IAM Fleet Service topic

[Tim Nelson]

Tim Nelson can provide all the quotes and bylaws rules he wants but if fleet service doesn't vote for this agreement then you can forget about any United Airline merger and start filling out job applications. Is Tim Nelson going to employ you when you all could lose your jobs if you don't make yourself affordable to a potential investor.

Randy Canale's letter is clear that this agreement puts you in position for the next round of bargaining. More importantly, it provides your carrier with a merger friendly agreement. Now isn't the time to debate as your company has to attract investors otherwise it will end up like Aloha. It will be gone!

United Airlines is considering Continental but its most likely partner will be US AIRWAYS. Everything is set up for United but United isn't going to sign any merger agreement that contains the Change in Control merger protections or West scopes, so it's only a pipe dream if you think your company will be able to attract a merger partner without first removing the Change in Control and the scope clauses of the west agreement. Good luck with American if you run United away. Talk to our TWA members and I'm sure they would tell you NOT to scare away United only to end up with American.

I also think Randy Canale should get more credit from this group. Nelson points to Continental wages as being higher but Continental never went bankrupt. Nelson points to mechanics getting 30% across the board increases BUT you are not skilled labor. And the 200% bonus' for company executives is normal in this industry. Is it fair? No! But compare apples with apples! The alternative is to vote this contract down and close this airline. Fleet service must listen to its leaders who have fought for you at the negotiations table and understand that if this contract is not passed then it will be very hard for US AIRWAYS to attract potential investors.
Mergers are going to happen and you MUST position your company in a way that makes it attractive to investors. We had to give up protections for the west and the east so fleet service will be in position in 2011 for traditional bargaining. Ask yourself and be honest, do you think another airline wants to buy you and then have to negotiate a brand new contract in 2009?
As Randy said, this deal isn't perfect but the one thing it will do is preserve jobs for many of you. Mergers are a necessary evil in this situation and no contract and no union will be able to stop layoffs.

Remember, if your company doesn't merge, NO WAY it will be able to survive the oil crisis. Do your part and support your negotiations team which has worked closely with your company in positioning it for an upcoming merger.

Let me see, we are suppose to eliminate west scope protections, COC, profit sharing, give up seniority rights for part-time recall, have the worst vacation schedule, worst sick policy, worst health care expenses paid [up to $350 for family per month], worst holiday system with no paid holiday pay.....so United can buy us? Puh leeeassseeee! United just gave their own rampers an additional 1% pay raise so they are fine if they have to deal with us.

Go back and tell United, if we don't get a contract with dignity and respect then screw them. Screw it all. I don't trust United and I don't want to be in a situation where we don't get to participate in the United profits until 2016. District Force, is United going to be a 'nice fella' and share its profits with us since you want us to strip ourselves of any last protection and profit sharing so your United Airlines can rape us?

To West Only: The Real MR comments

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

 

[P. REZ]

Districtforce,

There are many compelling arguments for and against voting on this TA, but I believe your argument is way too pro company. US AIR has 3 Billion in cash and has made 1 Billion in profits over the last year. Granted, they are probably headed for a loss this year, it will not be to the point that we should worry about jobs just yet though.

I am a yes vote for reasons I've stated earlier, mainly because if we vote no, and a merger occurs, the west would stay at $15.20 top out until new transition negotiations took place over the next 2 to 3 years. However, this is a POS contract.

Respectfully,

P. REZ

 

[Districtforce]

You heard it from a union rep all you field/class 2 stations. Without the COC you're done because United is so much more senior than you. Help out the rest of the hubs and vote yes for that raise that might last you 6 mos.
I think RC might be boardering on DFR if it's united...........

Your company won't be able to compete without a merger. What's your alternative mike? Do you really think the change of control is going to stay in and still get a merger partner?

 

[Districtforce]

Districtforce,

There are many compelling arguments for and against voting on this TA, but I believe your argument is way too pro company. US AIR has 3 Billion in cash and has made 1 Billion in profits over the last year. Granted, they are probably headed for a loss this year, it will not be to the point that we should worry about jobs just yet though.

