IAM resores the 5% wage deferral
- Thread starter delldude
- Start date
to much time to quit
Senior
- Jun 17, 2003
- 318
- 7
I am no longer CONFUSED why Dave rolled over and restored the wage deferral. It was the massive pressure applied by the strongest most militant union in North America. The frightened machinists of the iam. Who said that strike cobra had no venom left? Those airbus S-checks should be rolling in now.
July 28, 2003
US Airways Update
Carrier Agrees to Union Demands For Wage Snap-Back
In response to our July 26, 2003 letter to David Siegel, US Airways and the Machinists Union have been discussing the termination of the 5 percent wage deferral enacted by US Airways upon the commencement of the war in Iraq.
Your support and sacrifice has enabled US Airways to emerge from bankruptcy and survive the effects of war. As US Airways’ pre-tax profits improved, the IAM argued that further wage deferrals were unnecessary and demanded the carrier begin repayment of the loan provided by our members.
We are pleased to advise you that after extensive discussions today with the IAM, US Airways has agreed to snap-back the 5 percent wage deferral, and begin repayment of deferred wages in accordance with the collective bargaining agreements.
Thank you for your continued support.
Sincerely,
Scotty Ford has 15 days left in office to brag about all the great work he has done for us, then its back to United to check in with his lead utility to pick up his job assignment!!
July 28, 2003
US Airways Update
Carrier Agrees to Union Demands For Wage Snap-Back
In response to our July 26, 2003 letter to David Siegel, US Airways and the Machinists Union have been discussing the termination of the 5 percent wage deferral enacted by US Airways upon the commencement of the war in Iraq.
Your support and sacrifice has enabled US Airways to emerge from bankruptcy and survive the effects of war. As US Airways’ pre-tax profits improved, the IAM argued that further wage deferrals were unnecessary and demanded the carrier begin repayment of the loan provided by our members.
We are pleased to advise you that after extensive discussions today with the IAM, US Airways has agreed to snap-back the 5 percent wage deferral, and begin repayment of deferred wages in accordance with the collective bargaining agreements.
Thank you for your continued support.
Sincerely,
Scotty Ford has 15 days left in office to brag about all the great work he has done for us, then its back to United to check in with his lead utility to pick up his job assignment!!
Smartest Loser
Senior
- Jun 20, 2003
- 313
- 0
I can hear it now....
Scotty Ford Bay 3...Scotty Ford Bay 3 for a lav spill.
What goes around comes around.
Scotty Ford Bay 3...Scotty Ford Bay 3 for a lav spill.
What goes around comes around.
to much time to quit
Senior
- Jun 17, 2003
- 318
- 7
----------------
On 7/29/2003 8:37:11 AM delldude wrote:
hey dave...scotty here,look we need a big win...can you help?
----------------
Dude, You are CONFUSING me. You post all over this board supporting the iam's actions, now you jump on board slamming them. Maybe you are beginning to see the light like alot of us already have. Or maybe you just have excellent balance and can walk that fence like a tightrope at the circus.On 7/29/2003 8:37:11 AM delldude wrote:
hey dave...scotty here,look we need a big win...can you help?
----------------
to much time to quit
Senior
- Jun 17, 2003
- 318
- 7
----------------
On 7/29/2003 12
51 PM PITMTC wrote:
Guys, be real.
The AFA put the sqeeze on Dave.
The IAM is just tryign to take credit. Don't you remember there letter to the conpany. They were just asking the company to look at the issue.
Believe it or not they had nothing to do with the deferral stop.
They are weak and fight like girls.
----------------
I know the iam had little or nothing to do with our deferral restoration. Their update on the iam 141m website is BULL. They didn't even write a letter to Dave until AFTER they were given the boot at United. They are reaching for any scrap to keep their job at Usairways because they know the full court press will soon be upon them. Then they will truely be in for the fight of their life. The whole purpose of posting their update was to expose them as the LIARS they are for everyone to view on the WWW. They are their own worst enemys and they continue to dig their grave deeper through their own IGNORANCE and STUPIDITY.On 7/29/2003 12
51 PM PITMTC wrote:Guys, be real.
The AFA put the sqeeze on Dave.
The IAM is just tryign to take credit. Don't you remember there letter to the conpany. They were just asking the company to look at the issue.
Believe it or not they had nothing to do with the deferral stop.
They are weak and fight like girls.
----------------
roadtrip
Veteran
You have got to be kidding me! Bottom line the unions had nothing to do with the employees getting back the 5 percent.
If the company had not turned a profit "Labor Friendly Dave" would have kept the money for as long as he could.
Bottom line all the unions agreeded to it in CONTRACT writing!
The nerve of the IAM to be little the workers in making them think they are that stupid and blind to see the real reasons! I can clearly see why all the defections from that sham of a union are taking place.
If the company had not turned a profit "Labor Friendly Dave" would have kept the money for as long as he could.
Bottom line all the unions agreeded to it in CONTRACT writing!
The nerve of the IAM to be little the workers in making them think they are that stupid and blind to see the real reasons! I can clearly see why all the defections from that sham of a union are taking place.
