IAM Fleet Service topic

[700UW]

It is called an accretion, the same happened on the mtc side.

Here is a link to the NMB ruling on it.

NMB ruling

And some of the jobs in MTC on the west were non-union and they were accreted into the CBAs.

 

[Tim Nelson]

It is called an accretion, the same happened on the mtc side.

Here is a link to the NMB ruling on it.

NMB ruling

And some of the jobs in MTC on the west were non-union and they were accreted into the CBAs.

700, this is not a representional dispute and there has been no application filed. I'm unclear on your position? If you're suggesting that this is a required path then that argument has no merit and is baseless.

Load control is already in the IAM agreement so it will naturally be brought under scope and no application needs to be filed. When load control comes under scope, either it should be bid by current active and inactive IAM members, or at minimim the non-contract employees should be given only day one.

The absolute last thing Canale should do is negotiate for workers that Hemenway wants to protect. Let Hemenway negotiate for the non-contract, but in any case, don't give them seniority over current dues payors.

regards,
Tim Nelson
IAM Local Chairman, 1487, Chicago

 

[orioleman]

case in point,
If you as a fleet go and become a shift manager for say 3 yrs and decide you don't want to kiss the pinky
anymore and go back to fleet . 1 you have to wait until there is an opening and 2 you start over day 1.

the west towers are considered management period. they had a choice to be fleet or management . so if you want
the towers under fleet per our agreement then you post openings the jobs are filled by seniority after the list is exhausted
the company can go out of class to fill the vacancy HOWEVER those folks come into that class and craft with a new seniority date

 

[700UW]

When the West was placed under their CBAs some of the positions were non-union and accredited, it is very similar to what happened.

Canale is wanting to accrete the tower/load control positions as under the east CBA they are unionized.

The East MCU, Planners and such were accredited, there was no election.

There wont be a bump and flush.

 

[Tim Nelson]

When the West was placed under their CBAs some of the positions were non-union and accredited, it is very similar to what happened.

Canale is wanting to accrete the tower/load control positions as under the east CBA they are unionized.

The East MCU, Planners and such were accredited, there was no election.

There wont be a bump and flush.

700, I don't know what to tell you other than there is no dispute. Kindly separate a representation application with this scenerio. This is a negotiated item and the company isn't in dispute of this being IAM job. If the company's contention was that it wasn't an IAM job then the IAM would file an application [then your case may apply].

At any rate, nobody is disputing accreting the positions, our argument is who fills those positions and those workers are 'at will' employees and have made their decision. Oman, you're spot on. Those positions should be bid on by seniority. 700's opinion is in error as there is no guarantee to protect those individuals.

regards,
Tim Nelson
IAM Local Chairman, 1487, Chicago

 

[mike33]

At any rate, nobody is disputing accreting the positions, our argument is who fills those positions and those workers are 'at will' employees and have made their decision. Oman, you're spot on. Those positions should be bid on by seniority. 700's opinion is in error as there is no guarantee to protect those individuals.

regards,
Tim Nelson
IAM Local Chairman, 1487, Chicago

Lets look at it logically,

In order for those 50-100 to come into the class/craft then there must 50-100 openings.

If there are those openings, then they should be offered to recall first. The only problem is the 60 day rule for returning to work at $9 hr. So wouldn't it

seem logical to offer those positions after a TA is ageed too ( maybe the 60 day rule will be elliminated ) and only after a recall has been

accomplished? Otherwise what you have is the same thing you have at the 19 contracted out stations. " Hire so they can't recall ". This is stupid and the IAM

is throwing the furloughed under the bus by giving the Tower an "entitlement" to furloughed positions and bumping dues paying Fleet members.

If they would have wanted the IAM for representation they should have filed for it before all this.

 

[orioleman]

mike,
" If they would have wanted the IAM for representation they should have filed for it before all this."

totally agree. I'm thinking and its just my thoughts . someone from the west towers correct if I am wrong but here goes

they were either hired on as a CSR or F/S and after working there for a while decided hey I think I want to work in the tower

so off to the interview .. they woo the ops manager and whamo they are now in the TOWER as A MANAGER.. So for Canale and Uncle

AL to come back now and say well lets just make them F/S and give them ALL THERE MANAGEMENT TIME AS CREDIT.. is complete

and utter B/S .. IF there going to that then I see a valid Grievance in the fact anyone in Fleet that has previous MANAGEMENT to

get credit towards there Classifaction date..

 

[mike33]

mike,
"
. someone from the west towers correct if I am wrong but here goes

they were either hired on as a CSR or F/S and after working there for a while decided hey I think I want to work in the tower

so off to the interview ..

Absolutely 100% correct Oman. I know of one such person who was in san and went to " Tower " and gave up representation. So how does the IAM explain

" Entitled Representation ".

The Bull S**T never ends when you have Management Mentallity representing us.

 

[pjirish317]

The Bull S**T never ends when you have Management Mentallity representing us.

Mike,


NOT FOR MUCH LONGER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[orioleman]

pj,
watch out for Joe .. he and JOSE are hanging out tonight . and I think he's getting a little slurrrrrrry..

 

[JoeDirt]

Absolutely 100% correct Oman. I know of one such person who was in san and went to " Tower " and gave up representation. So how does the IAM explain

" Entitled Representation ".

The Bull S**T never ends when you have Management Mentallity representing us.

The expiration date is in June.

O-man the keyboard is getting a little fuzzy. Seem to have fat finger syndrome.

 

[lithuanian]

It has been over two weeks since our friend Mr. Nelson suggested his attorney(s) were looking over TWU AWA Section Six. And then pilots from the West were implementing the same. Where does this issue stand as of date.

If we are meeting on the 1st, does that suggest no attorney is needed?

Please don't let this be a result of a Botched TA again.

 

[Tim Nelson]

It has been over two weeks since our friend Mr. Nelson suggested his attorney(s) were looking over TWU AWA Section Six. And then pilots from the West were implementing the same. Where does this issue stand as of date.

If we are meeting on the 1st, does that suggest no attorney is needed?

Please don't let this be a result of a Botched TA again.

My understanding is that the IAM will be reviewing section 6 if the negotiations don't result in substantial progress. Although the IAM may finally end up doing section 6 negotiations, it should have done so a couple years ago.

The company has shown no evidence that it understands the September rejection and it will learn a 'painful' lesson if it disrespects fleet service in negotiations after getting a T/A with the mechanics. Actually, it looks like Boss Canale hasn't understood the September rejection either. But then again Canale = Management.
One thing we know is that we only have to deal with Canale for 2 1/2 more months. After that he will be free to go back up to management where he belongs.

regards,
Tim Nelson
IAM Local Chairman, 1487, Chicago

 

[roabilly]

I have just one question for all…

We know good and well that the Company has been approaching the Union (Numerous times in the last few months)…requesting Transition Talks…They want something!

Something is up! My gut instinct is… they want the loose ends tied up, so they can now pursue merger or acquisition endeavors. They are more than likely, in the later stages of talks with someone.

As far as profit sharing goes…I’m sure any potential purchaser or merger partner would like to see that eliminated, as it was a post bankruptcy appeasement… for the imposed concessions.

Now…as far as the COC language goes…should we allow the IAM to forego future Merger and Acquisition protection for Fleet, no matter what the trade off return may equal in pay and benefits?

Should we (Fleet) not want some protection in this area, considering the likelihood of an M&A to be extremely probable? What about job protection… wage protection... seniority protection… etc.?

If an acquiring carrier has good COC, and we have none, we would be at their mercy! Especially, if the acquiring carrier’s compensation package is less than we may negotiate in this upcoming T/A.

Last but not least…

Cornhole’e …tha Solidarity Network is ah lot smarter than y’all give us credit for.

We comin’ after yahh in June !

 

[perserverance]

Actually, it looks like Boss Canale hasn't understood the September rejection either. But then again Canale = Management.
One thing we know is that we only have to deal with Canale for 2 1/2 more months. After that he will be free to go back up to management where he belongs.

Keep in mind that these talks are also serving a pupose for Canale. He and his band of thieves
are in desperate times. They need to find an avenue to keep thier precious jobs. That avenue may
well be a good TA proposal and if something positive does come from these meetings we must
remember it was do to us rejecting the initial proposal and walking away from a similiar offer, not
our NC. The IAM and company know they need us. If an offer does indeed come back to us after
these talks we need it to be acknowleded that the majority of the fleet wants it to pass. I know majority is 50% + 1 but we need more. The mech. proposal is indeed looking to get just passed at the slimest of margins. We need a more positive agreement for all,not some.

In the past, slates like Canale have used the moementum of a positive agreement to carry them into
a new term. We need to know that Canale was and is the one trying to sell us out along with the
represenitives from the company. Al H. and his crew are trying to come to terms with us by
agreeing to enhancements as little as possible while trying to get back CIC language and PS terms.
That is Al H.'s job. He will give us something appealling when our NC demands nothing less. When
this occurs I'd like us all to remember the propsal our NC brought back and supported for ratification
last Sept. Thier jobs our to represent the collective interests of the group as a whole and they have
failed ''big time'' in this. There were many negatives to the last proposal and few good (vacation).
Positive Space Travel....no way not in our propsal. What value does Al H. and Randy put on that ?
This is a perfect example of Randy looking out for Randy.

Does anyone have the M&R propsal to look at ? Was ''positive space travel'' in there ? and while were at it forget about the &R, the M has.





Thanks