April/May 2013 IAM Fleet Discussions

[700UW]

You helped get Delaney and his team elected and your reward was the organizing post, which you were removed from also.

You got nominated at US, but what about the UA stations or the US outstations, yet you got creamed in the district election.

A nomination is nothing if you cant win the election, just like second place is first loser.

 

[Tim Nelson]

You helped get Delaney and his team elected and your reward was the organizing post, which you were removed from also.

You got nominated at US, but what about the UA stations or the US outstations, yet you got creamed in the district election.

A nomination is nothing if you cant win the election, just like second place is first loser.

Whoa there buddy. I suspended my campaign after the 11th and shifted it to a legal battle against the District when it became clear in PHX that the District was misappropriating our union dues for their political campaign. I believe it will be rerun once again. Time will tell. As far as 'my reward', I didn't know that the INTL and Ira Levy asked me for approvals on organizing plans and strategies because of some political favor for changing leadership? I didn't know that Wimp center would allow me to speak, teach, and put together a 3 day agenda at a merger summit because of some reward? 700, sometimes you say some silly stuff. Hey, maybe they been living in a cave and didn't know about my past? LMAO regards,

 

[Tim Nelson]

Why isn't the IAM fighting against this union pension reform that will potentially hose our 'current benefits'? Something is wrong. regards,

 

[mike33]

Its a sad day in unionism when we rely on small percentages of votes to claim victories...we all know the turnouts are not indicitive of the outcome. We should be trying to change that. Yet we squabble at claiming victories and not educating the membership 1 on 1.

Just My Opinion!!!

Now back to my frick'n taxes

 

[mike33]

Why isn't the IAM fighting against this union pension reform that will potentially hose our 'current benefits'? Something is wrong. regards,

Tim, do we honestly know whether they are or not?

 

[Tim Nelson]

Its a sad day in unionism when we rely on small percentages of votes to claim victories...we all know the turnouts are not indicitive of the outcome. We should be trying to change that. Yet we squabble at claiming victories and not educating the membership 1 on 1.

Just My Opinion!!!

Now back to my frick'n taxes

Mike, we must change it in the leadership. Because "We" certainly are educating members. The United TA had NO education from the leadership. In fact, I educated many on the Union's eboard about how their highlight sheet was wrong and that the contract didn't provide any scope for the 23 stations effective April 1. They acknowledged that they misinterpreted the TA [yes, even those on negotiations] but they didn't correct their errors, and that suggested they were intentionally deceiving. Folks were given strike ballots and were told they better be prepared to strike. No education on the real reason for a strike ballot. No nothing. The contract was explained with graphs and highlight sheets that were blatant lies. However, myself and many many solid key members from across the system networked and coordinated an educational campaign against the Union leadership/management press to ratify an anti labor contract. The membership was highly informed and educated and thus defeated the campaign. And it was educated by those who aren't making a dime. I agree that we should be trying to change how the Union leadership educates but that part of their job description has been in sore need of a tuneup and they still refuse. We don't have the authority or power to change their paternal dictatorship other than the power to vote them out. regards,

 

[Tim Nelson]

Tim, do we honestly know whether they are or not?

Mike, there is no evidence that the IAM has fought against this new union pension law. Their silence is deafening. Even it's head cheerleader, 700 has been silent on it. No, I don't believe they are. No union is fighting against the companies on this one, yet it will potentially 'hammer' its participants and put our pensions at a new risk as it allows the trustees to slash current benefits to keep plans in the green. Yikes! Few companies want to jump into the pension plan now due to liabilities. The IAM begged United to throw in the new 16,000 members into the IAMPF but United didn't want to touch it with a 10 foot pole.

 

[robbedagain]

as for us fsa once we merge and there is still no agreement... what is the step or does it stay the course? or if the iam 141 and the twu get into the same bed how does that work and how does it affect the negogiations? speaking of negog i sure hope they are going to strengthen scope if there is no scope then there is no contract

 

[robbedagain]

Mike, there is no evidence that the IAM has fought against this new union pension law. Their silence is deafening. Even it's head cheerleader, 700 has been silent on it. No, I don't believe they are. No union is fighting against the companies on this one, yet it will potentially 'hammer' its participants and put our pensions at a new risk as it allows the trustees to slash current benefits to keep plans in the green. Yikes! Few companies want to jump into the pension plan now due to liabilities. The IAM begged United to throw in the new 16,000 members into the IAMPF but United didn't want to touch it with a 10 foot pole.

i believe that the ual folks are in the pension i dont know how long but ive heard its been a yr or soo

 

[Tim Nelson]

i believe that the ual folks are in the pension i dont know how long but ive heard its been a yr or soo

16,000 from sUA are. But the IAM wanted to pack in the additional 16,000 members from sCO as well. Management said no way. regards

 

[necigrad]

as for us fsa once we merge and there is still no agreement... what is the step or does it stay the course? or if the iam 141 and the twu get into the same bed how does that work and how does it affect the negogiations? speaking of negog i sure hope they are going to strengthen scope if there is no scope then there is no contract

DL141 has said that they'll only deal with a contract prior to a joint agreement. No matter what IAM says there are some things that they must deal with on someone elses timeline, like single carrier status. So the IAM may wind up discussing issues with the company like "helping hands" scams and grievances for the AA members. Of course this assumes IAM is the representative; things might be different with the TWU, or they could do the same.

 

[Tim Nelson]

DL141 has said that they'll only deal with a contract prior to a joint agreement. No matter what IAM says there are some things that they must deal with on someone elses timeline, like single carrier status. So the IAM may wind up discussing issues with the company like "helping hands" scams and grievances for the AA members. Of course this assumes IAM is the representative; things might be different with the TWU, or they could do the same.

To be sure, I support the IAM"s current position, i.e., contract before transitions. And they are in legal position to do that. Any 'helping hand' agreement is under the transition talks but could be incorporated into a new IAM contract prior to any representational dispute. While I wouldn't think a completely exhaustive contract is on the menu [although we can hope], I think a wage increase up to American's scale [about a $2 buck increase] and a bump or an enhanced guarantee in scope can get done, especially if a helping hand that speeds up the merger is granted. Both, wage increases and additional stations, are sure to happen anyways so if the company and union can work things out sooner, as opposed to later, then isn't that a win win? My concern would be at what cost? AMR workers pay about $247 a month for health care [full timers and part timers have the same], whereas US AIRWAYS full timers only pay about $81 a month for health care unless they have the 100% plan. [part timers x 2]. So, I don't think anything is gained if a full timer gets a $2 raise but then has to fork over an additional $150 a month in health care cost. Given the predicament of working for an airline that is making hundreds of millions of dollars and desperately needs support for a 'seamless' merger, I don't think there is anything we have to give up. Certainly cost neutral contracts should be discouraged out of bankruptcy by the Union, just as much as they were discouraged by the company in bankruptcy. regards.

 

[Jester]

To be sure, I support the IAM"s current position, i.e., contract before transitions. And they are in legal position to do that. Any 'helping hand' agreement is under the transition talks but could be incorporated into a new IAM contract prior to any representational dispute.

I am hearing a rumor that US Fleet in PHX will be handling AA flights in the near future, instead of the contractor that AA is presently using. Not sure if that's exactly "helping hand" as there are no AA agents, and I am glad whenever we get more work, but I feel as if we are taking the work from the AA guys who were furloughed as part of the BK contract.

 

[700UW]

Did you feel that way when you voted for the current agreement which led to the furlough of your own coworkers?

 

[mike33]

I am hearing a rumor that US Fleet in PHX will be handling AA flights in the near future, instead of the contractor that AA is presently using. Not sure if that's exactly "helping hand" as there are no AA agents, and I am glad whenever we get more work, but I feel as if we are taking the work from the AA guys who were furloughed as part of the BK contract.

Well well well , welcome to our world. You are absolutely correct. I was furloughed and got hired by HP and we worked US flights. That was Helping-Hands at $7.50 an hr. And then the TA........don't feel bad now because you didn't feel bad then! It's more along the lines though of both having employees at the location and working each others flts. Kind of like delta did with NW stations