Fleet Service Goes from Bad to worse (MERGED TOPICS)

[perserverance]

dbcooper-
As of today (9-17-07). Randy Canale and Brickner are
scheduled to attend the Oct.2nd union meeting in Phl. The meeting
begins apx. 1900. From what I hear, Randy is under the impression
that Phl is not as upset as he has heard (hayden). He is sadly mistaken
and all Phl talks about now is CARDS. They've had enough. They know there
are unions out there that would appreciate the dues we pay and negotiate for
the members and not the themselves. Theres' an awful lot of $$ to be made.
Canale also lives just outside of Phl and UA has a small membership in Phl.
Canale lives for UA. I also hear Flynn and Chandlee will be there. If your asking
whop are they ? Why thier our (phl) AGC's. No one has seen or heard from either
of them in years. They both worked the ramp in Phl(many years) and Puff ,They were gone
making $100,000 plus......Whats' sad is they'll have to introduce themselves to the
city thier from and represent...

Thanks :blink:

 

[lithuanian]

dbcooper-
As of today (9-17-07). Randy Canale and Brickner are
scheduled to attend the Oct.2nd union meeting in Phl. The meeting
begins apx. 1900. From what I hear, Randy is under the impression
that Phl is not as upset as he has heard (hayden). He is sadly mistaken
and all Phl talks about now is CARDS. They've had enough. They know there
are unions out there that would appreciate the dues we pay and negotiate for
the members and not the themselves. Theres' an awful lot of $$ to be made.
Canale also lives just outside of Phl and UA has a small membership in Phl.
Canale lives for UA. I also hear Flynn and Chandlee will be there. If your asking
whop are they ? Why thier our (phl) AGC's. No one has seen or heard from either
of them in years. They both worked the ramp in Phl(many years) and Puff ,They were gone
making $100,000 plus......Whats' sad is they'll have to introduce themselves to the
city thier from and represent...

Thanks :blink:

Well! Now we might begin to know how far back these fellas go and how much they care about IAM' future. These guys are Relics of the Dinosaur Union. Where are we going into the future. Who! will prevail. Who's got the GUTS!

 

[Jester]

Tim,

I do appreciate your thoughtful and lengthy explanation while answering my questions.

Prior to my arrival on this board, I really did not even know about the strong dislike and distrust of the IAM leadership by many Easties. I am reserving judgment on a "bigger picture" in terms of Boss Canale's hidden or secret agendas. I guess that I take the position that extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof, and while it is plausible what you are saying to be truthful and accurate, I haven't seen that smoking gun either. Not to say that I trust Boss Canale either, but the accusations of him ignoring his fudiciary responsiblities and deliberately lying to his membership to his own financial gain are not only unethical, but criminal, as well, and why I require compelling evidence.

As for your various points, and I'll attempt to be brief:

I think we are in agreement regarding the CIC as a grievance which should have been handled by East, and not in a vote with included West. The spin of Canale as it was a vote on CIC was a way to put a positive light on a defeat as it was a "victory" for those in a union with the right to choose.


Personally, I think that Parker can run as two separate organizations for as long as he wants in an inefficient operation (the profit margins appear to be healthy according to recent news) and all the talk from Boss Canale about how another merger cannot happen until their an integrated work force is bombastic puffing. Money talks and there is a valid contract in place like it or not. Unfortunately, it means that Westies will be waiting a long time for a pay raise. And you are right, why has Boss Canale waited 18 months for him to move on a contract for West?


Tim, you wrote the following: "The TA had what I call 'wage bait' in it. There was a hook in that wage for the westies. If the west would have bit then the geographic pay would have been lost, shift differ lost, holidays lost, double time gone, Holiday pay gone, 19 stations gone through time bomb negotiations, section 6 gone, sick pay gone, insurance spikes, profit sharing gone, COC gone, and about another half dozen things."

I won't disagree with any of what you are telling and accept it to be truthful. However, one of the original issues I saw early on between East and West ramp and CSRs was the purpose of working at the Company. As a general rule, the Easties make a living from the Company, while the Westies are largely part-time people who are looking for benefits (health insurance and flight benefits mostly) or maybe a secondary job. Most of the full-time West people have a working spouse who covers the majority of the expenses at home, and need family insurance coverage offered only to full-time employees. Nearly all those issues you describe for the overwhelming West part-time people do not matter, as the benefits would be expanded to allow dependents for health coverage along with a large increase in pay. As those areas of overtime, holiday pay, (no current) sick pay, (no current) shift differential, and other areas, they are small potatoes. My profit sharing check last year was under $150 and with a $4/hour increase in pay that would take less than a month to do better. As for higher insurance, I would happily pay for the ability to have my spouse covered under the plan, even at full price. I am not saying that the East was wrong in its vote, as if I was East, I would probably vote the same as a "No" vote, but I want you and the Easties to understand that the Westies perspective on this matter. Frankly, when we started at America West, starting pay was $7.50/hour, do you think we could have afforded to work here full-time but not to take this job only as a means for desired benefits as a part-timer?


