IAM Fleet Service topic 18 June-

[roabilly]

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.

Exactly... that is why scope... scope... scope... and more scope is essential! We need to clear up all the ambiguities with all the other language as well!

 

[700UW]

Scope language is the most important section of a CBA.

 

[mike33]

Scope, 600 jobs in ORD??? Like I said before I'm not bashing, RD and the UA NC will be faced with many tough decisions which may or may not be popular. Our NC will be faced with numerous challenges along the way too!!!

PRez,

I feel compelled to step in and say that you should just get to the point, ( which you could have done easily ) and say something about the jobs he saved to accept this policy. Yes I have heard the same thing but don't know all the facts, so why do you paint it in such a negative light. I thought it was more like a " Thousand Jobs ", but i don't know enough of the details to fully counter your points.
I will say though that the ND is and I repeat " Is " smart enough to realize that there will be a lot of CO employees and UA employees that will probably not accept this in any TA merger agreement for their merger. JMO

 

[P. REZ]

PRez,

I feel compelled to step in and say that you should just get to the point, ( which you could have done easily ) and say something about the jobs he saved to accept this policy. Yes I have heard the same thing but don't know all the facts, so why do you paint it in such a negative light. I thought it was more like a " Thousand Jobs ", but i don't know enough of the details to fully counter your points.
I will say though that the ND is and I repeat " Is " smart enough to realize that there will be a lot of CO employees and UA employees that will probably no accept this in any TA merger agreement for their merger. JMO

Go back a few pages and look at John John's post and click on that link. It is already in place. The way I posted was to make people realize that hard decisions are made all the time amongst all levels of Union leadership. Hard decisions will be made in our negotiations as well. I also thought that everyone already knew about the UA attendance policy.

 

[roabilly]

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!!

Perhaps... perhaps not... if we had crystal ball we would not be here! I will tell you this... this Membership is ready for improvements in terms of what we lost through BK.

We now have an excellent group of leaders in place that have the fortitude to actually make this happen. I suppose “future history” will validate this observation. If not...we will embark on a similar campaign as we have seen with the ND effort to choose leadership that WILL serve the Membership!

 

[pjirish317]

Didn't the Union at UA accept an attendance policy similar to ours in section 6 negotiations without putting it to a vote of the membership?

PREZ,

This is your post. You did not put anything in it to even imply hard decisions. What you did imply though is the UA NC making backroom deals. So why exactly did you post it this way? Please enlighten us here. You were called out on something, and then you spin it and say "I was pointing out that hard decions have to be made and will be made at US also" or something to that affect. So what was your motivation with this post?
Because I still can't see anywhere in it where you point out "hard decisions"?

 

[P. REZ]

PREZ,

This is your post. You did not put anything in it to even imply hard decisions. What you did imply though is the UA NC making backroom deals. So why exactly did you post it this way? Please enlighten us here. You were called out on something, and then you spin it and say "I was pointing out that hard decions have to be made and will be made at US also" or something to that affect. So what was your motivation with this post?
Because I still can't see anywhere in it where you point out "hard decisions"?

Looks as if a deal was done and it was a very real and hard decision!!

 

[mike33]

Go back a few pages and look at John John's post and click on that link. It is already in place. The way I posted was to make people realize that hard decisions are made all the time amongst all levels of Union leadership. Hard decisions will be made in our negotiations as well. I also thought that everyone already knew about the UA attendance policy.

I won't go back because it's a waste of time for me. We can " Investigate and Relate " all we want, but if you don't believe the "ND" path ahead is a lot clearer than the one we left then you possibly never will.

If you want these things changed then lets get on the same page and " Look Forward " to Negotiations, not wonder how were going to get thru them?.......I for one am saving for that day. If you know what I mean.

 

[Jester]

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.

And why I have questioned the abilities of both Canale's followers and the ND Team... neither side picked-up on this glaring shortcoming in the CBA whereby Management could insert their own attendance policy, regardless of its Draconian nature. I have personally been involved with multi-million dollar contracts, and as sure as a manager loves to issue Level 3 warnings, I had some good attorneys review the If's, And's, But's, & Whereas' of any agreement. Begs the question... where were the Membership's expert advisors? Now before the New Direction cohorts break their ankles jumping off my soap box while I rant, I don't recall ANY of them either in person or on the board ever mentioning one word about the open attendance policy. Our attorneys who reviewed the TA should have been sued for legal malpractice in their negligence and failure to hold to their fiduciary responsiblities... I'll see that happen about the same time as I get retro pay in the new contract back to my America West days.

We deserve better. We pay our dues in order to obtain expert legal and financial advisors which would be impractically expensive for just one of us to afford on our own. Based upon what I have seen with both groups, NEITHER side is qualified to handle the task at hand, especially with an EC full of uneducated nepotistic backslappers. We would be better off scouring our ranks in search for FS members who are experienced in law, finance, economics, management, operations, etc. but have taken this job in semi-retirement and would be willing not to be the final word, but to ask right questions to be passed onto the experts... they are out there.. just a matter of our locals Little Napoleons who are not just willing to hear, but to listen the advice of others.

