IAM Fleet Service topic 18 June-

[The Janitor]

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.

700, you have been out of the loop for a very long time.

The simple truth about attendance policies goes back to about 2003. Companies began hiring a bunch of dopes who dropped the dime constantly and couldn't get their rear ends out of bed to get to work on time. The non-union employees got hammered.

So companies started changing their attendance policies to gain in productivity. The problem was that the companies were getting these millions of dollars in productivity gains by changing their attendance policies but the workers weren't getting anything back from those gains. The IBT became the 'Father of the attendance policy' by being the first union to throw their membership under the bus back in 2005 at Republic airlines. In return, they got nothing for fleet service and passenger service but managed to protect the Pilot jobs. Shortly thereafter all Republic fleet and passenger service jobs were swallowed up and laid off. There are no Republic airline fleet and passenger service employees now even though there is a IBT contract on the property! In fact, there are actually more IAM members doing the IBT's work as a direct result of a horrible attendance policy and horrible job by the IBT at Republic. Horrible for fleet and passenger service but not so horrible for Pilots.

RC, knowing the new trends in this industry, STILL refused to engage in the attendance issue, again, knowing full well that once he signed the agreement that US AIRWAYS was going to follow other airlines in trying to recoop millions of dollars in productivity losses. Almost immediately, this is exactly what US AIRWAYS did and it was the exact sorta thing that we would have expected.

Since then, the IAM has gotten vigilant and has engaged in attendance policies so the membership can participate in the millions of dollars in productivity gains. At WN, the IAM settled on an attendance policy to address the company's concerns about the dopes who aren't coming in on time and blow off work. But, in return, the IAM received double time for all mandatory overtime and some other enhancements instead of scope gains. It will be interesting what direction the US AIRWAYS negotiations team goes in, fighting for scope or days off and a bigger boost in wages.

At UA, to RD's credit, the initial section 6 negotiations at UA centered on attendance policies due to UA wanting to move on bids placed by contracted companies for 700 jobs that RC never bothered to protect. It was better to engage in the issue and negotiate it and get gains out of it than the alternative, i.e, to sit and do nothing and let UA lay off 700 workers. So long to 700 jobs if RD followed the actions of RC.
So, to keep food on about 700 tables and to gain the express work in the scope of the LOA, the decision was made to draft an attendance policy [although not as harsh as KA is telling PR] and also provided rewards and grace. I'm not sure what PR is talking about regarding a harsh attendance policy but I realize he doesn't put much weight on scope or the 700 jobs that were protected in ORD. How could he, he supported this last contract that gave the company a free volition to draft any goofy attendance policy it wants...and it did.

In any case, the attendance policy at UA is going to be voted on. It has to be because of the bylaws. Again, the alternative was to sit and do nothing. That would have resulted in the 100% guaranteed loss of 700 jobs. It will be up to the membership to weigh the attendance policy or 700 jobs, they will be able to pick which one they want. Again, with RC, there wouldn't have even been a choice. RC just would have said "Well, we can't do nothing about it cuz management can control their own policies." At least now, the UA membership has a choice, and I certainly hope we do too instead of continuing the insanity of RC and just punting this stuff away to the company with NOTHING in return.

In the future, IMO, US AIRWAYS members will have to decide this issue, but because of the lame contract, US AIRWAYS may decide for us and eliminate those 600 westie jobs on the 2011 date PJ referred to...a date that PR supported!

However, if your negotiations team mimics the leadership of RD at UA then it is likely that the jobs may be preserved and that the attendance policy will be tweaked but won't go away. If US AIRWAYS wants to work with the IAM then maybe those jobs can be grafted in the scope provided both parties can reason together. If US AIRWAYS throws those stations under the bus then its a foregone conclusion and the negotiations team can instead focus on pay and days off.

 

[Jester]

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?

Mr. Brown,

Valid question, and maybe it is my own assumption or understanding of the process. I would think if I was very actively involved with the union or had future ambitions to be in the union leadership, I would have demanded a copy of the T.A. and reviewed it myself and passed it around various interested parties to pick through details, especially the obvious ones as in a sick policy. I would not have accepted the Readers Digest version as given by Boss Canale which just covers the highlights... this is even more true if my intention was to have the membership reject the T.A. as was the advise of the ND Team.

