June - IAM Fleet Service Discussion

[ograc]

ograc,

Who do you think divided the membership? For both US and UA? IMO, it was the LfP ticket for UA, and the occupy ticket for US. With a little bit of mixture for both on both sides. Do you really feel this was a productive way to engage the membership, by splitting a ticket 3 ways during such a curcial time for both US and UA? But for those with a political agenda, or an axe to grind, or just in if for the $$$$$$, it appears it was. IMO of course.

pj,
The membership was divided long before the election process took place. The election process and subsequent results have merely reflected this division within the membership. IMO... the democratic election process, as governed by the district bylaws, did not cause this division. The election process is most certainly a way to engage the membership. It gives the membership a say as to who their elected representatives will be. If the membership was satisfied with the representation they were receiving the incumbent candidates would be unopposed. This has happened in past elections in DL 141 & 142. This simply was not the case regarding the current leadership team. Many are satisfied and many are not. The election process is in place for the engaged members to voice their opinion and decide. IMO... the election process and candidates who propose change are not the cause, but in fact, the result of the division within the membership.
ograc
ograc

 

[Jester]

The membership was divided long before the election process took place.

orgac,

Here's the problem as I see it... the cause of apathy is due on large part because of the perception that the union will not provide much support unless one is part of that inner circle.

When favoritism and backstabbing are the two more likely adjectives to describe the union representation, then why should anyone be surprised when there is a lack of general support? I have heard union reps say that would not defend someone because that person is too old and works too many hours, and needs to go. Old expression, "If you've been at the poker table for 30 minutes and you don't know who is the patsy... you're the patsy!"

If a union wants to earn support, there truly needs to be a standard by which the leadership is beyond reproach, and the Membership knows that even the most disliked, difficult, problematic co-worker will be afforded the same respect and representation, as the shop steward who has the ear of the IAM leadership with a phone call away.

Until then... most of us are just patsies at the poker table.

So Deals Jester.

 

[john john]

Ok, so now the company reaches an agreement with the 3000 Piedmont Express Group Fleet Service and they get 4 % raises each year and a 6-8 % lump-sum signing bonus for 2012, hmmmm, can't remember ever getting any type of signing bonus here at mainline, and 4% raises each year!!!!.......so now let's see just what this company thinks of our group here at mainline. So far we are so far below everyone else it's hard to imagine getting anything as it's seems like the theme is on to just cut, cut and cut some more while other groups are gaining!!!!

CWA:"Piedmont Agents Win First Contract

http://district2-13....ct#.T8jIQNX8uCg

http://piedmontagent.org/index.cfm?action=cat&categoryID=92a118ac-0f70-4b29-a748-999b51107e1c
Summary of Tentative Agreement with Piedmont

 

[rockit2]

ograc,

Who do you think divided the membership? For both US and UA? IMO, it was the LfP ticket for UA, and the occupy ticket for US. With a little bit of mixture for both on both sides. Do you really feel this was a productive way to engage the membership, by splitting a ticket 3 ways during such a curcial time for both US and UA? But for those with a political agenda, or an axe to grind, or just in if for the $$$$$$, it appears it was. IMO of course.

I think for the most part on the US side, the people are tired. We have had two contracts negotiated under bankrupt terms that have not moved us forward in pay or benefits that was expected by the members. Union dues have out paced wages, AGC's are the only ones in the eyes of the workers whom have made out. Thirty-nine cent raises doesn't make you want to walk a picket line. Most just come to work, get thier check every other Friday and don't even look at the bulletin board. Why bother say many, file a grievence and it never gets heard. Ho Hum.

 

[Tim Nelson]

I want to thank all of the voters who voted for Occupy 141. It was truly humbling to have folks vote for us. In the end, we got smoked. LFP is still kicking some but they will have to have a huge turnout in EWR to have a chance since KA is down by 1,100 with only 3,200 left to vote. Unlikely indeed.

In the end, it was not nearly enough but we gave it our best shot. It was great getting out and meeting many brothers and sisters, some who supported us and some who didn't but we have to move on now.

