Mda Catering

[cavalier]

How many times do you have to be told that they can't close down a facility to circumvent the contract. Dunsford Award Arbitration.

And I and many other IAM posters are really sick and tired of your ways of trying to scare us.

Your track record speaks for itself.

I agree. This boarders on sexual harassment and if you think I am nuts....

harassment

Yes this is a board and not an employer, but it's ABOUT an employer with employees, it’s a captured audience because if one wants to participate one MUST listen to this endless rant.

 

[flyin2low]

Dave sure know's how to hold a grudge!

 

[FLYAWAY]

700UW,
You should really start every post with "IAM". I've asked it before and I'll ask it again...How many pay checks have you gotten from the IAM? I truly hope you're getting something for promoting the "house of cards". Do you realize the choice you now have to make? Do you continue with the work rules(less work, more pay), the philosophy of the IAM(full pay til the last day), or do you care about what the future holds in a re-defined aviation environment? Your posts indicate anything but the latter. There will be airlines in the future. Will you be there? It is certainly your option to EJECT. But the fact is...someone will take your place. If you don't like your chosen profession, find another one. If you are happy with your work and take pride in what you do, go with the flow and live to fight another day. What comes around, goes around and comes around again. Its time to seperate the fly sh_t from the pepper and realize that this is as black and white as it gets.

 

[700UW]

I would not have a paycheck if it was not for the IAM, this company wants to become a virtual airline with minimal employees.

We gave up the work rules the company wanted TWICE!

And there is no talking to the corporate raiders who can't run an airline and can't honor labor contracts they agreed too.

So if the company goes out of business so be it, no airline has ever been saved off the backs of the employees!

 

[MrAeroMan]

I agree. This boarders on sexual harassment and if you think I am nuts....

harassment

Yes this is a board and not an employer, but it's ABOUT an employer with employees, it’s a captured audience because if one wants to participate one MUST listen to this endless rant.

No one is required to read any of the posts on these boards. If you don't care for a particular poster all you have to do is not read their posts. There is nothing captive about it Imho.

 

[ITRADE]

I agree. This boarders on sexual harassment and if you think I am nuts....

harassment

Yes this is a board and not an employer, but it's ABOUT an employer with employees, it’s a captured audience because if one wants to participate one MUST listen to this endless rant.

WTF are you talking about???????

That may possibly be the dumbest post that I have seen on any message boards.

If you don't like what you're reading, turn off the computer.

There is NO contractual relationship between you and ANYBODY on this message board (other than your agreement with the owner to abide by the board's rules).

 

[Tim Nelson]

I will be happy for someone to correct me, but my understanding is:

Whatever the restructuring agreement addresses, modifies the 99 agreement.

If the restructuring agreement does not address an issue, then the 99 agreement is the controlling language.

Again, I am unaware that the restructuring agreement addressed catering.

I could be wrong, so I'll check it out.

Diogenes

Unfortunately the newest restructering did include the provisions that allow USAIRWAYS to contract out MDA catering in CLT. and most local chairmen didn't understand enough to inform their members properly of this. Therefore it was passed and agreed that US AIRWAYS can contract out MDA catering in CLT. Just because it wasn't spelled out in black and white does not mean it WASN'T the responsibility of the local chairmen to point this out. However, all local chairmen I have talked to didn't know half of what was in the contract...most only knew what the IAM wanted them to know.

US AIRWAYS is just doing what your contract allows them to do in this situation and don't think the IAM didn't know this, they wrote the language didn't they?
Fleet service will be brutalized with the newest modification. Weren't you the one who asked how many jobs it will cost? Interesting indeed.

To answer your question under this thread, I have included certain aspects of your newest modification that allows US AIRWAYS to contract out these jobs.

Take notice of your original booklet ['99], page 6 under scope. specifically Art.3B(2)f.
Now go to your newest modification [attatchment A4] which defines MDA stations as "Class 2" stations for scope purposes. You can do the rest.

I am sick and tired of certain employees not knowing their contract and then believing empty IAM rhetoric and blaming the company for something that fleet service workers gave them on a silver platter. I can imagine that even after I have shown that the company can do this that certain IAM members still will not believe their union didn't flush this out for them.
Although it is never right, the mind job and the manufactured consent of fleet service to this was brilliant. Very few can 'steal' the socks off of someone without taking their shoes off but if corporate greed and union unaccountability works together then it could happen.

Regards,

 

[cavalier]

There is nothing captive about it Imho.

Of course you're correct...sorry for my stupidity, it will never happen again, I think?

