August/September 2013 Fleet Discussion
- Thread starter Falcon
- Start date
- Status
robbedagain
Veteran
- Oct 13, 2003
- 11,125
- 2,676
i cannot help but to think what more than a perfect timing for maintaince n fleet to stand together and show ah that we have the solidarity btwn ourselves as wel as the iam
Tim Nelson
Veteran
regardless of what is said, that is correct. Unfortunate that our NC is now down to begging for just what amr bankrupt contract wage is. They should have approached impasse at a far greater amount than tossing everything down the tubes and being stuck with its bottom offer remaining. Hemmingway kept his position at 1% pay raises and held his ground.At least we should be grateful that management revealed what our union refused to. I have no idea why we didnt go into impasse asking for a far greater amount instead of now being left with what is claimed to be our bottom offer. What the hell have our nc been doing these past 3 years if they are only asking for bankrupt wages???
I got news for you, wait till you see what scope they are asking for. Unbelievable.
pjirish317
Veteran
- Sep 21, 2007
- 1,240
- 743
tim,
Since you like to come on here and pretend to the other members here that YOU could do far better in negotiations than our current NC, please enlighten us as to how you would do that? It seems, IMO anyway, that your mouth is writing checks your ass cant cash, since you are in no way shape or form a part of DL141 anymore, other than to come on here and try to divide us at a critical point in our carreers and futures. I truely believe that you would sell out all of your fellow fleet service brothers and sisters to the company, or another union just to prove a point to the IAM. Oh and BTW, what scope provisions are you referring to, and whom asked for it? The NC or the company? I really think that unlees it is your idea you will not be happy with the result. And if you have the information on what the scope proposals are, why not share with us for all to see? Afraid you are wrong? Afraid you have incorrect information? Obviously, if you were in the "know", there would be others on the opposite side, in the "know" also, to refute any and all false information being given to the employees. Seriously, either share what you have or drop it.
On another note, my station also had a briefing from a member of the NC this week, very very informative, and the station as a whole really appreciated the time taken to come a speak with us. Thank you again.
- Banned
- #590
You do realize its an interim bridge agreement, as soon as a ratified Section 6 CBA is achieved you will be right back at the table for JCBA.
Do you really think US is going to give you more when they balked at 10%?
Wake up Tim.
And you havent been in negotiations for three years.
pjirish317
Veteran
- Sep 21, 2007
- 1,240
- 743
700,
We will have been negotiating for 2 years come July. Fleet started in July of 2011. Once again tim is trying to divide the group by spreading false and misinformation. If he has insider information, why not share it, like his scope comment. But I highly doubt he has any real credible information.
Tim Nelson
Veteran
hemmingway gave amr a wage that is 10% more than what usairways fleet has. Why cant we have a bump more than where the twu bankrupt ta is? Doesnt hemmingway need a transition agreement as well? Why give him anything if a fair section 6 agreement can not be achieved?
With the current proposal, i have concerns that a further compromise will mean even lower wages. Does the mx 10% proposal bring them to amr mx wages?
Tim Nelson
Veteran
patience PJ
Listen to me now, believe me later. Pj, as much as i am not comfortable with the wage proposal due to negotiation strategies, can we agree that we need more stations under scope, excluding drop dead dates, than the current 10 class one stations?
pjirish317
Veteran
- Sep 21, 2007
- 1,240
- 743
Tim Nelson
Veteran
precisely. Thats why im disappointed that fleet isnt asking for more than amr fleet.
Tim Nelson
Veteran
Pj, their words havent came to pass yet. I look strictly at positional negotiations and its fairly easy to see what will happen next. Same thing at hal and ua. When their bs comes to pass, my presumption is that me and you will be fighting for something more. At any rate, as disappointed i am that fleet isnt asking for more wage than amr, like dl142 is, can me and you at least agree that any ta that comes back that doesnt increase scope immediately without drop dead dates will be unfair, no matter what the wage and other bennies are?
Tim Nelson
Veteran
eventually the company will have to talk scope if it wants the iam to talk merger. Scope is huge to save the different crafts from being contracted out. The association preserves this leverage
ograc
Veteran
- Jan 30, 2012
- 1,868
- 1,624
The last proposal put forth to the company is what the NC feels they "absolutely need" in a TA that has any chance of being ratified. AH and the company balked and declared the IAM's demands "extreme and outrageous" in their letter to the NMB. The union's position is that the demands are fair and duly deserved of a Fleet Service group who has been through two concessionary BK contracts and a Transition Agreement. A group who is attempting to regain, some of what has been sacrificed in past years, before entering into Transition Talks, that will make them part of the largest carrier in the industry. A position that a Federal Mediator should see as reasonable. A position that constitutes negotiating in good faith. Although proposing wage and benefit increases that were off the charts, was certainly an option for the NC, I believe they would have been met with the same resistance by the company and more importantly, viewed by the Mediator, as unreasonable and a failure to negotiate in good faith. Negotiating in good faith is an expectation of the NMB from both parties. I believe, it would be in the membership's best interst, that our NC's proposals are viewed as reaonable and negotiating in good faith by the Mediator and the NMB at this point.
- Status
Similar threads
