District 142 Update
- Thread starter 700UW
- Start date
Phantom Fixer
Veteran
- Oct 21, 2003
- 577
- 0
700UW said:
It's about protecting everyone? What a joke....tell that to the Planners and Tech Doc Specialists whom are being asked to give the absolute most in this land grab. What is the IAM going to do about that injustice???
These folks weren't even unionized until a little over 2 years ago....and since then the quality of their lives have gotten worse since the IAM acreeded them in.
Hmmm, A 5% or 10% paycut without the IAM...and a 29% paycut with the IAM.
I'm thinking some real quality people got sold down the river here.
I hope the Utility people do get to stay around...cuz I can see and say from a firsthand perpective what a $7 to $8 dollar an hour workforce is going to provide both the company and the end customer...and it ain't gonna be pretty as they come and go with great regularity. Just imagine what the pre-employment process costs us as a company...only to have this person or that stick around a few days , weeks or even hours as some have already posted about here.
NeedForSpeedNFS
Veteran
- Mar 12, 2004
- 517
- 0
You ARE wrong 700...have been over these last 7 months!! All of your DIATRIBES and "facts" are going to be proven wrong VERY SOON!!! If your so "in the know", why dont you tell everyone what the latest proposal is??? HMMMMM??? See, the problem with this union is they NEVER leveled with the membership....only try to patch the holes when the sh@#t hit the fan!! Beat their chest that "we are going to protect you"........What a freaking joke!!!! YOU are a joke!!! You call it ATTACKING..... I call it presenting the TRUE facts!! C'mon,700, tell everyone what the latest word is!!! What? your afraid to tell everyone???? Your in the know...I'm just a Pee-on, I don't know what the latest proposal is!!! Tell everyone on these boards, RIGHT NOW, what the FACTS are!!!!!! GOOD DAY....DELETED BY MODERATOR700UW said:
- Thread Starter
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #21
NFS,
Somethings cannot be said yet, if you knew how negotiations worked you would be aware of it.
There is only one proposal out there and it has been made available to all the membership and why do you care if you are gone?
But once again I am glad to see you have to insult and attack with name calling.
Somethings cannot be said yet, if you knew how negotiations worked you would be aware of it.
There is only one proposal out there and it has been made available to all the membership and why do you care if you are gone?
But once again I am glad to see you have to insult and attack with name calling.
justaumechanic
Veteran
- Dec 15, 2003
- 578
- 0
700UW said:
All of you are battling over nothing..
The bottom line.. The proposal given to the IAM is what the company wants. Plain and simple.. They do not want utility, they do not want Heavy Mtc.. Their desire is to get down to the 700 - 800 range for the mechanics and farm the rest.
The negotiations as you call them.. Simply the company going thru the motions to satisfy the needs of the court.. 3 weeks.. Remember that.. They said 3 weeks and they are going to file the 1113 ©... Take that to the bank..
The judge will have to decide and it will be contract, no contract.. And you can bet our house it will be no contract. There is no dispute here.. The IAM can say all it wants but the truth of the matter is the company has set a path and they are not going to deviate from it.. Not one inch!!!
Will US Airways survive? (anyones guess) Will the IAM contract in its present form survive? NO WAY.. Wake up, writing is on the wall.
WestCoastGuy
Veteran
- Jun 27, 2004
- 813
- 0
Does anyone really think the IAM will accept what the company demands, even in court ordered, and simply walk away? I suspect this story has more chapters before the book closes on USAir. It WILL close, just have some more chapters to play out first.
28yrsnojob
Senior
- Jan 2, 2004
- 411
- 4
from what i read the IAM is going to get all ramps back . is this true
is btv day slt mem avp bgm going to be mainline express.
is btv day slt mem avp bgm going to be mainline express.
Phantom Fixer
Veteran
- Oct 21, 2003
- 577
- 0
700UW said:
The Negotiating Committee is well aware....Boy there's a confidence builder
The issue about the planners is known.
Lets say for a moment that its all true...and the IAM is all over this situation. Just whom on the negotiating committee knows how to represent the issue on the planners and tech doc peoples behalf? wnser....not a damn soul.
