IBT No Show Forum

[WNMECH]

I believe (been a while since I read the document) the 5% was contingent upon AMFA and IBT ratifying both of the current transition agreements, SLI agreements and coming under one union prior to March 1, 2012. Not sure they will get the 5% in any subsequent agreement if these are voted down.

I was just using this paragraph to show the % increase claimed by the IBT.

 

[WNMECH]

You are nick-pickin spelling cause you really have nothing else to pic at.

It is spelled NIT-PICKING or NITPICKING.
learn to spell doofus.

just kidding,
lighten up Francis.

 

[AvTech04]

I was just using this paragraph to show the % increase claimed by the IBT.

30%, no more... We all want to see it done as over with but we're giving a lot away already just to appease out SWA counterparts while the majority of SWA mechs are not affected by this and will have no negative impact. Especially, considering that damn near every MX merger group in the past 2 decades has gone DOH for DOC and the FA's just went DOH with a stipulated 2.5 ur boost, I think 30% is the best you're going to get. If I see a .000000001% above that, I am recommending a NO vote to all members and can probably get enough to swing it towards the reject end of any TA. I did not recommend a no vote with this TA because I was advised to not even though I didn't agree with it, but I don't care any longer and will push my opinion on the membership.

30% is the number, no more.

 

[WNMECH]

30%, no more... We all want to see it done as over with but we're giving a lot away already just to appease out SWA counterparts while the majority of SWA mechs are not affected by this and will have no negative impact. Especially, considering that damn near every MX merger group in the past 2 decades has gone DOH for DOC and the FA's just went DOH with a stipulated 2.5 ur boost, I think 30% is the best you're going to get. If I see a .000000001% above that, I am recommending a NO vote to all members and can probably get enough to swing it towards the reject end of any TA. I did not recommend a no vote with this TA because I was advised to not even though I didn't agree with it, but I don't care any longer and will push my opinion on the membership.

30% is the number, no more.

Yea right.
As soon as I said ok to 30% the next guy came on and said "no, I want 20-25%".
Sorry to say that since the increase in your compensation is 35% per your own union, and will not be going down to 30% or 25% or 20% or whatever number you want next, I will be pushing for 35% reduction in senority.

 

[MadMan337]

Yea right.
As soon as I said ok to 30% the next guy came on and said "no, I want 20-25%".
Sorry to say that since the increase in your compensation is 35% per your own union, and will not be going down to 30% or 25% or 20% or whatever number you want next, I will be pushing for 35% reduction in senority.

And so the games begin....

 

[lineguy]

Along with a cut in AT seniority, I wiil need the TA to drop paragraph 4, the delay in the fourth line of Maintenance, to be a yes vote. Paragraph 3 can go away too.

 

[At2001]

Guys settle down please. I have seen 20-25-30- 35%. Talking to AT guys today the magic number is 30%. They believe 20-25% is not going to be enough for SWA mech's but would be preferable for AT,but to get it done they will go to 30%. They and I believe that is being fair. The fact is everyone I hope on this forum wants this done and over with. It is the wrong analogy to use increase in pay compared to decrease in seniority,because if that is the case you would have no problem going to 10% if and when the pay deference was 10%. I do not believe you would agree to that.

 

[lineguy]

Heard from mech's in MCO that the new station manager (AT guy placed above SWA guy) said they will run at minimums. Currently SWA 5 mech's 1 lead for 120+ flights, AT 8 mech's and 1 lead for 60+ flights. New minimums will be SWA 4 mech's and 1 lead and AT... no change. This is the kind of management our company wants? AT boy is setting us up to fail as well as look bad. Seems to me it will make HIM look bad but somehow I think he will always keep his job. Just be aware SWA mech's!

Guess who will be answering for any increase in maint. delays.

 

[lineguy]

Guys settle down please. I have seen 20-25-30- 35%. Talking to AT guys today the magic number is 30%. They believe 20-25% is not going to be enough for SWA mech's but would be preferable for AT,but to get it done they will go to 30%. They and I believe that is being fair. The fact is everyone I hope on this forum wants this done and over with. It is the wrong analogy to use increase in pay compared to decrease in seniority,because if that is the case you would have no problem going to 10% if and when the pay deference was 10%. I do not believe you would agree to that.

I will agree to 30%.

 

[MadMan337]

Along with a cut in AT seniority, I wiil need the TA to drop paragraph 4, the delay in the fourth line of Maintenance, to be a yes vote. Paragraph 3 can go away too.

It's not actually a transition agreement item as much as just information the ALR's wanted to be sure that our Membership understood what the Company's intentions were. It's an issue that will ulimately be resolved through the grievance process up to and including arbitration, maybe even Sec. 6. This issue was one of the most distasteful of all items discussed with the Company.They didn't come clean about not starting the 4th line until the meeting in MCI. Up till then they were saying that plans were to start the 4th line in the 2nd or 3rd qtr of 2012. The item will most likely not be mentioned in the next Trans Agreement since by then it will be grieved or pursued as a major dispute.

I also want the classification of Field Tech to be under the Mechanic's CBA. If the current Field techs don't want to be Union then I suggest they find another job and let an AMFA mechanic bid their spot.

 

[lineguy]

It's not actually a transition agreement item as much as just information the ALR's wanted to be sure that our Membership understood what the Company's intentions were. It's an issue that will ulimately be resolved through the grievance process up to and including arbitration, maybe even Sec. 6. This issue was one of the most distasteful of all items discussed with the Company.They didn't come clean about not starting the 4th line until the meeting in MCI. Up till then they were saying that plans were to start the 4th line in the 2nd or 3rd qtr of 2012. The item will most likely not be mentioned in the next Trans Agreement since by then it will be grieved or pursued as a major dispute.

I also want the classification of Field Tech to be under the Mechanic's CBA. If the current Field techs don't want to be Union then I suggest they find another job and let an AMFA mechanic bid their spot.

I disagree with you on the field tech issue.

 

[swaboeingonly]

I disagree with you on the field tech issue. I'll leave it at that.

I agree 100%, NO field tech's under our CBA...PERIOD!

 

[swaboeingonly]

30%, no more... We all want to see it done as over with but we're giving a lot away already just to appease out SWA counterparts while the majority of SWA mechs are not affected by this and will have no negative impact. Especially, considering that damn near every MX merger group in the past 2 decades has gone DOH for DOC and the FA's just went DOH with a stipulated 2.5 ur boost, I think 30% is the best you're going to get. If I see a .000000001% above that, I am recommending a NO vote to all members and can probably get enough to swing it towards the reject end of any TA. I did not recommend a no vote with this TA because I was advised to not even though I didn't agree with it, but I don't care any longer and will push my opinion on the membership.

30% is the number, no more.

And I say 30% NO LESS! Anything less and I'm a solid NO.

 

[lineguy]

We've had our issues with the field tech's in the past. We have been able to address these thru the grievance process. We lose that ability if they are in our union. We also don't need another level of authority in our CBA.

 

[MadMan337]

The field techs would not be any more of an authority than a lead mechanic or less. I would rather have the classification fall under the cba to be sure we don't have management performing any part of our work. Either that or eliminate the position all together and add their work duties to a classification that already exists in the cba.