up. Im sure more violations will b raised by the dol. I told you i was 100% certain of a rerun as the violations were blatant. The process of the compounding damage created by the eboard will take time to figure out. My best guess is an election in 2016 but maybe sooner.

I look forward to reading that decision and hope you are correct that it causes no harm to our JCBA talks. I'm not very nice when I feel anyone may be costing me some extra greenbacks.

If you were harmed in any way due to an unfair election then I wish you and your team the best of luck in your rerun. I ask though in the interim for you to start brushing up on those particular CBA's that you may be tasked with defending. From many conversations we've had on here it seems you are not as adept at understanding them as well as you are in understanding DOL rules and violations.

And if there is even the slightest chance that one day you may be in negotiations against the company for a CBA I expect and demand that you be as prepared as possible. Your skills or lack of skills in understanding CBA language may affect not only me but all of us?

 

[WeAAsles]

How come AA does not have their aircraft equipped where they can punch in range   similar to how we have our aircraft?   I do know since the insourcing in my station a few of their planes wait a bit bec neither ops tells us when its in range or on   but rather the gate agent (believe its AA ML) says its on via radio.

We actually do have a system that shows us the approaching arrival and when our aircraft has landed Rob. It just may not be transferred to your system yet?

 

[robbedagain]

ok  thanks WeAA    does AA stations show in the system when they punch In Range     when they come to ours  it shows the time for on and in   but no In Range    

 

[WeAAsles]

ok  thanks WeAA    does AA stations show in the system when they punch In Range     when they come to ours  it shows the time for on and in   but no In Range

Yes Rob. I think it's about 10 miles out is when it shows? When it lands depending on the gate you work the system says "Your next working flight has just landed"

 

[robbedagain]

thanks WeAA   ours just shows  In range  then "On"  then "In"    in range about 10 min out  then on once the nose gear hits the runway  then in once the brakes are set at the gate

 

[BLUTO]

NIELSON HAZ AZ
MUCH OF A CHNCE
2 WIN A ELECTN>
AZ I HAVE OF WINNG
A SPELLNG BEE!
 
PAUL

 

[Tim Nelson]

WeAAsles,
For some reason, I can't quote post.  But, yes, there were a lot of members that were part of this investigation.  I presented it, but I accumulated over 100 pages of my case plus affidavits, exhibits, etc.  The rerun would not be possible unless scores of members stepped up and testified to the INTL and DOL about the violations.
 
As far as negotiations,  I'm not an agc, and I'm not sure if I will run this time. I was not going to run in any brand new election, but I'm not sure how this rerun is going to be laid out.  If it is in 2015 with the same candidates then that changes things.  FWIW: I'm pushing for 2016 elections. 
 
As far as my understanding and skill set in negotiations or contract interpretation, I'd love to get more training. The more training and education, the better!  A lot I don't know.

 

[ograc]

the election was ruled invalid by brother buffenbarger. Take it up with him that you want to keep unfair elections. You should be disappointed in your leadership which violates rights. Agendas dont trigger reruns, violations by your leaders do.

My leadership? Let's not even go there Tim. You were the one, not too many years ago, who supported and endorsed the leadership now in place. Things have changed though in the past years. The very leadership team you endorsed and supported cut you loose. Since then; the personal agenda has been running in opposition of the current leadership team and hoping to be elected by the membership. I will acknowledge your persistence, dedication and will to duly represent. I agree there were blatant oversights and inconsistencies with the past election process. However, I do not agree a rerun election will result in a different outcome. I could be wrong... but I guess we will have to wait and see. By the way... there is accountability questions of the district, along with candidates on your slate, concerning the tainted results. Do you truly believe a rerun election will produce a different result than the original election? The margin of respective victory, or defeat, in the last election was quite significant. 

 

[Tim Nelson]

The margin of victory was 43 votes out of 8,200. Most candidates lost by less than 300 votes, some lost by up to 700.  It wasn't for me to say who would win a new election, I dunno.  Your opinion is as valid as mine but that's why we have elections.
 
Nor is it for me to rule if the violations were significant.  That's up to the DOL and the INTL to decide the significance of the election. In fact, that is exactly the sorta thing that the DOL rules on.  That decision still has to be made, but the INTL President concluded that the multiple list of violations were substantial so I don't anticipate that the DOL will nix the INTL decision. 
 
regards,

 

[ograc]

The margin of victory was 43 votes out of 8,200. Most candidates lost by less than 300 votes, some lost by up to 700.  It wasn't for me to say who would win a new election, I dunno.  Your opinion is as valid as mine but that's why we have elections.
 
