Feb / Mar 2013 IAM Fleet Service Discussions

[Tim Nelson]

[sub]PJ, kindly correct us. Did any of the US AIRWAYS AGC's voice their displeasure of the UA contract to Delaney? Yes or No?[/sub]

 

[Tim Nelson]

Tim,

Once again, you prove only that if something is not done your way, or the way you think it should be done, it's wrong and should be changed to your way. Also people should think the way you do or they are wrong, in your eyes anyway, IMO. You are constantly trying to make the members believe that our NC will bring back a POS agreement to vote on. You do not know this for sure, it is mere speculation on your part. You cite the HA agreement, now the UA T/A, yet you have zero proof that our NC will bring back anything of the sort, or that they will shelf section 6 and go straight to transition talks. Come up with actual proof that what you say will come true, not just what you think, or "know" will happen. If you can't actually prove what you are saying, it is just pure political BS spin on your part. None of us will know how our section six (6) negotiations wil turn out regarding anything in our CBA, it is all just speculation right now, especially on your part, trying to kick the hornets nest before anything is even presented to the membership. And regarding MC and his lack of motivation after a disagreement with RD. Are you saying his did the membership he was supposed to serve a disservice and slacked off because of a spat with the PDGC? Really? I for one will reserve my judgement of our NC, and any forthcoming T/A they bring forth until I actually see it, not before. As we all should do. Not just get all fired up because a spinmaster says thats what we can expect. You are the one, although you can't see it or refuse to see it anyway, that is tearing down solidarity. Your "team building" skills, are tearing the US team apart at the seams. If you ever succeed in you quest to overthrow the IAM DL141, US now soon to be AA will be doomed just from your ego alone.

No brother, the United TA is wrong in and it itself and has nothing to do with Tim Nelson. I really wished it was at least respectable as I just hate being right all the time. Kindly pull up my postings on this page or facebook and I dare you to find that I didn't tell you so. Keep drinking the Kool Aid PB, who knows maybe one day your station will be gone. As far as proof, well, I can't prove the future no more than I can prove the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster but some folks want to believe he exist without any witness. OTOH, I can make a case based on the witness of everything this political group has signed which strongly suggest what is coming your way. I can talk about all the personal business I had with these guys where they talked down about the membership always bitching but that is not a collectively shared experience so you can just call it myth. I can talk about the last political campaign how all of these guys claimed Delaney was very close to a industry leading contract at United. Even today, all of their conversations are based on the premise of Delaney.

 

[Tim Nelson]

I'm not as concerned about our NC as I am with the District Leadership and the International. I believe our current NC understands the importance of trying to reduce or eliminate outsourcing language in the next CBA. I believe they also understand there is dire need for improvement with just about every Article in the current CBA. After reviewing the UA TA however, I'm deeply concerned about how much support they will get in their quest for improvements from the District and International. District 141 and the International signed off on a UA TA that sells out countless jobs within and just after three years. Very disturbing. Leads me to believe our NC may not be on the same page as the District Leadership and the International. PJ is right... until we see something it's all speculation. Time will tell what speculation was accurate and what was not.

So did the United negotiation team. Just because we can't see the comet, we can still see its tail and know it is there. I have seen no evidence from any of these AGC's that they ever say anything other than "Yes Rich" and I worked with them for 2.5 years. regards,

 

[mike33]

After reviewing the UA TA however, I'm deeply concerned about how much support they will get in their quest for improvements from the District and International. District 141 and the International signed off on a UA TA that sells out countless jobs within and just after three years..

I understand all concerns for the TA from our UA brothers and rightly so. Just for the outsourcing alone. But, will someone that is so concerned about what their NC negotiated please tell me what was the importance of their membership? No guesses please!

If we dont know what they wanted bye their own surveys from their leadership, and the NC teams are different, then why dont we pay more attn to own NC then selling them short before we actually see anything. Dont you think that they know? They are part of the beaten down syndrome also. Remember that.

Or could it be their harshest critics come from the very ranks that tried to win their seats at the table!

"No man will make a great leader who wants to do it all himself, or to get all the credit for doing it."​

​

​

​

​

​

~ Andrew Carnegie

 

[mike33]

[sub]PJ, kindly correct us. Did any of the US AIRWAYS AGC's voice their displeasure of the UA contract to Delaney? Yes or No?[/sub]

To correct is to know for sure one way or the other. How about you telling us tim ! can you make some sort of correction when you were'nt their either. That is an assuming question. like your comet association. you forgot the part where you're suppose to say " We cant see the comet but we all know it's there, although we don't know where or when its going to land.

