IAM Thread for the week of 2/19-2/26

[roadtrip]

It applied to those on the street within the sixty days. No more sixty days for the rest of us, it was eliminated.

Thats Canale really taking care of the furloghed guys just screw the guys over 60 days!

What non sense

Name one other union on the property with the 60 day rule?


I'll help you out there are none what a SHOCKER*! So whats next you going to give us more handjob nonsense


Shocker (hand gesture)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[JoeDirt]

Check out the tentative on the DL 141 web-site for US page 4 & 5. Not sure how Canale would be good at eliminating older members when furloughs are done by seniority not age. 60 day rule was eliminated, we voted it down and took our chances with the arbitrator.

The vote had nothing to do with the COC and the arbitrator. It was voted down because it was a P.O.S. That was Canale trying to put a positive spin on the fact we B###h Slapped him and his P.O.S. T/A.

 

[The Shocker]

The vote had nothing to do with the COC and the arbitrator. It was voted down because it was a P.O.S. That was Canale trying to put a positive spin on the fact we B###h Slapped him and his P.O.S. T/A.

We all want the same thing make more money, better benefits, and job security. I think we can all agree on that. All I am saying is that the T/A was what it was we were given the option to vote it in or out. We voted it down. Now we have to wait until another T/A is presented. I think voting it down did have something to do with the COC because everyone was saying vote it down and lets take our chance with the arbitrator. Exactly how was that a positive spin it was a lose lose for all of us. Especially publicly stating we do not support our Union while they are in negotiations, this only gives the company more leverage.

 

[orioleman]

shocker
"The 60 rule was eliminated on the T/A we voted down?"

please don't insult our US membership by saying we... YOU are not even employed by US now are U ???

 

[Theo Corner]

We all want the same thing make more money, better benefits, and job security. I think we can all agree on that. All I am saying is that the T/A was what it was we were given the option to vote it in or out. We voted it down. Now we have to wait until another T/A is presented. I think voting it down did have something to do with the COC because everyone was saying vote it down and lets take our chance with the arbitrator. Exactly how was that a positive spin it was a lose lose for all of us. Especially publicly stating we do not support our Union while they are in negotiations, this only gives the company more leverage.

And Canoli saying publically that this is the best he can do, for us not to expect anything better is NOT giving the company more leverage? Spit out the Kool-aid!

😛h34r:

 

[The Shocker]

And Canoli saying publically that this is the best he can do, for us not to expect anything better is NOT giving the company more leverage? Spit out the Kool-aid!

😛h34r:

When any company presents the final offer that's what it is final. I chief negotiator is obligated under the RLA to bring it back for a vote (publicly). What if he told the company to shove it, and that is what the majority of the voting members wanted. We were not allowed to strike under RLA because these were not traditional negotiations, we were in negotiations to merge the east with the west. We did not go on strike for both of the bankruptcy agreements because they were voted in. Let's say a contract during "Traditional" negotiations there would have been the 30 day cooling off period, then we had to ask the President of the United States and ask his permission to go on strike, then he turns it over to a committee call the Presidental Emergency Board the (PEB) which he personally appoints, and then PEB holds hearings to listen to both sides then makes their decision. Otherwise walking off the job is considered an illegal wild cat strike.

 

[orioleman]

shocker,
"I think voting it down did have something to do with the COC because everyone was saying vote it down and lets take our chance with the arbitrator."

How would you know what we said. You weren't in the field .. WE SAID H*LL NO THIS RAG IS A PIECE OF S*IT (voted in record numbers mind you).. the coc

was icing on the cake.. IT was your sugar daddy that said we voted for COC arbitration. to try and save his ugly face..

Oh maybe you can answer this.. since when do you get to vote on a grievance anyway..

lets see I have an attendance grievance coming up.. All those in favor of me winning say AYE .. all against say NAY.


shocker you really should stop repeating sugar daddy cause it makes you sound really ignorant..........

 

[The Shocker]

shocker,
"I think voting it down did have something to do with the COC because everyone was saying vote it down and lets take our chance with the arbitrator."

How would you know what we said. You weren't in the field .. WE SAID H*LL NO THIS RAG IS A PIECE OF S*IT (voted in record numbers mind you).. the coc

was icing on the cake.. IT was your sugar daddy that said we voted for COC arbitration. to try and save his ugly face..

Oh maybe you can answer this.. since when do you get to vote on a grievance anyway..

lets see I have an attendance grievance coming up.. All those in favor of me winning say AYE .. all against say NAY.


shocker you really should stop repeating sugar daddy cause it makes you sound really ignorant..........

Take it easy... we are not a open shop so why would we vote on grievances? It was pending arbitration at the time the T/A was voted down.

 

[orioleman]

shocker,
"these were not traditional negotiations, we were in negotiations to merge the east with the west."

so WHY then would we neg a concessionary contract.. WHY should or would we want to give up anything to bring the west up to speed.. WHY give away free money in the form

of profit sharing... THOSE are the questions that need to be answered.. I'm willing to bet you won't touch that because the is NO logical answer to them . except Randy was

just doing what Randy does and that is to conform with the D.P... (since you don't work for us.. D.P stands for Doug Parker the C.E.O of usairways)

 

[JoeDirt]

Take it easy... we are not a open shop so why would we vote on grievances? It was pending arbitration at the time the T/A was voted down.

Exactly. So why was it included in the T/A. It should have never been traded off in the first place.

Strike Three

 

[orioleman]

Yes dear you are correct ..

let me rephrase.. WHY would he VOTE to have a greivance move forward.. ONCE you file a grievance it's filed isn't that the purpose in the first place to try and correct

a breach in the contract between the IAM and the company.

 

[orioleman]

shocker,
You tipped your hat.. IF you we one of us as you claim.. You won't have to refer to the 141 web to read our contract proposal!!!!!!


You would know it by heart.


SO when you have your evening pillow chat with randy .. tell him your doing a great job of keeping this thread active.. and in the spot light..

very educating for 1st time viewers

 

[Theo Corner]

When any company presents the final offer that's what it is final. I chief negotiator is obligated under the RLA to bring it back for a vote (publicly). What if he told the company to shove it, and that is what the majority of the voting members wanted. We were not allowed to strike under RLA because these were not traditional negotiations, we were in negotiations to merge the east with the west. We did not go on strike for both of the bankruptcy agreements because they were voted in. Let's say a contract during "Traditional" negotiations there would have been the 30 day cooling off period, then we had to ask the President of the United States and ask his permission to go on strike, then he turns it over to a committee call the Presidental Emergency Board the (PEB) which he personally appoints, and then PEB holds hearings to listen to both sides then makes their decision. Otherwise walking off the job is considered an illegal wild cat strike.

What I am saying is that Canoli does not need to mention that we turned down the best he could do right before going BACK into negotiations. If the last TA was the best we could get, then why are we going back in. We must have turned down the FINAL offer from the company correct? Then what will the meeting in CLT the last week of Feb be? Tea and crumpets?

I already understand the rules of when we can and we cannot strike. I did not need the refresher. I am glad you were able to call someone to get the info so you would not get it wrong.

😛h34r:

 

[The Shocker]

Yes dear you are correct ..

let me rephrase.. WHY would he VOTE to have a greivance move forward.. ONCE you file a grievance it's filed isn't that the purpose in the first place to try and correct

a breach in the contract between the IAM and the company.

The stability within the airline industry is still shaky at best, this is the reason for merger mania, that and the cost of fuel. Why do we continue this division between the east and the west, everyone who does the same work should make the same hourly wage. Sorry if you don't think this is logical.

 

[usedtobe]

This is true however it did remove it for any other furloughs.
The only way your going to bring back those who were furloughed they would most likely have to move to a new city. There are not that many out there anymore who would be willing to come back and move just to regain there job again.

I know 2 furloughs who would move today to regain their job!!!