Change of Control Update

[Henderfuzz]

Just curious as to how $21.19 was figured as the hourly wage? I mean we were at $21.68 pre-bk. As it states in our original 1999 cba, parity won't go backwards. So how did we go from $21.68 to $21.19? Anyone from the I AM MANAGEMENT care to elaborate? If not, Tim can you figure this one out?. I will find the language in the CBA.

Here let me explain. Instead of Tim and his half truths what he stated above are his numbers.
Not the IAM. Non of what he said is offical. If you recall when Tim said he had a very good sorce on what the pay was going to be in the T/A he said it was only going to be 17 something per hour.
Well he was wrong. All you here who keep reading what Tim has to say are just fooling yourself into thinking he is some kind of great savior. Hes nothing of the sort hes just tring to get you to reject the IAM so he can feel good about himself. While some of what he states may be factual many of what he states are just Tims ideas. Dont fool yourself in believing everything Tim says.
He does not represent us.

 

[pjirish317]

Fuzz,
You did not answer the question. What is the actual number for pay?

 

[diogenes]

Indeed I do. Apparently a voice in what happens is only allowed if you stand up and demand to be heard? See a solution?

Nahhh, when you try to represent the membership, the leadership ostrasizes and marginalizes you.

Local lodge executive board is about as high as an honest person can go in the IAM - those guys actually stand for an election, rather than an appointment like the AGC's.

Sure, AGC's eventually stand for a rigged election, but only after they get appointed.

Been said many times - name one AGC that was first appointed to office, and then voted out by the membership. So far, no takers.

Now, name an AGC that went straight from the floor to office, via election rather than appointment. Got my doubts about that, too.

 

[Tim Nelson]

Just curious as to how $21.19 was figured as the hourly wage? I mean we were at $21.68 pre-bk. As it states in our original 1999 cba, parity won't go backwards. So how did we go from $21.68 to $21.19? Anyone from the I AM MANAGEMENT care to elaborate? If not, Tim can you figure this one out?. I will find the language in the CBA.

pjirish,
I find your post very interesting. The $21.19 is actually very close to the IAM's number. At any rate, you raise an interesting point in that the 2003 pay adjustment would have stayed at $21.43 since it can't be lowered. I say $21.43 because I believe that was the last pay increase so I'm not sure where the $21.68 came from.

The basic agreement said, "The determination of Pay Parity scales shall not result in a reduction in the then existing pay rates for Lead Agents and Fleet Service Agents." pg 105 of the basic agreement.

Further, after you brought up the 'prohibition of reduction', I made a phone call to an "IAM Guy" and he said that the IAM isn't even arguing that point and he believes both districts missed it. He proceeded to tell me that he didn't like what was happening and that the IAM stands ready to negotiate the grievance away and for some reason the Directing Chair is quite insistent on this. IMO, I think his interest are squarly on United Airlines as well they should be since he's a board of director there.

Here's what everyone should be doing right now.
1. Next time your AGC comes in your breakroom, ask him the following:
a. What is the wage scale according to the COC?
b. Are you entitled to back pay, and if not, then why?

You'll get a chuckle over the answers, if any, and you will swear you are talking to Parker himself. The IAM 141 is VERY NEGATIVE on this grievance, even though any grievance award represents freedom of the oppressed.

IMO, the IAM will refuse to put any numbers out on the change of control grievance because they fully plan on conceeding it's high wage scales in return for the dues, positive space travel, etc. Why the discreetness????

BTW, each AGC knows the true answers to the questions above so if they say they don't, then count that Bull ****. The answers to the questions are that you are damn right you will be entitled to back pay, all the way to when the violation initiated. The wage scale is also objective and so is penalties and fines if your company doesn't abide by binding arbitration. And Binding is Binding under the RLA, this is undisputable. The only way the company can get out of an award would be through Bankruptcy but they are close to record profits and have 3.5 billion in the bank. A better bet would be that they would only delay an award to allow the IAM time to manufacture enough fear to 'compromise the award' and throw all back pay, fines, and even top out wage scale, under the bus...in return for more dues and other IAM thingys.

regards,

 

[pjirish317]

Tim,
Thank you. The $21.68 is from adding the line pay and longevity pay. So $21.43 is probably right on the money so to speak. Maybee 700, instead of bashing us, especially you, can put his seeming unlimited supply of resources to use and find out for us. Although I doubt he will undermine the gag order that seems to be enforced by the I AM MANAGEMENT about the COC . Anyway thank you again for the info.

 

[goonman]

That much is true.
You bring in a new union you start at square one again.
You can send a message to the IAM or you can set yourself back another two to three years.

Id rather set myself back with IBEW. Why? I was set back for 13 years with IAM, whats the difference, another 2 ,3 years!!!!!!!

 

[Hadenough]

Grease up boys and girls the IAM is positioning itself to give it to us again. I keep hearing that the COC doesn't look good for us. We are probably going to lose. How do they know? Bottom line is they don't know squat. The COC is now being down played so the IAM can position itself for the next sellout. Look for another agreement to come out before the arbitrator makes his ruling. We will be lucky if we get to vote on this one.

 

[dbcooper]

Answer: It's quite obvious that the IAM wants to share in the spoils and that means they will once again attempt to negotiate any award away in return for "IAM interest". It's alot of money but it's yours,not the IAM's. In short, they will most likely want to force some re-allocation of any award and 'get themselves some'.
They want the masses to remain ignorant. Remember, the COC is already in the agreement and it is non-negotiable.

Question: The IAM sez, back pay would most likely not be a part of any settlement? is this true?

Answer: What they are telling you is that they plan on negotiating it away for perhaps IAM interest items like positive space travel, more dues paying members, etc. Back pay would most certainly be a part of any violation. The IAM doesn't even mention this, neither would someone else who is trying to rip you off. I mean, ask your IAM AGC and see if you don't get a load of smoke blown up your ###. Know this, the COC is accumulating worth now and it isn't because you won't win back pay for the duration of the violation. Further, if the company appeals a arbitration loss, it will most likely face increased penalties, fees, fines, etc, payable to the recipients who were damaged.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If anyone is in doubt that the IAM141 wants to/will negotiate away a COC win, just re-read the IAM newspaper "the Messenger" that came out last week. In the front page article about "members voting for COC" (when they voted down the TA) it was stated to the effect that: if the COC is won, it will open the door to negotiatons. Given the IAM's inclination to throw away the COC to the harm of East fleet in order to get other things, I read that statement as an indication of more of the same. After the embarrassing vote down of the IAM TA by membership, you would think that the message was very clear, but apparently the IAM leadership still needs to understand in no uncertian terms that a COC win cannot be negotiated down or diluted "for other more important things".
IAM141.....DO YOU HEAR THAT?

 

[Hadenough]

DB
I agree with you 100%. The IAM gains nothing from a COC win. I really think they will not let it get that far. They only will gain if "our" win is used as a bargaining chip. Look for another proposal before the ruling. It may even be the same T/A just worded a little differently.