I have yet to see anything out of this union that even remotely shows that they understand the duties and scope of what these people do..or what their far reaching concerns are. Shifano and Snyder whom did thier contract were only interested in getting the contract done...and the issues could just be damned after that. They got their dues ..and that is the only thing that matters , you will play hell trying to get anyone to believe anything different
I have seen planners approach people in the grievance office on issues...and not one knew enough about the agreements to even offer up an intelligent reply to the question or concerns of the individuals.
I have heard numerous complaints on the subject of bidding ,bumping and even dress codes that are out of step with the rest of the IAM contract represented employees
Frankly..The IAM has not reresented these people well....and if the truth be known , they should in fact seek relief from being part of the union in its entireity
Phantom Fixer said:
Bravo PF!
700UW cannot admit to himself that the IAM accreting the Planner group was simply a dues grab and nothing more. The IAM could have refused to let the accretion be automatic, and let a vote occur. Isn't allowing a vote the stated purpose of those stupid cards?
No, the IAM took the guaranteed route and refused to say no to the NLRB decision
to automatically accrete the planners stating they should have been in the contract already (I wonder where that idea came from).
The IAM sees every member as simply dues income and nothing more. If so, they would have truly allowed a democratic vote to take place and let the planners decide for themselves if they indeed truly wanted representation. Add this to the fact that for the past ten years, AFL-CIO endorsed political candidates continue to take a beating in every general election, and you can see how out of touch the upper ranks of unions are with the rest of the working world.
greasemonkey-seeking-nirvana
Member
- Apr 5, 2004
- 28
- 0
November 4, 2004
File: USA-18
2004-119
US AIRWAYS UPDATE
IAM’s WARN ACT CLAIM FOR TAMPA BASE CLOSING
After US Airways closed its Tampa maintenance base during the Company’s first Chapter 11 bankruptcy in 2002, the IAM asserted an administrative expense claim for damages based on the notice requirements in the WARN (Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification) Act.
When US Airways filed its second Chapter 11 bankruptcy case in September 2004, the court in the first case had not yet rendered a decision on whether the Company had any proper defenses to our WARN Act claim or the dollar amount of the claim.
Now that US Airways has filed its second Chapter 11 case, the IAM’s WARN Act claim becomes a pre-petition unsecured claim in that case. The deadline to re-assert the WARN Act and all unsecured claims in the current bankruptcy case is February 2, 2005.
The IAM will file a proof of claim for WARN Act damages before the deadline.
US Airways will have the opportunity again to object to our WARN Act claim. Even if the claim is allowed, it will be treated as a pre-petition unsecured claim in the current bankruptcy case.
You will be advised of any further developments.
Sincerely and fraternally,
William O'Driscoll
PRESIDENT-DIRECTING
GENERAL CHAIRMAN
District 142
PLEASE POST ON ALL IAM BULLETIN BOARDS
File: USA-18
2004-119
US AIRWAYS UPDATE
IAM’s WARN ACT CLAIM FOR TAMPA BASE CLOSING
After US Airways closed its Tampa maintenance base during the Company’s first Chapter 11 bankruptcy in 2002, the IAM asserted an administrative expense claim for damages based on the notice requirements in the WARN (Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification) Act.
When US Airways filed its second Chapter 11 bankruptcy case in September 2004, the court in the first case had not yet rendered a decision on whether the Company had any proper defenses to our WARN Act claim or the dollar amount of the claim.
Now that US Airways has filed its second Chapter 11 case, the IAM’s WARN Act claim becomes a pre-petition unsecured claim in that case. The deadline to re-assert the WARN Act and all unsecured claims in the current bankruptcy case is February 2, 2005.
The IAM will file a proof of claim for WARN Act damages before the deadline.
US Airways will have the opportunity again to object to our WARN Act claim. Even if the claim is allowed, it will be treated as a pre-petition unsecured claim in the current bankruptcy case.
You will be advised of any further developments.
Sincerely and fraternally,
William O'Driscoll
PRESIDENT-DIRECTING
GENERAL CHAIRMAN
District 142
PLEASE POST ON ALL IAM BULLETIN BOARDS
