April/May 2013 IAM Fleet Discussions

[700UW]

Fleet didnt pay dues until you ratified your first contract in 1999, negotations started in 1995.

Maintenance was part of 141, when NW went AMFA, AMFA started raiding United and US, so in order to try and stop the raid, they came up with the idea of a mechanic and related district, they did create one for NW, but it was too late to stop the raid and NW M&R went AMFA.

So there was a vote for the mechanic and related at 141 to create its own district, which is why 141M was created.

When UA went AMFA US Mechanic and Related wasnt large enough to sustain itself, so we were placed into 142 as they were the only district to have mechanic and related in it all ready.

And 141 used the current AGCs which were all mechanic and related at US to help negotiate, Bill Freighberger and Tony Giammarco with rank and file members of Fleet, being greivance committeemen, I know Greg Bonar was one, and John Carr also, not sure of the rest of makeup of the committee. When 141M was created it removed Freighberger and Giammarco from fleet's negotiations.

 

[Jester]

How out of touch must be the UA's NC and the IAM leadership when UA's fleet rejects the TA by over 2/3s of the ballots? Simple math... for every 1 person in favor, 2 people were against, and yet, those in charge of the NC and the Leadership couldn't understand or get some type of feedback on the issues important to the Membership without having a vote? Personally, I would be embarassed to have that type of rejection on a TA, as it means that I really don't know or understand the Membership very well.

 

[Tim Nelson]

tim,

You and I both know that the IAM (MTC) at the time, used the "promise" of sticking together as a tool to win the election back in 94 or so(I may be off on the date). Then we were treated as the redheaded step child of the IAM. Remember 141M? MTC wanted nothing to do with fleet! We were a bargaining chip is all we were to them. And they still don't! If they did, maybe DL142 (US MTC) should have come to us and offered to work together. Why does it ALWAYS have to be DL 141 (US Fleet) asking to work together? MTC kicked us to the curb. Plain and simple. Now you want us to ask to work with DL142? Why should we? They clearly didn't want us before, why would they now? For solidarity? To show the company we are together? Yeah right, MTC is only concerned for MTC! No I am not saying that it wouldn't be a good thing, but be realistic, it aint gonna happen. Deep down you know it also, you just like painting the current leadership in a bad light, I get it, but it is not all DL141's fault for not working together now is it?

I think there is definitely commonality between the two groups that would make it nonsensical NOT to work together. Reading the updates on both web pages and they are both preaching the same thing. I don't think the NC has any choice but to light the fire. They are in the position to actually make a difference and put pressure on Tom Reagon who is in their negotiations and also a member of IAM 142. The AGC's would never do that but there are 6 ramp workers in there who can tell the AGC's and leadership that the IAM needs to have more than 'joint letters' and needs to at least picket together. The IAM is going to be "not for long' if it continues to suck company balls and has different actions for each group. The alternative is to have the NC scratch its heads blaming the company. Baloney! Instead of blaming the company, there are things that can be done to build solidarity and one is for the IAM to save its own self which is about to circle the drain at united and us airways if it doesn't get its head out fairly quickly. Have 'joint actions' between the two districts. Is this not such a simple and basic thought? And the reason why I say it's up to the non AGC NC is because Delaney is 100% against any of this, and his AGC"s call him their boss. It will have to start with the NC members who are not AGC's but if they see themselves as the next 'up and comers' then nothing will happen and they will lose all credibility when they bring back a dopey contract like all the NC before them. There is no way there will EVER be a TA that has respect and dignity in it when the union leadership does NOT involve the membership in peaceful demonstrational activities. regards,

 

[Tim Nelson]

How out of touch must be the UA's NC and the IAM leadership when UA's fleet rejects the TA by over 2/3s of the ballots? Simple math... for every 1 person in favor, 2 people were against, and yet, those in charge of the NC and the Leadership couldn't understand or get some type of feedback on the issues important to the Membership without having a vote? Personally, I would be embarassed to have that type of rejection on a TA, as it means that I really don't know or understand the Membership very well.

They refused to post the numbers and didn't want them out. However, it's always nice to have someone still on the 'inside'. he he. regards,

 

[700UW]

Tom is a GLR, he works for the International, not the District and yes Tom is a member of 142 as he was a mechanic for US.

 

[pjirish317]

Fleet didnt pay dues until you ratified your first contract in 1999, negotations started in 1995.

Maintenance was part of 141, when NW went AMFA, AMFA started raiding United and US, so in order to try and stop the raid, they came up with the idea of a mechanic and related district, they did create one for NW, but it was too late to stop the raid and NW M&R went AMFA.

So there was a vote for the mechanic and related at 141 to create its own district, which is why 141M was created.

When UA went AMFA US Mechanic and Related wasnt large enough to sustain itself, so we were placed into 142 as they were the only district to have mechanic and related in it all ready.

And 141 used the current AGCs which were all mechanic and related at US to help negotiate, Bill Freighberger and Tony Giammarco with rank and file members of Fleet, being greivance committeemen, I know Greg Bonar was one, and John Carr also, not sure of the rest of makeup of the committee. When 141M was created it removed Freighberger and Giammarco from fleet's negotiations.

Again,

What is the problem with paying for negotiations? THE IAM sold us on the fact we would be toghether as (ONE), and look what happened. You can spin it any way you like, but in the end, we were used as a pawn to get into the IAM, and then MTC voted to seperate from us. That shows just how much solidarity we had with MTC. ZERO!