Tim, you also wrote the following: "I can tell you this, a fair and equitable transition in this context means that you start by protecting what is already yours. You don't agree with Parker to time bomb protections that turn over the hour glass on 19 west coast stations."

I agree with about the outstations which was one issues the TWU was raising when there was a debate regarding who would represent the ramp agents. This issue was one of standing together as not to allow smaller stations to be subbed-out, but frankly, the die has been cast by the IAM contracts over the years well before America West appeared on the scene. Once again, as I stated before it is the majority sacrificing the minority for the majority's benefit. These Greater Good arguments have a slippery slope of where any injustice can be rationalized. Unfortunately, it has become acceptable and I doubt with any future negotiations will be any line-in-the-sand to protect smaller stations if it means a substantial raise for the majority.


And finally, Tim, you posted the following: "'Jester sez, "Please explain why you are against West receiving the "bankrupt contract" especially if the West desires it?' I believe the american way is to vote on it. That's what I believe. If you or the IAM want to use the east siders as 'cut out figures' and not have a vote then I think that is not only profane but incredibly unfair."

Personally, I do not think it is the Easties place to vote on the matter, especially if the terms are on par with what East is being provided. Why should East have the right to keep West from a raise? This isn't a zero-sum game whereby what West gets is being taken away from East. Just as much as West should have not voted upon the CIC issue as it was an East matter. Just because some think they have found an angle to leverage extra pay from the Company while the Westies can wait years is morally and ethically bankrupt if we are going to pretend to be in "unity". Let's keep in mind that West has been working without a contract for over two years, and it is long due something which provides some pay equality, not subject to whatever East obtains in a quid pro quo. Once again, it is an example of the majority oppressing the minority for the benefit of the majority.


Also as a point of correction to Orioleman, while I have worked as a ramp agent for nearly a decade, it was not entirely with US Airways/America West, as such, I did not vote on the original TWU contract over 6 years ago.


Tim, I hope we may maintain a constructive dialogue in order to understand each others point of view during these prolonged negotiations.

Jester

 

[700UW]

Tom Brickner is the IAM Airline Coordinator, he is a former GLR and was a UA Ramper.

 

[diogenes]

Brickner is also the fine gentleman who, when asked from the floor by a US fleet agent, why the fleet contract did not have a 'me-to' clause in it like M&R, replied with a snicker, "You don't need a you-too clause."

And because fleet did not get a 'me-to' clause, their recall rights got flushed while M&R retained theirs.

M&R's 'me-to' clause won them a grievance entitling them to the same 401k match fleet got in their initial contract, even though M&R had a longstanding defined benefit plan, and all fleet got was a 401k plan with some company match. In other words, M&R wound up with the best of both words - a DB plan they made no contribution to and 401k company match, while fleet got to fully fund their retirement and got a little company match thrown in. Only at IAM does 'me-to' not add up to equal deals.

From speaking with rampers and ex-rampers who were good union members, if they had the opportunity to get into the ring with Crellin, or either Canale or Brickner, and much as they loathed Crellin, they'd choose the IAM.

Brickner is very bad news. IAM apologists love to point out the differences between districts/locals/international, etc.

Brickner is one proof it's all coordinated from the top.

 

[redeye]

Jester,

I understand your disparity. During Bankruptcy my pay dropped $4/hr. I was also dropped to a part time status.
I was forced to understand what it was like to shop at Salvation Army in order that the children had food.
USAirways used a strategy called Predatory Bargaining. It is now the benchmark for Corporate America
to relieve it from financial monkey off its back (the faithful past and present employees).
Dougie does not have the threat of bankruptcy on his side this time, but still needs to find a weakness so
that he can pray on our group. We now have DoUgIes Pawn Shop. He sees that same disparity and sees that
he has the opportunity to pay $100 for dear departed granny's $10,000 dollar wedding ring because he knows
we have to pay the bills.

For this I despise him!

And its for that reason we said NO

We don't have to trade away scope, jobs and grievances anymore. They are things a true UNION is supposed
to protect.