Guys, be real.
The AFA put the sqeeze on Dave.
The IAM is just tryign to take credit. Don't you remember there letter to the conpany. They were just asking the company to look at the issue.
Believe it or not they had nothing to do with the deferral stop.
They are weak and fight like girls.
The AFA put the sqeeze on Dave.
The IAM is just tryign to take credit. Don't you remember there letter to the conpany. They were just asking the company to look at the issue.
Believe it or not they had nothing to do with the deferral stop.
They are weak and fight like girls.
to much time to quit
Senior
- Jun 17, 2003
- 318
- 7
----------------
On 7/29/2003 1:00:12 PM roadtrip wrote:
You have got to be kidding me! Bottom line the unions had nothing to do with the employees getting back the 5 percent.
If the company had not turned a profit "Labor Friendly Dave" would have kept the money for as long as he could.
Bottom line all the unions agreeded to it in CONTRACT writing!
The nerve of the IAM to be little the workers in making them think they are that stupid and blind to see the real reasons! I can clearly see why all the defections from that sham of a union are taking place.
----------------
So True, So True. Finally someone with common sense. WelcomeOn 7/29/2003 1:00:12 PM roadtrip wrote:
You have got to be kidding me! Bottom line the unions had nothing to do with the employees getting back the 5 percent.
If the company had not turned a profit "Labor Friendly Dave" would have kept the money for as long as he could.
Bottom line all the unions agreeded to it in CONTRACT writing!
The nerve of the IAM to be little the workers in making them think they are that stupid and blind to see the real reasons! I can clearly see why all the defections from that sham of a union are taking place.
----------------
PITbull
Veteran
- Dec 29, 2002
- 7,784
- 456
Fact is Itrade was right...
We had a "pre tax loss" of $154 million. Dave could have said no deferral return, according our language it had to be a "pre tax" gain. So, Dave did make a decision to give it back, when he didn't have to.
Dr. Bronner, IMO, had a lot to do with this, and all the labor unrest associated with taking this money from the employees. POINT BEING...the woes of U does not have anything to do with a war effect. It has to do with the general weak economy from 9/11, and a mangement team that thinks they are operating CO express instead of a major mainline carrier.
Have a feeling that is why he is shrinking us. That is all Dave knows..."think small".
We had a "pre tax loss" of $154 million. Dave could have said no deferral return, according our language it had to be a "pre tax" gain. So, Dave did make a decision to give it back, when he didn't have to.
Dr. Bronner, IMO, had a lot to do with this, and all the labor unrest associated with taking this money from the employees. POINT BEING...the woes of U does not have anything to do with a war effect. It has to do with the general weak economy from 9/11, and a mangement team that thinks they are operating CO express instead of a major mainline carrier.
Have a feeling that is why he is shrinking us. That is all Dave knows..."think small".
Gang,
I think something is being missed here. Sure we know the IAM had little to nothing to do with the 5% return. Let's call that a given, OK?
Dave and Dave's reasons for the give-back were driven by sound union pressure (not ours) and the obvious declines in employee morale over these issues.
PITBull is spot on...Dave did not have to do the right thing on this...and the verbage would have supported him to the letter.
The issue of whom represents me at this point is moot. I see one being no actual better than the other.
The issue should be whom can pin USAirways into not out-sourcing "Our Work" on these damned Airbus Aircraft we blundered into.
This "Hot Button" issue has a time line for many of us.
The current Boeings have 5 to 10 years max left with us. So without the Airbus work being solidified in writing as ours? Many many more carrers are doomed to end in relatively short order. I consider 5 to 10 years as short in terms of the big picture
The time to pin this company on this language is NOW...not after we change ships in the middle of the stream , and then still wait and see what happens?.
Ask yourself...did AMFA save jobs at UA or NW? and has the IAM protected us from much of anything , here at U ? The picture is clear to me...both are equally toothless and useless. It's the culture and leadership within the unions upper levels that are askew.
Pressure your current union leaders to do it right...and do it right now in regards to insuring our work with our aircraft.
Beyond that? the bread bakers union can represent us..and it won't make a dimes worth of difference to many later.
I think something is being missed here. Sure we know the IAM had little to nothing to do with the 5% return. Let's call that a given, OK?
Dave and Dave's reasons for the give-back were driven by sound union pressure (not ours) and the obvious declines in employee morale over these issues.
PITBull is spot on...Dave did not have to do the right thing on this...and the verbage would have supported him to the letter.
The issue of whom represents me at this point is moot. I see one being no actual better than the other.
The issue should be whom can pin USAirways into not out-sourcing "Our Work" on these damned Airbus Aircraft we blundered into.
This "Hot Button" issue has a time line for many of us.
The current Boeings have 5 to 10 years max left with us. So without the Airbus work being solidified in writing as ours? Many many more carrers are doomed to end in relatively short order. I consider 5 to 10 years as short in terms of the big picture
The time to pin this company on this language is NOW...not after we change ships in the middle of the stream , and then still wait and see what happens?.
