IAM/AMFA-WHOIS THE BEST?
- Thread starter delldude
- Start date
[blockquote]
----------------
On 11/21/2002 11
40 AM LDKIAM wrote:
Steiner, AMFA not the IAM negoiated this language in their contract not the IAM:
If Northwest gets a new fleet type that is not a fleet replacement, the work does not belong to the mechanics and they work can be vendored out and does not count againt the 38% farm out rate that NWA currently has.
Also the IAM negotiated the best scope at US Airways, you won't see a US Airways airplane sent to Singapore like Northwest does with their DC-10s and their DC-9s sent to GSO to be overhauled by TIMCO.
----------------
[/blockquote]
LDKIAM, what you say is technically true, but in a quibbling manner. AMFA did negotiate farm-out language in the contract to limit the amount of farmed-out work being lost. In the previous IAM contract there was only a promise of a farm-out committee to work with the company to control farm-outs. This committee was ineffective, as was the IAM practice of grieving farmed out work. After all, what good is a grievance if it is never brought before an arbitrator or given away during contract negotiations?
You are also technically correct about the new fleet type work, as NW AMFA mechanics are not working on any of the smaller airplanes that NW is buying that are used by the commuters affiliated with NW.
As for your chest beating about scope at US Airways, it may be early in the game to say “neverâ€. This business has a way of changing every day, and you may find yourself in a position where some (or all) of your work is farmed-out. Has your company ever violated your contracted and challenged you to grieve it? The farm-outs at NW started while the IAM was representing the mechanics and related, as has the farming out of work at UAL. The mighty IAM was unable (or unwilling) to stop it. Is the IAM ready to do something about this at US Airways? Is the IAM lobbying to have the same safety and FAR enforcement at the farm-out shops that airlines have to live with?
DELLDUDE, all that AMFA could do for you if voted in is represent you and enforce the contract. At NW AMFA has had a better record of arbitration cases for grieved contract issues than the IAM at NW previously had, and enforces the contract better than the IAM ever did. AMFA at NWA is not perfect and has a practice of hanging all of its dirty laundry out in the breeze, but there isn’t any push to get the IAM back. The IAM has had over two years to get back in at NWA through a representational election. Why haven’t they?
----------------
On 11/21/2002 11
40 AM LDKIAM wrote: Steiner, AMFA not the IAM negoiated this language in their contract not the IAM:
If Northwest gets a new fleet type that is not a fleet replacement, the work does not belong to the mechanics and they work can be vendored out and does not count againt the 38% farm out rate that NWA currently has.
Also the IAM negotiated the best scope at US Airways, you won't see a US Airways airplane sent to Singapore like Northwest does with their DC-10s and their DC-9s sent to GSO to be overhauled by TIMCO.
----------------
[/blockquote]
LDKIAM, what you say is technically true, but in a quibbling manner. AMFA did negotiate farm-out language in the contract to limit the amount of farmed-out work being lost. In the previous IAM contract there was only a promise of a farm-out committee to work with the company to control farm-outs. This committee was ineffective, as was the IAM practice of grieving farmed out work. After all, what good is a grievance if it is never brought before an arbitrator or given away during contract negotiations?
You are also technically correct about the new fleet type work, as NW AMFA mechanics are not working on any of the smaller airplanes that NW is buying that are used by the commuters affiliated with NW.
As for your chest beating about scope at US Airways, it may be early in the game to say “neverâ€. This business has a way of changing every day, and you may find yourself in a position where some (or all) of your work is farmed-out. Has your company ever violated your contracted and challenged you to grieve it? The farm-outs at NW started while the IAM was representing the mechanics and related, as has the farming out of work at UAL. The mighty IAM was unable (or unwilling) to stop it. Is the IAM ready to do something about this at US Airways? Is the IAM lobbying to have the same safety and FAR enforcement at the farm-out shops that airlines have to live with?
DELLDUDE, all that AMFA could do for you if voted in is represent you and enforce the contract. At NW AMFA has had a better record of arbitration cases for grieved contract issues than the IAM at NW previously had, and enforces the contract better than the IAM ever did. AMFA at NWA is not perfect and has a practice of hanging all of its dirty laundry out in the breeze, but there isn’t any push to get the IAM back. The IAM has had over two years to get back in at NWA through a representational election. Why haven’t they?
pitguy
Veteran
- Aug 21, 2002
- 1,509
- 0
Well let's not fail to mention that most people now days do not even file a grievance here since they feel it will just be thrown away. By the way when if ever will we hear about the sick time issue that the union finally (luckily) won. I wonder if they are trying to figure out how to screw us out of that. Some folks wonder who the union 'truly' represents.
I should think one would be embarrassed trying to defend the likes of those scoundrels.