What chaffs my butt are the people who say, "Told you so" about not voting for the T.A. because of the attendance policy, even though it was never mentioned by any of that crowd, but were instead citing other unrelated matters like outsourcing, pay raises, etc. Honestly, a sick policy is probably one of the most important matters any employee faces with a company either in a union or non-union shop. The issue should have been a on a short list of important points to be covered, but instead it was overlooked by those people who are to be representing (or desired to represent) the membership. It was a stupid mistake, and why I have little faith in either side.

So Defers Jester.

 

[Ramp Rogue]

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.

This I agree with 100%. All seniority in Fleet Service should start the first day you are in Fleet Service, no matter if you are fulltime or parttime. If you came from another department, your seniority starts the day you enter fleet service.

Rogue

 

[The Janitor]

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

The attendance policy that RD signed isn't as harsh as PR said. It's alot better than the one at US AIRWAYS. It was Jobs for attendance. Remember reservations workers are not under this attendance policy because it had no net job gain. Getting 700 jobs under scope for an attendance policy that is alot better than the US AIRWAYS attendance policy will ultimately be decided as fair by the membership. Let's let the UA negotiations team finish its job until we accuse it like PR is doing. Something tells me that there will be other gains as a result of some of these things.

I don't know who asked about MS or KA or MW in the district elections but if I remember hearing correctly, MW was mathematically eliminated after about the 10th day of voting and then MS was eliminated shortly thereafter. I don't think the final votes are on the website but the rumor here is that the MF team came up with between 25%-33% of the total vote. Their biggest supporter was supposedly PHX, who didn't have any dance partners and probably washed up any chance of having any of their members on the negotiations team. I don't think that's bad for a rogue ticket even though anything less than 40% is a crushing defeat in political terms.

Who knows maybe PR and CL will continue to place their station on an island again in two years. At some point, I would hope that the PHX membership would start be willing to work with the District instead of serving the interest of a few. And in theory, even if fairy tales came true and RC's MF team won, who's picking the negotiations committee? KA? Of course not....RD is. And he's not compelled to send 55 members to negotiations. My hunch is that he will take a sample of stations like he did at UA and IMO that will most likely be those stations who supported and believe in finishing the job of change. PHX will be left with website updates.

I do think that RD is smart enough to access what PHX has spoken and I think the fair thing to do is to allow PHX's real leader RR to lead them. One thing RD does is listen and I would be shocked if he didn't make some changes out in PHX, even though RR was a RC leftover. If PHX still piss and moans then it just show itself as a complete discontent that you just cant do anything with. At that point it's time to focus on other stations.

 

[orioleman]

They got an attendance policy too. Did MW win?

doesn't matter if he wins or loses he's still in office until September.. SO you could go from having an
AGC that gave a S*it about the members to a lame duck AGC but then again he's been your secondary
for the last 2 yrs and only showed up for the election. You wanted him . so I hope you get him even
if its only for a few months. the sad thing is the only ones getting screwed are the Step 3 s and arbitration
cases but then again you don't care about that it doesn't pertain to YOU now does it.

 

[The Janitor]

doesn't matter if he wins or loses he's still in office until September.. SO you could go from having an
AGC that gave a S*it about the members to a lame duck AGC but then again he's been your secondary
for the last 2 yrs and only showed up for the election. You wanted him . so I hope you get him even
if its only for a few months. the sad thing is the only ones getting screwed are the Step 3 s and arbitration
cases but then again you don't care about that it doesn't pertain to YOU now does it.

It's sad that PHX step 3's and arbitration cases are 'stalled'.

 

[orioleman]

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.

Jester,
I understand your concept . But if you have a shop steward that half way know's what he is
doing ALL factors are put on the table in their hearings. So even though you haven't been in a hearing
because of your great attendance doesn't mean those concepts aren't being used on a case by case basis

To Janitor.
GEEZ your long winded. any chance you can get down to just 1 paragraph at a time.

 

[The Janitor]

Jester,
I understand your concept . But if you have a shop steward that half way know's what he is
doing ALL factors are put on the table in their hearings. So even though you haven't been in a hearing
because of your great attendance doesn't mean those concepts aren't being used on a case by case basis

To Janitor.
GEEZ your long winded. any chance you can get down to just 1 paragraph at a time.

