April/May 2013 IAM Fleet Discussions

[roabilly]

huh? I have never claimed quick contracts but the exact opposite. Im usually on facebook but i might have said on this site that walking into transition like the iam did would cause 3-5 years of foolishness. When i ran the campaign against the teamsters, i pounded them for a quickie contract at continental and we mocked their decision to admit to transition talks. This isnt rocket science so it was no surprise to me after failed transition talks at united that delaney had to scrap his bizarre "interest based fast track" negotiations and instead file section 6 last month at united.

Sometimes things change and maybe due to experience or politics, right paths are followed. Who could deny that this association is interesting given the context of single carrier?
Roabily, although u may not be ready to have a drink with me, i think we both should be on board this negotiation approach and support it online and in breakrooms. regards

Earth to Nelson... I've been onboard with my support since 08! I'm not the one challenging every move the NC makes for political reasons!

 

[700UW]

The vote is for the association or remain status qou. The association wont even have any members.

Its not a normal election,you didn't sign A-cards nor will the association have members.

You wont be paying dues to the Association, you will be paying dues to the TWU or the IAM depending on your location.

 

[blownkneesbob]

700. The grievance chair advised the shop stewards that a NO vote would mean deceritification I agree that it doesn't sound legal but am only repeating what we were told by someone of authority

 

[700UW]

Your grievance chair is wrong, its not a representational election did you sign an A-Card?

The association wont have any members, you wont be paying dues to the association.

You will either be an IAM member or TWU member depending on location.

Do you think the IAM or TWU would risk losing all work groups, that is why they came up with the association?

I just sent an e-mail to a GLR from Air Transport who is a friend of mine, seeking clarification.

 

[Tim Nelson]

Earth to Nelson... I've been onboard with my support since 08! I'm not the one challenging every move the NC makes for political reasons!

i hear ya roabily. Although their hal agreement was bothersome to me, i was in the middle of an airtran campaign. When nd08 invited me to the last eboard meeting (july 2011) we insisted on maintaining section 6 talks but then when they flipped and supported abolishing section 6 and screwed over the united members withdrew my support for them. Obviously the eboards plan to increase the wealth of the iam with unlimited part time didnt pan out for them. If you say u support this guy or that guy i could apprehend but your continued support of nd8 after such treason simply meands you place them over the membership. At any rate, i cant support nd8 after the harm they caused to 28,000 members but i can support the current negotiations path of sticking to our guns. Increasing solidarity events also wont hurt. regards,

 

[blownkneesbob]

Ricky
U need to READ and EDUCATE yourself everytime someone has different info than you doesn't mean there uneducated unlike some who have to live on message boards of former employers cause they haven't been able to adjust to life outside of the airline some of us have lives and can rely on getting accurate info from people with credentials something that u NO longer have and skip the I was this I was that ####. Fleet is at a very serious crossroads and doesn't need you and your BS on here every 5 mins

 

[737823]

More than any other group?

The pilots gave up way more money than fleet did.

Maintenance gave up more money than fleet did.

Maintenance lost 46% of the workforce.

Your group didnt give up the most.

You facilitated the concessions in the 2005 bk, the IAMs priority was giving the Co exactly what they wanted.

Josh

 

[robbedagain]

[sub]is there a break down of the numbers percentage wise for the 05 era when each group sacrificed[/sub]

 

[ograc]

single carrier status has nothing at all to do with "worlds biggest carrier". Although we cant know for sure, it honestly doesnt appear that there are any major obstacles that we know of to stop the merger from being completed by september. Thus, legally, no matter which negotiation strategy is pursued, we will be in negotiations with the worlds biggest airline. Whatever the case, there is no proof, given history, that transition talks are much to fuss about. The iam failed strategy of walking away from section 6 and proclaiming pie in the sky transition talks as the worlds biggest airline at united didnt prove anything other than poor choices based on a compromised stance.
Covet section 6!!!
I can support that. We have 3 years already invested so lets buckle down and take advantage of the extra leverage of not having to worry about a union calling single carrier anytime soon. The company wants single carrier so lets give them that after we attain a fair and equitable contract. We waited 15 years to get in section 6 so lets embrace it and make sure we dont leave it for transition talks until we attain enhanced scope (with no attached drop dead dates), a fair wage and some other increases, including enhancing the retirement by getting a 401 match to go along with the current iam pension.
Once single carrier is triggered by a union, leverage is lost because thats one more action off the list that makes mergers more seamless for management.
You guys are our last defense before a membership vote against perhaps an iam/management desire to save negotiation cost and protecting their interest over the members as what happened at united. Signing a "mini contract" or otherwise making any moves to transition talks would be foolish given how far along we currently are in the negotiation process and we dont even have to worry about the twu triggering single carrier now.
As you know, only a union can trigger single carrier so if that means that management has to wait 3 years on its holy grail then fine. No fuss from here as there shouldnt be any rush on our end.
Certainly such a position by our nc is a worthy one to support. No?
regards,