For US AIRWAYS, I remain concerned that Delaney will continue the course he set you on, and it is the same charted course that he put UA/CO on, and that now, no contract will be seen until any apparent merger, in which the US AIRWAYS members would be a part of a transition agreement about 5 years out. As I said before the District elections, this is not the preferred path but the one that Delaney/MF have chosen. Roabily, PJ, 700, and Mike33....I hope they are right about that path working, and I am wrong, but there remains no evidence that any progress is being made at all, and neither should we expect any, under the same merger plan that Delaney used at CO/UA. Guys like Charlie Brown, Mike, Roabilly, are all good honest guys IMO who want to believe that somehow sitting at a table using the same template used at UA/CO that followed management's directives is going to produce a different outcome. I hope they are right and time will tell. Of course, my opinion only. Again, I hope I'm wrong and they are right but I have never felt comfortable teaming up with management during a merger. Didn't work at UA/CO for our members there and won't work at US AIRWAYS. Just my two cents.

The question of seniority was somewhat answered on June 4 with the TWU/IAM arbitration award in which each TWU member was credited with an additional 2.5 years of seniority systemwide over IAM members. The exception that the arbitrator ruled on was the airtran hub, ATL. All ATL IAM members were also credited with an additional 2.5 years of seniority so no hub IAM member lost any time. This arbitration award is significant because unless the IAM does a blistering organizing attempt against the TWU, if we apply the Southwest/Airtran arbitration award then no IAM member in PHL, PHX, CLT should lose any seniority, regardless of who buys who.

Again, the focus should be on getting a contract before a merger like the AFA, IBT and other unions did at UA/CO and at Airtran, but unfortunately, 141 rising has NOT charted us on that course at UA/CO or US AIRWAYS. Sad indeed.

UA/CO. For our members at UA/CO, the 141 rising win means more of the same and no way out. I'm not saying that Delaney will sign on the current offer of $22 and no scope but he hasn't found a way to get the company to negotiate in good faith due to his fear of getting the members involved. IMO, more stations will close and all cargo will be lost. The IBT has already started up its engines and is coming back saying "I told you so" presumably in the next 60 days. IMO, Delaney should resist bringing back a lame contract that the IBT could then use as a catalyst to pick up those 11 votes that it lost by last year. The members win and the IAM win if Delaney comes through on his word but bringing back a lame contract to get turned down will be a fatal mistake.

Unfortunately, our UA members have not received a simply pay raise in 4 years due to Delaney's insistence of organizing more IAM members first and then insisting on transition talks, as opposed to normal talks. [this is the same plan being used at US AIRWAYS BTW]. The bottom line is that although more members for the IAM may help reduce the yearly membership losses at the IAM, it still doesn't put more money into the pockets of our members.

Tim Nelson
My run for presidency was fun and it forced the AGC's to finally get up off of their collective arses and hit the breakrooms after 4 years. But I got destroyed at United and that was pretty much the best that I could do. Moving forward, I'm staying active. What was truly disappointing, IMO, was that only 19% of our membership showed up to vote. 30,000 members and only 6,000 participated. This is a reflection on leadership. The real problem that the leadership faces is getting the membership to participate and IMO they don't have a clue and will blame the membership instead of themselves.

Negotiations
Retirement options. I remain very concerned about having my pension collared by the IAM trustees. The US AIRWAYS members got it whacked almost in half once and with the additional losses of membership last year with the additional gains of retirees, the pension remains a ponzie scheme at best. Unfortunately, our negotiators [UA/CO/US] are not negotiating retirement options and are fixated only on company contributions to the IAM pension plan. I was hoping that for those of us who want to control our money, that they would at least hear our voices and negotiate options so that the members can decide where to put their money, i.e., IAM pension plan, 401k, 401roth, etc. I know some prefer putting it into the IAM pension even though it can [and most likely] be looted again, but many, including myself prefer a roth plan for the company to contribute to. Just my two cents. But, it would be cool for the union to listen and to negotiate options for the members instead of the exclusive IAM pension plan.

Onward!

 

[700UW]

The penison is run by an trustees appointed by the company reps and the IAM reps.

Multiemployer joint labor-management pension plans are required to have an equal number of Trustees from labor or the union, and management or the employers. The reason for this is to ensure that both sides are fairly represented and that participants are always the primary focus of the Fund.

 

[Tim Nelson]

The penison is run by an trustees appointed by the company reps and the IAM reps.

Multiemployer joint labor-management pension plans are required to have an equal number of Trustees from labor or the union, and management or the employers. The reason for this is to ensure that both sides are fairly represented and that participants are always the primary focus of the Fund.