Give me a break, I had to teach history, politics, and math all in one classroom setting.

end of lesson

 

[P. REZ]

doesn't matter if he wins or loses he's still in office until September.. SO you could go from having an
AGC that gave a S*it about the members to a lame duck AGC but then again he's been your secondary
for the last 2 yrs and only showed up for the election. You wanted him . so I hope you get him even
if its only for a few months. the sad thing is the only ones getting screwed are the Step 3 s and arbitration
cases but then again you don't care about that it doesn't pertain to YOU now does it.

Who's fault is it that step 3's are backed up? BTW we have step 3's 15th and 16th of July. GC doesn't schedule arbitrations, AGC's do. Why haven't any PHX cases been heard. Save the MW didn't schedule excuse too.

 

[SpinDoc]

Before the last bankruptcy we had a LOA about attendance, it stated you couldn't be disciplined for the legitimate use of sick time, a dr's note proved it was legitimate, and it also said sick time was not intended to extend your weekend.

We had employees who had a pattern of being sick on their Monday and Friday.

The company has a right to expect you to come to work, just because you have sick time in your CBA the company has a right to discipline employees abusing it.

Okay. Fair enough. The company SHOULD be able to discipline for abuse of sick time, but ONLY if the employee exceeds the amount of sick time they have accrued in a calendar year. Why is sick time included in the CBA if agents can't use the time they accrue without penalty? It's like vacation time. It is a negotiated benefit that is given to the employee. Each employee accrues X amount of sick time in a given calendar year, so why is it that they can't use it without question from the company? This is where the IAM needs to grow some nads and push the issue. If the company balks and cries about productivity, then that's too bad. The company agrees to give the sick time, so they need to find a way to make things work with people USING their sick time. It's plain and simple.

 

[pjirish317]

Who's fault is it that step 3's are backed up? BTW we have step 3's 15th and 16th of July. GC doesn't schedule arbitrations, AGC's do. Why haven't any PHX cases been heard. Save the MW didn't schedule excuse too.

The step 3's are scheduled by Labor relations along with yorr ACG I believe. The MW excuse is a valis one. He is the AGC that is supposed to schedule them. Ask him, he is the sole person responsable to schedule the arbitrations. And are you talking Step 3's for PHX or arbitrations not being heard?

If you are talking arbitrations...PHX cases have to wait their turn just like all of the others. It is not all about PHX. So please stop with the entitlement attitude. PHX is not entitled to anything more than the rest of the membership. Everybody has cases waiting on arbitration. PHX is no different.

 

[700UW]

Because there are people out there who abuse the sick time they accrued, like workers who are sick always on their monday or friday or those who are conviently sick when they cant get a DAT, Comp or a swap on the very same dau they tried to get off?, sit in on some meetings with employees and management and you would be surprised how some orkers abuse sick time.

Is it fair to those who dont abuse it or who are forced to work OT to cover the employees who do?

 

[orioleman]

Who's fault is it that step 3's are backed up? BTW we have step 3's 15th and 16th of July. GC doesn't schedule arbitrations, AGC's do. Why haven't any PHX cases been heard. Save the MW didn't schedule excuse too.

Sorry pal the truth hurts.. its not an excuse its a fact... MW was given the job to schedule ALL
and let me repeat ALL arbitrations for ALL stations. SO why don't you ask him why he didn't .
I really don't know other then he was trying to make the ND team look bad at the expense of
the membership. It's kinda of hard for an AGC to get to the greivance office to discuss step 3
when the GC won't escort him done.

Once a suit always a suit. Running to Dale about union problems is pretty pathetic. You got issues
with the union you work it out with the union NOT the freaking Company..

Morons complete Morons I tell ya

 

[orioleman]

Give me a break, I had to teach history, politics, and math all in one classroom setting.

end of lesson

where you teach "Walnut Grove" , bet Laura Ingles was your best student.

 

[P. REZ]

Sorry pal the truth hurts.. its not an excuse its a fact... MW was given the job to schedule ALL
and let me repeat ALL arbitrations for ALL stations. SO why don't you ask him why he didn't .
I really don't know other then he was trying to make the ND team look bad at the expense of
the membership. It's kinda of hard for an AGC to get to the greivance office to discuss step 3
when the GC won't escort him done.

Once a suit always a suit. Running to Dale about union problems is pretty pathetic. You got issues
with the union you work it out with the union NOT the freaking Company..

Morons complete Morons I tell ya

Name calling again, make you feel better? Did talk to MW, did you? Probably not, just believing one side of the story without talking to both. I don't have a clue what the Dale comment is, enlighten me please, I'm sure you have the whole story on that one.