Finally, Jester's CBA Wish List:
I. Scope
II. Attendance Policy
III. DOH recognized in potential merger

Let me just add one idea in what SWA does with their Attendance Policy, as I understand the matter. My attendance has been very good over the several years I have worked with America West and US Airways, and I am not on a level. What I did in past years benefits me none in the present. If Level 0 is the lowest level, why cannot we get a less than 0 level which recognizes the years of very good attendance instead? For example, have a Level -3 would recognize three years not advancing a Level. If for some reason one would be having particularly a bad year in terms of illness, my proposal would recognize usually reliable employee based upon prior years strong attendance without having to overly punish that employee for some recent string of bad luck.

So Advances Jester.

 

[pjirish317]

Looks as if a deal was done and it was a very real and hard decision!!

Again where in that post do you let us know that. From where I sit, it appears to be a shot at the ND team as a whole. Weather you intended to or not is moot. So again, why post it the way you did, and not state in that same post that hard decisions need to be made? A straight answer would be appreciated, if you are capable.

 

[orioleman]

Call the ND on this one, it was RD who has accepted this now or as part of the TA. I'm not bashing, just stating a point here as the current feel seems to be that our section 6 under the ND is going to make the perfect ta.

If your going to tell a story then tell the WHOLE thing.. I haven't heard you mention the 800 jobs
RD saved by doing that or did KA not give you that info.

Look it's obvious your feelings are hurt because you didn't get your shot at being an AGC. and with
your flip-flopping , back stabbing and harrasing your own members on how they voted I can see why
the ND didn't include you. I'm guessing that you won't be part of the Negotiating team either since
you seem to have issues with the way RD negotiates . SO tell ya what how bout you sit in your grievance
office and B*tch and moan about the District (which by the way got for you) until your term is up and
then go back and sling bags , You would be doing yourself and the MEMBERSHIP a big favor.

 

[charlie Brown]

Jester

Question for ya, how was the ND team suppose to pick up on and do anything about the language of the contract concerning the attendance policy, when it was already in affect before they took office?

 

[P. REZ]

If your going to tell a story then tell the WHOLE thing.. I haven't heard you mention the 800 jobs
RD saved by doing that or did KA not give you that info.

Look it's obvious your feelings are hurt because you didn't get your shot at being an AGC. and with
your flip-flopping , back stabbing and harrasing your own members on how they voted I can see why
the ND didn't include you. I'm guessing that you won't be part of the Negotiating team either since
you seem to have issues with the way RD negotiates . SO tell ya what how bout you sit in your grievance
office and B*tch and moan about the District (which by the way got for you) until your term is up and
then go back and sling bags , You would be doing yourself and the MEMBERSHIP a big favor.

??????????
You didn't read all of my posts did you? I did mention jobs. Ask said harassee and you will see I wasn't a part of. As long as I help the members the way I currently do, I'm sure they will want me around for a long time. As far as RD and his negotiating, didn't bash him, said he had hard decisions to make and applauded his video admitting the agreement.

 

[roabilly]

Jester's CBA Wish List:
I. Scope
II. Attendance Policy
III. DOH recognized in potential merger

Let me just add one idea in what SWA does with their Attendance Policy, as I understand the matter. My attendance has been very good over the several years I have worked with America West and US Airways, and I am not on a level. What I did in past years benefits me none in the present. If Level 0 is the lowest level, why cannot we get a less than 0 level which recognizes the years of very good attendance instead? For example, have a Level -3 would recognize three years not advancing a Level. If for some reason one would be having particularly a bad year in terms of illness, my proposal would recognize usually reliable employee based upon prior years strong attendance without having to overly punish that employee for some recent string of bad luck.

So Advances Jester.

My dearest west friend Mr. Jester...

I love the novel approach with the negative points system... as you know... I’m not a proponent of penalizing anyone whom is legitimately ill. You have made excellent points regarding this issue. The fact is that any such policy needs to be included into a future CBA.

For that to happen... the NC will have to sign off on it... then the membership will have to (ratify) agree to it. That is where the majority aggregate will demonstrate democracy.

Current FMLA regulations protect those that are legitimately ill. The Union’s job is to make sure that any Attendance Policy is not getting used by the Company for the ulterior motive of enhanced attrition!

This is especially valid when the policy targets senior employees with topped out pay scales who may be susceptible to frequent absences due to chronic illness.

So asserts...

BroBilly

 

[pjirish317]

??????????
You didn't read all of my posts did you? I did mention jobs. Ask said harassee and you will see I wasn't a part of. As long as I help the members the way I currently do, I'm sure they will want me around for a long time. As far as RD and his negotiating, didn't bash him, said he had hard decisions to make and applauded his video admitting the agreement.

Only after you were called out on your original post, and john john saved your butt. So again, why no mention of hard decisions in your original post?