I should think one would be embarrassed trying to defend the likes of those scoundrels.
Boof,
Your response to JonC is the same one you gave me on another thread, which I promptly showed all the failings of, and now you come back with the same tired arguement. Yes, you are technically correct in that the NLRB accreted our group. You neglect to mention this was at the behest of the IAM. If the IAM wanted an election, do you honestly think this group would been accreted without a vote? Our group was caught in a p!ssing match between the company and the union. Our lives and livilood were used as pawns in this game. We never got to vote if we wanted in. If the IAM is out for our interests, why did they fight for accretion instead of holding a representation election? Why was the planner group not allowed to vote on an agreement? Why was MCU grouped in with planners even though the jobs are not even remotely related? Why did the IAM not allow an MCU representative at all negotiations even though an MCU supervisor was at every meeting on behalf of management (we offered to send a rep on our dime)? Explain why when some of us asked people in the Charlotte union office about specific benefits we were entitled to we could not get an answer? I wait with baited breath for your party line answers, comrade!
Your response to JonC is the same one you gave me on another thread, which I promptly showed all the failings of, and now you come back with the same tired arguement. Yes, you are technically correct in that the NLRB accreted our group. You neglect to mention this was at the behest of the IAM. If the IAM wanted an election, do you honestly think this group would been accreted without a vote? Our group was caught in a p!ssing match between the company and the union. Our lives and livilood were used as pawns in this game. We never got to vote if we wanted in. If the IAM is out for our interests, why did they fight for accretion instead of holding a representation election? Why was the planner group not allowed to vote on an agreement? Why was MCU grouped in with planners even though the jobs are not even remotely related? Why did the IAM not allow an MCU representative at all negotiations even though an MCU supervisor was at every meeting on behalf of management (we offered to send a rep on our dime)? Explain why when some of us asked people in the Charlotte union office about specific benefits we were entitled to we could not get an answer? I wait with baited breath for your party line answers, comrade!
[blockquote]
----------------
On 11/21/2002 2:43:02 PM LDKIAM wrote:
Steiner you also fail to mention that since amfa does not have districts the members of the local vote on wether to spend the money arbitrate a case, so if a members is not well liked and his case has merits the local can vote not to send it to arbitration.
----------------
[/blockquote]
Again, you are technically correct. The IAM Districts were replaced by Locals. The Locals also have grievance commitees that review greviences and decide which ones to press forward on and how to combine resources with other Locals on similiar greviences. As for handling a grievance based on whether a member is liked or unliked, we have found that AMFA has been very careful to make sure all members are represented equally, for fear of criticism and lawsuits. Typically the most important greviences are moved to the front, such a those that concern out of service members and those that affect the majority of the workforce, as you wouldn't want to have these crowded out by overtime bypass greviences.
LDKIAM, are you sure you couldn't have a better position in these discussions by talking about the finer qualities of the IAM than by heaping aspersions on AMFA? If you would start talking about how voting in AMFA will not correct the fact that very few members want to be involved with their unions, be it TWU, Teamsters, IAM or AMFA, then maybe we can agree on something.
----------------
On 11/21/2002 2:43:02 PM LDKIAM wrote:
Steiner you also fail to mention that since amfa does not have districts the members of the local vote on wether to spend the money arbitrate a case, so if a members is not well liked and his case has merits the local can vote not to send it to arbitration.
----------------
[/blockquote]
Again, you are technically correct. The IAM Districts were replaced by Locals. The Locals also have grievance commitees that review greviences and decide which ones to press forward on and how to combine resources with other Locals on similiar greviences. As for handling a grievance based on whether a member is liked or unliked, we have found that AMFA has been very careful to make sure all members are represented equally, for fear of criticism and lawsuits. Typically the most important greviences are moved to the front, such a those that concern out of service members and those that affect the majority of the workforce, as you wouldn't want to have these crowded out by overtime bypass greviences.
LDKIAM, are you sure you couldn't have a better position in these discussions by talking about the finer qualities of the IAM than by heaping aspersions on AMFA? If you would start talking about how voting in AMFA will not correct the fact that very few members want to be involved with their unions, be it TWU, Teamsters, IAM or AMFA, then maybe we can agree on something.
