April/May 2013 IAM Fleet Discussions

[robbedagain]

i would like to see 401k added in there and a better contribute from the company to the iam pension plan but i do not know what cb and the group are going to discuss other than what he posted to my post in a reply and i dont have time to look thru the posts to find it but the problem is going to be after the merger are we still going to be in negogiations or are we going to have an agreement before then and if so what will the t/a look like and the nine yards with it..... and whether or not the issue will be brought up about the 401k in dfw this week i dont know but i also dont follow a whole lot on the 142 as they are maintaince and im fsa but i do follow them from time to time

 

[charlie Brown]

I'm interested in knowing why you don't feel that a 401k match is something that '...we would feel we have to have now in order to move to joint talks." I really don't know how to take that since I don't believe the membership feels that way and wants you to be negotiating for retirement increases NOW. And what does that telegraph to the company that our NC is saying that it doesn't feel 'the membership has to have now."?????? You see? In DL142 update, their nc spoke 100% differently and blasted the company for the company's position of not wanting to increase retirement and labeled it as 'ridiculous'. How can DL142 NC label it 'ridiculous' but then you don't 'feel' the membership has to have it now? I mean, I know management doesn't feel that the membership has to have any retirement increase but it is in 'poor taste' for our NC to say it doesn't feel it is necessary at this time. WTH are you guys doing over there??? Because I for sure know damn well that the membership wants the retirement addressed before joint talks. You do know that joint talks takes years don't you? So what the hell would we wait longer for??? What is more disturbing is that you think scope is taken care of and that the LOA means you can now focus on other things. WTH? That LOA doesn't enhance 'squat' right before joint talks. That LOA expires in less than 12 months and I doubt joint talks even start before then Trust me, you are doing 'severe negotiation damage' coming on here saying you don't feel it is necessary to have an increase in retirement benefits, and your other comment that "now that that is addressed [scope concerns] you can move on to other things". I hope you guys are still negotiating scope because it's the most important thing and the essence as to why the membership has you in negotiations. If you guys can't enhance the scope with a new contract then what are you guys doing? Bring the scope down to a lower bar so more stations can come inside it and make sure any new TA doesn't have drop dead dates that turn into dust after the 'witches hourglass' runs out. regards, edit: I see the LOA has now been published. Thank you.

Tim
I assure everyone that I'm not revealing these big secrets that the company dosent know. The company is fully aware of how the NC feels and expects. Secondly, I don't know how many times I have to tell you I don't care what your interested in knowing! And let me make it clear ( before the spin doctor spins it ) I do care greatly what the membership is interested in. Just not Tim Nelson!
I don't care what Tim Nelson thinks were doing. We are there on behalf of our members, not Tim Nelson. And why do you feel like you have a right now to say you expect all these things before joint talks begin, when like I said, you have stated before to the members that fleet wouldn't get anything before joint talks. Well again you are wrong, so now you try to shift the focus. Why you think I'm going to care enough to answer any of your questions is comical to me. I answer the memberships questions because I respect them. I don't answer Tim Nelson's questions because I have NO respect for you whatsoever. So you might want to get one of your buddies to ask your questions for you, if you want a answer from me.

 

[charlie Brown]

i would like to see 401k added in there and a better contribute from the company to the iam pension plan but i do not know what cb and the group are going to discuss other than what he posted to my post in a reply and i dont have time to look thru the posts to find it but the problem is going to be after the merger are we still going to be in negogiations or are we going to have an agreement before then and if so what will the t/a look like and the nine yards with it..... and whether or not the issue will be brought up about the 401k in dfw this week i dont know but i also dont follow a whole lot on the 142 as they are maintaince and im fsa but i do follow them from time to time

Robbed
The NC feels there are many issues that can be handled better in joint talks. We however have specific things we feel we must have first in order to move to those joint talks. 1. Was seniority protection for our members regardless of the surviving union. ( we did that ) 2. Scope, while scope is no way finished, we felt the need to stop the bleeding of our jobs being lost every April 5th when the company runs their numbers.( we did that ) 3. Is financial. There are many issues we are looking at on the financial side. Some of these we feel we must have now, some we feel would be better addressed in joint talks. Are we going to let whether or not we get a matching 401 k right now hold us up from going to joint talks, IMO the answer is no, because we can handle that in the joint talks.

