gonzo
Veteran
- Oct 17, 2005
- 902
- 0
I would think that any input or observations would be welcome by this forum. I don't believe that you have to be a member of the IAM or any union to give your opinion here. Am I mistaken?
Machinists Union Merger Update
- Thread starter 700UW
- Start date
I would think that any input or observations would be welcome by this forum. I don't believe that you have to be a member of the IAM or any union to give your opinion here. Am I mistaken?
Awa Contract
Veteran
- Oct 3, 2005
- 820
- 1
I am on the contract negociations and I am trying to resolve the way they were handled in the last contract, I do not consider myself better than GSE but my approach is that we are all mechanics we just work different equipment. I do not think you will find one person in GSE that will say I have ever treated them or any other work group like 2nd class. Unlike most of you I have had the experience of working under IAM at one time and now I am a Teamster. I almost think that being nonunion is better than the IAM, I also remind you IAM folks you have not dealt with Doug before. Personally I trust him about as much as I do a rattlesnake or one of my ex-wives, he is going to bite just a question of when. Equipment being sold to contractors - just keep in mind he was trained by Bill Franke. Your scope doesn't mean anything to him.
i see a pattern here 700....
hmmm.....
i agree dude.why hasn't IBT been getting heavies into their contracts for the last 5 or so years??
wouldn't it behoove them to expand their member base??provide more dues paying jobs?
put me in for seconds there guy.....
well they are in the IAM bucko.....
god bless frank
gonzo
Veteran
- Oct 17, 2005
- 902
- 0
You seem to be very knowledgeable delldude. Can you answer some questions for me. So you are saying that IAM has not had "dues paying jobs" taken away by AMFA? What other airlines does IAM have a membership of mechanics? Thank you.
been a member of unions for 25 yrs and see good and bad. I feel that this merger is going to cause alot of problems. I know that the unions are very strong headed but I also know that changes must be made in order for the new airline to survive. I dont understand why the IAM feels that Doug will allow them to keep the heavy checks in house. If the IBT could not keep them, then the IAM will lose them. I agree I would like to see more work in house, but all they look at is money. For the seniority issue, I know the IAM has alot more time then IBT and they should keep their seniority. IBT contract is better, other than in house work. I also know alot of IAM Mechanics will be retiring soon. Why not try to get more money and better vacation time before you retire. I would like to see a fence put up around the mx bases. only if their is a position you can move there.
- Thread Starter
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #262
We have not dealt with Doug, but we have dealt with the VP of Labor Relations and you will see you will get nothing from him as I know first hand.
And your comment about being better off being non-union rather then the IAM is absurd, go ask the agents at US what happened to them when they were non-union.
And a true trade unionist would never say anyone would be better off being non-union.
And your comment about being better off being non-union rather then the IAM is absurd, go ask the agents at US what happened to them when they were non-union.
And a true trade unionist would never say anyone would be better off being non-union.
- Thread Starter
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #263
Wow I would have hoped the IBT would have trained you better and educated you.
See the scope language you talk about has been tested in court and won by the IAM until an Appeals Court threw it back to arbitration, and guess what? The IAM won in arbitration also, and since the IBT has failed to educate you let me. See when scope language is tested in arbitration and won by the IAM it is precedent setting and if the company tries to violate an arbitrator's decision and order the IAM would go back to court and get an injuction against the company as this language has been tested all ready and the arbitor's decision is final.
Heaven help your HP mechanics if you don't even know about the grievance procedure and arbitration under the Railway Labor Act.
Not for anything 700, but is scope language on one issue (heavy maintenance), the IAM's claim to fame, on the last vote? The vote that you and the IAM blame the members for voting on? The one that if the members are not happy with, they get the "You voted on it", but uncer the same breath you brag about it being the IAM's win?
What is it going to be. The IAM's hard work to secure that work or ultimately the IAM's laying down and giving the vote to the membership who "voted" it in?
You can't have it both ways. I suggest when you brag about the scope work within the contract (not agreement like you repeat so much) you give the credit to the members that voted yes for it. Didn't you vote no?
What is it going to be. The IAM's hard work to secure that work or ultimately the IAM's laying down and giving the vote to the membership who "voted" it in?
You can't have it both ways. I suggest when you brag about the scope work within the contract (not agreement like you repeat so much) you give the credit to the members that voted yes for it. Didn't you vote no?
gonzo
Veteran
- Oct 17, 2005
- 902
- 0
AWA has not done "Heavy" checks since 1995. They have had many articles in the news about "not starting the heavy checks up again". I don't believe the "New US Airways" will have the heavy checks either. The main reason for me believing this is one of the "scope" statements in the bankruptcy court legal document. It is as follows:
"Scope: The Debtors agree to bring in-house all scheduled "S" checks for A320 series aircraft where checks are due after the effective date of the modified IAM CBAs. The Debtors may outsource all 757, 767, and A320 maintenance excluding normal line maintenance. The Debtors may outsource a maximim of 50% of the 737 required scheduled "Q" checks annually. The 279 minimum aircraft requiredment agreed to in the prior IAM CBAs is eliminated."
It would be great to see the "Heavy" checks remain with the New US Airways, but I have serious doubts.
don't recall saying anything on that note dude.....You seem to be very knowledgeable delldude. Can you answer some questions for me. So you are saying that IAM has not had "dues paying jobs" taken away by AMFA? What other airlines does IAM have a membership of mechanics? Thank you.
besides...doesn't seem to matter much anymore who's representing who in the airline industry anymore does it? they're all getting porked.
aloha-hawaiin-comair
You're reaching. That's not what I meant and you know it. I ran that "each member is the union" line on you before, to straighten you out. Read my post, you know it makes sense. Try to stay with it.
I saw at least 200 cleaners and many mehanics that I knew, walk out the door without a job. I see mechanics who can not take vacation during the holidays ,because of ratios in the "final proposal". I see people who get 50% of pay when they are out sick, because "they voted for it". Yet you continually repeat the same rant about the heavy mtc work. Thats it, one topic. Out of all the job losses, money losses, holidays, benefits, sick time, vacation time, other scope work (shops, facilities, GSE). One thing to brag about. That is what the IBT is running against?
gonzo
Veteran
- Oct 17, 2005
- 902
- 0
don't recall saying anything on that note dude.....
besides...doesn't seem to matter much anymore who's representing who in the airline industry anymore does it? they're all getting porked.
Yes sir.....that is a very true statement.
aloha-hawaiin-comair