[P]
[BLOCKQUOTE][BR]----------------[BR]On 11/21/2002 3:58:04 PM N628AU wrote:
[P]Boof,[BR][BR]Your response to JonC is the same one you gave me on another thread, which I promptly showed all the failings of, and now you come back with the same tired arguement. Yes, you are technically correct in that the NLRB accreted our group. You neglect to mention this was at the behest of the IAM. If the IAM wanted an election, do you honestly think this group would been accreted without a vote. Our group was caught in a p!ssing match between the company and the union. Our lives and livilood were used as pawns in this game. We never got to vote if we wanted in. If the IAM is out for our interests, why did they fight for accretion instead of holding a representation election? Why was the planner group not allowed to vote on an agreement? Why was MCU grouped in with planners even though the jobs are not even remotely related? Why did the IAM not allow an MCU representative at all negotiations even though and MCU supervisor was at every meeting on behalf of management (we offered to send a rep on our dime)? Explain why when some of asked people in the Charlotte union office about specific benefits we were entitled to we could not get an answer? I wait with baited breath for your party line answers, comrade![/P]----------------[/BLOCKQUOTE]
[P][/P]wrong it is the NMB. You do not vote when the NMB rules it is an accretion, the reason for not voting is you were accreted into an existing contract, therefore only small modifications had to be accomplished to tailor it your classifications. I for one cannot answer who told you what at the office, but I do know numerous planners submitted proposals that were tailored for your group and I saw numerous planners over at the union hall discussing matters with people. Also if you want the reasoning about your classifications you will have to ask the company and the union who submitted what in regards to that.
[BLOCKQUOTE][BR]----------------[BR]On 11/21/2002 3:58:04 PM N628AU wrote:
[P]Boof,[BR][BR]Your response to JonC is the same one you gave me on another thread, which I promptly showed all the failings of, and now you come back with the same tired arguement. Yes, you are technically correct in that the NLRB accreted our group. You neglect to mention this was at the behest of the IAM. If the IAM wanted an election, do you honestly think this group would been accreted without a vote. Our group was caught in a p!ssing match between the company and the union. Our lives and livilood were used as pawns in this game. We never got to vote if we wanted in. If the IAM is out for our interests, why did they fight for accretion instead of holding a representation election? Why was the planner group not allowed to vote on an agreement? Why was MCU grouped in with planners even though the jobs are not even remotely related? Why did the IAM not allow an MCU representative at all negotiations even though and MCU supervisor was at every meeting on behalf of management (we offered to send a rep on our dime)? Explain why when some of asked people in the Charlotte union office about specific benefits we were entitled to we could not get an answer? I wait with baited breath for your party line answers, comrade![/P]----------------[/BLOCKQUOTE]
[P][/P]wrong it is the NMB. You do not vote when the NMB rules it is an accretion, the reason for not voting is you were accreted into an existing contract, therefore only small modifications had to be accomplished to tailor it your classifications. I for one cannot answer who told you what at the office, but I do know numerous planners submitted proposals that were tailored for your group and I saw numerous planners over at the union hall discussing matters with people. Also if you want the reasoning about your classifications you will have to ask the company and the union who submitted what in regards to that.
[blockquote]
----------------
On 11/21/2002 12:16:55 PM LDKIAM wrote:
Qoute from article 2 paragraph G of the amfa-nw contract
(G) The Company agrees that Aircraft Check Maintenance for New Aircraft Models shall be performed in-house byt Northwest Airlines Inc. AMFA represented technicians and higher employees.
"Aircraft Check Maintenance" means scheduled heavy check maintenance.
"[STRONG][EM]New Aircraft Models" means aircraft models inducted into Northwest Airlines, Inc. fleet which ARE REPLACEMENT aircraft for EXISTING aircraft models.[/EM][/STRONG]
----------------
[/blockquote
I believe that you just posted proof that the work goes in house however with you being an industrial unionist I will yield to your superior ability to read between the lines. If your position is that this only applies to heavy maintenance not line then I suggest you read your maintenance check manual I believe you will find that A,B,and C/D checks are in there.
Those not withstanding you still have not shown how the work is not subject to the 38% total labor dollar farm out clause, which was my contention all along.
----------------
On 11/21/2002 12:16:55 PM LDKIAM wrote:
Qoute from article 2 paragraph G of the amfa-nw contract
(G) The Company agrees that Aircraft Check Maintenance for New Aircraft Models shall be performed in-house byt Northwest Airlines Inc. AMFA represented technicians and higher employees.
"Aircraft Check Maintenance" means scheduled heavy check maintenance.
"[STRONG][EM]New Aircraft Models" means aircraft models inducted into Northwest Airlines, Inc. fleet which ARE REPLACEMENT aircraft for EXISTING aircraft models.[/EM][/STRONG]
----------------
[/blockquote
I believe that you just posted proof that the work goes in house however with you being an industrial unionist I will yield to your superior ability to read between the lines. If your position is that this only applies to heavy maintenance not line then I suggest you read your maintenance check manual I believe you will find that A,B,and C/D checks are in there.
Those not withstanding you still have not shown how the work is not subject to the 38% total labor dollar farm out clause, which was my contention all along.