 

[Jester]

Jester,

You are correct in that our current CBA was not negotiated by the current leadership. Did our NC negotiate the HA CBA? By our, I mean the US guys. Same thing with UA, did our, US NC, negotiate that POS? No on both counts. All I am saying is, lets give OUR NC a chance and see. Is that such a hard concept to grasp? I will agree with you on the outsourcing and furlough protections, but have to disagree on the attendance policy. I do not want it any part of a CBA.

What bothers me with this approach of it is always another's fault, is that it reminds me of policies set by committees in which no one is accountable... it is always someone else's fault who is not part of the current group (Boss Canale's group) or it was some other outside group (District and International leadership as with HA ad CO/UA) who are the "real" culprits. Unfair or not, but it is the people on top and those associated with them who will take the blame, and I guess that is what I am doing. What's to lead me to believe that things will be different as the District and International appear to have heavy influence upon NCs, and how many of those who are on the current NC were members to our current CBA?

Your approach is because there are some changes within the US NC people, things will be different and even though it was the District and International (and not to excuse or forget the HA and CO/US NCs either) who approved those OAL's miserable TAs very recently? This does not give me much comfort until enough people demonstrate some backbone by removing their sycophantic habits and stand-up to those who continue to offer these problematic TAs to their respective Memberships.

 

[700UW]

He complains about Frank, yet he was the one who helped get Frank elected, karma is interesting.

 

[Tim Nelson]

To correct is to know for sure one way or the other. How about you telling us tim ! can you make some sort of correction when you were'nt their either. That is an assuming question. like your comet association. you forgot the part where you're suppose to say " We cant see the comet but we all know it's there, although we don't know where or when its going to land.

Mike, my answer is true and nothing in PJ's statement contradicts what I said. I said the eboard voted unanimously. No eboard members voted otherwise. As far as your other statement about what the United members voiced in their surveys, Rich Delaney said [and I have the full recording] that the number 1 concern for the members was scope. He did a play on words and said "So we addressed that in this contract with the best Job security in the industry". Ira levy interjected the following quote, "And Southwest, btw, has no job protection." What they did, Mike was shifted the question of scope, i.e., work protections, to furlough clauses or what is known as 'job protection'. Remember, Job protection is completely different from scope. For instance, in the US AIRWAYS contract, there is job protection with a no furlough date almost exactly that of the United agreement, i.e., 1999. US AIRWAYS is April, 1999. However, in application, job protection only means that the company has a right to vendor out your work and offer you a job somewhere over the rainbow. For US AIRWAYS that has usually meant PHL or DCA of late and the lucky ones can squeak into CLT. For United that may mean jobs in EWR or ORD might be available. The IAM claimed that if the company has to create jobs for 8,500 workers then they wouldn't close stations. Well, this 1999 protection has been in play for over a decade now and we have seen 82 stations go down to 15 then we got a small bump in stations with the America west merger and we are back up to about two dozen. So Job protections [no furlough] < Work protections. OTOH, Ira was correct in that Southwest has NO JOB PROTECTIONS. Yep, no protections against furloughs! Has Southwest ever had a furlough? Nope. You know why? Because they have scope that says any station in operation prior to 2009 is their work and any cargo center that does 250,000 a month is their work. Thus, not one station at Southwest is contracted out that has been in operation since 2009, and almost half of their stations have cargo work. From 2009 forward, a new southwest station must have 12 flights a day for full protections. Thus far only DSM has been contracted out. With scope, you don't need no furlough protections. regards,

 

[Tim Nelson]

What bothers me with this approach of it is always another's fault, is that it reminds me of policies set by committees in which no one is accountable... it is always someone else's fault who is not part of the current group (Boss Canale's group) or it was some other outside group (District and International leadership as with HA ad CO/UA) who are the "real" culprits. Unfair or not, but it is the people on top and those associated with them who will take the blame, and I guess that is what I am doing. What's to lead me to believe that things will be different as the District and International appear to have heavy influence upon NCs, and how many of those who are on the current NC were members to our current CBA?

Your approach is because there are some changes within the US NC people, things will be different and even though it was the District and International (and not to excuse or forget the HA and CO/US NCs either) who approved those OAL's miserable TAs very recently? This does not give me much comfort until enough people demonstrate some backbone by removing their sycophantic habits and stand-up to those who continue to offer these problematic TAs to their respective Memberships.