 

[700UW]

Just because you are different districts doesnt mean your not still together, you are all IAM members and still all under the Transportation Department.

Okay, we were in different districts in 1999 and there was plenty of solidarity between the groups, and both groups got a CBA because of it.

And in the same locals.

Just different for District which is contract negtotiations.

 

[pjirish317]

I think there is definitely commonality between the two groups that would make it nonsensical NOT to work together. Reading the updates on both web pages and they are both preaching the same thing. I don't think the NC has any choice but to light the fire. They are in the position to actually make a difference and put pressure on Tom Reagon who is in their negotiations and also a member of IAM 142. The AGC's would never do that but there are 6 ramp workers in there who can tell the AGC's and leadership that the IAM needs to have more than 'joint letters' and needs to at least picket together. The IAM is going to be "not for long' if it continues to suck company balls and has different actions for each group. The alternative is to have the NC scratch its heads blaming the company. Baloney! Instead of blaming the company, there are things that can be done to build solidarity and one is for the IAM to save its own self which is about to circle the drain at united and us airways if it doesn't get its head out fairly quickly. Have 'joint actions' between the two districts. Is this not such a simple and basic thought? And the reason why I say it's up to the non AGC NC is because Delaney is 100% against any of this, and his AGC"s call him their boss. It will have to start with the NC members who are not AGC's but if they see themselves as the next 'up and comers' then nothing will happen and they will lose all credibility when they bring back a dopey contract like all the NC before them. There is no way there will EVER be a TA that has respect and dignity in it when the union leadership does NOT involve the membership in peaceful demonstrational activities. regards,

tim,

Why does 141 have to ask 142 to work together? Why can't 142 ask 141 to work together. Heck, they are the reason we are IAM, they should be coming to us, not the other way around. But hey, I get it, because it's YOUR idea, and the way you would have done it, were you to get elected, thank goodness you were not BTW, and because the DL does not do it how YOU think things should be done, it's wrong. Who is killing solidarity there?

 

[blue collar]

tim,

Why does 141 have to ask 142 to work together? Why can't 142 ask 141 to work together. Heck, they are the reason we are IAM, they should be coming to us, not the other way around. But hey, I get it, because it's YOUR idea, any other way is wrong.

You're too hung up on who asks who, and you should be concerned with why aren't they? In the long run it doesn't matter who asks who, just as long as it happens.

 

[pjirish317]

You're too hung up on who asks who, and you should be concerned with why aren't they? In the long run it doesn't matter who asks who, just as long as it happens.

blue collar,

I may be hung up on who asks who, but the way I see it, and IMO, MTC coaxed us into the IAM, with the "strength in number" slogan, and then left us out in the cold. And when push comes to shove, we are to ask them for help? To show some solidarity? To show our strength in numbers? I think it should be the other way around is all. But for the record, I do hope we can eventually come together to actually show that the IAM does have some sense of solidarity and strenght in numbers, sadly, I doubt it though.

 

[700UW]

No one held a gun to your head to join the IAM and yes its better to have larger numbers, than smaller.

You forget the IAM did not win on the initial election between the IAM, IBT and USWA, no union got enough to win outright, so there was a runoff between the IAM and USWA.

The International and the District does have blame in what has happened, but also so does the membership, with people like Tim and others who have caused the division between the members itself.

The company knows about the lack solidarity and plays upon it.

The two chapter 11 filings dont help at all, and this is the first section 6 since bankruptcy for both fleet and maintenance.

Plus the lack of US willing to seriously negotiate with the IAM is a big problem.

It is time for the IAM to step and solidify the membership and work safe, force US to negotiate before the merger takes place.

 

[IAM Informer]

I am going to go out on a limb here and say that if there were a joint effort I put my money on there being more fleet picketing then mtc . the questiion is does our current leadership have the resources and network to pull it off I guess we will see

 

[blue collar]

blue collar,

I may be hung up on who asks who, but the way I see it, and IMO, MTC coaxed us into the IAM, with the "strength in number" slogan, and then left us out in the cold. And when push comes to shove, we are to ask them for help? To show some solidarity? To show our strength in numbers? I think it should be the other way around is all. But for the record, I do hope we can eventually come together to actually show that the IAM does have some sense of solidarity and strenght in numbers, sadly, I doubt it though.

I guess I didn't realize your negotiations are progressing so well that you don't need to ask for help.

 

[pjirish317]

I guess I didn't realize your negotiations are progressing so well that you don't need to ask for help.

Just like MTC huh? Oh but that's right MTC doesn't need Fleets help, it's just Fleet that needs MTC's help?

Hence the seperation that continues to grow between MTC and Fleet.
MTC wont ask Fleet, Fleet wont ask MTC, we might as well be seperate unions.

 

[700UW]

When I was on the NC we met daily with Fleet and the AFA on what transpired.

But tell me exactly what help MTC and Fleet can do in each other's negotiations?

And it is two different districts and two different negotiating committees.

Fleet doesnt negotiate for MTC and vice versa.

But both districts should be coorindating solidarity and turning up the heat in the media and working safe.

Bottom line is being at US for 17 years and being involved, you basically have to work safe and hurt the company's bottom line in order to achieve a CBA.

And Doug has made it quite clear that the company isnt interested in settiling with Fleet and Maintenance, they want a path to the merger.

So its time for the union to step up and put pressure on the NMB and the company.