Fleet Service Arbitration or IAM concession

[roadtrip]

"Why is the IAM negotiating more concessions?"

A few years ago fleet service gave the company the store, however, one item we secured was our future wages with our high snapback wages in case of a merger. This was done so the company would be deterred from using all of our concessions to buy, merge, or be acquired by another company. Based on the contract, we were told this would be $21.43 top out.

However, the company is trying to work things out with the IAM under the auspices of negotiations so they don't have to pay the $21.43, even with the change of control. This I understand but I must ask myself what is the IAM going to get in return for itself since it has decided to use the $21.43 and resulting grievance as a negotiations carrot?

The change of control grievance is iron clad, and winning the resulting grievance could mean as much as $10,000+ for a full timer in retro pay over the past several months in the form of the back pay that is owed by the company + restoration of $21.43 top out. The company realizes this and it has a huge bill to pay should it not be successful in appeasing the IAM and baiting the IAM with more members.

Even if by some small small chance the grievance loses, then and only then should the IAM go and start working on a final transition agreement that will still produce more benefits.
Why negotiate now? We lose nothing if we wait another month and fight for the change of control grievance first. The reason why the IAM is negotiating now appears to be that they are pimping off our $21.43 to secure their own interest.

But if the IAM uses the grievance, it's retro pay, and it's $21.43 and cashes it in for $19 + better language to secure more IAM dues paying members across the system, then it will be yet another concession. My bet is that the IAM throws away $21.43 and cuts the pay to $19 and pawns it off like a pay increase. One thing I admit is that the IAM is huge political machine with experts who can doctor spin enough to convince the common blue collar man.

Whatever the case, one thing is for sure...the company DOES NOT WANT us to fight for the change of control grievance AND any final transition will 'drop' the change of control that all of us fought for and secured through our previous concessions.

My bet....IAM reaches an agreement with the company, not surprisingly sometime before the grievance, the grievance will be dropped, and the IAM will announce this as a benefit increase when in fact it would only be another concession.

 

[700UW]

Funny no where in any updates for either district does it state they are negoitating away the "change of control grievance" and if you knew anything about collective bargaining and arbitration, nothing is ironclad. The grievance will not be dropped unless the company agrees to return the CBAs to the pre-bankruptcy levels.

And you negotiate now to get rid of the disparity and if the grievance is won, it would be rectified in any CBA.

One more thing, please show us the facts to back up your statement the IAM is negotiating away the grievance and negotiating concessions because I can't find the information from either District 141 and 142.

November 29, 2006

US Airways Update - Change of Control Grievance

To: All District Lodge 141 & 142 Local Lodge Chairmen Employed by US Airways

Dear Sisters and Brothers:

Representatives from District 141 & 142 met jointly last week along with Legal Counsel to review and make preparation for our change in control arbitration case scheduled for February.

The comprehensive review by both Districts with legal counsel insures both District Lodges are on the same page moving forward as one to maximize efforts and resources on behalf of our membership's interest.

Coordinated meetings with both District Lodges and Counsel will continue as our preparation for the case progresses.

Fraternally,

Randy Canale And Tom Higgenbotham
PDGC 141 & 142

 

[Tim Nelson]

Funny no where in any updates for either district does it state they are negoitating away the "change of control grievance" and if you knew anything about collective bargaining and arbitration, nothing is ironclad. The grievance will not be dropped unless the company agrees to return the CBAs to the pre-bankruptcy levels.

And you negotiate now to get rid of the disparity and if the grievance is won, it would be rectified in any CBA.

One more thing, please show us the facts to back up your statement the IAM is negotiating away the grievance and negotiating concessions because I can't find the information from either District 141 and 142.

700, you might be right in that the MIA has no intention to discharge the grievance but instead fight like hell to uphold it. I doubt it. I think roadtrip's statements are more accurate based on past IAM practice. And700 you are very good at pulling up IAM letters but for practically all IAM members, what the IAM says means nothing. Practically anytime their lips are moving they are lying.

Canale has refused to answer or dispute some serious questions about these negotiations. His letters basically are just ridiculusly goofy and don't say anything other than name calling. Roadtrip will probably be found right, I don't care what the IAM writes. Don't forget the 'no more concessions' and other goofy stuff they fired away.