I am a yes vote for reasons I've stated earlier, mainly because if we vote no, and a merger occurs, the west would stay at $15.20 top out until new transition negotiations took place over the next 2 to 3 years. However, this is a POS contract.

Respectfully,

P. REZ

your company is set to lose over $200 million in this first quarter. I understand this contract is not what we want but you are correct in that it positions us for traditional bargaining in 2011. That's when the fight should occur.

 

[mike33]

Your company won't be able to compete without a merger. What's your alternative mike? Do you really think the change of control is going to stay in and still get a merger partner?

You can have the COC, but a fair and equitable contract is what we want for all of us. SCOPE SCOPE SCOPE you get that! I've been furloughed 5 times DF. Your remedy for me doesnt exist in this TA. ShOW ME THE SCOPE and you can have your $8k a month pay. You should be making FS Topout + % but thats another subject

 

[cltrat]

why should we believe anything out of the bosses mouth when he has blown smoke up our rear end time and time again even now he is telling UA one thing and us another.

 

[Jester]

It's not necessarily "harm" that will be done. As was said numerous times here, to CHANGE the CBA requires a vote. Now I'd imagine that if the Company just wanted to give raises permantly, as that would cause no harm a vote might not be required. But giving up CIC (worth something or not) or extending the contract can be viewed as causing harm depending on your beliefs and thus would require a vote.

Exactly my point... no harm would be done to East. However, if it is a true "roll-over" then the CIC language and the amendable date would stay the same. If there was some materially negative aspect to the West assuming the existing East IAM contract, then that would be subject to a vote, but wait... there's a vote on May 8th, right? Face it... the T.A. isn't that much different materially than the current IAM contract, but it is a huge difference relative to the TWU contract. If a sizable majority of West approve the T.A., then Boss Canale wouldn't have a hard time explaining his reasoning as to why he brought West under the East contract (assuming he would do so, not to mention, Parker would allow him.) As Section 6 is not being persued (no value) and CIC clause is a leaky bucket of exceptions (no value), what West gives up really is not all that much.

Also I heard from my sources in LAS that the AGC's talking up the T.A. claimed there were no scope protections with the current TWU contract as it relates to those smaller field stations, but only an "understanding" between Parker and Boss Canale. If that's true, the all this talk about better job security in the TWU contract is a farce and the new T.A. would offer better protections. I asked around my break room and no one has a copy of the TWU contract, might you be able to verify?

Okay, all this thinking has made me sleepy, where's my couch? It's overtime today.

So Snoozes Jester.

 

[Tim Nelson]

your company is set to lose over $200 million in this first quarter. I understand this contract is not what we want but you are correct in that it positions us for traditional bargaining in 2011. That's when the fight should occur.

so you're saying United is going to buy us and once our contract is up in Jan 2012 we will be in position? One thing you forgot is that United will do us the way US AIRWAYS is doing the west. No way in heck will they be in any hurry to sign anything until 2016. Why are you so bent on United? Fleet service isn't going to stop any merger with United. I thought we were ramp rats, how can we possibly stop a merger of billions of dollars? It's impossible

Here's what MR thinks. That their words may be used against them

regards,
Tim Nelson
IAM Local Chairman, 1487, Chicago

 

[cltrat]

You can have the COC, but a fair and equitable contract is what we want for all of us. SCOPE SCOPE SCOPE you get that! I've been furloughed 5 times DF. Your remedy for me doesnt exist in this TA. ShOW ME THE SCOPE and you can have your $8k a month pay. You should be making FS Topout + % but thats another subject

DF and these other clowns getting 8k a month should be arrested for stealing

 

[Tim Nelson]

I heard from my sources in LAS that the AGC's talking up the T.A. claimed there were no scope protections with the current TWU contract as it relates to those smaller field stations, but only an "understanding" between Parker and Boss Canale. If that's true, the all this talk about better job security in the TWU contract is a farce and the new T.A. would offer better protections. I asked around my break room and no one has a copy of the TWU contract, might you be able to verify?

