Feb / Mar 2013 IAM Fleet Service Discussions

[robbedagain]

orgac the reality is im not surprised nor shocked as ive come to realize a long time ago the dues is all they seem to care about.. it would be nice to have things settled yrs ago you know as far as im concerned there should be anthr ave to speed things up

 

[ograc]

orgac the reality is im not surprised nor shocked as ive come to realize a long time ago the dues is all they seem to care about.. it would be nice to have things settled yrs ago you know as far as im concerned there should be anthr ave to speed things up

Another avenue is not needed if you have AGCs who are truly dedicated to performing the duties of the office they were elected to. One avenue is AGC accountability to a District President who is willing to hold AGCs' "feet to the fire" on doing their job. An avenue, based on the past election results, the membership decided was not important. In the meantime we are reduced to, as you said, not suprised or shocked. An assessment of union representation in dire need of improvement IMO.

 

[robbedagain]

more like a major major overhaul and accountability is in major need of order i dont know if youve been told but from what i was told was that the company allegedly wants to clear as many cases as possible and supposenly there are 4 grievance arb be heard but i was not told a time frame but i was told mine was one and that came from frank to my shop steward... but on the other hand as many texts as ive sent.. why could frank not send me the same text he sent to my union shop steward given that i do text a lot and all and i know frank text bec he sends me text but when i nag n nag him it takes weeks or soo before i hear back secondly if there are 4 arbs to be held this yr yet the company wants to close the merger by end of sept something ought to be fast bec before we know it it will be end of sept

 

[necigrad]

Flight attendants werent in Section 6 negotiations, it was their first Joint CBA.

I stand corrected.

Just trying to get an idea of how many labor groups on US property remain in contractual limbo while the company pursues a merger with AA. Seems to me... they are not interested in taking care of in house business. Seems to me... they feel confident they will get this merger done with or without the IAM's support, as implied by the IAM. Their blatant disregard for settling contracts with labor on their own property speaks volumes. They will proceed with total disregard for labor on their property. Again... how many labor groups on US property remain without TAs, MOUs or Section 6 contracts besides the Pilots and FAs? It's not a comparison as much as a testimony where US's priorities lie.

Ah, got it, and I agree.

The answer to your question is none. A better question to ask would be "How many work groups are not activly negotiating?" With that one also has to accept that the pilots are screwing themselves over; that's not the companys fault, unless you want to say the merger created the preschool called the pilot group.

 

[necigrad]

I'm glad to see DL141 updating the website. They're doing a good job (IMO) of providing information to the membership (whether you agree or disagree with the content aside). Unfortunatly, US seems to be forgotten. Hey Delaney, US is part of your group too. Where's our negotions update from weeks ago?

FWIW, what I've heard is that negotiations weren't as productive as they could be. The company wasn't fully prepared.

 

[ograc]

I'm glad to see DL141 updating the website. They're doing a good job (IMO) of providing information to the membership (whether you agree or disagree with the content aside). Unfortunatly, US seems to be forgotten. Hey Delaney, US is part of your group too. Where's our negotions update from weeks ago?

FWIW, what I've heard is that negotiations weren't as productive as they could be. The company wasn't fully prepared.

It's probably safe to assume no updates on US side because there is nothing new to report in negotiations. Also safe to assume DL 141 is using all of it's resources trying to sell their UA TA to the membership. A monumental task that's going to take a lot of resources and effort to sell. If the company's objective is to drag their feet in negotiations with the IAM there is no need to come prepared... just show up. Their actions speak for themselves... negotiations and contracts with the IAM is not on their list of things to get done. In the meantime... they show up and stall.

 

[pjirish317]

1. Another avenue is not needed if you have AGCs who are truly dedicated to performing the duties of the office they were elected to. 2. One avenue is AGC accountability to a District President who is willing to hold AGCs' "feet to the fire" on doing their job. An avenue, based on the past election results, the membership decided was not important. In the meantime we are reduced to, as you said, not suprised or shocked. An assessment of union representation in dire need of improvement IMO.

Ocrac,

1. Please tell me which current AGC's are not truly dedicated to their job and the membership? 2. And wasn't this the platform that you ran under on the LfP ticket? Are you saying you could do better? If so, how exactly could you do better? How exactly would YOU personally get the company to resolve grievances quicker? Because the way I read this post is, that in your opinion, the company is not the ones failing to resolve the grievances, the union is. Is that what I am to get from this post? I get it you are unhappy, why you are unhappy is entirely your reason. Be it that the membership voted and didnt want you, or your ticket, or that you are still loyal to a leadership that failed the membership miserably, (canoli). Seriously, why is it that the glass is always half empty with you?

 

[pjirish317]

It's probably safe to assume no updates on US side because there is nothing new to report in negotiations. Also safe to assume DL 141 is using all of it's resources trying to sell their UA TA to the membership. A monumental task that's going to take a lot of resources and effort to sell. If the company's objective is to drag their feet in negotiations with the IAM there is no need to come prepared... just show up. Their actions speak for themselves... negotiations and contracts with the IAM is not on their list of things to get done. In the meantime... they show up and stall.

Who shows up and stalls? The company or the union?

 

[freedom]

hey guys i'm still here just reading , your all putting out a lot of good information , keep up the good work ....

 

[ograc]

Who shows up and stalls? The company or the union?

PJ,
You need to cool down on your blind defense of the 141 Rising Team. I think my post is quite clear who is stalling. But let me spell it out for you... THE COMPANY IS STALLING and will continue to do so until there is final resolve on who is going to represent the Fleet Service group. Your beloved team cannot change the posture or path the company is taking in contract negotiations. Nor could past leadership teams. For the record though... what's your opinion on the UA TA the District agreed to? You can't blame that one on Canali now can you?