I don't care. I don't want anyone, whether union bosses or company pricks to have their hands on my retirement.

In this day and age, it is purely insulting to have a defined benefit plan when everyone educated knows that defined benefit plans have screwed the working families because they are not defined and are not guaranteed. At US AIRWAYS, our members been bitten twice by defined plans, once by having it frozen and next by the IAM pension trustees who hammered our members by pimping off 40%.

There is a reason why defined benefit plans went bye bye. In this day and age, we want choices and control so Roth plans and other tax incentive plans sprung up that give us great access for college, mortgage, etc.

Having a dinosaur plan that is a ponzie scheme is a scandal. 30,000 less IAM members and more retirees puts additional pressures on the plan. It's been cut twice now since 2003 and I doubt it can sustain the brutal membership losses without a third whack.

I know that some prefer a union pension because they are not informed so they should have the choice to keep the IAM pension. But, if our negotiators were listening to their members, they should be negotiating a higher contribution rate and then allowing the members the option of either putting those company funds into a 401k, IAM pension, or Roth.

regards,

 

[The Bagfather]

I don't care. I don't want anyone, whether union bosses or company pricks to have their hands on my retirement.

In this day and age, it is purely insulting to have a defined benefit plan when everyone educated knows that defined benefit plans have screwed the working families because they are not defined and are not guaranteed. At US AIRWAYS, our members been bitten twice by defined plans, once by having it frozen and next by the IAM pension trustees who hammered our members by pimping off 40%.

There is a reason why defined benefit plans went bye bye. In this day and age, we want choices and control so Roth plans and other tax incentive plans sprung up that give us great access for college, mortgage, etc.

Having a dinosaur plan that is a ponzie scheme is a scandal. 30,000 less IAM members and more retirees puts additional pressures on the plan. It's been cut twice now since 2003 and I doubt it can sustain the brutal membership losses without a third whack.

I know that some prefer a union pension because they are not informed so they should have the choice to keep the IAM pension. But, if our negotiators were listening to their members, they should be negotiating a higher contribution rate and then allowing the members the option of either putting those company funds into a 401k, IAM pension, or Roth.

regards,

I don't think this is realistic. The IAM is for better or worse committed to a pension. All the groups in the IAM depend each other for the strenth of the plan. The national as you have pointed out would be hightly opposed to anyone going away from that. In fact, as you know, they wan't more contributions to the pension.

To be honest I've lost trust in how you present issues on this board. I sometimes feel like there is a greater agenda and that some harmless statement you make now is building toward something else. If you are just stating opinions then I appoligize.

 

[roabilly]

I don't think this is realistic. The IAM is for better or worse committed to a pension. All the groups in the IAM depend each other for the strenth of the plan. The national as you have pointed out would be hightly opposed to anyone going away from that. In fact, as you know, they wan't more contributions to the pension.

To be honest I've lost trust in how you present issues on this board. I sometimes feel like there is a greater agenda and that some harmless statement you make now is building toward something else. If you are just stating opinions then I appoligize.

If I remember correctly,

Nelson and Pruitt criticized the IAM during the “Big Picture” era for NOT seeking a defined benefit pension plan when we got our first CBA. This argument actually lead to the pension we have today as the Membership became more and more involved in asking for a pension as opposed to a 401k match!

Now fast forward to today… and Nelson has completely reversed positions, and now is opposed to a DBP!

It boils down to one thing… and one thing only…criticize the IAM no matter what they do in hopes of political gain

 

[pjirish317]

ROA,

I will have to disagree. I think it is criticize anybody that disagree's with Tim, not just the IAM. Because you and I both know, if it aint Tim's way, then it's the highway. He really has lost all street cred with the "masses". Now he just looks like a spoiled little child trowing a temper tamtrum.

 

[P. REZ]

I don't think this is realistic. The IAM is for better or worse committed to a pension. All the groups in the IAM depend each other for the strenth of the plan. The national as you have pointed out would be hightly opposed to anyone going away from that. In fact, as you know, they wan't more contributions to the pension.

To be honest I've lost trust in how you present issues on this board. I sometimes feel like there is a greater agenda and that some harmless statement you make now is building toward something else. If you are just stating opinions then I appoligize.

