If the fleet transition agreement is any indication of what the IAM plans to agree to with the mechanical and related then it looks as if the arbitration will go forward because no mechanic I have talked with is willing to settle for pennies while the company will walk away with millions!
District 142 Negotiations Update
- Thread starter 700UW
- Start date
- Status
At this time the 2nd update has been removed. Anyone know why?
http://www.iamdl142.org/ then click to the Aug 16th update
http://www.iamdl142.org/ then click to the Aug 16th update
NO, because they have always BS'd the membership into voting for it. Even if they have to vote twice.
allstrike
Veteran
- Oct 12, 2005
- 759
- 4
ya but 142 has a better writer than 141.Lots more dramatic,kind of gets ya going ya know.
Update Translation: Both the company and the union are about to give us a good @ss reaming, but only we the membership will decide if we get some lube.
LOL....drag this out for another 16 months and the contracts up for renegotiation....
727_4_Ever
Member
- Oct 23, 2006
- 48
- 0
I don't believe the company thinks they can shove a T/A like they sent the Fleet Service down the mechanics throats. The Mechanics have shown in the past that they will vote NO if they are not given a fair deal. The only way the company got them stuck with the crappy deal they have now is with the BK powers. On the other hand the Fleet service have always voted for their deals and the company and union are counting on that again. I feel the mechanics will be seeing their deal about Sept. 5th after Fleet Service has voted so it doesn't cost Fleet votes.
"The Mechanic & Related agreement has been in existence much longer than the Fleet Service
agreement, and consequently has many different provisions. One example is that Fleet Service has
Class 2 pay scale. Additionally, your negotiating committee is grappling with many different issues
than Fleet Service employees simply because of the nature of our work. Therefore, District 142
members should not expect a Mechanic & Related agreement to mirror the terms District 141
negotiated. Although if we reach a tentative agreement with US Airways some items may be similar to
the Fleet Service agreement, each IAM negotiating committee operates independently."
I read this statement from the IAM to mean don't panic you won't get near the screwing we gave Fleet Service. If Fleet had a great deal on the table then it would look bad for the mechanics but since the T/A sucks so bad it should be very good that yours doesn't mirror ours. Hopefully Fleet Service will grow a pair before voting and take a page from the mechanics. I have no doubt that if anything remotely similar to the T/A Fleet was given it would result in a resounding NO. I've already heard a lot of misinformation going around the breakrooms for Fleet. "I've got to take this deal because I can't afford to strike"......."If we turn this down the company can impose anything they want"......"This is their final deal so we can't get anymore by voting no"......Etc. Etc. ....Please people get informed and realize that this is a deal for the company and IAM but not for us. VOTE NO and demand respect for the job you do.
"The Mechanic & Related agreement has been in existence much longer than the Fleet Service
agreement, and consequently has many different provisions. One example is that Fleet Service has
Class 2 pay scale. Additionally, your negotiating committee is grappling with many different issues
than Fleet Service employees simply because of the nature of our work. Therefore, District 142
members should not expect a Mechanic & Related agreement to mirror the terms District 141
negotiated. Although if we reach a tentative agreement with US Airways some items may be similar to
the Fleet Service agreement, each IAM negotiating committee operates independently."
I read this statement from the IAM to mean don't panic you won't get near the screwing we gave Fleet Service. If Fleet had a great deal on the table then it would look bad for the mechanics but since the T/A sucks so bad it should be very good that yours doesn't mirror ours. Hopefully Fleet Service will grow a pair before voting and take a page from the mechanics. I have no doubt that if anything remotely similar to the T/A Fleet was given it would result in a resounding NO. I've already heard a lot of misinformation going around the breakrooms for Fleet. "I've got to take this deal because I can't afford to strike"......."If we turn this down the company can impose anything they want"......"This is their final deal so we can't get anymore by voting no"......Etc. Etc. ....Please people get informed and realize that this is a deal for the company and IAM but not for us. VOTE NO and demand respect for the job you do.
Awa Contract
Veteran
- Oct 3, 2005
- 820
- 1
Guess we didn't read the same updates
- Thread Starter
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #26
Harry Callahan
Veteran
At least 142 has the balls to stand up to them.
coach,
There is nothing IAM HQ would like better than for fleet blame themselves for their own problems - it lets them off the hook. We both know better.
142 ain't so tuff - it took them two votes to give the company what they wanted.
IAM HQ has done everything in their power to divide fleet and ramp. Now they are reaping the consequences.
Plus I'm still waiting to see how fleet will be cannon fodder for mechs again, just like last time.
IAM fleet and mechs are divided at the floor level - at the international level, they're all poker buddies.
There is nothing IAM HQ would like better than for fleet blame themselves for their own problems - it lets them off the hook. We both know better.
142 ain't so tuff - it took them two votes to give the company what they wanted.
IAM HQ has done everything in their power to divide fleet and ramp. Now they are reaping the consequences.
Plus I'm still waiting to see how fleet will be cannon fodder for mechs again, just like last time.
IAM fleet and mechs are divided at the floor level - at the international level, they're all poker buddies.
- Thread Starter
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #29
142 never voted twice, that was when we were 141M.
Siegel sent letters to everyone's house saying he was going to hold his own vote then abrogate if it was voted down again.
The locals and the district did not want to revote, Roach stepped in and made them hold the vote again after he had conversations with Siegel and Glass.
Fleet's CBA never fed any money for M&R, two seperate districts with their own representatives and Negotiating Committees.
You all seem to fail to realize M&R have been under a CBA with US since 1949, you only got your first CBA in 1999.
And the head of the IAM Transportation Department is a former Ramper, not a Mechanic.
Siegel sent letters to everyone's house saying he was going to hold his own vote then abrogate if it was voted down again.
The locals and the district did not want to revote, Roach stepped in and made them hold the vote again after he had conversations with Siegel and Glass.
Fleet's CBA never fed any money for M&R, two seperate districts with their own representatives and Negotiating Committees.
You all seem to fail to realize M&R have been under a CBA with US since 1949, you only got your first CBA in 1999.
And the head of the IAM Transportation Department is a former Ramper, not a Mechanic.
141M/142 semantics. Either way, US mechs.
Voted twice, spin it how you like. Could have voted no again, right?
When IAM was selling themselves during the run-up to election, they (at that time,D141 mechs) sold the "strength in numbers" BS. As soon as IAM was certified, did they unite mechs and fleet to achieve that? They did not. Did the local lodges, controlled by mechs, welcome fleet participation? They did not. It got so out of hand in PIT fleet had to create their own lodge. After certification, IAM immediately created 141m to divide mechs from fleet.
Hummmm, division implies the opposite of union, yes?
And unless IAM AGC's lie , 141 did indeed bail 141M out financially.
So far as cannon fodder, which group represented by the same union lost recall rights and which one didn't?
Voted twice, spin it how you like. Could have voted no again, right?
When IAM was selling themselves during the run-up to election, they (at that time,D141 mechs) sold the "strength in numbers" BS. As soon as IAM was certified, did they unite mechs and fleet to achieve that? They did not. Did the local lodges, controlled by mechs, welcome fleet participation? They did not. It got so out of hand in PIT fleet had to create their own lodge. After certification, IAM immediately created 141m to divide mechs from fleet.
Hummmm, division implies the opposite of union, yes?
And unless IAM AGC's lie
, 141 did indeed bail 141M out financially.So far as cannon fodder, which group represented by the same union lost recall rights and which one didn't?
- Status