Nor is it for me to rule if the violations were significant.  That's up to the DOL and the INTL to decide the significance of the election. In fact, that is exactly the sorta thing that the DOL rules on.  That decision still has to be made, but the INTL President concluded that the multiple list of violations were substantial so I don't anticipate that the DOL will nix the INTL decision. 
 
regards,

 
There was indeed 8,200 eligible voters. What you fail to mention is the actual number of those who voted. When you factor this in... losing or winning by 300 to 700 is a significant margin. The opposition (your) slate lost, by significant margins, in every US hub. Do you really think another election will provide a different result? Maybe your banking on less apathy coming from the UA membership. I know, relying on a perceived disgruntled workforce at UA, was the strategy for success the last election. Regardless... to win office, without the support of the US membership, is somewhat hollow, for a candidate running for AGC at US. Is this about standing up for the democratic process or trying to get yourself elected? Another election, based on violations and inconsistencies in the previous election, is warranted and so ordered. Another election, providing different results... I don't see it happening. Time and money wasted.
 
regards,

 

[Tim Nelson]

sorry ogranc I can't quote for some reason, but, you are incorrect.  There were 33,000 eligible voters.  8200 did in fact vote.  Most of the opposition lost by less than 300. One or two lost by 500+.  Some lost by less than 100, and one only lost by 43.  You have every right to say that isn't a close vote and non-significant.  
 
I'm not sure who will win another election. I hope you are wrong, but you could be right.
 
If the election is in 2016 then I doubt I run,  but If I have anything to do with creating the next ticket, I'd like to make sure there is more US AIRWAYS representation, as opposed to a United only ticket with no US AIRWAYS members on it.  I know there are some members who feel that US AIRWAYS members have screwed over United by being loyal to Delaney, and they feel that no matter what happens, US AIRWAYS is going to vote Delaney's way so why bother.

 

[La Li Lu Le Lo]

sorry ogranc I can't quote for some reason, but, you are incorrect.  There were 33,000 eligible voters.  8200 did in fact vote.  Most of the opposition lost by less than 300. One or two lost by 500+.  Some lost by less than 100, and one only lost by 43.  You have every right to say that isn't a close vote and non-significant.  
 
I'm not sure who will win another election. I hope you are wrong, but you could be right.
 
If the election is in 2016 then I doubt I run,  but If I have anything to do with creating the next ticket, I'd like to make sure there is more US AIRWAYS representation, as opposed to a United only ticket with no US AIRWAYS members on it.  I know there are some members who feel that US AIRWAYS members have screwed over United by being loyal to Delaney, and they feel that no matter what happens, US AIRWAYS is going to vote Delaney's way so why bother.

700UW was on here a few months ago bragging how he "got rid of you".
 
I guess that was yet another lie by 700UW.

 

[T5towbar]

How come AA does not have their aircraft equipped where they can punch in range   similar to how we have our aircraft?   I do know since the insourcing in my station a few of their planes wait a bit bec neither ops tells us when its in range or on   but rather the gate agent (believe its AA ML) says its on via radio.

It's funny you mentioned this.  I know that some regionals (like Shuttle America) do not have to call "in range" so to speak. That was in one of our bulletins.  ACARS is supposed to let you know when it is in range. The funny thing is that we took our ramp people out of the tower (a huge mistake IMHO) and no one calls for us (ramp)on final anymore, (but ironically they do for Gate Agents) and we don't know anything till the plane is holding short at the gate. Damn shame....... But OPS is quick to call if it needs something from us though. Like negative APU. Or a on the ground gate change. Otherwise it'll hold short.
 
Another bad thing in our POS contract......
 
You guys will have ramp people in the towers, am I right?

 

[robbedagain]

correct T5   our personal includes Tower Ops   you bring up very good points

 

[ograc]

sorry ogranc I can't quote for some reason, but, you are incorrect.  There were 33,000 eligible voters.  8200 did in fact vote.  Most of the opposition lost by less than 300. One or two lost by 500+.  Some lost by less than 100, and one only lost by 43.  You have every right to say that isn't a close vote and non-significant.  
 
I'm not sure who will win another election. I hope you are wrong, but you could be right.
 
If the election is in 2016 then I doubt I run,  but If I have anything to do with creating the next ticket, I'd like to make sure there is more US AIRWAYS representation, as opposed to a United only ticket with no US AIRWAYS members on it.  I know there are some members who feel that US AIRWAYS members have screwed over United by being loyal to Delaney, and they feel that no matter what happens, US AIRWAYS is going to vote Delaney's way so why bother.

I stand corrected on the numbers. However, if the UA members would have turned out to vote in the last election... maybe the outcome would have been different. The UA members insinuating the outcome of the last election was the result of the US members of being loyal to Delaney is laughable.  Bottom line... apathy on the UA side is what drove the election results. The UA side votes for the money and disregards scope and job protection. As a result... countless jobs are being lost on the UA side. In the meantime... an election takes place, with an opportunity to vote against the leadership and negotiating team that agreed to the TA on the UA side and the voter participation is dismal and the apathy is excessive. You have to admit... it went against the election strategy of the candidates who chose to run in opposition. If the UA members truly believe the results of the election were based on US members' loyalty to Delaney they have a lot to learn. As I have said all along... the issue is apathy. The issue is the lack of educated members. It is not UA members vs. US members. UA members far exceed US members in numbers within DL 141. I don't understand the reasoning.