Fleet Service Transition Agreement
- Thread starter towerclt
- Start date
will the IAM please settle our transition agreement soon. Im losing $50 a day by this thing not being done and over with. At the rate the company is playing the IAM, nothing will be done until 2009/2010. And if the IAm doesnt please the west workers like they promised with their payscale and a vote ensues between the IAM and no union with this whole delta issue at hand now, no union will win. The only chance IAM has is to settle soon and win that arbitration snapback and union will stay, otherwise say goodbye.
barbeetantrums
Veteran
- Joined
- Jul 7, 2005
- Messages
- 1,585
- Reaction score
- 0
I say wait it out until the arbitration. Then they will owe us for the years that they hoed us.
You need to direct your comments to the Company, it takes two parties to reach an agreement.
If you go to the DL 141 Web page you will see what the company wants you to settle for, I don't think you will be too happy once you read it.
Send Al Hemenway your thoughts as he is the one holding up an agreement, not the IAM.
If you go to the DL 141 Web page you will see what the company wants you to settle for, I don't think you will be too happy once you read it.
Send Al Hemenway your thoughts as he is the one holding up an agreement, not the IAM.
i have read it, it says nothing about what the company offered. All Im talking about is that if we went right to the IAm contract today Id be up $50 a day. Instead the IAm is trying to get back what they gave up long ago and today its hurting the west. If the IAm doesnt please us soon and the delta deal goes through you can bet on it there will be NO union.
Guess you did not look hard enough, it was right there:
US Airways Proposal to the IAM for Fleet Service
US Airways Proposal to the IAM for Fleet Service
Hey, the airline has people in diffrent classifications than what they bid for. They have more time worked on the ramp, and then they are stuck in customer service, through no fault of their own, that would gladly work the ramp. They also have people on the ramp that would rather work CS. It was previous management and union colaboration that made this debacle of a work environment. Evil people that don't care to do their jobs. They could care less. Just too much work for themselves.
just remember, it was a persons choice in life, as to what they did for a living, that was effectivly negated by burocracy and complacency. In other words, f*** me. Now go out there and help those cusomers, and have a nice day!
smallstFSA
Advanced
- Joined
- Dec 22, 2002
- Messages
- 124
- Reaction score
- 0
You must feel safe that your station won't be outsourced after you get your extra $50. Good luck
wings396
Veteran
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2002
- Messages
- 3,672
- Reaction score
- 1,122
Thats' true, your $50 a day is only good as long as you have a job. Many of us in the East were "fortunate" enough to get a raise just prior to being shown the door. I will never forget the IAM guys telling us how it would boost our severence and unemployment numbers once our jobs were outsourced forever.... :unsure:
That stuff only lasted a short time, but being without a job still lingers for many of us. I would have traded that raise in order to still have my job today in a second.
That stuff only lasted a short time, but being without a job still lingers for many of us. I would have traded that raise in order to still have my job today in a second.
700UW, IF THAT REALLY IS WHAT THEY PROPOSED TO THE COMPANY THAN SHAME ON THE COMPANY. bUT I DONT BUY THAT. THEY DIDNT FIGHT FOR ONE THING OUT OF THE WEST CONTRACT, NOTHING ZIP/ZILCH/NADA. IT WENT RIGHT TO THE IAM CBA. WHY WOULDNT THE COMPANY TAKE IT. WHAT HAPPENED TO ALL THE RUMORS ABOUT 19.00 AN HOUR AND GETTING WEST VACATION AND WEST SICK DAYS. REDUCTION IN NUMBER OF FLTS FOR OUTSOURCING PURPOSES. IF THAT REALLY WAS THE PROPOSAL TO THE COMPANY THAN THE WESTIES SHOULD WALK. BUT HOW COULD THE COMPANY REJECT THE IAM CONTRACT ALREADY APPLIED TO THEIR MEMBERS.
Step back and read,
It was what the COMPANY proposed to the IAM, not the IAM to the company.
The company has not rejected the IAM contract, as by law they cant, the IAM and US have to reach an transition agreement.
It was what the COMPANY proposed to the IAM, not the IAM to the company.
The company has not rejected the IAM contract, as by law they cant, the IAM and US have to reach an transition agreement.
Tim Nelson
Veteran
my understanding is that what 700 paste as the company proposal is out of date.
Here's the skinny from what I believe is a credible source. It is my belief that this is quite accurate so I'm confused as to why the IAM or its loyalist like 700 has not posted anything other than rhetoric on its website. Certainly its members deserve something better than rhetoric and 'can't tell ya' stances. As aside, the change of control grievance is a biggie that appears to favor the IAM and its members.
At any rate.
Your company proposed elimination of class 2 pay, recall improvements from those previously laid off in closed stations, improved vacation, improved overtime, improved scope status that would potentially include more western stations that are at risk of being shut down, improved holiday. Based on what I read, it was a good start in negotiations but I think it should be improved upon. One of the big wrenches that I have heard that is going on behind the scenes is that the new negotiating team chairman has insisted that the 22 guys from PHL be given their jobs back or 'no deal'. I'd be interested to hear if any of you from PHL have heard this.
My point in mentioning this isn't to say it isn't worthy to do so, but rather, your company has apparently insisted that bringing these guys back is a 'non negotiable' and perhaps something it finds 'appaling'.
So with the new IAM 'personal' demands of bringing back the 22 phl guys, there seems to be a real and serious stall of any final transition agreement that will benefit fleet service. My spin knowing the IAM"s previous sellouts, I would guess that the IAM will waive its members grievance rights towards big change of control wage rights, accept a 'lessor' company proposal, but get the 22 guys back on the job.
Question? Does anyone know if these 22 PHL guys were convicted civilly of anything? I can better understand the IAM's apparent position if these guys were not convicts but if they are then I would 'seriously' fail to undestand the union's allegiance to them by stalling benefit and wage improvements for 8,000 fleet service workers.
Provided the above are 'convicted criminals', and if the IAM truly insist on this position and the company puts a price tag on it of millions then every member who will 'flip the bill' should be picking up the phone and asking the IAM to stop its insanity just to protect some 'buddies'.
regards,
Charlie_Tuna
Veteran
- Joined
- Sep 29, 2005
- Messages
- 661
- Reaction score
- 0
Don't be surprized if the union sells you out and the "change of control" arbitration case never gets heard. My take is they will settle on a transition agreement and drop the grievance. Why was it pushed back to Feb from 2005?
wings396
Veteran
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2002
- Messages
- 3,672
- Reaction score
- 1,122
The "PHL 22" should have nothing to do with these negotiations PERIOD. That is a separate issue, and the Fleet group should not be held hostage on their behalf. If this is in fact true, there are people who are furloughed that could possibly be returning to work if not for this
"No Deal" mentality. 😛h34r:
"No Deal" mentality. 😛h34r:
