IAM topic of the week

[Tim Nelson]

You are right Tim, I was wrong for the last post. You are like Don Quixote jousting windmills. I admire the fact that you keep take on these tasks that take so much out of you, but you end up losing in the end. You are a good guy who has the interests of Fleet at heart. I just know in the end that it will be a losing effort. Not laughing at you, just realize after all these years that it is a no win situation.

Thanks for the response. Let's keep some hope though, i agree not a whole lot has been won thus far. Whatever happens, I think it will be something good since fleet service is more active and less apathetic than before. I do want to see Canale's plan and if it includes revisiting his strategy regarding section 6. That would be an additional plus that he ought to consider but at least it wouldn't harm anything.

regards,
Tim Nelson
IAM Local Chairman, 1487, Chicago

 

[Tim Nelson]

Well if you read what the company proposed all it really was was a true transistion.
The only change was to get rid of this sorry 2 class pay scale and role eveyone into one pay rate.
I dont see what is so wrong about that. OH I see the hubs and all class 1 get nothing. Damn I know how that feels.
It would however not extend the contract from what I could see and than we would all be under one deal and be able to come together as 1 unified group to fight for a new contract in 2009.
Instead all you guys want is to muck up everything and work on getting rid of leadership in our union and srcew the rest of us.
I know and understand that the things the west would loose under our current deal, but just look at how we all loose the longer this thing drags on.
I know Im never going to convince you guys of my way of thinking, we in the small cities or many of the west dont have the power and thats sad. I just hope we all find what we are looking for without loosing our perspective.

Who's "you guys"? The America West rampers were instrumental in nominating against Canale. PHX, LAS, SAN, MKE, SAT, OMA, MSP, and a few other cities. The only nab Canale got was LAX. Overall, Delaney nabbed over 2,200 of the 2,500 hundred at America West.

There isn't any division other than the division you, District Force, and only one or two others keep talking about. The west and the east are tigher that two coats of paint and we are ALL moving forward together and leaving nobody behind. Even in DFW, you guys nominated Canale. I know your LC and he is a sharp fella, when the New Direction team gets in, we will still be counting on even those who didn't support us to stay involved. The NEW DIRECTIONS TEAM does not believe in division, we have Canale for that. If someone disagrees, you don't marginalize the guy. With Canale, he has marginalized alot of people who only disagreed with him and this has made him a one-man band, pushed him to the top with a bunch of eunichs and it has made him weak as hell. More importantly, it has cost fleet service.

Hang in there fuzz, I'm not sure me and you agree to much of anything but in the end I am hopeful that fleet service will be taken care of better than they are now.

regards,
Tim Nelson
IAM Local Chairman, 1487, Chicago

 

[Aluminum Enama Time]

Did anyone see Hemmingways letter to fleet? Posted on the hub.

To: Fleet Service Employees
Re: This Week’s IAM Negotiations
From: Al Hemenway, VP-Labor Relations
February 27, 2008
I wanted to update you on the status of the IAM fleet negotiations.
First, I want you to know that the company has put a full and reasonable offer on the
negotiating table because we believe quite strongly that all of our employees should be
working from single contracts. We know it’s been a long time since these negotiations began,
and we know how frustrating that has been for all of you.
To that end, we went to negotiations with IAM fleet service representatives in January,
following the resolution of the change in control arbitration, with a proposal that transitioned
the West employees to the terms of the East agreement and enhanced the East agreement
by:
• Increasing pay scales and increasing top rate to $19,
• Adding scope protection for West cities,
• Eliminating Class II pay,
• Modifying the 60-day rule,
• Amending the current sick leave policy, and
• Making improvements to vacation.
In return for these contract enhancements the company sought a 24-month contract
extension, elimination of the change in control language and elimination of future profit sharing
payments (made in 2009 and beyond) in exchange for guaranteed pay raises. The union
wanted more and after a few days, it became apparent that we were fairly far apart.
Rather than drag these talks out for an indefinite period, we suggested, and the union
leadership agreed, that perhaps we should change direction and work on a transition
agreement that would simply move the West employees to the East agreement and save the
bigger details for the full Section 6 negotiations, which would commence at the amendable
date of the current agreement. In that way, our West employees would move to the higher
pay scales of the East agreement sooner rather than later, and all fleet service employees
would be working from the same page.
We made that proposal in good faith on Tuesday, and told the IAM negotiators we’d be willing
to talk about reasonable modifications to our proposal in any counter proposal from the union.
The IAM negotiators simply walked out of the talks. That means that things are status quo
until the union returns to the table – either for a transition agreement that moves West
employees to the East contract, or an amended agreement in line with our January proposal.
We’re very interested in reaching single agreements with all of our work groups – it makes
good sense for our employees and for the company. We have told the IAM that we’re ready
to resume talks at any time, and we look forward to getting back to the bargaining table.
Sincerely,

 

[Henderfuzz]

Did anyone see Hemmingways letter to fleet? Posted on the hub.

