IAM Fleet Service topic (Mini Thread)

[Ramp Rogue]

Orioleman.

Here is my scenario, we vote down this POS contract and we don't merge with anyone, Canale wins re-election and then puts the west people under the current contract. Also factor in that it takes 4 years to negotiate a new contract and our new top out wage as of 1/2014 is $24/hr. with a 2% raise in 2015.

Horse A: Accept T/A and my salary as a topped out west employee would equal $302,033 from 1/1/09 thru 12/31/15.

Horse B: Take my scenario above and my salary for same period would equal $293,749.

Which horse would you take now?

P. Rez,

Would you pass the Tequila?

 

[mike33]

Orioleman.

Here is my scenario, we vote down this POS contract and we don't merge with anyone, Canale wins re-election and then puts the west people under the current contract. Also factor in that it takes 4 years to negotiate a new contract and our new top out wage as of 1/2014 is $24/hr. with a 2% raise in 2015.

According to Article 13 of the Bylaws RC cannot put the west into the east w/o a vote

ARTICLE XIII - AGREEMENT CHANGES AND STRIKE VOTES

Section 1. A minimum of twenty-four (24) hours prior to contract ratification meetings and
voting, each Committee Chairman will be provided a copy of the exact language negotiated in an
agreement except when on strike, or when there is a "No" recommendation of the Negotiating Committee;
then it shall be supplied prior to ratification. When voting on the ratification of an agreement or taking a
strike vote (if not in conflict with Grand Lodge policy or Executive Council instructions), within five (5)
days, a schedule of special meetings at all Local Lodges affected shall be set up at which a District
Officer, Grand Lodge Representative, or their designee shall be present to fully explain before the polls
are opened. Voting shall be conducted by secret ballot. It shall be mandatory for the best interest of the
membership involved in all negotiations for the respective negotiating committee to recommend
acceptance or rejection of the proposed agreement prior to its ratification by the membership. Contract
ratification voting shall occur on the same day system-wide, where applicable.

A company Neg told me over the phone that if we vote the TA down it would be considered worth more as a whole than the 2 separate agreements standing alone and by that value alone the IAM could put the lesser value together with the East agreement. Correct me if I'm wrong but Art. XIII says you vote. RC letter doesn't really say they can. It says they may "CONSIDER" doing so. Big difference. IAM! Please send me a Letter that say's they can or your threats are just idle ones!!!!........THEY (the company)don't make bylaw decisions for IAM members. Your words insinuate they're calling the shots.

Your Bad

ANY THOUGHTS ANYONE !!

 

[Ramp Rogue]

Who decides what is fair & equitable when it comes to merging seniority lists?

Rogue

 

[P. REZ]

Ramp Roque,

Do the math on any scenario you can come up with and that might help you decide on whether this or any other contract is good for you. If you didn't understand my scenario I can explain on many different levels.

 

[The Bagfather]

Joe,

Yes, they did go back to the table in Jan & Feb....and that got us nothing, so going back to the table doesn't necessarily mean we gain anything. And that is a HUGE "IF" we go back to the table.

In regard to the CIC language in our contract. Are you kidding me, right??? Fleet CIC language will NOT and I repeat NOT hold up a merger! Even if these companies put thought into the CIC language, we have a history of losing it anyway!

My word, for what it's worth, is the CIC language is NOT a threat to any foreseeable merger. And I have history on my side to prove it.

GF You may be right. For one thing in any big merger the 3 to 4 hundred million dollar
payoff to any body in the east contract would seem to be peanuts.

 

[The Bagfather]

Because I believe part of negations are about pride , also it would just look sloppy on heemingways part to leave it in .

Furthermore you didn’t refute what I said , you merely insinuated that because the company is taking it out , it DOES have value and that your position is correct .

You sir are incorrect , and to the fact of the matter you’ve been PROVEN incorrect in a court of law . Stop making the same flawed assumptions .