Okay, all this thinking has made me sleepy, where's my couch? It's overtime today.

So Snoozes Jester.

Why don't you go to the source in LAS with someone who negotiated that contract and you will find out your sources are incorrect. DV is the man who you need to talk to.

Here's what he said regarding this BS that Canale has stirred,

To the IAM Membership,

There seems to be great confusion in regards to the outsourcing language and the intent in the TWU contract. I was personally one of the negotiating committee members. We are being told that the company can outsource a station if that station is losing money. In the talks that was never referenced except in regards to closing a whole station(for example MDW). This of course did not preclude the company from laying members off from that station for economic reasons. As long as that station had been a company fleet service station it would remain so. The company so agreed. There was no other intent either perceived or real that would change this. We did not base this on flight activity since there was a great risk in such an endevour as I am sure we can all see today. All I can say is : I was there and I know from the notes that I kept for the negotiating committee.

David Vincent

Dave Vincent's words to the membership to clear up the 'scope' rumors being spread by Canale

Jester, I can understand for some to vote yes because they need the raise, but voting yes based on ignorance is unacceptable.

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

 

[P. REZ]

Tim,

I agree with DV in LAS with regards to the language regarding outsourcing. I quote Section 1E.(e) paragraph 2, "The Company shall not, however, contract out work if such contracting out would result in a reduction in force/furlough for any employee covered by this Agreement. The section continues to say that economic reasons unrelated to contracting out work or a reduction in flights could lead to a furlough.

AWA attempted 6 months after closing cargo in CMH to sneak a furlough through and we won a grievance by PB in that station which won him months in back pay. Call CMH to verify.

 

[giantfan]

Jester, I can understand for some to vote yes because they need the raise, but voting yes based on ignorance is unacceptable.

Some may say voting NO on this contract based on pure speculation is ignorant also.

Here's an example:

Vote no on this September contract b/c we are a surefire win on the CIC ruling and are looking at upwards of $30k payouts.

Sound familar?

 

[mike33]

Also I heard from my sources in LAS that the AGC's talking up the T.A. claimed there were no scope protections with the current TWU contract as it relates to those smaller field stations, but only an "understanding" between Parker and Boss Canale. If that's true, the all this talk about better job security in the TWU contract is a farce and the new T.A. would offer better protections. I asked around my break room and no one has a copy of the TWU contract, might you be able to verify?

Jester

Define the smaller stations first. No better yet read the TWU contract before making such bogus statements of hearsay/ my sources/ etc etc etc

 

[P. REZ]

Districtforce,

If you look at the last 5 quarters at LCC there has been an earnings surprise on average of 35.7%. If you look further, the high estimate of analysts for FY 2008 is a profit of +0.67 cents a share or roughly 50 million with the high loss estimate of 11 dollars a share. How can we say for sure that when 2008 is over that US AIR will have a loss or profit? So, your loss argument is weak at best.

Respectfully,

P. REZ

 

[wings396]

Guys, RR posted a summary of the TA which had an interesting line:

"60 day rule eliminated"

No other details in regards to the 60 day rule .

I understood it to be conditional.

If it is in fact gone and you guys get a fair shake on the East, then it will be hard for a workgroup like PHX to vote no. We aren't giving up much in regards to that, but are getting a moderate sized raise. I can see why you are having problems with us lol.

He even had some scope info. Ill write it down later and share, but it sounded consistent with what both sides are saying.

The 60 day rule isn't really 'Eliminated". While it is gone for any future furloughes, it continues to effect those currently on furlough. Why the Company and the IAM are so dead-set on screwing those still on furlough is beyond me. If you are working under the 60 day rule at the time of ratification, then you will get your pay seniority back. I guess that it's not bad enough that you lost your job to outsourcing 3 years ago, so the Company and the IAM still feel the need to inflict more pain upon it's furloughed people. :angry: