IAM Fleet Service topic 18 June-

[pjirish317]

P.J.

Please correct me if I’m wrong... but don’t post ratification amendments to the CBA require a Letter of Agreement (LOA)? And yes... Canale was famous for these... just look in the back of our current agreement!

However... you will not find a single LOA regarding the attendance policy with RD’s name on it!

Why you are absolutely correct roa. And it is not canale, it is canoli and his merry band of misfits!

 

[P. REZ]

Sounds familiar US management will go down the same road



http://www.iam141.org/archives/JobSecurity091409.html
We were able to reach an agreement with United Airlines over the most important issue facing our membership – job security. Our agreement addresses the work that 700 members perform in ORD every day in support of the United Express operation. Each suggestion we made had a dollar figure which was compared to what it would cost United to switch to another company
In response to a Company suggestion, we began evaluating their proposed Dependability program. However, in trying to find ways to bridge the gap of the vendors costs we began researching these type of programs already in effect at other companies
This agreement has been reviewed with all levels of our Union – the Negotiating Team, the Executive Board, our International, and Legal Dept. to make sure that it stayed within the boundaries of our contract.
While this agreement prevents the loss of 700 jobs in ORD immediately,

Thanks for the proof.

 

[pjirish317]

Thanks for the proof.

Proof of what? All that states is that they protected jobs. Nothing else. BTW good luck with MW.

 

[necigrad]

Just like to throw my opinions in on seniority. I'm guaranteed to rile some folks up. I mean no offense to what one contributes, nor do I mean to imply that one is worth less then another.

I hear a lot about DOH, DOH, DOH. It's a good sound policy, at least in theory. Here's what I suggest. Start with DOH, you need to start somewhere. Subtract any time not in Fleet Service. From there don't count personal leaves either. Medical, military, and other leaves of that nature should not carry a penalty. This will give you potentially a new DOH. There is logic to my proposal. Let's just say that I want to take 4 months to "safari to Africa". The Company grants my leave, and I come back as scheduled four months later. Should my time not working so I can hunt lions count? Not in my opinion.

Here in LAS (and I'd imagine PHX as well) we had several employees outside of FS become absorbed into our work group carrying all their seniority. Is it right that I've been here all along and suddenly someone that wasn't goes ahead of me because they got hired before me? Not in my opinion, but I believe there is a reasonable compromise. When integrating groups in this situation I believe any years performing covered work (even if you might not have been covered at the time) should count. I got hired in 1998 and have been FS all that time. If someone else was hired in 1972 as a CSR and transferred into Tower in 2005 should they be senior to me? They weren't before. What about the person that was hired in 1984 as a FSA, transferred to Tower, and then went back to FSA because of the merger? They were doing the job the whole time, so why wouldn't it count?

There's also two schools of thought on PTers. One idea is full seniority, the other half seniority. Both have valid points, and I'm not picking a side.

It should also be noted that whenever "we" discuss seniority it should pertain only to Fleet Service. When you're talking about Company seniority it should be DOH, and IMO modified by any personal leaves.

 

[P. REZ]

Proof of what? All that states is that they protected jobs. Nothing else. BTW good luck with MW.

They got an attendance policy too. Did MW win?

 

[pjirish317]

They got an attendance policy too. Did MW win?

Thank goodness NO. You have him until his last day as an AGC, and I think NH has already been assigned another station. I could be wrong on that one though, do not know for sure. So again good luck with MW.

 

[Edward]

Folks this is about US Fleet svc. not UA/ Please stick to that.

 

[700UW]

If its not spelled out in your CBA, it falls under management rights, and the company has the right to run their business and establish policies and procedures as long as they are not in conflict with the CBA.

 

[P. REZ]

Thank goodness NO. You have him until his last day as an AGC, and I think NH has already been assigned another station. I could be wrong on that one though, do not know for sure. So again good luck with MW.

Did MS or KA win?

 

[roabilly]

Thanks for the proof.

PREZ...

I went to the link and listened to the RD message and read the content. My apologies to you regarding the confusion about your attendance posts... I now understand the angle you are presenting.

First... this is UNITED not US. I agree to an extent with your correlations regarding the 141 as setting precedent with this option. However, this option is what was applicable to retaining hundreds of jobs at UNITED. Jobs that hard working people need to survive!