Ask yourself...did AMFA save jobs at UA or NW? and has the IAM protected us from much of anything , here at U ? The picture is clear to me...both are equally toothless and useless. It's the culture and leadership within the unions upper levels that are askew.
Pressure your current union leaders to do it right...and do it right now in regards to insuring our work with our aircraft.
Beyond that? the bread bakers union can represent us..and it won't make a dimes worth of difference to many later.
PITbull
Veteran
- Dec 29, 2002
- 7,784
- 456
AOG,
You are exactly right on. Doesn't matter what the name is, its the leadership.
Members need to get involved on how to change this if they are that unhappy with their representation..
Unions are democratic organizations. When they stop behaving as such, then members need to find the langauge within their Constitution that allows for this leadership change. But be ready to put in good, strong people in. Folks that have no fear, and will take a "left" position. Why? Becuse that is what is necessary to deal with this kind of mangement who arbitrarily writes the contract language, threatens if we don't accept their terms, and then violates their same language when it doesn't suit them.
And remember...public pressure works, and its legal.
You are exactly right on. Doesn't matter what the name is, its the leadership.
Members need to get involved on how to change this if they are that unhappy with their representation..
Unions are democratic organizations. When they stop behaving as such, then members need to find the langauge within their Constitution that allows for this leadership change. But be ready to put in good, strong people in. Folks that have no fear, and will take a "left" position. Why? Becuse that is what is necessary to deal with this kind of mangement who arbitrarily writes the contract language, threatens if we don't accept their terms, and then violates their same language when it doesn't suit them.
And remember...public pressure works, and its legal.
PITbull
Veteran
- Dec 29, 2002
- 7,784
- 456
----------------
On 7/29/2003 6:08:24 PM PineyBob wrote:
Just a few facts regarding the AFA assertions that the contract is being violated.
Â
1. - There has been no independent verification of the AFA's allegations by any panel, board or court. So for now they are allegations nothing more. Words from people with an agenda, honorable or otherwise.
Â
2. - You signed the thing. If you signed it without proper legal review as to the potential implications of the changes then you only need look in the mirror to place blame. Any good legal team runs best/worst case scenarios and makes reccomendations based on that information. If you bought bad lawyering who's fault is that?
Â
3. If you bought the legal serives you could afford then I suggest you look to the decision made to attempt to organize Delta which drained your reserves of funds needed to ensure that contracts are negotiated and that all parties understand the implications of their decisions. Just another glaring example of how US member dues DON'T benefit US employees.
Â
Don't even tell be any of this "Bad Faith" bargaining stuff. They played to win! Their income and the continuing operation of US Airways depended on it. In business you don't take your "fair share" you take ALL you can get. Just like AFA did when the business climate was different. Now it's a different time with a different outcome. Ask yourself what you can do as an individual to ensure better outcomes in the future.
----------------
On 7/29/2003 6:08:24 PM PineyBob wrote:
Just a few facts regarding the AFA assertions that the contract is being violated.
Â
1. - There has been no independent verification of the AFA's allegations by any panel, board or court. So for now they are allegations nothing more. Words from people with an agenda, honorable or otherwise.
Â
2. - You signed the thing. If you signed it without proper legal review as to the potential implications of the changes then you only need look in the mirror to place blame. Any good legal team runs best/worst case scenarios and makes reccomendations based on that information. If you bought bad lawyering who's fault is that?
Â
3. If you bought the legal serives you could afford then I suggest you look to the decision made to attempt to organize Delta which drained your reserves of funds needed to ensure that contracts are negotiated and that all parties understand the implications of their decisions. Just another glaring example of how US member dues DON'T benefit US employees.
Â
Don't even tell be any of this "Bad Faith" bargaining stuff. They played to win! Their income and the continuing operation of US Airways depended on it. In business you don't take your "fair share" you take ALL you can get. Just like AFA did when the business climate was different. Now it's a different time with a different outcome. Ask yourself what you can do as an individual to ensure better outcomes in the future.
----------------
WHAT'S THE MATTER WITH YOU BOB?
AFA facts?????
YOU are dead wrong!
1. How it works is like in any law suit....allegations are made and a law suit is BROUGHT BEFORE A JUDGE, JURY, COURT, PANEL, BOARD ETC.... GET THE POINT? Then the Judge, Jury, court, Panel, board decides if their is credence to the allegations and AWARDS A DECISION. I know how it works PERSONALLY AND fact!
2.Again you cite misinformation. The contract was read under two attorneys. AND THEY ARE VIOLATING THE CONTRACT TODAY. One attorney is a HARVARD Grad...you say bad????? You baffle me.
3.I will not rehash the Delta effort AGAIN with you. WE ARE A BUSINESS THAT ORGANIZES FLIGHT ATTENDANTS. Period.
4. NO. We did not take our fair share when times were good. Infact, we took concessions on every provision of our contract in 2000, accept wages, WHICH WE NEVER GOT TO SEE, CAUSE WE GAVE THAT UP IMMEDIATELY LAST SUMMER. Don't assume to know what AFA did during our contract negotiations when times were good, unless you have the actual facts...Its dangerous to make assumptions and call them FACTS.
Rant done...next?