 

[ograc]

Ocrac,

1. Please tell me which current AGC's are not truly dedicated to their job and the membership? 2. And wasn't this the platform that you ran under on the LfP ticket? Are you saying you could do better? If so, how exactly could you do better? How exactly would YOU personally get the company to resolve grievances quicker? Because the way I read this post is, that in your opinion, the company is not the ones failing to resolve the grievances, the union is. Is that what I am to get from this post? I get it you are unhappy, why you are unhappy is entirely your reason. Be it that the membership voted and didnt want you, or your ticket, or that you are still loyal to a leadership that failed the membership miserably, (canoli). Seriously, why is it that the glass is always half empty with you?

You're right I am truly unhappy and embarassed at the timeliness of grievance resolution. 3 years and waiting for a scheduled arbitration hearing may be acceptable to you but not me. No direct communication between the AGC and the grievant in the 3 years may be acceptable to you but not me. Communication continually initiated by the grievant or chairperson to the AGC may be acceptable to you but not me. This has nothing to do with loyalties or election results. This is about my expectations of what a union stands for. My expectations of how a union is to serve and protect their membership. If you're willing to pay monthly dues and expect little in return so be it. I expect more... and when the union fails to meet expectations they will hear from members who share my beliefs. You need to get over the past election and loyalty to past leadership teams for you are missing the point. We are entitled to quality and dedicated representation... you and I... as members of this union. Based on actions throughout the past years, current union leadership and past, it's getting difficult to determine who has the least regard for our livelihoods... the company or the union.

 

[pjirish317]

ograc,

No, waiting three (3) years should not be aceptable in anybody's book, but this problem is not exclusive the the current leadership. How long did it take for a grievance to be heard at the mediation/arbitration level with the canoli team? Were you happy then? And I defend because you attack. You bring up past political stances, stances that you ran on and I am not supposed to question that? And please answer the question's I asked earlier. Which AGC's, in your opinion of course, are not dedicated to their job and the membership? How would YOU speed up the grievance process?

 

[pjirish317]

PJ,
You need to cool down on your blind defense of the 141 Rising Team. I think my post is quite clear who is stalling. But let me spell it out for you... THE COMPANY IS STALLING and will continue to do so until there is final resolve on who is going to represent the Fleet Service group. Your beloved team cannot change the posture or path the company is taking in contract negotiations. Nor could past leadership teams. For the record though... what's your opinion on the UA TA the District agreed to? You can't blame that one on Canali now can you?

You are right, canoli had nothing to do with this one. Are you saying that the team you ran with could have changed the company's stance, lit a fire under them? I doubt it. And for the record, I would vote NO on the UA T/A. But I want to know why nobody is questioning the UA NC? It was not just the UA 141 leadership that brought this back now is it. But let me ask you this ograc, what kind of protections did the CO fleet employees have in their current agreement? Do you know?

 

[ograc]

ograc,

No, waiting three (3) years should not be aceptable in anybody's book, but this problem is not exclusive the the current leadership. How long did it take for a grievance to be heard at the mediation/arbitration level with the canoli team? Were you happy then? And I defend because you attack. You bring up past political stances, stances that you ran on and I am not supposed to question that? And please answer the question's I asked earlier. Which AGC's, in your opinion of course, are not dedicated to their job and the membership? How would YOU speed up the grievance process?

PJ,
I'm not certain what the average wait time for arbitration was under past leadership I can only speak to grievances I handled or had knowledge of. In the mentioned cases it was a shorter time frame. In many cases favorable remedial action was granted at Step 3 of the grievance procedure and didn't have to be arbitrated. I'm not going to drop names, because as you point out, it's my opinion and you would dismiss it as being such. One AGC's performance from the original Slate was so bad he was reassigned stations and eventually not asked to run for a second term of office. In an effort to see the glass half full though... I will acknowledge the fact there are AGCs who are dedicated to their positions and do the best job they can. That's all anyone can ask or should expect. IMO... and certainly with the grievance pending arbitration from my station... the union has given the company lawyers too much time to review the case in hopes of a settlement offer. This strategy slows the process of getting to a timely resolution. The company has been given ample time to review through the grievance procedure. IMO... getting away from this strategy would speed up the process. Let an Arbitrator decide the remedial action. The company has had plenty of opportunities to make whole up to this point.

 

[ograc]

You are right, canoli had nothing to do with this one. Are you saying that the team you ran with could have changed the company's stance, lit a fire under them? I doubt it. And for the record, I would vote NO on the UA T/A. But I want to know why nobody is questioning the UA NC? It was not just the UA 141 leadership that brought this back now is it. But let me ask you this ograc, what kind of protections did the CO fleet employees have in their current agreement? Do you know?

PJ,
Not saying any team could have or would change US's stall stategy in negotiations. They are masters at it and unfortunately negotiation guidelines under the RLA allows them to get away with it. It's why contracts in the airline industry are now going on average 2.5 years past their ammendable dates. The UA NC is equally responsible for the UA TA but ultimately the buck stops at the District and International level. It's not like the District is bringing this back with no recommendation. They fully endorse it. Think it's the best thing since sliced bread. The CO fleet had no job protection going in.Outside of 7 stations they have none coming out. During the representation election the IAM, especially in the outline stations, drove the issue of no job protection home. They told CO employees this was the main reason they needed to vote for the IAM. Then the UA NC and the District bring this TA back. Do they realize how many CO employees, not to mention UA employees, in outline stations feel they were just sold down the river? Did they think the employees in countless outline stations wouldn't see this TA for what it is? I guess when an employee is forced to commute or transfer when their station has been contacted out in order to stay employed the union sees that as "job protection." I think in the end the union knows it won't matter... they like the company are hoping the 7 stations will carry the vote.