To: Fleet Service Employees
Re: This Week’s IAM Negotiations
From: Al Hemenway, VP-Labor Relations
February 27, 2008
I wanted to update you on the status of the IAM fleet negotiations.
First, I want you to know that the company has put a full and reasonable offer on the
negotiating table because we believe quite strongly that all of our employees should be
working from single contracts. We know it’s been a long time since these negotiations began,
and we know how frustrating that has been for all of you.
To that end, we went to negotiations with IAM fleet service representatives in January,
following the resolution of the change in control arbitration, with a proposal that transitioned
the West employees to the terms of the East agreement and enhanced the East agreement
by:
• Increasing pay scales and increasing top rate to $19,
• Adding scope protection for West cities,
• Eliminating Class II pay,
• Modifying the 60-day rule,
• Amending the current sick leave policy, and
• Making improvements to vacation.
In return for these contract enhancements the company sought a 24-month contract
extension, elimination of the change in control language and elimination of future profit sharing
payments (made in 2009 and beyond) in exchange for guaranteed pay raises. The union
wanted more and after a few days, it became apparent that we were fairly far apart.
Rather than drag these talks out for an indefinite period, we suggested, and the union
leadership agreed, that perhaps we should change direction and work on a transition
agreement that would simply move the West employees to the East agreement and save the
bigger details for the full Section 6 negotiations, which would commence at the amendable
date of the current agreement. In that way, our West employees would move to the higher
pay scales of the East agreement sooner rather than later, and all fleet service employees
would be working from the same page.
We made that proposal in good faith on Tuesday, and told the IAM negotiators we’d be willing
to talk about reasonable modifications to our proposal in any counter proposal from the union.
The IAM negotiators simply walked out of the talks. That means that things are status quo
until the union returns to the table – either for a transition agreement that moves West
employees to the East contract, or an amended agreement in line with our January proposal.
We’re very interested in reaching single agreements with all of our work groups – it makes
good sense for our employees and for the company. We have told the IAM that we’re ready
to resume talks at any time, and we look forward to getting back to the bargaining table.
Sincerely,

I would never be one to agree with the company mouthpiece especially AH But this seems like a reasonable course of action. Hmmm actually sounds like something I have said before.
If the NC would go back with some modifcations that make improvemnts who knows maybe it would be a benifit. Damn I forgot theres nothing in it for the hubs and class 1.
If Als willing to make improvments maybe they should at least consider this, on second thought lets all just keep on working seperate pays and seperate deals.

 

[robbedagain]

sounds like company bs to me how about eliminating the 60 day rule which should have never been there to begin with, KEEP the PROFIT SHARING jus tlike the other union groups, full sick pay every day not the 3rd day or 4th day

 

[diogenes]

I know Mary Reed would not agree to anything that would allow outsourcing. Why would she? She is from a small station herself. Do you think she wants to be looking for a job? I have been told that Mary along with MF, JM, NG, and a few of the other negotiators, are standing strong. I think it's unfair for her to be the only one there to represent the west field stations, not that she can't stand her ground, I know she can and does. I support sec 6 for the west, and I support Mary.

You're fortunate to have someone from an outstation representing you at the table.

During the 5 years it took Canale and D141 to negotiate the initial FS contract, not ONE soul from class II stations was on the NC. Canale appointed the NC on the down-low (no nomination process, no vote) and then appointed them to AGC after ratification.

The initial contract was rife with outsourcing language and substandard class II nonsense. According to the contract, even if US had not entered BK, they would have the right to outsource a major portion of catering and class II work.

Here's some more contract language:

"In class II stations, Fleet Service employees may be assigned and will perform work not covered by this agreement as required by the company."

I was informed if the company decided to sub class II employees out to Wal-Mart, this language allowed that. One would think in exhange for that major concession to the company, the least IAM could have negotiated was some no outsourcing language.

Y'all need to drive all such language from your next contract, or sure as God made little green apples, there will be fewer of you employed at US, and quicker than you can imagine.

Tim, I'm not even at the table, and I'll ante up $10.

 

[NevadaHP]

I know Mary Reed would not agree to anything that would allow outsourcing. Why would she? She is from a small station herself. Do you think she wants to be looking for a job? I have been told that Mary along with MF, JM, NG, and a few of the other negotiators, are standing strong. I think it's unfair for her to be the only one there to represent the west field stations, not that she can't stand her ground, I know she can and does. I support sec 6 for the west, and I support Mary.

if JM is mendenhall your wrong he has told me several times personally he doesnt want section 6. I agree and support Mary as well i was responding to a post from district force that stated she was not in support of section 6 and i couldnt believe that was true.