BF,

Most of the people on this board have a long history with TN and the different things he's tried to do over the years. I first got on this site to counter him with regards to our TA. What I have learned about Tim is that he is an intelligent person but uses his intelligence in a way that is detrimental to this group. He was for the pension, now he is against. He was for the ND, now he is against. As soon as people learn to separate themselves from this guy the better off everyone will be. He likes to use his skills to meet some agenda he thinks up and through the process of manipulating people and situations makes it easier for management to have the upper hand because we are always fighting with ourselves. I hope this membership will keep in mind in the future that he is a narcissist and will never help but only hurt this group. This is not meant to hurt Tim or any of his supporters but my opinion after getting to know him through posts and conversations.

In Solidarity,

P. Rez

 

[700UW]

Tim,

wow sour grapes!

Please show us how the IAMNPF has lost 30,000 members, I call BS!

The IAMNPF is negotiated between the employer and the union, every single IAM member isnt in it, yet you know this too.

I see your spreading mistruths again, the IAMNPF is a totally separate entity from the IAM, but you know this, and funny you want to be a union boss so bad as you call them, the bitterness seeps with all your posts.

Why do you spread lies when you know people on this board will call you out.

 

[Tim Nelson]

I don't think this is realistic. The IAM is for better or worse committed to a pension. All the groups in the IAM depend each other for the strenth of the plan. The national as you have pointed out would be hightly opposed to anyone going away from that. In fact, as you know, they wan't more contributions to the pension.

To be honest I've lost trust in how you present issues on this board. I sometimes feel like there is a greater agenda and that some harmless statement you make now is building toward something else. If you are just stating opinions then I appoligize.

It is realistic. The negotiations committees for the IAM southwest agents didn't shove the IAM pension down their throats as they have a very good 401k match. More IAM properties do not have the IAM pension than do.

Yes, I do have a greater agenda and it doesn't involve me as a candidate this time. And it is to put my foot so far up this union's arse to get the members a real contract. For as long as I could remember, the IAM has sucked with US AIRWAYS and our members have fallen farther and farther behind other unions [whether on United or US AIRWAYS] and the thing that can rectify that is a fair contract BEFORE any merger. If the IAM finally does its job then we can push the TWU members to sign IAM cards and the IAM would deserve an election victory.

regards,

 

[Tim Nelson]

If I remember correctly,

Nelson and Pruitt criticized the IAM during the “Big Picture” era for NOT seeking a defined benefit pension plan when we got our first CBA. This argument actually lead to the pension we have today as the Membership became more and more involved in asking for a pension as opposed to a 401k match!

Now fast forward to today… and Nelson has completely reversed positions, and now is opposed to a DBP!

It boils down to one thing… and one thing only…criticize the IAM no matter what they do in hopes of political gain

LOL,
Roabily you are getting very old because I was NEVER a proponent of the IAM pension plan. I read the whole plan in its entirety at the Local Chairman's gathering in PIT back in 2003 and came to the conclusion that the plan was a scandal of the workers due to the plan summary which read that the 'defined benefits' weren't really defined and could be changed and taken like a thief in the night. I also had gave concerns about the spousal benefit reduction and suspensions. You can go back to 2003 on this page and probably find some of my post about it. Unfortunately, I have been right every time, even though you and others over the years have taken personal shots against me [and avoided debating my positional argument]. It is thoroughly insulting in any academic argument for anyone to suggest that the IAM pension is anything less than a ponzie scheme, insecure, and non guaranteed.

Defined benefits are useless in this day and age and THEY are the pensions that make up the pension graveyard with the Pension Guarantee group. Most unions have adapted to this century and understood the enhanced tax laws and retirement access plans.

No sir, I have never been a proponent of the IAM pension, as far as I know only you, 700, and a few dozen others. LOL

regards,

 

[pjirish317]

Tim,

I highly doubt that you are "gonna put your foot so far up this unions arse"? How are you going to accomplish this? Your "unanimous endorsements from all tjree hubs fizzled out come election time huh. What's next, are you going to go to the TWU or IBT and "promise" them an organizing win to represent us for a secured position within that union? Get real already. I believe that by now, most, if not all, of US fleet has finally heard of you, and seen you for what you are. A narcissistic meglomaniac who is ultimately in it for yourself, not the betterment of the members. You have turned into that little yippie dog that is all bark and no bite.