IAM Fleet Service topic (Mini Thread)

[Tim Nelson]

Tim

Could you explain this

page 4 of 11
line 5
The Company and the union will sign a LOA outlining the provsions for a 10 work day where utilized by the company.

Won't that mean the company won't need as many Full time workers?


Second thing I notice

page 7 of 11
line 26

Union withdraws "part time ratio" grievance with prejudice

Sounds like the union caved to allow more PT workers whats your thought?

We already have a LOA for 10 hour day so the first question of yours appears as a duplicate. Dunno.
Part time ratio grievance is a west side grievance where the company apparently didn't keep the quota. I'm unclear on it.

My main concern about this contract is that it was written, 'taylor made' for a merger and layoffs. Get rid of profit sharing, add key reduction in force language, eliminate COC, add 2 years.
All the sudden the IAM allowed Hemenway to pop in there under Article 9: Reductions in Force, elinination of part time recall rights of full timers who didn't displace into part time at their station if they could. This is a biggie for sure.
Before, if a full timer got a packet and was affected in a reduction of force at his particular station, he could keep his full time job if he had the seniority to go elsewhere, and, he had recall rights to both part-time and full-time positions at the station he was reduced from. This contract removes that and doesn't recognize previous seniority rules on this matter.

The only reason why Hemenway would want this is because reductions in force may very well be around the corner.

Updated: ***Campaign Headquarters for No vote***
regards,
Tim Nelson
IAM Local Chairman, 1487, Chicago

 

[mike33]

Tim

Could you explain this

page 4 of 11
line 5
The Company and the union will sign a LOA outlining the provsions for a 10 work day where utilized by the company.

Won't that mean the company won't need as many Full time workers?


Second thing I notice

page 7 of 11
line 26

Union withdraws "part time ratio" grievance with prejudice

Sounds like the union caved to allow more PT workers whats your thought?

I think it probably has to do with not wanting to pay 1.5x after 8 hrs.....I believe it's much more efficient to have 8hr days than 10 due to days off coverage

 

[JoeDirt]

This is the LOA in our CBA


1 Letter of Agreement
2
3 Re: 10 Hour Work Day Study
4
5 April 5, 1999
6
7
8 Thomas F. Brickner
9 Grand Lodge Representative
10 I.A.M.A.W.
11
12
13 Dear Mr. Brickner:
14
15 The following will confirm our conversation during negotiations.
16
17 The parties will meet to explore the feasibility of establishing a ten
18 (10) hour work day for employees covered by the Fleet Service
19 contract. It is understood the review will take into account safety
20 issues, staffing efficiency requirements, employee considerations and
21 must be cost neutral or cost beneficial to the Company. It is also
22 recognized some areas or locations may lend themselves to a ten (10)
23 hour work day more so than others.
24
25
26
27 Sincerely,
28
29
30 John M. Hedblom
31 Vice President Labor Relations
32
33 Accepted and agreed:
34
35 __________________________
36 Thomas F. Brickner
37 Grand Lodge Representative
38 on behalf of the IAMAW
39
40
41 Article Reference – N/A

 

[Tim Nelson]

Quote: giantfan
G-F…

It the above were true… The Company, along with the IAM would have been more than happy to simply leave the COC provisions in our agreement intact!

If you will… please read the current proposal … I think you will notice in the Merger and Acquisition language…only the language regarding the COC (Snap-backs) has mysteriously disappeared!

Hmmm… wonder why that might be?

Your COC language has been given back to the Company for pennies on the dollar.

You're correct Roabilly, Parker didnt think the CIC was a threat and left it in the contract when putting together a dozen investors over a 12 month period where all the investors bought the stock at different prices. However, Parker's actions to eliminate the CIC in this situation is an action that explicitly points to a merger that would trigger the COC clause. i think Parker knows alot more about what's going on than me or Giantsfan.
Parker's action has changed, he didn't remove it in bankruptcy because he didn't see it as a threat, but he has insisted on its removal in light of this merger talk.

Fleet service is the last group that has the COC language and United Airline Board member Canale wants to remove it and place US AIRWAYS fleet service under a substandard contract until probably 2016. Once United, and if this contract passes, I don't want to hear one ramp rat that voted for this rag complain why United doesn't bring us up to United's pay and benefits. And in such a scenerio I don't think we would even be as lucky as the America West folks and get profit sharing. I have a hard time imagining that Canale or United would share the profits of UA rampers to US AIRWAYS rampers who agreed to work for cheap labor wage and benefits. We would all be like the America West workers all over again....screwed. Fleet isn't forced to vote yes on this, we need to take time to see how this industry unfolds because either Hemenway gives us a better contract or he has to deal with paying us $21.43 up to $26.