Agreed! Negotiated improvememts now! We have the leverage! I do not support "trust us... we'll make things right in transition talks." Let's remember the quarter we were given years ago by a former CEO who asked to trust them.

 

[ograc]

Question for everyone on here.
Do you think that everything in our contract would be better handled in section 6 negotiations as the number 5 carrier. Or do you think certain things would be better negotiated in joint talks as the worlds largest carrier? Give me your opinions.

CB,
Before I answer, let me first state the posture of the company of negotiating as the 5th carrier, is a falsehood. They know, as we do, their merger is going through. So enough of the poor me posture. They are about to become the largest carrier with potential huge profit margins. The company wants the union NC to negotiate a contract as the fifth largest... with the assumption they will negotiate an industry leading contract in transition talks. I would hope the NC and the district don't take the bait. The NC and the district were drawn into this strategy at UA. The strategy proved to be fruitless... with an overwhelming rejection of the TA reached. With that being said... we have lost so much the past years not everything can be gained back in one contract. IMO... issues that must be rectified and improved on in Section 6 are the following: Protecting existing work (scope), Wage increases and improvements in vacation / sick accrual. IMO... We have the leverage in section 6. This is where we need to get it done.

 

[robbedagain]

agree there orgac pretty much what ive been saying too got to protect our scope and improve vac sick and wages now is the time we got the leverage

 

[ograc]

I think it would be foolish of our NC and the district to buy into this concept the company is trying to sell that we should be negotiating as a fifth ranked carrier. IMO... this is but a smoke screen, put forth by the company, to get the NC to agree to substandard improvements in our contract. The merger is going through; they know it and so should our NC and district. Section 6 contract improvements now! Transition negotiations afterward! IMO... this strategy is in the best interests' of the membership.

 

[Tim Nelson]

I think it would be foolish of our NC and the district to buy into this concept the company is trying to sell that we should be negotiating as a fifth ranked carrier. IMO... this is but a smoke screen, put forth by the company, to get the NC to agree to substandard improvements in our contract. The merger is going through; they know it and so should our NC and district. Section 6 contract improvements now! Transition negotiations afterward! IMO... this strategy is in the best interests' of the membership.

strategically and logically it is in the best interest of the members. History teaches us its lessons.
Dont get me wrong, Delaney knows this too but often a union eboard will put the iam and personal gain over the membership by cashing in the leverage for itself/themself as opposed to the membership.
Thats what happened at united. The company appeased the iam by giving it a signing bonumoney that it could rename and dispurse however it wanted so the iam can claim retro. It also gave the iam the additional 8,000 dues members. In return the company wanted productivity gains and the ability to whack most stations. The iam would have had a net loss in dues but it agreed with the company when unlimited part time was placed in the contract to make up for any dues loss and to increase revenues for the iam since two part timers are double the revenue of one full timer.
So, the nc is the last line of defense before a membership vote. A defense against company greed and also iam interest.
Whatever the case, i like what im hearing from prez and cb.interesting indeed.

 

[charlie Brown]

Question for everyone on here.
Do you think that everything in our contract would be better handled in section 6 negotiations as the number 5 carrier. Or do you think certain things would be better negotiated in joint talks as the worlds largest carrier? Give me your opinions.

We on the negotiating committee was kinda up against the 8 ball in negotiations. Even though we were in section 6 talks, we also knew due to the MOU the company had with the TWU that we were facing a runoff election soon after the completion of the merger, which would most likely have halted negotiations for awhile. Now we no longer have that hanging over our heads due to the coalition. I am off here for the night, but I appreciate everyone's input on the above question.

 

[700UW]

You facilitated the concessions in the 2005 bk, the IAMs priority was giving the Co exactly what they wanted.

Josh

You are truly clueless, go read what abrogation means.