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
