La Li Lu Le Lo
Veteran
- May 29, 2010
- 7,404
- 2,649
Your talent for self delusion is extraordinary.700UW said:
2015 Fleet Service Discussion
- Thread starter Eagle
- Start date
Kev3188
Veteran
LaLi--La Li Lu Le Lo said:
The guy that owns/runs that site (Peter List) is paid extraordinarily well to gin up these sorts of stories. He also blogs for Red State and has a "union avoidance" firm with no shortage of cash flow...
Consider the source is all I'm saying...
bob@las-AA
Veteran
Isnt that the job of COPE ? To have the membership voluntarily contribute to separate fund to further the position of a political party?
But not for corporations....700UW said:
Corporations are people too. Their money is much longer and bigger than any Union in America. They can buy any politician needed. And trying to pass any law they see fit.
Unions are needed. And more than ever. You wouldn't need one of companies did the right thing, but they wont. So you need that "check and balance". Otherwise there will be "serfdoms" . Don't think it would happen here.........yeah right?! As long as there is greed involved, well you know what happens.
robbedagain
Veteran
- Oct 13, 2003
- 11,125
- 2,676
T5 don't let WT see that he'll turn it all around and turn it into why one airline is better off.. great post bro
WeAAsles said:
Geographic Pay Differentials at UA
Members in ATL, BIL, IND, MCI, RDU, RNO, RSW, SAT, SJC, SMF, STL, and TUL voted today to accept/reject the modifications to their contracts and retain IAM represented work. Each station determined their own future and was not dependent on the votes of other stations to determine the outcome. A two thirds vote for ratification was required under our contract in order to make any change in wages, benefits, or working conditions.
I guess Geographic Pay Differentials is alive and well in all the other UA stations
The Company will not contract out to outside vendor(s) the “core” work currently performed by Passenger Service employees at the following airports: Denver (DEN), Newark (EWR), Washington Dulles (IAD), Houston (IAH), Los Angeles (LAX), Chicago (ORD), and San Francisco (SFO).
As I posted in the UA thread, our people voted and accepted the "modifications".john john said:
It was a choice that they felt they had to make, since the cuts weren't that severe than many thought.
We will just have to fight harder and stronger to keep everything we have now. So much pain has been inflicted on our members, I hope that we go into next year's negotiations with purpose and be committed and ready for battle.
I'm glad to hear that you guys are hiring more people. At least someone is, but a certain poster says that you will wave to chop heads soon. Any word on when you all will be taking over the stations that still have a vendor on either side; ie: EWR?
How's the process going for working each other's metal, and what procedure(s) you are using (like AA's for AA aircraft / US's for US aircraft?) Just curious on how things are coming along. I know about the Union issues, but as far as operationally, just wanted to ask how far are you guys coming along?
- Banned
- #447
AA and US are working each other's metal at certain stations that one side had a vendor, the vendors have been replaced at numerous stations and headcount has increased.
In the new CBA at US AA metal is counted in the seven mainline flights a week for scope.
In the new CBA at US AA metal is counted in the seven mainline flights a week for scope.
La Li Lu Le Lo
Veteran
- May 29, 2010
- 7,404
- 2,649
That does not make the article untrue.Kev3188 said:
From my point of view there should be no such thing as a closed shop. A union like every other service you pay for should be voluntary and earn their fee. Otherwise you have a UNION like the TWU that collects money every payday but provides unsatisfactory service.
American Airlines and the TWU use manipulative tricks to keep the TWU on grounds. If you had a choice to "defund" them it would be a lot easier to send them packing. If a UNION cannot earn their keep then they are not worth having.
I thought I made my stance very clear on this issue. Here I will post it again.NYer said:
La Li Lu Le Lo said:
- Banned
- #449
Dues money cannot be used as hard money, when will you learn?
And if one chooses they can become a dues objector and only pay for what's germane to the contract.
If you don't want to pay dues then they shouldn't receive the pay, benefits and anything that the contract affords.
And if one chooses they can become a dues objector and only pay for what's germane to the contract.
If you don't want to pay dues then they shouldn't receive the pay, benefits and anything that the contract affords.
WeAAsles
Veteran
- Oct 20, 2007
- 23,465
- 5,258
Alright so my guess is what you are saying here is that people should have the right to not have to pay Union dues then and be a part of the collective bargaining agreement? Basically you support "Right To Work" Laws.La Li Lu Le Lo said:
So I also hope that you agree then that those employees who aren't paying a fee to the collective bargaining agent should also be "At Will" employees?
Meaning that the company should be able to pay those employees whatever they want and dictate the terms of their employment?
I also assume that you believe they should no longer be a part of the seniority system for bidding? The Union contract then should stipulate that all those covered under the agreement will bid by seniority order prior to those employees who "Choose" to be at will.
I also have to assume that you agree that if one of those employees gets into any trouble with the company I as a Steward will not be required to defend them since they are not PAYING for that service? I mean can anyone just walk into a Lawyers office and demand that that Lawyer represent them without compensation?
I would have to think you as a Capitalist absolutely don't agree with the ideology that anyone in America should be forced to provide a service if they are not being compensated for that service correct?