 

[Tim Nelson]

I must go eat breakfast so I'll comment later about Al's further attempt at disrespect. But everything Al said is not in total and he fails to understand some things. After a wash down a few eggs and toast, I'll say more.

later,
Tim Nelson
IAM Local Chairman, 1487, Chicago

 

[Harry Callahan]

IMO, Al's letter is a joke. It appears these people are playing games & our folks are not. I am proud of you.

 

[Hadenough]

I do not see anywhere in the companys proposal a $19 top out. I still see the $17.87 we have now.

Does anyone know what was the company's first offer in Jan. I would really like to see a copy of that one.

 

[pjirish317]

Did anyone see Hemmingways letter to fleet? Posted on the hub.

To: Fleet Service Employees
Re: This Week’s IAM Negotiations
From: Al Hemenway, VP-Labor Relations
February 27, 2008
I wanted to update you on the status of the IAM fleet negotiations.
First, I want you to know that the company has put a full and reasonable offer on the
negotiating table because we believe quite strongly that all of our employees should be
working from single contracts. We know it’s been a long time since these negotiations began,
and we know how frustrating that has been for all of you.
To that end, we went to negotiations with IAM fleet service representatives in January,
following the resolution of the change in control arbitration, with a proposal that transitioned
the West employees to the terms of the East agreement and enhanced the East agreement
by:
• Increasing pay scales and increasing top rate to $19,
• Adding scope protection for West cities,
• Eliminating Class II pay,
• Modifying the 60-day rule,
• Amending the current sick leave policy, and
• Making improvements to vacation.
In return for these contract enhancements the company sought a 24-month contract
extension, elimination of the change in control language and elimination of future profit sharing
payments (made in 2009 and beyond) in exchange for guaranteed pay raises. The union
wanted more and after a few days, it became apparent that we were fairly far apart.
Rather than drag these talks out for an indefinite period, we suggested, and the union
leadership agreed, that perhaps we should change direction and work on a transition
agreement that would simply move the West employees to the East agreement and save the
bigger details for the full Section 6 negotiations, which would commence at the amendable
date of the current agreement. In that way, our West employees would move to the higher
pay scales of the East agreement sooner rather than later, and all fleet service employees
would be working from the same page.
We made that proposal in good faith on Tuesday, and told the IAM negotiators we’d be willing
to talk about reasonable modifications to our proposal in any counter proposal from the union.
The IAM negotiators simply walked out of the talks. That means that things are status quo
until the union returns to the table – either for a transition agreement that moves West
employees to the East contract, or an amended agreement in line with our January proposal.
We’re very interested in reaching single agreements with all of our work groups – it makes
good sense for our employees and for the company. We have told the IAM that we’re ready
to resume talks at any time, and we look forward to getting back to the bargaining table.
Sincerely,

That line says it all. We have to "PAY" for our own raises. We would be the only group without profit sharing. It just shows you how much disdain this company has for Fleet Service. And if this does happen, to all of our West brothers and sisters, grab your ankles, because there will be some outsourcing on the West side. You can bank on it. And full section 6 should have been ongoing since the I'LL ASK MANAGEMENT took over for the TWU. Along with transition talks. Canoli opted to side with the company on this issue and shelved section 6 for the west. Apparently the company wants this issue put to rest. So lets all be strong and continue the fight for a fair and equitable agreement from the company. One that keeps profit sharing, the COC language, at least $20 hr, doubletime, holiday, sicktime, and vacation improvements. With NO outsourcing what-so-ever. And all the same pay scale. With merger protections! Also DOH senority intergration.

 

[Tim Nelson]

To Al Hemenway,

On February 14, at 6:35, Lithuanian posted one of your replies in which you apparently said,

"...In terms of the details of the discussions, at this point in time in order to ensure that we don't do anything away from the table that could adversely impact those negotiations, the Company has to suggest that you approach your Union representatives for specific details."

Let me kindly ask that you take your own advice that you preach to others and not flip like a pancake after you say something. Your interpretation of what has happened at the negotiations table is not wanted, nor is it internalized with fleet service and is thus illegitimate. The thing that makes 'good sense' is for you to go through our union reps and not resort to your weakened position that is forcing you to air things out outside of our union representatives. IMO, your proposals are not only crude, offensive, but also of a devilish scheme.