I am not surprised that Randy Canale doesn't want to talk about giving up the COC.

Updated: Campaign Headquarters for No Vote

regards,
Tim Nelson
IAM Local Chairman, 1487, Chicago

 

[roabilly]

Guys..

Wait a minute… It just dawned on me why that worthless…non-enforceable…
Change in Control language disappeared!

It was simply a typographical error! The Company and the Union both intended for it to remain, but it must have been lost in the transcript!

Thats what it is !

 

[freedom]

GF
You are right about the last one we voted on. What you have failed to take in account is after the vote they didn't meet again until after the ruling on the CIC arbitration. Since then they met in Jan. Feb. and the first week of Apr. If and when they meet again is speculation and no one knows for sure either way.

As for Fleet holding up a merger its not Fleet or the IAM or any other union or group that would hold it up. Its the CIC language in our contract that is the stumbling block. It would be really hard for someone interested in buying us to dismiss it as unimportant.

That sales event is described by
the parties’ language as “a single transaction†(or, parenthetically, “multi-step
related transactionsâ€), to a “single purchaser†(or a group that must be “acting in
concert.â€) These are terms strongly suggestive of a transaction in the nature of a
bulk sale to a well-defined single buyer (or a cohesive, coordinated (“concertedâ€)
group of buyers acting like a single entity.) Taken together, these terms create
relatively narrow boundaries for circumstances that will be considered a “change
in control.†For the reasons set forth below, the Board concludes the facts
surrounding the Company’s emergence from bankruptcy, in this particular case,
do not square with these bargained contract terms and cannot reasonably be
characterized as amounting to a “change in control†as defined by these parties

 

[freedom]

Basically three weeks from today we will once again vote on a TA and once
again it will be voted down heavily on the East side and probably by most of
the 18 stations mentioned on page 3. The West seems alittle less then the Yes
vote % they turned out last time. It would be nice to have a concerted effort to
send the IAM and the Company a message that in order to have a TA accepted we
need to offer Fleet a proposal to ensure of ratification. The numbers will vote this
down and the union and company will see that 35% voted Yes and try to sweet'n
it to get the 50% + 1. We will be hard pressed to look at a propsal when we ourselves
are showing the company how close they are to getting to that middle of the road.

So to those voting Yes and continue to think this will pass, just look back to Sep. and
see that you voted and showed the company the seperation. Imagine if you stood with
the majority and told the IAM and Company...NO. Then we may see a proposal that may
ventured into the 80% or above approval rating. Til that time it will remain a NO.

I know people will say they think it may pass this time, thier the same people who thought
so last time. I believe this will be voted down even more significantly than the last. Clt and Phl
are not even close to a Yes and word is alot of others are headed that way.Just a thought of
how nice it would look to see a complete shutdown of this vote across the board. All of us
together.............I can dream.

Thanks

In September you voted N0 to ENSURE THE CHANGE OF CONTROL would not be dismissed . Tim here filled your heads with dreams of 20K back pay checks … I didn’t blame you for voting no , your self interest was too heavily skewed to one side , but my memory is neither that dim nor my common sense that lacking to believe for even one second that the east voted it down to send a message .

I have news for you them perseverance , if you fear that our HUGE yes turn out will jeopardize the future possibility of getting the kind of contract you want , then your SPOT ON … vote yes and END THIS NOW … otherwise brother , when we DO merge with united you’ll NEVER see the kind of contract you want with our union splintered and desperate .

Brothers and sisters do you not see the gulf that we’re creating in front ?When half of your union pays out POVERTY WAGES , it significantly weakens your position during talks .

Do you folks want to get something done this year , or much much later?

Remember we’ve elected new guys to “kick the companies butt “ in negotiations ! But honestly , does anyone truly think it’s just that easy ?

 

[roabilly]

As I said… if it (COC) is worthless, why bother paying attorneys…negotiators…and legal transcribers to remove it… simply leave it alone…

“If it ain’t broke… why fix it?