Not to nitpik but it wasn't a court of law, it was an arbitrator. The union could
have taken it to a court of law and even try the case befor a jury.
However since what was a steak about 500 million the company would
have been glad to spend 15% of that in court. The union could
never match that so they're stuck with arbitration. Another
negative was the spector of endless appeals which the company
could afford while the union couldn't.

The more experienced on this board have described arbitration as a crap shoot
So why did they do it. Both sides took the gamble to save time and money.
Apparently niether Canale nor parker believed very strongly that it would
pass so what the hell go with arbitration.

Maybe some here exagerated the chances of a possitive out come. But,
and this is very important the pressure to vote down the Sept TA was for
two reasons. 1. The arbitrator could have ruled differently and 2.
If the TA had passed the COC would have been gone forever.

I personally was very dissapointed that we did not win the COC even though
I'm not clear how the west would have benifitted. And I was surprised
when shortly after the loss It's value was being taughted. But after
careful study have come to conclude that it is Huge. Look at
how the company bluffed FS with thier stupid offer in JAN Even
Canale balked at that one. Now about 5 months later a significantly
better TA appears. What changed? The answer to that is nothing
has changed except that for the most part the FS masses have been
educated. So vote yes, And no one can fault you. But I will be here
to at least get the correct info out as much as I can Thanks BF

 

[700UW]

Actually the union can only take it to court if it was a major dispute, which it was not.

The airbus outsourcing was taken to court, won by the IAM, and then won by the company on appeal and sent to arbitration.

If you have a CBA with a grievance procedure you have to follow it unless it is ruled a major dispute.

The company sought in court to have it thrown out, the IAM was succesful in district court to force the company to arbtitrate it, not procede in court.

 

[Tim Nelson]

Tim,

I would first like to say that this is a POS contract but my counterparts here in PHX sound as if they will be big yes votes again. The problem I have with voting no on this contract is factoring in the time value of money. If I'm not mistaken and we vote no and we merge with United that the east employees would be stuck at $17.87/ hr. top pay and the west employees would be at $15.20 top pay. Now, if transition talks go anything like these transitions talks, it could be 2011 or even later for a topped out west employee to see anything. Tim, I'll reiterate that I think this contract sux but the last time a senior employee in the west got a raise was 2000. The possibility of waiting 11 or more years for a raise is criminal.

I understand PHX is a big Yes vote but this isn't about PHX, it's about a career. I agree with you that the contract sux so don't vote Yes on something that disrespects you and the masses.

A NO Vote AT WORST allows us to negotiate an industry leading contract with either United or American.

A YEs vote AT BEST guarantees us to be at sub non-union wages, worst vacation, worst sick time, wrost of everything till 2016 while our counterparts will enjoy good wages and benefits and most likely won't share their profits with us.

Your Yes Vote Means This in a Merger

Your No Vote means This in a Merger

Contract Informational Website
regards,
Tim Nelson
IAM Local Chairman, 1487, Chicago
email: [email protected]

 

[Tim Nelson]

Randy Canale sez,
Your choice will be between accepting the proposed changes now, or waiting for traditional negotiations to resume in 2009"

Hey Tim or any of our loyal Iam pro Canale people ,

can you answer this for me . I luckily still have a copy of randys aug letter but went looking on the IAM website to do a cut and paste

and can't find it anywhere . it was there the other day . WHAT HAPPENED TO HIS AUG LETTER HE SENT TO THE MASSES AND WHY

WAS IT PULLED OFF THE WEBSITE..

things that make you go hmmm

any way this what he said back then
and i quote "Your choice will be between accepting the proposed changes now, or waiting for traditional negotiations to resume in 2009"

hey guys sound familiar.

Randy pulled that letter off his website 4 days ago. But we have a copy posted on www.joeypage/voteno kindly review it and you will see how he recycles his lies. It's the main feature on the page.

To PHX, just because you guys aren't making squat on your wage doesn't mean we on the east should vote for a pathetic non-union cheap labor contract that is the worst of everything.