 

[diogenes]

Well Tim, it's going to be interesting.

There's a reason I cited 3:B:1:c(i). Because 3:B:1:c(ii) gave catering away in all other stations effective March 2004.

A reasonable person would conclude that as PIT, PHL,BWI, DCA and CLT are unlikely to become class II anytime soon, catering would be protected from outsourcing.

Yet events are proving the company will, once again, be creative in interpreting the contract to suit them.

My question is, will 141 stand, as 141M is doing over the Airbii issue.

And for giggles, go read B:2:e - the ides of March are upon us.

 

[Tim Nelson]

Well Tim, it's going to be interesting.

There's a reason I cited 3:B:1:c(i). Because 3:B:1:c(ii) gave catering away in all other stations effective March 2004.

A reasonable person would conclude that as PIT, PHL,BWI, DCA and CLT are unlikely to become class II anytime soon, catering would be protected from outsourcing.

Yet events are proving the company will, once again, be creative in interpreting the contract to suit them.

My question is, will 141 stand, as 141M is doing over the Airbii issue.

And for giggles, go read B:2:e - the ides of March are upon us.

Yea that March date in that part you mentioned is a tough one. And I got to wonder if offering a full time job with MDA will satisfy furlough language in [g]. Specifically the 'fullest extent possible" line. I would say no but I could see how your company could use this piss poor but typical IAM language.

Regarding MDA; PIT, CLT, PHL or any station, MDA employees are considered Class II so I don't see how it is possible for 3B1 to apply when the revision to the revision 'explicitly' states that 'all' MDA employees will come under 3B2, ie., class 2 provisions which directly affect article 4. I don't have a copy of this but to the best of my knowledge that is what it said. Unfortunately, it seems US AIRWAYS agrees with me on this.

At any rate, if the company has contracted this out, and it appears they did since operations are up and running in just 2 weeks, then where the hell is the IAM on this issue? I am not surprised that once again they are silent while workers are scrambling for answers.

Regards,

 

[diogenes]

Agreed. The IAM needs to press this one, but I'm not holding my breath.


It is also of interest how March 2004 keeps popping up in a document ratified in 1999, in light of current events.

Coincidence? I think not.

 

[johnnyfleet]

Well Tim, it's going to be interesting.

There's a reason I cited 3:B:1:c(i). Because 3:B:1:c(ii) gave catering away in all other stations effective March 2004.

A reasonable person would conclude that as PIT, PHL,BWI, DCA and CLT are unlikely to become class II anytime soon, catering would be protected from outsourcing.

Yet events are proving the company will, once again, be creative in interpreting the contract to suit them.

My question is, will 141 stand, as 141M is doing over the Airbii issue.

And for giggles, go read B:2:e - the ides of March are upon us.

I don't know if this is true or not, but was told by an IAM AGC that the March 2004, language had been changed to October 2004. This was because our 1999 agreement was originally to expire when the Mech and Related agreement expired, and then they negotiated a contract that expired October 2004. It was supposedly changed in a LOA shortly after the Mech and Related agreement was ratified. Does anyone know anything about this?


JohnnyFleet

 

[colorado_cowboy]

WTF does it matter anymore?
On one hand the company is telling everyone how badly it needs concessions (again) but on the other hand their flexing their muscle and doing what they want, when they want, and to whom ever they want to do it to, no matter what the cost.

First it was the pilots but they quickly gave in so management went after the flight attendants and their attendance policy (amongst other things) now its the IAM's turn, who's next, the CWA?

IMO US Airways has a plan and the employees arent part of it. Sheesh.... get over it already.

 

[700UW]

The duration clause in the fleet service contract amendable date is now 2008 is DL 141's stance and will be seeking to enforce it and the IAM has told the company that the stand the company is taking on MDA is not acceptable.

 

[Tim Nelson]

For full intention check iam141.org website.

Apparently the IAM contends that on April 4th, US AIRWAYS will be in violation of the agreement because of contracting out catering work at PHL and PIT for MDA.
At any rate, 141 maintains it may include a withdrawing of services for fleet service.

My interpretation of the 'explicit' contract language is [unfortunately] that this work may not be protected. BUT I have to pull for the IAM that their attorneys can do a better job in court than their appointed negotiators did with the language. Although not explicit it may be that the implicit intention by both parties was to protect this work in which case the IAM should be able to win.

What may be key is the "March 2004" clause. Was this extended to the new duration? I don't know since I do not have a current contract that includes all the letters of agreement.

Hopefully this work is protected with that later date.

Regards,