 

[ograc]

The Memorandum of Understanding regarding station classification and outsourcing is now posted on the District's website. Apparently... CB has some juice and credibility after all. Hmmm!

 

[Harry Callahan]

Charlie:
Maybe I've missed this some where but I was talking to a couple of the guys today that I use to work with & they are concerned about pay raises & wanted me to ask where you all stand on that & what is going on ? They were just wondering if the company says it's not going to happen ? Thanks in advance.
Harry

 

[robbedagain]

thank you cb.. i have tremendous respect for you p rez and the nd team i also agree with the above assessment at at least to me it makes a lot of sense to be honest with you... im happy at the fact you got us the fsa member protections we definitely need i realize scope is not finished is that something you and the team are going to try to wrap up during the dfw talks or is that something is far more complicated... also i think the 401k just my own opin while i can be in the financial but i think the wages and other things should be top priority again i truly appreciate and have tremendous respect for you and the entire nd team for the job you folks are doing on our behalf good luck bro

 

[charlie Brown]

Charlie:
Maybe I've missed this some where but I was talking to a couple of the guys today that I use to work with & they are concerned about pay raises & wanted me to ask where you all stand on that & what is going on ? They were just wondering if the company says it's not going to happen ? Thanks in advance.
Harry

Harry
Of course we are after pay raises. That's one of the sticking points right now.

 

[Harry Callahan]

Harry
Of course we are after pay raises. That's one of the sticking points right now.

Thanks bro, I'll pass it along.
Harry.

 

[necigrad]

Congress appeased the people not the airlines

Which country is this in? In the US OFFICIALLY politicians appease no one, they represent their electorate. In practice in the US the politicians represent either their party or whatever groups they feel are most likely to support them at the ballot box. At no time do politicians appease the people.

and btw, u look dumb quote mining me. Have some smarts and if you are going to quote someone then quote the whole thing.

No. 'Quote mining', as you call it isn't just acceptable, but conditionally proper. It's considered tacky and in bad for to quote entire blocks of irrelevant text. This is especially so if it's the immediatly preceding post.

I haven't looked at the particular post you're accusing him of doing this, but you've accused me of it in the past. As long as the quoted material does not change the context there is no issue. I've challenged to you to demonstrate a violation on this conextual rule when you accused me of it and you didn't respond. If the quote is kept in the proper context it's not only accpetable, but proper. This has been a standard on the internet for quote a long time, probably about the same time when it was agreed that all caps was shouting. If you have problems with someone quoting something you said that puts you in a bad light, identify the correct context (thus validating your original statement and discrediting the quoter) or don't say stupid things. Complaining about people not quoting your entire comment, speech, or diatribe, is tacky, obnoxious, or a desperate attempt to deflect attention from something that you did in fact say.

Here's a free internet lesson for you on etiquite. If you say "I like boys soccer. I think it's an excellent sport, and it makes my son a better person by playing." it's perfectly find for someone to quote you as "Tim, you said that you "think it's an excellent sport."" when speaking aboutboys soccer. It's NOT, however, OK to quote you as saying "I like boys". While you did say that it's wholely inaccurate as it completly removes the context. THAT would be a legitimate gripe.

 

[ChockJockey]

Which country is this in? In the US OFFICIALLY politicians appease no one, they represent their electorate. In practice in the US the politicians represent either their party or whatever groups they feel are most likely to support them at the ballot box. At no time do politicians appease the people.

It's true that there's a lot that goes in to why one Congressman or Senator votes one way or another. It's not accurate to say Congress did this or that just or simply because of one group or another, because that isn't how things work on Capitol Hill. Anybody with anything to gain or lose by Congressional action/inaction has people in D.C. to put words in the ears of our legislators, kindly help them write legislation, lavish them with gifts, etc. Certainly the airlines put pressure on Congress in regards to this issue but I'd have been very surprised if passenger/consumer groups didn't do the same, as would anyone who's livelihood depends on timely air transport. Politics makes for strange bedfellows, when those who are your sworn enemy on one issue may be your staunchest allies on another. The highly inter-connected and inter-related nature of our political-financial-ecnomic system(s) means you can find certain groups weighing in on issues that at face seem to concern them little.