Negotiations are just that... you set down and negotiate. Each side... Company and Union are there to represent their own best interest. The Company generally has a relatively secure position since they are paying the bills.

The Union’s position is to represent the work force, and do everything possible to protect jobs... pay... seniority etc. In this instance it appears that the IAM did its duty and chose to protect JOBS.

By portraying this as weakness in regards to the 141... specifically casting doubt as to the integrity of the leadership has undertones of a biased political agenda... especially when the ND tag is attached.

Transparency was my biggest #### with the Conolie folks. At least RD stood in front of a camera and explained his position. Ultimately... the Membership of UA will make the final decisions regarding this matter.

 

[roabilly]

Did MS or KA win?

THE MEMBERSHIP WON!

 

[pjirish317]

Did MS or KA win?

I mispoke in my earlier post. I do not know for sure who won/lost. I am going on one of your tactics here, I heard it from several people. So no I can't say for certain, just hope that every single person on the members first ticket loses by a landslide. If that includes MS and KA, great. If they were running with MW on the members first ticket that is. They are remnants of a leadership, that put themselves first and not the membership. Good Riddance. I hope that is.

 

[roabilly]

Just like to throw my opinions in on seniority. I'm guaranteed to rile some folks up. I mean no offense to what one contributes, nor do I mean to imply that one is worth less then another.

I hear a lot about DOH, DOH, DOH. It's a good sound policy, at least in theory. Here's what I suggest. Start with DOH, you need to start somewhere. Subtract any time not in Fleet Service. From there don't count personal leaves either. Medical, military, and other leaves of that nature should not carry a penalty. This will give you potentially a new DOH. There is logic to my proposal. Let's just say that I want to take 4 months to "safari to Africa". The Company grants my leave, and I come back as scheduled four months later. Should my time not working so I can hunt lions count? Not in my opinion.

Here in LAS (and I'd imagine PHX as well) we had several employees outside of FS become absorbed into our work group carrying all their seniority. Is it right that I've been here all along and suddenly someone that wasn't goes ahead of me because they got hired before me? Not in my opinion, but I believe there is a reasonable compromise. When integrating groups in this situation I believe any years performing covered work (even if you might not have been covered at the time) should count. I got hired in 1998 and have been FS all that time. If someone else was hired in 1972 as a CSR and transferred into Tower in 2005 should they be senior to me? They weren't before. What about the person that was hired in 1984 as a FSA, transferred to Tower, and then went back to FSA because of the merger? They were doing the job the whole time, so why wouldn't it count?

There's also two schools of thought on PTers. One idea is full seniority, the other half seniority. Both have valid points, and I'm not picking a side.

It should also be noted that whenever "we" discuss seniority it should pertain only to Fleet Service. When you're talking about Company seniority it should be DOH, and IMO modified by any personal leaves.

Grad...

I agree 100%! DOH certainly may differ from Classification. However... ALL time actually worked in the Classification, sans the scenarios you have presented above should be recognized.

This is an essential formula if you want to retain seniority parity with our merged brothers and sisters from other airlines.

 

[P. REZ]

PREZ...

I went to the link and listened to the RD message and read the content. My apologies to you regarding the confusion about your attendance posts... I now understand the angle you are presenting.

First... this is UNITED not US. I agree to an extent with your correlations regarding the 141 as setting precedent with this option. However, this option is what was applicable to retaining hundreds of jobs at UNITED. Jobs that hard working people need to survive!

Negotiations are just that... you set down and negotiate. Each side... Company and Union are there to represent their own best interest. The Company generally has a relatively secure position since they are paying the bills.

The Union’s position is to represent the work force, and do everything possible to protect jobs... pay... seniority etc. In this instance it appears that the IAM did its duty and chose to protect JOBS.

By portraying this as weakness in regards to the 141... specifically casting doubt as to the integrity of the leadership has undertones of a biased political agenda... especially when the ND tag is attached.

Transparency was my biggest #### with the Conolie folks. At least RD stood in front of a camera and explained his position. Ultimately... the Membership of UA will make the final decisions regarding this matter.

I will agree that it was a tough decision for RD to make and I applaud him for admitting it on camera. Similar decisions will ultimately be made on the US property!!

 

[pjirish317]

I will agree that it was a tough decision for RD to make and I applaud him for admitting it on camera. Similar decisions will ultimately be made on the US property!!

Than why bring it up the way you did, as to imply that it was not above board?