 

[Henderfuzz]

to answer your question.. I voted NO . You know may position , reread your own message . you contradict yourself " IF you did than you and everyone who did voted to cut my pay more than you in the hubs you also made sure we could get contracted out".. DUDE your the one who said you were the only one in your station that voted YES.. IF you read your current contract vs what was proposed the cutting of more citys would only occur if the number of flts decreased . and with the new proposal that number of flights is less. Your right about one thing the company won't be running back to get at t/a they will be sprinting. because they don't want to pay 21.00 an hr for the next 2 or 3 yrs. so there will be back to try and lower that hr rate.. Break down the difference between what the "company is saving with this current contract with higher pay vs the b...s... t/a they proposed. I would be interested to see your spin on this..

I was talking about the 2004 bankrupt contract not the T/A I did vote no for that as well as voted to strike. The hubs didnt have the guts to vote that way becasue they were bought and paid for by the IAM and the company with the stupid class I and II deal.
I also feel if the T/A had included a strike vote it would have passed eaisly becasue we know already the hubs wont stand up like that.

 

[Jester]

Redeye,

I am sympathetic to your situation having a sizable pay cut, a reduction in hours, and your financial hardship during US Airways financial troubles, and as I have said in both of my prior postings, I am not blaming anyone on the East from voting against the TA as I probably would have done so myself.

Since we can agree that the East voting against the TA was a good idea, my issue presently is how and why the Easties could and should deny West a pay raise without quid pro quo, which is my primary issue with Tim.

Unfortunately Redeye, the industry has been changing for the past decade or more since deregulation, and personally, I wouldn't want to attempt to make a career within this industry, but only as a side job, unless I had other viable options if this goes tits-up.

And yes, I agree with you over the scope issues, in particular, the shrinking base of our membership because we buy short term gains for long term stability.

Jester

 

[Tim Nelson]

Redeye,

I am sympathetic to your situation having a sizable pay cut, a reduction in hours, and your financial hardship during US Airways financial troubles, and as I have said in both of my prior postings, I am not blaming anyone on the East from voting against the TA as I probably would have done so myself.

Since we can agree that the East voting against the TA was a good idea, my issue presently is how and why the Easties could and should deny West a pay raise without quid pro quo, which is my primary issue with Tim.

Unfortunately Redeye, the industry has been changing for the past decade or more since deregulation, and personally, I wouldn't want to attempt to make a career within this industry, but only as a side job, unless I had other viable options if this goes tits-up.

And yes, I agree with you over the scope issues, in particular, the shrinking base of our membership because we buy short term gains for long term stability.

Jester

I agree that the industry has been changing. CEO's now get $20 million a year in stock and cash, airlines have about 40+ VP's, and the IAM has sold out. A recipe that has changed the environment for sure. US AIRWAYS has the highest profit margin in the industry, it has 3.5 billion in the bank, it will have $1billion in pre tax profit possibly this year. It had the leverage to put in a bid for Delta into the "Billions".

It's time to change this industry again and it will take complete solidarity between the east and west and will demand other changes to get this done. Workers have had enough, the internet has provided a place to 'mobilize' and get out the word. It will take time but I believe people and not money will change this industry back. I believe people have hope to change it back so that it can once again be a family rearing job. I believe that it is the duty of all fleet service to focus on this change and they should be doggedly determined to see this out because it is a worthy effort. This industry must change, it is evil and has oppressed many.

Nobody is denying west a pay raise. Further, you aren't denying the east holiday pay, LTD, STD, shift premium, geo pay, double time, extra holidays, and about a dozen other things. The east took no offense last week when the west got Holiday pay last week so the west has no reason to take offense with the east either.
There is a process of justice and it starts with section 6, and in the meantime why not hold on to the transition card, Parker doesnt' deserve that card. The TWU already agreed tentatively to many items in your contract through section 6 but then the IAM placed section 6 on Parker's altar and sacrificed it in front of the Transition Gods.
The IAM should be negotiating section 6 for the westies. Until the westies hold the IAM accountable and join the network in 'fuller force' it will continue to be oppressed with the IAM.

The east sees leverage in keeping things from transitioning. Leverage for all. Why give Parker the one thing he wants and needs....to transition this company. Again, he doesn't deserve it.
Parker needs transition but if he wants to run two different airlines then that's ok too because the west is already in section 6, and the east section 6 will be served on October 31, 2008.

 

[PayParity]

M&R's 'me-to' clause won them a grievance entitling them to the same 401k match fleet got in their initial contract, even though M&R had a longstanding defined benefit plan, and all fleet got was a 401k plan with some company match. In other words, M&R wound up with the best of both words - a DB plan they made no contribution to and 401k company match, while fleet got to fully fund their retirement and got a little company match thrown in. Only at IAM does 'me-to' not add up to equal deals.

The IAM won a "me too" grievance for M&R entitling them to a 401k match before fleet service ever got an intitial contract .The grievance had nothing to do with Fleet service. (or should I say a second initial contract? Wasn't Fleet service Union until late 80's or early 90's before voting them out?).

The IAM won a runoff election and on July 22, 1994 the NMB certified the IAM to represent the fleet service class or craft.

On April 1, 1999, US Airways' fleet service employees represented by the IAMAW, ratified an initial labor contract.

As the result of a decision and award by an arbitrator who ruled that the Company was required to match 401(k) contributions made by mechanics and related personnel represented by the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (the "IAM") as of September 30, 1995, the Company entered into an agreement with the IAM for USAir employees whose coverage in this Plan is provided pursuant to a collective bargaining agreement with the IAM (hereafter "IAM employees").

The Fleet Service had the defined benefit plan frozen in 1991 before the IAM was brought in.

 

[john john]

The IAM won a runoff election and on July 22, 1994 the NMB certified the IAM to represent the fleet service class or craft.

On April 1, 1999, US Airways' fleet service employees represented by the IAMAW, ratified an initial labor contract.

It took fleet service 5 years to get a contract. There was a lot of feet dragging

 

[perserverance]

Well the cards are here. In Phl today there were people signing cards seeking new representation. The IBT (teamsters) had some people there and the IBEW (electrical union) had some people. There is strong feeling among the workforce that theres' a need for a change. Also, just a coincidence, the IAM sent the 2 AGC's assigned to PHL to the airport today (chandlee and flynn) ?? The IAM knows theres a push beginning...and why not considering the lack of listening to the membership..Still haven't seen Canale or heard from him. Hope to see him Oct. 2nd at the monthly union meeting to show him our disguist with him and the leadership at the IAM.


Thanks

 

[orioleman]

fuzz,
Now that were on the same vote.. to answer your question better yet let me give you voting history from day 1 .. 1st voted for the steel workers not IAM
2. first intial contract after having been in phl for a few years learned alot about unions. and the boys back then (refering to early 90's) said WHAT ever you do
DON'T vote in the first offer .. The first contract will stay with you the rest of your career (mostly referring to language in contract ). SO first contract I voted NO
.. contract ratifaction in BK.. I voted NO. ( wish I still had my lg phone , took a picture of it.) I see your anger against the hubs but let me let you in on a little secret that was different in this vote from the bk vote in clt .. the last vote they had us vote on a little pieces of green cutout paper .. no number to cross reference who voted and who didn't.. Everyone I talked to that day voted no but some how the vote came back YES. We didn't have real conscience observers watching the votes get counted.. and had a few people show up to vote .. and there names were already crossed off the sheet.. so the IAM had alot of corrupt things going on in that last election. also the numbers that showed to vote in that election where half of what clt had this time.. once again it took a lot of votes from class II cities to pass that vote.. .. I too have always been against farming out smaller stations.. I came from a small station and would have liked to go
back and retire there. plus who wants 30 yr guys continually coming in and bumping you down the seniority list.. I just wish you would get past this THE HUBS
sold you little guys out.. It is just not true.. come to clt and talk to the big bad wolfes .. the average ft employee in clt has 25 plus yrs. we are not a bunch of new hires chasing hrly rates..

 

[orioleman]

perv,
Canale if he show's will probably do like he did in clt.. last spring.. try and tell you what you want to hear and keep his eye on the nearest door.

I presented the ?? to him in front of the membership.. about the coc and t/a.. his reponse was .. "brother good question and no the t/a and coc would not be brought to together .. THEY ARE 2 Seperate issues.. we are going full steam with the grievence because we feel we have a very very good case. thats why we waited 18 months for this arbr.." OF course now we know the real Randy Canale...

 

[700UW]

Dio, it was not a "me-too" clause in our CBA.

The 401K letter of agreement stated" If any other unionized group recieved 401K match that the IAM M&R would also recieve the match". The TWU Represented Flight Dispatchers recieved the match and therefore that triggered the IAM Clause in the M&R CBA.

It was only specific to the 401k and not anything else.

And yes it was won in arbitration as the company said no, and the arbiter was none other than Richard Bloch.