I think IAM members will be better off by not having the IAM negotiate yet another concession. Based on what I heard, negotiations have centered around positive space travel for the famlies of IAM bosses, getting the '22' back and dropping the grievance in return for more IAM members and $19 bucks and change. It is not surprising that the IAM has NOT denied this.
The IAM = disaster for employees.

regards,

 

[wings396]

The term "Iron Clad", only applies if it benefits the company. A Change in contract language that may benefit the membership, is nothing more that a pipe dream. It has always been a one way street for the comnpany. In bad times they are knocking at the unions door looking to alter contracts in a second. Fast forward a few years when times are better, and try to get the company to open up the contract early for the benefit of the membership, and you get laughed at. We all knew that having a CBA that lasted until 2012 was not a good idea, as a lot could happen in that amount of time. Chances of seeing hourly wages over $20, are slim to none. If the company wants to slip out of this one, the IAM should tell them that they want all of the outsourced Fleet work brought back. Slim chance of that one too..... :huh:

 

[Tim Nelson]

The term "Iron Clad", only applies if it benefits the company. A Change in contract language that may benefit the membership, is nothing more that a pipe dream. It has always been a one way street for the comnpany. In bad times they are knocking at the unions door looking to alter contracts in a second. Fast forward a few years when times are better, and try to get the company to open up the contract early for the benefit of the membership, and you get laughed at. We all knew that having a CBA that lasted until 2012 was not a good idea, as a lot could happen in that amount of time. Chances of seeing hourly wages over $20, are slim to none. If the company wants to slip out of this one, the IAM should tell them that they want all of the outsourced Fleet work brought back. Slim chance of that one too..... :huh:

this particular grievance does have teeth and that is why your company insisted the IBT drop its grievance in return for better IBT perks. The company has made this grievance a negotiated item and insisted that any union drop the grievance if a signed final transition is secured. So far, only the IBT agreed to this but insiders say the IAM is not far behind. Watch for Pilot negotiations to heat up and secure much better wages/benefits once the company can get the IAM to give further concessions.

As it stands, the pilot/company negotiations can not show its hand while the IAM still is negotiating.

regards,

 

[700UW]

The IAM is not stuck on any issue regarding positive space travel for family members.

Never has US, PI or PSA given PS for IAM family members.

Being a former District Rep, Myself and the GCs had Positive Space Travel, all unions on the property had that, as our locals are spread out all over the USA.

Upon the merger Doogie decided that no more PS travel for union reps of any union on the property unless it involves the meeting with the company.

So tell me how a GC is suppose to get to say MCO during the peak travel season to attend the local lodge meeting and inform the members to what is going on? Or meet with a terminated employee to investigate their case?

They are wanting the PS travel back for the GCs and AGCs which helps them do the job they were elected to do, which is in case you forget to represent the membership.

I have spoken directly to a 142 GC who is a good friend of mine, there is no intentions nor negotiating on dropping the "Change of Control" Arbitration nor negotiating any concessions.

The company has been stonewalling AFA, ALPA and the IAM on a single CBA.

 

[delldude]

You guys better wake up to the fact that there will be no real wage or benefit gains especially while they're still trying to sell the farm.even w/o DL Doug isn't going to give up anything he doesn't have to.Hasn't been long since BK....figure raises in 10 years.... If....and a big one at that

 

[wings396]

I can't say that I agree 100% with your view. As much as it will "Pain" Doug to work with the unions, it is something that he must do. Doug has to make peace within US in order to make things look better for the proposed DL Merger. Having all of this labor unrest on his plate, won't help his case in trying to get the DL deal done. Many have already voiced their concerns about not having things in order at US, and how it would create an even bigger mess if the DL merger is approved. IF, and that is a big if Doug makes peace at home, it can only help show the sceptics that he can also do it with DL's workforce. Show us that the $1.6 Billion that you say you can save by combining US & DL, can be partially used to improve employee relations, and morale.. B)

 

[Tim Nelson]

The IAM is not stuck on any issue regarding positive space travel for family members.

Never has US, PI or PSA given PS for IAM family members.

Being a former District Rep, Myself and the GCs had Positive Space Travel, all unions on the property had that, as our locals are spread out all over the USA.

Upon the merger Doogie decided that no more PS travel for union reps of any union on the property unless it involves the meeting with the company.

So tell me how a GC is suppose to get to say MCO during the peak travel season to attend the local lodge meeting and inform the members to what is going on? Or meet with a terminated employee to investigate their case?

They are wanting the PS travel back for the GCs and AGCs which helps them do the job they were elected to do, which is in case you forget to represent the membership.

I have spoken directly to a 142 GC who is a good friend of mine, there is no intentions nor negotiating on dropping the "Change of Control" Arbitration nor negotiating any concessions.

The company has been stonewalling AFA, ALPA and the IAM on a single CBA.

i don't believe the IAM should have PS travel except for arbitration and negotiations. The members play plenty of dues for the IAM to travel just like any other non-airline shop. No reason for the IAM to say 'give me some' at the negotiations table. They aren't traveling to serve their membership anyways. Most of the travel is for one goofy convention after another, and most likely for goofy political agendas also. Go Doug and don't allow these union thugs to take a piece of the fleet service pie to serve their own union agenda that has nothing to do with the US AIRWAYS property.
Remember people, anything the IAM gets will be a cost that will come out of the fleet service budget. Unfortunately, the IAM just continues to negotiate for its own interest.