It's called justice and the masses are fighting against your yes persuasion that will oppress these workers until 2016.

regards,
Tim Nelson
IAM Local Chairman, 1487, Chicago

 

[The Bagfather]

HERE'S THE DEAL...............................

If, Nate G. LAX AGC, Pat F. PHL AGC, Jeff R. CLT AGC,Mark W. AGC PIT, would have thier
compensation package's ( wages and benefits) to reflect the same as what is in the T/A.
I would follow thier lead and vote for it. It would save the IAM money and possibly
reduce are dues that we currently pay.
These guy's negotiated it, they endorse it and if it's that good they should live by it too.

Grow some balls Mr AGC'S, step up to the plate and lead the workers you represent!
Thier contract should be no better than the one we work under. Any taker's.

Until you do my vote is NO and I will lobby for a no vote.

You guy's wore the same uniform I wear now and you are no better, the only difference is,
you think you are better.

Great post. When PF or whoever comes by SAN I'm going to ask them
exactly what the factors are that give them a raise . In SMF
practically no one gets a cent for the next four years. OK Top out
will go from 18.38 to 20.17 .

 

[The Bagfather]

Boy...am I striking a nerve with you all....I bet you wish I would just go back East Rutherford NJ and go away :angry:

To perv.....In no way am even looking at this board for an indication on vote count. This board is smack in the middle of Nelsonville and I don't work there.

To bobdylan...there is no way you know what station I work in...NO WAY...so don't even try to figure it out. And yes EVERYONE I speak to in my station is a YES, call me what you want but I'm not a liar. Furthermore, I've been here 30 years all up and down the Atlantic and got lots of friends and all I've been hearing is YES.

Why....is that making everyone nervous?

Because if it's true it is very sad.

 

[Ramp Rogue]

Ramp Roque,

Do the math on any scenario you can come up with and that might help you decide on whether this or any other contract is good for you. If you didn't understand my scenario I can explain on many different levels.

P. Rez,

This contract will never be good for me until it gives us all DOH for all purposes. If you or anyone else is wondering why i am so adamant about DOH, let US merge with AA or UA and you'll find out why. It is just about given that if we don't have DOH language to protect us, that AA or UA is sure to put us all on the bottom of their seniority list. Ask TWA about it.

Rogue

 

[The Bagfather]

Timmy, where did I miss the all important fact that this TA would go through 2015? YIKES! Please tell me that's not there somewhere honey! Seems to me the TA I am reading goes through Dec 31, 2011.

The west contract was amendable in 2005. I can't see into the future
but I hope at least it doesn't go till 3000.

 

[Theo Corner]

The west contract was amendable in 2005. I can't see into the future
but I hope at least it doesn't go till 3000.

why is it that the east hubs all have to vote at the local but PHX and LAS get to vote at the airport?

This contract gets in and it stays until 2016 like Tim said. It's ammendable on Jan 1 2012 and then it will take another 4 years to renegotiate another one since United won't be in any hurry to share its profits and wages with us.

OTOH, we vote this dreadful contract out and at WORST we are in position to negotiate an industry LEADING contract with United in about one year!!!!! That's the worst that could happen which is better than the best scenerio of voting yes.

I also agree with the others that Hemenway knows more about the Change of Control than uf, giantsfan, and freedom. Any merger and the change of control is in place and EVEN if it wasn't 100% slam dunk, it is leverage just like Canale told us in September, so Hemenway would definately be back.

 

[The Bagfather]

Actually the union can only take it to court if it was a major dispute, which it was not.

The airbus outsourcing was taken to court, won by the IAM, and then won by the company on appeal and sent to arbitration.

If you have a CBA with a grievance procedure you have to follow it unless it is ruled a major dispute.

The company sought in court to have it thrown out, the IAM was succesful in district court to force the company to arbtitrate it, not procede in court.

I remember we talked about this in Nov. But how was it a minor dispute?
what determines that? Thanks BF