aintgotnotimefodat
Member
- Oct 17, 2013
- 76
- 17
Aircraft maint issues
- Thread starter conehead777
- Start date
aintgotnotimefodat
Member
- Oct 17, 2013
- 76
- 17
Sorry I don't listen to company videos...LOL
But it is sad, when the company puts out more info than your own union, that u pay dues to...
Look, headcount is none of my concern. Most any American would prefer more Americans employed. I'm pretty sure we all work here to make money doing what we are schooled and trained to do, and make as much as possible doing it. I'm done accepting less to subsidize headcount, and so is everybody else. So, yeah it really has been nothing more than "oh you're so greedy, why not accept less in pay and benefits so more can remain employed a little longer."
Fleet just hung on to our coatails in 2001.
WeAAsles
Veteran
- Oct 20, 2007
- 23,427
- 5,246
HOME RUN cause you said the TRUTH how you feel. All I’ve ever tried to get out of most of you. And we didn’t ride any coattails in 01. 2016 maybe? But not 2001.
- Aug 20, 2002
- 7,319
- 1,555
I bet he had Fleet Service helpers
What you fail to understand, and everyone else here does understand is I will not make my decision until after the RS's. I have stated that from day one, period. So How can you sit there and claim I am a yes vote in one thread and a no vote in another? Comprehension man. Our NC did great holding out for what the membership wishes are, and yes, as history has proven in our past, if we were teamsters we would have been done long ago with our scope ripped to shreds, no ETOPS maint done by us, no Hawaii, more international outsourcing and the loss of heads and positions (not jobs unless they retire). I can still post why I disagree with the numbers being offered and explain why we should be getting more, that does not mean I'm a no vote as of yet. You just can't see that I am working thru it all and weighing all options, and yes, one option is to vote it down and hold for what we really deserve not just what the co. thinks we should get, or what they want to buy us on the cheap for the 6 year absence of raises to focus on the investors. I will tell you this, I am not a flat out yes vote either. And I have told you what it would take for me to vote yes without any input from my NC and union, just make me whole in all years past and going forward with a history average 3% raises, med caps, retirement boost, and maybe even an early out option so guys could retire early, LOA 2 stays, scope untouched, Hawaii and ETOPs as previously agreed to (and that's with the union moving) etc... No matter what happens we are sitting just fine with everything as is, if this gets voted down we will take however long is needed, but the co. has to remember that full retro will still be a must. All they would really have to do is pad the contract in 3 main areas and they would have a yes vote, but as is there are too many missing items and they know this. I repeat driver, my mind is not made up, but, it is leaning more towards the no vote as we go into the NC and union RS's and then I will make my final decision. Comprende now???
And BTW; all the "mechanics" except for one from SWA understands exactly where I stand, they really do get it...
Last edited:
B737 driver
Veteran
- Jul 6, 2017
- 3,381
- 209
Oh I understand perfectly, if stuff doesn't change , you will vote no. I just don't personally understand , how you think this mess is totally the company's fault, and no blame rest with our union. It's one thing to hold out for your language, and how do you know what the Teamsters would do? We always had not bad language from them. If you were going to kick me out, I wouldn't spend a bunch of money on grievances either. When they were laying guys off at Northwest airlines, they told the guys here is your lay off notice, here is your AMFA grievance, now roll your tool boxes out. So the Teamsters are not the only union to leave a mess. Just ask the American guys what the IAM left with the TWA. Where I am at we are just tired of the excuses. We are working on the Alaska airlines integration per our AMFA president. So if you don't like the deal, and you don't think it is fair, then vote No.
Correct. If offer stays as is I will vote No. If you cannot understand a person wanting to be made whole then that's your problem not mine. I do blame the company 100% for the first 5 years, the after 5 years is simply regular nego time frame, which is at this point not even one year. And, you simply cannot fault the union for just caving to the first offer from company after the 5 years just because the company wants it to happen that way, it's called nego's. How do I know what the teamsters would do? That's easy, I witnessed it first hand with the teamsters, I was very active during the teamsters nego's and I was one of the few that brought it all out. I know because I witnessed it first hand and in person, that's how. I will not let co. threats stop me from voting for or against an agreement. If I don't like it and not fair for me and my family I will vote No and proudly say so and why. Intimidation by the co. will just spark up more No votes watch...
La Li Lu Le Lo
Veteran
- May 29, 2010
- 7,388
- 2,648
Sounds logical to me.
I rather doubt it. Even if they did who's fault is that?
B737 driver
Veteran
- Jul 6, 2017
- 3,381
- 209
Good for you, do what you want, the company saves more money, and the other groups get more, as their stuff comes due. Why we argue among ourselves.
La Li Lu Le Lo
Veteran
- May 29, 2010
- 7,388
- 2,648
The more I think about this post the more it pisses me off. I won't deny the TWU has leveraged title groups to maximize dues. That being said that is an action of the TWU. Fleet Service Clerks are not plotting and scheming to get YOUR money, they are just trying to get the best deal they can, just as you would.
So why don't you knock this "riding our coattails" B.S. off. If your going to complain then it should be about the TWU leveraging title groups to line their pockets not against rank and file employees trying to earn a living.
Fool.
Hey Bro, don't misunderstand my post. If I were you, I would do the same thing. So, to be clear, I am not blaming the individuals so much as the way the whole thing is set up. Bottom line, there is zero benefit for AMTs to negotiate with non AMTs. It's just the nature of this communist style union - to take a little more from the higher paid, and redistribute it to the rest. So a part time clerk with 1 year seniority - has has the exact same benefits as a 30 year AMT, and up until not that long ago - got a full vote on our contract.
La Li Lu Le Lo
Veteran
- May 29, 2010
- 7,388
- 2,648
Well in that case I would say "TWU leveraging title groups to maximize dues" instead of "Fleet Service riding our coattails". That being said how many times did mechanics vote to take lower pay to "save" jobs. That hardly had anything to do with leveraging title groups. That bit was self induced. Your compensation issues go a bit deeper than redistribution of wealth.
Good. Now that you understand, this should stop your antics.
B737 driver
Veteran
- Jul 6, 2017
- 3,381
- 209
The only thing I understand as a former union steward, the Union's job is to negotiate a contract, present the contract to the membership, and let the members decide. When they are stonewalling for whatever reason, to not bring it to T/A. They are not doing their job.