Regarding the change of control grievance, the IAM will no doubt give it up based on past lies and track record. I'm going on what they 'do' not what they say. Also, the 22 should be dealt with by the grievance procedure, NOT negotiations.

regards,

 

[700UW]

You really dont have an idea.

PS travel does not cost the company anything, you would rather waste dues money on tickets when it could be used on better things.

Please back up that the IAM will give way the Arbitration.

We all know you hate the IAM as you were removed from office and tried and failed to start your own union several times, the first causing major harm to the employees as you filed short on cards.

I guess two bankruptcies in less then two years has nothing to do with what happened and how your fleet service coworkers voted in every concession offered.

Funny how ALPA, AFA, CWA, IBT, TWU and AMFA all have been through the same and gave concessions at every legacy carrier. I guess 9/11, fuel prices and the economy had nothing to do with it.

 

[Tim Nelson]

You really dont have an idea.

PS travel does not cost the company anything, you would rather waste dues money on tickets when it could be used on better things.

Please back up that the IAM will give way the Arbitration.

We all know you hate the IAM as you were removed from office and tried and failed to start your own union several times, the first causing major harm to the employees as you filed short on cards.

I guess two bankruptcies in less then two years has nothing to do with what happened and how your fleet service coworkers voted in every concession offered.

Funny how ALPA, AFA, CWA, IBT, TWU and AMFA all have been through the same and gave concessions at every legacy carrier. I guess 9/11, fuel prices and the economy had nothing to do with it.

alas, 700 resorts to his personal attacks against me and then claims none of the accountability and screwing of workers is the IAM's fault but rather it's the memberships fault. 700, its not the memberships fault, the membership gave its back for your company, no thanks to the IAM.

700, I'm not the one pimping the workers with its industry losing contract. The IAm has done nothing for the workers...zero and in fact made a deal with the TWU because the IAM knew its members would vote them both out.

You ask, how I can back it up that the IAM will give up its arbitration case....I'll just point to the scoreboard 700 and history tells us that you are wrong and the IAM will fire away goofy letter after goofy letter, only to sell out and screw its members.

Separately, your post about PS travel not 'costing' us airways is senseless and mind boggling. Its ignorance demands no rebuttal.

regards,

 

[NevadaHP]

ok, to set the record straight on what i have seen first hand from the IAMs proposal: It clearly states on the last page that this agreement will make the IAM withdraw the change and control grievance. The proposed transition agreement is posted on the IAM bulletin in LAS. It makes no mention of the "22".

There has been lots of talk about PS flying and the company is in no way going to give it up. 700 it does cost the company money when its an oversold FLT and they have to bump a paying passenger for a union rep that they dont like.

The one thing that amazes me is that the proposal is good through 2012. The other is that the company wanted pay raises to be staggered over 18 months.well i guess we will all hear somehting late this week on the new spin.

 

[libertybell]

Roadtrip wrote:
"The change of control grievance is iron clad, and winning the resulting grievance could mean as much as $10,000+ for a full timer in retro pay over the past several months in the form of the back pay that is owed by the company + restoration of $21.43 top out. The company realizes this and it has a huge bill to pay should it not be successful in appeasing the IAM and baiting the IAM with more members." end quote

I don't know about the rest of Fleet Service but the company has been sticking us bad with the sh_t contract.
(yeah 700 I know we voted for it blah blah blah!) But if there is wording that gives us a chance to stick it back to them I say do it!

Working at 1987 wages just does'nt cut it anymore we have a contract I say enforce the language we have thru Arbitration First!

 

[700UW]

Nevada,

You must mean the company's proposal, not the IAM.

 

[diogenes]

Regarding PS travel, I know for a fact some fleet locals covered a handful of states/stations. I also know the fleet grievance committee never got PS to service the contract, nor could secure paid time off to do so, either.

As a result, each station steward was at the mercy of the station manager, and forced to communicate with their committee 'between flights' which was difficult, because the committee was on the flight line, too. As a counterpoint, mech grievance chairs are off the clock (a wise precaution preventing management from retaliating against the chair. Management pummeled the fleet chairs, and the union did nada).

Since the company refused to provide any resources, and the union dragged its feet to do so (it got marginally better when fleet seated itself on the e-board), the committee and the stewards often transmitted grievance documents at their own expense, and did committee work on their own time.

Of course, those stations are all outsourced now, which leads me to wonder what the IAM knew, and when did they know it.

Grievance business is company business - the company is obliged to respond to a properly proffered grievance.

I think PS travel should be restricted to contract servicing, but I think contract serving is worthy of PS travel. I could also hold still for PS for bona fide educational purposes.

For conventions and what-not, let the union pay the freight.