 

[Tim Nelson]

That sales event is described by
the parties’ language as “a single transaction†(or, parenthetically, “multi-step
related transactionsâ€), to a “single purchaser†(or a group that must be “acting in
concert.â€) These are terms strongly suggestive of a transaction in the nature of a
bulk sale to a well-defined single buyer (or a cohesive, coordinated (“concertedâ€)
group of buyers acting like a single entity.) Taken together, these terms create
relatively narrow boundaries for circumstances that will be considered a “change
in control.†For the reasons set forth below, the Board concludes the facts
surrounding the Company’s emergence from bankruptcy, in this particular case,
do not square with these bargained contract terms and cannot reasonably be
characterized as amounting to a “change in control†as defined by these parties

I think Hemenway knows a bit more than you or me on this and that is exactly why he wants it out. I don't think Dougie or Al agree with you on this one, just my humble opinion.

Remember, Hemenway and Parker left it in the contract with the last group of investors who bought stock in all separate transactions at different prices.
Now, however, Hemenway has flipped like a pancake and wants the COC out. No thanks for your opinion Freedom, I'll go by Hemenway's actions which ONLY support the COC has Lions Teeth in a merger.

If there is a United Airline Merger then consider the following:
United Merger


Information for Vote

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

 

[freedom]

As I said… if it (COC) is worthless, why bother paying attorneys…negotiators…and legal transcribers to remove it… simply leave it alone…

“If it ain’t broke… why fix it?

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 .

 

[Tim Nelson]

In September you voted N0 to ENSURE THE CHANGE OF CONTROL would not be dismissed . Tim here filled your heads with dreams of 20K back pay checks … I didn’t blame you for voting no , your self interest was too heavily skewed to one side , but my memory is neither that dim nor my common sense that lacking to believe for even one second that the east voted it down to send a message .

And why shouldn't we continue to ensure the COC until we get a fair agreement? The alternative is to be pegged with the industry worst contract until 2015.

Do you know something that Hemenway doesn't? Hemenway has flipped like a pancake and now wants it out and I think he knows a bit more about what is coming down that you or me.

What Does Your Vote Mean In A United Merger?

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

 

[redeye]

Tim


page 7 of 11
line 26

Union withdraws "part time ratio" grievance with prejudice

Sounds like the union caved to allow more PT workers whats your thought?

In a way it does allow for more PT workers. I believe the grievance originated
in PHL. The grievance claims that the PT/FT ratio is calculated based on 40% of
the FT count. The Company claims that the ratio is based on 40% of the total
Fleet service membership, both FT and PT.
Effectively if the Union withdraws the grievance, the ratio of FT vs PT will be
from a substantially larger base. This means more PT workers.

I hope this helps,

 

[freedom]

1. There is no change of control going to save you . (proven already or do we need to do it three times to really let it sink in eh ? )


2 You could get a 100% vote from fleet of NO on the new TA , I see no reason why that would change the companies position , remember without the COC all we have is our solidarity to enforce change , and has been proven over and over , most of our workers are only SOLID to vote on something or post on a message board …. (to clarify I’m insinuating that our union is too weak to even PROTEST effectively . )


3.The new direction team is a hard-line neogoating team , what they demand from this company will end talks so quickly, you’ll blink and they’ll be over .

4 The united states economy is crashing , you want to wait till 2010 to strike ? have at it and watch as the strike vote is either voted down or the company replaces us .

5 . We MAY be merging in the near future , who here thinks it’s a good idea to go into the next talks as an even MORE shattered union than we are now ? tell me , has it helped that we now have class 2 cities , class one cities and poor impoverished west in our talks ?

6 . How much of your lives are you willing to put on the line , How many years are you willing to piss away on hope ?





I’m not meaning to be insulting brother and sisters , only very sharp , I want you to see as I see .

 

[Tim Nelson]

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 .

I think it is fair to point out that nobody should be basing their vote on The COC being taken out because "It would just look sloppy to leave it in."

What Your Vote Means With An Upcoming Merger

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

 

[freedom]

I think Hemenway knows a bit more than you or me on this and that is exactly why he wants it out. Tell me Freedom, are you suggesting that Dougie or Al agree with you on this one?

Remember, Hemenway and Parker left it in the contract with the last group of investors who bought stock in all separate transactions at different prices.
Now, however, Hemenway has flipped like a pancake and wants the COC out. No thanks for your opinion Freedom, I'll go by Hemenway's actions which ONLY support the COC has Lions Teeth in a merger.

If there is a United Airline Merger then consider the following:
United Merger


Information for Vote

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

Oh I’m sorry tim , I would have thought you would have recognized the courts decision , that is NOT my opinion , that’s from the court case where we LOST . i just felt the best reply to what joe wrote was to put what the court told us , i applogize for not making it clear that it came from the decsion .