Further, don't think just because many of us are trying to get Randy Canale out of office that that is a sign that we don't respect what he says. At this point in time, he is our union leader and when our negotiations team says that your proposal "conveys the company’s disrespect and contempt towards its Fleet Service Workers" we believe them and don't believe you....US Airways executives continue to reap huge salaries and bonuses while they try to inflict further economic hardship upon its workforce...The airline’s demonstration of executive greed is unconscionable."

That is all true. Tell the truth Al and start looking up at the scoreboard instead of talking on the field. Your January proposal reflects less scope for the west than it currently enjoys and puts thousands of jobs at risk. Your $19hr was over an extended period of time. And all the other goofy stuff you put in the contract was a manifestation that you don't have a clue of what September meant.

You mention that the negotiations team wanted to try merging the west in with the east and that they agreed to this, that's not true. The fact is that you got your feelings hurt when we offered $20hr and you came back with this latest goofy and 'kidlike game' and offered your most ridiculus proposal to date. And when the negotiations team got up and walked out on your ignorance, as you stood up and said something like 'we can work on this merging of the west', there was no deal and nobody listened to you. They walked out on you because you insulted their intelligence. Do you really think they are coming back?

At any rate, focus on a better interpretation of what that September rejection meant. If you don't understand that the latest union offer to you was its 'bottom offer' then any future negotiations regarding transition are pointless so don't waste your time going on the hub making appeals to the masses.

From this point forward, one thing is clear. You are wrong about one thing, the choice isn't between transition or waiting till 2009. The choice is between transition or recommencing section 6 for the west. We plan on encouraging Randy to recommence this since you have provided NO evidence that you are capable of resolving our issues through transition talks. The only thing you have produced is about 150 CLT workers standing strong today in solidarity outside in CLT.

It's going to look real nice in the May stockholder meeting when hundreds of us show up saying how management has 'debacled' things and gone from transition talks to section 6 talks. It's going to look real nice to potential investors when the company has to explain that it is back in section 6 talks with 8,000 of its workers because management has flittered around in transition talks for almost 3 years. At any rate, do what you wish Al, you'll get your reward. Who knows, with all the merger talk, maybe another major newspaper will use you and your management team again as a reference in how NOT to transition a merger.

We aren't in Bankrupcty anymore Al, no "lions tigers and bears, and no judge". You must find the right solution so management, labor, investors, etc., can all benefit in a way that is agreeable. Once you do that, we will make more money, the masses will be restful, etc.

regards,
Tim Nelson
IAM Local Chairman, 1487, Chicago

 

[diogenes]

US learned to disprespect fleet from Canale.

No one on the property went backwards as far as fleet. Consider 2000 as a baseline, when all work groups had contracts in place. Who lost the most ground from that baseline?

If fleet's situation were similiar to CWA, AFA and ALPA then Canale would have a point. Fleet doesn't, and Canale's got to go.

I have no knowledge if New Directions can deliver the goods. We all know Canale hasn't. I'd take a chance.

 

[lithuanian]

Today we picketed and Canale and Rich Johnson were there to support and Canale testified (with anger) the demoralizing result of the negotiation. He did seem to have said all this in Earnest. But you still have to think, it is Too Little, Too Late!

Rich also had a not-so-nice remark for Tim when it was brought up about a possible sidebar law suit against the Section 6. We just gave them a head' up.

Over 300 showed up. Well orchestrated. Gotta give those pilots credit. Very professional. Should be lots of video and newscoverage. Dawn Gilberson had an article on the newswire before it even happened.

Now! What' Next.

Looks like the CEO is BAFFLED! The latest comments from the BizJournal say the industry is going down. Guess we are one of the leaders in that respect.

 

[bagchucker]

That line says it all. We have to "PAY" for our own raises. We would be the only group without profit sharing. It just shows you how much disdain this company has for Fleet Service. And if this does happen, to all of our West brothers and sisters, grab your ankles, because there will be some outsourcing on the West side. You can bank on it. And full section 6 should have been ongoing since the I'LL ASK MANAGEMENT took over for the TWU. Along with transition talks. Canoli opted to side with the company on this issue and shelved section 6 for the west. Apparently the company wants this issue put to rest. So lets all be strong and continue the fight for a fair and equitable agreement from the company. One that keeps profit sharing, the COC language, at least $20 hr, doubletime, holiday, sicktime, and vacation improvements. With NO outsourcing what-so-ever. And all the same pay scale. With merger protections! Also DOH senority intergration.

Your post says it all! WE should accept nothing less...AND IT IS NOT TOO MUCH TO ASK FOR, people!
Stand strong on this. It sucks to be patient, but WORTH it. I'll say it again, ANY union with any clout should be FIGHTING to keep jobs for their members. Outsourcing IS NOT a bargaining chip in this matter and who ever let it become one is just WRONG.