April/May 2013 IAM Fleet Discussions

[mike33]

Its not a true representational election, you didnt sign A-Cards and the association will have no members and no dues collections.

You will either be an IAM or TWU member and pay dues to either union depending on location.

Its voting for the association or status quo.

I think what the IAM and TWU have done is collectively thwarted off any attempt by other unions to try and represent knowing that the assosiation collectively would have the majority of votes making it fruitless. Although AMFA seems to think they have no problem obtaining MTC

 

[robbedagain]

i do have a question i was told in an earlier post that lets say your in sfo you would be represented by twu but in say anther city youd be represented by the iam.. my question is if us is mainline in sfo and im sure they are without a doubt and aa is as well i think how is it that the twu would represent them vs say in anther city of similar

 

[700UW]

In each agreement there is a list of what cities who will be the representative.

You will only pay dues and be represented by the twu or the iam, not both depending on your location.

What are you asking?

Mike,

The association wont have any members, nor collect dues, you will be a member of the IAM or the TWU.

 

[robbedagain]

700 ok i was asking this in one of the earlier posts on this thread that in SFO they would be represented by the TWU however in PHX (i think it PHX and yes i do know its a hub) would be represented by the IAM. my question is how is that possible in a place like SFO to be represented by the TWU when US is IAM Im referring to when the the merger closes and the association is formed. in the earlier post on this thread i had seen that SFO would be represented by TWU but i believe as long as you are with US its the IAM if im correct

 

[700UW]

No,

Each location will either be IAM or TWU, there is a complete list in each agreement.

That is what the association is all about, you will be IAM or TWU, according to location.

Q&A:

http://www.iamdl142....clean[3]413.pdf

Fleet Agreement:

http://www.iam141.or...n Agreement.pdf

 

[700UW]

US Airways negotiation update:

US Airways negotiations, originally scheduled for last week, were postponed but will resume the first week of June in Chicago. Although we are still far apart from the company concerning issues of compensation and benefits, our recent agreements with them regarding seniority integrations and job protection for line stations indicate that progress can be made. As the expected date of merger comes closer the need to reach an agreement for US Airways members becomes critical. We look forward to the June sessions to see if true progress can be made.

 

[robbedagain]

thanks 700.

 

[freedom]

I think the whole issue here is time, and patience. We are presumably a few months away from consummation of the merger. Perhaps, the best strategy is to simply go for post merger compensation and benefits! This may very well take a lot longer... but it may be the best strategy. We’ve gone nine years already, why not take one, or two more if needed?

I think the question is this... is everyone patient enough? Further, the Membership is fully capable of their own collective and independent strategy! This strategy can be executed by simply voting down any T/A that is not acceptable in view of this merger-- UA just did it! The Membership is in the drivers seat when it comes to accepting agreements outside of bankruptcy!

no I am not patient ...... I might be MORE inclined to be patient if I wasn't taking a cost of living PAYCUT year after year !

 

[737823]

No,

Each location will either be IAM or TWU, there is a complete list in each agreement.

That is what the association is all about, you will be IAM or TWU, according to location.

Q&A:

http://www.iamdl142....clean[3]413.pdf

Fleet Agreement:

http://www.iam141.or...n Agreement.pdf

Too bad BOS will be an IAM station. Will the AA ramp and M&R be covered under LL 1726?

Josh

 

[Kev3188]

Too bad BOS will be an IAM station.

Josh

What's really too bad is how short both station lists are...

 

[737823]

What's really too bad is how short both station lists are...

Agreed. Its still considerably larger than seven stations under the failed UA T/A. By the way, is this list static for the duration of the alliance agreement?

Josh

 

[Kev3188]

I have no idea, but I would assume the list stays as is?

 

[Tim Nelson]

What's really too bad is how short both station lists are...

the list can get shorter, unfortunately, if we don't get a ta that gets scope without the IAM's use of drop dead dates in their contracts. Under the US contract, there are only about 12 stations that are class one I bet since Delaney says PVD and BDL are not protected anymore. [amazingly attachment A disappeared in this 2008 contract even though nobody voted it out of the ta. That was the attachment that grafted in PVD and BDL as class 1 stations. regards,

 

[ograc]

I think the whole issue here is time, and patience. We are presumably a few months away from consummation of the merger. Perhaps, the best strategy is to simply go for post merger compensation and benefits! This may very well take a lot longer... but it may be the best strategy. We’ve gone nine years already, why not take one, or two more if needed?

I think the question is this... is everyone patient enough? Further, the Membership is fully capable of their own collective and independent strategy! This strategy can be executed by simply voting down any T/A that is not acceptable in view of this merger-- UA just did it! The Membership is in the drivers seat when it comes to accepting agreements outside of bankruptcy!

Roa,
While I am certain you are learned and wise regarding union representation and our past history I respectfully disagree with your opinion we should go for post merger improvements with transition negotiations. This strategy was pursued with the UA/CO merger. It failed miserably. Are you suggesting we follow the same failed strategy? When one says improvemrnts NOW in section 6 negotiations; this should not be percieved as an expectation to achieve this immediately. Speaking for myself, and I believe others on this forum, I would be willing to negotiate in section 6, for the needed improvements, as long as it takes. In the meantime... the company cannot bring us to the table for transition talks. A bump in the road with their agenda of a smooth and expeditious merger. We have the leverage NOW in section 6. Let's take full advantage. However long that takes is up to the company.

 

[charlie Brown]

Roa,
While I am certain you are learned and wise regarding union representation and our past history I respectfully disagree with your opinion we should go for post merger improvements with transition negotiations. This strategy was pursued with the UA/CO merger. It failed miserably. Are you suggesting we follow the same failed strategy? When one says improvemrnts NOW in section 6 negotiations; this should not be percieved as an expectation to achieve this immediately. Speaking for myself, and I believe others on this forum, I would be willing to negotiate in section 6, for the needed improvements, as long as it takes. In the meantime... the company cannot bring us to the table for transition talks. A bump in the road with their agenda of a smooth and expeditious merger. We have the leverage NOW in section 6. Let's take full advantage. However long that takes is up to the company.

Ograc
Not trying to speak for ROA. But I took his post to mean the same thing you are saying. And that is that we are in section 6, since we have been in it awhile now, lets stay in it. Even if that means remaining in section 6 post merger. Roa correct me if I'm wrong. Like I have said, IMO since there is no run off election now, we can stay in section 6 as long as we need.