Bingo! We have a winner. Our AGC's do NOT STAND up against poor decisions by Delaney. NH stood up on TV but what did he do for BUF, stuff pockets with $500 additional moving cost so the company can close the station early due to the problems in MSY and the same problems that were starting to develop in BUF? Where was NH a difference? Remember the path on this? Nicky went on TV and talked real big. Delaney claimed the company violated the agreement and that it would be fasttracked to arbitration. What happened? Oh yeah, everyone stood down and used the ole "We consulted with our attorneys and.....violins started to play". Guess what, how bout if they fought it and won? All BUF would have lost is the extra $500 bucks for moving. regards,

 

[Kev3188]

NH stood up on TV but what did he do for BUF, stuff pockets with $500 additional moving cost so the company can close the station early due to the problems in MSY and the same problems that were starting to develop in BUF?

What problems?

 

[wings396]

The company feared that there would be some unrest is the stations that were being outsourced going into the holidays, so they removed the Fleet employees a bit sooner than planned. The IAM was aware of this, and made a deal behind closed doors with the company. There was/is a secret letter floating around that covers the deal, and I'm sure that someone here has it saved and can post it for all to see.

 

[ograc]

I understand all concerns for the TA from our UA brothers and rightly so. Just for the outsourcing alone. But, will someone that is so concerned about what their NC negotiated please tell me what was the importance of their membership? No guesses please!

If we dont know what they wanted bye their own surveys from their leadership, and the NC teams are different, then why dont we pay more attn to own NC then selling them short before we actually see anything. Dont you think that they know? They are part of the beaten down syndrome also. Remember that.

Or could it be their harshest critics come from the very ranks that tried to win their seats at the table!

"No man will make a great leader who wants to do it all himself, or to get all the credit for doing it."​

~ Andrew Carnegie

As stated earlier... I'm not concerned about our NC. I believe they get it. My concern is with the District. The same district that agreed to the UA TA. In order to gain better language regarding the issue of outsourcing it's imperative they (our NC) have the full support of the district. Based on the US TA I'm skeptical it will be there for our NC. Hardly their fault. They are in a precarious situation if the UA TA, which has the blessing of DL 141, is ratified. I don't envy them for the position it could potentially put them in. Just speculation on my part... I hope I'm wrong... but time will tell.

 

[ograc]

As stated earlier... I'm not concerned about our NC. I believe they get it. My concern is with the District. The same district that agreed to the UA TA. In order to gain better language regarding the issue of outsourcing it's imperative they (our NC) have the full support of the district. Based on the US TA I'm skeptical it will be there for our NC. Hardly their fault. They are in a precarious situation if the UA TA, which has the blessing of DL 141, is ratified. I don't envy them for the position it could potentially put them in. Just speculation on my part... I hope I'm wrong... but time will tell.

Typo correction... 5th sentence... Based on the UA TA I'm skeptical...

 

[wings396]

Let's not overlook how many of our stations have already been outsourced prior to entering the current negotiations. I honesty have to ask, why didn't anybody give a rats arse about outsourcing years back? In my book, its already too late in the game to put the brakes on it given how much has already been lost. If any of those on the NC want to impress the membership, get some solid language that can bring back the work that has been previously outsourced. I know that I have already mentioned the fact that you need nearly double the amount of Mainlane flights to get a station back than what it was when outsourced. Once again, who the Hell agreed to that language? And some of you on here really have to ask why very few have any faith in their union and the NC?

 

[ograc]

Let's not overlook how many of our stations have already been outsourced prior to entering the current negotiations. I honesty have to ask, why didn't anybody give a rats arse about outsourcing years back? In my book, its already too late in the game to put the brakes on it given how much has already been lost. If any of those on the NC want to impress the membership, get some solid language that can bring back the work that has been previously outsourced. I know that I have already mentioned the fact that you need nearly double the amount of Mainlane flights to get a station back than what it was when outsourced. Once again, who the Hell agreed to that language? And some of you on here really have to ask why very few have any faith in their union and the NC?

To your first question... I believe it has always been a critical issue if you work in an outline station. Many in the bigger stations were not too concerned because it wouldn't affect them. Additionally, if memory serves me correctly, they were assurred although the language was there... the chances of the company actually acting on it were slim. A spin I'm guessing the district is going to put on the UA TA. It's never too late to apply the brakes... for many outline stations this will be the last opportunity to apply them before going over the cliff. I would love to see a contract that actually brings work back in house... but let's stop the bleeding first. To your second question... the past NC, the past District Leadership and the majority of the membership that voted. I see this most recent UA TA as history repeating itself even though it's a different airline and a different District Leadership team. Have we learned nothing from past mistakes?