No. 'Quote mining', as you call it isn't just acceptable, but conditionally proper. It's considered tacky and in bad for to quote entire blocks of irrelevant text. This is especially so if it's the immediatly preceding post.

I haven't looked at the particular post you're accusing him of doing this, but you've accused me of it in the past. As long as the quoted material does not change the context there is no issue. I've challenged to you to demonstrate a violation on this conextual rule when you accused me of it and you didn't respond. If the quote is kept in the proper context it's not only accpetable, but proper. This has been a standard on the internet for quote a long time, probably about the same time when it was agreed that all caps was shouting. If you have problems with someone quoting something you said that puts you in a bad light, identify the correct context (thus validating your original statement and discrediting the quoter) or don't say stupid things. Complaining about people not quoting your entire comment, speech, or diatribe, is tacky, obnoxious, or a desperate attempt to deflect attention from something that you did in fact say.

Here's a free internet lesson for you on etiquite. If you say "I like boys soccer. I think it's an excellent sport, and it makes my son a better person by playing." it's perfectly find for someone to quote you as "Tim, you said that you "think it's an excellent sport."" when speaking aboutboys soccer. It's NOT, however, OK to quote you as saying "I like boys". While you did say that it's wholely inaccurate as it completly removes the context. THAT would be a legitimate gripe.

Wel put. I am continually flabbergasted that people not only seem to read Nelson's rambling doublespeak but take the time to respond to it, especially when he's so adept at evading questions and accusing others of evading questions. Reading through one of his huge diatribe posts is like trying to run a 100 meter dash through knee-deep mud and pigshit. After the first few strides you're stuck in it with no new insight and nothing to show for it, except for the annoying realization that you should have just never tried it in the first place. Luckily for me when I scroll down and see a huge block of text next to his profile picture my eyes just automatically glaze over and I keep scrolling. There may be a point in there somewhere, but for me it's not worth digging through what I'd have to to find it...

 

[Kev3188]

That’s not very specific! Tell me what mechanism you are going to employ to correct ALL these issues. Are you going to run for office? Get involved as an educator? Become politically active at the national level? -- Or… maybe just be an armchair critic in an online forum?

Yep, ran (and held) office before, did plenty of educating-and still do. That's the fun part, IMO.

2. Scope, while scope is no way finished, we felt the need to stop the bleeding of our jobs being lost every April 5th when the company runs their numbers.( we did that )

I'm not trying to be a d*ck, but did you? All I see is a 1 year reprieve. Make no mistake; that's certainly a good news story, but what's the plan going forward to make sure you guys aren't spending your time/resources getting out from under weak language?

 

[charlie Brown]

Kev
It is only a 1 year reprieve. Don't understand what you mean by weak language? 7 weekly flights is about as strong as you can get. But do we need to get better all around scope. Yes!! IMO you have better leverage negotiating that better scope as a whole as the worlds largest carrier. Combining the numbers for both airlines in particular cities, then seeing what we have.

 

[Kev3188]

Fair enough.

Sure, 7/per week is great; hopefully you guys make that the target baseline for all stations. It'd be nice to see the threshold lowered permanently.

As for my weak language comment: If the CBA didn't have such terrible language to begin with, you guys wouldn't have had to neg. an MOU in the first place...

 

[charlie Brown]

Fair enough. And yeah, 7/per week is great; hopefully you guys make that the target baseline for all stations.

As for my weak language comment: If the CBA didn't have such terrible language to begin with, you guys wouldn't have had to neg. an MOU in the first place...

Oh, I got ya. Yes I agree with you! And we definitely need to get the numbers down and much closer together as far as outsourcing vs. insourcing.

 

[700UW]

THanks 700 i did not know that the iam had an office in dallas do they have offices in all of the major cities

also how does it work when they go to negogiate how do they choose where to have it and all

Since its in mediation the mediator decides where and when the talks will be held.

Well the IAM has locals or districts in most major cities.