more IAM fleet service committeemen recommending a ''no'' vote

[CS AGENT]

To Chip Munn:

The agents recieved no raise from 1992 until 1998, Pension was frozen in 1992.
Our hourly pay has gone for a topped out Full time agent from $21.17 in 2001 to $22.05 in 2002 to a pay cut level of $20.30. Take in account that if you want to retire, you must put as much as you can afford into 401k because we have NO PENSION. Plus a 300% increase in health insurance.
Would you like to trade that for the 34% pay increases alpa enjoyed over the same time period... and there is that pension thing.
...I didn't think so.

 

[real world]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 1/6/2003 3:59:40 PM chipmunn wrote:

In regard to the pilot pension, the pilots are taking the cuts and negotiating pension changes to support the retirement plan.

Each pilot has taken on average over a $120,000 per year cut so far in pay and benefits, with more cuts likely to save the retirement plan.

The pilot group represents about 10 percent of the employees, who have 30 percent of the labor expense, and took 60 percent of the total cut.

The remaining 90 percent of employees, who have 70 percent of the labor expense, took only 40 percent of the cuts.

I find it interesting that 10 percent of the employee group is shouldering an enormous financial burden, yet the other employee groups believe it is not enough.

The pension funding issue is largely due to ERISA and market conditions, which both could see a change in the future.

Meanwhile, the pilot group took enormous cuts to keep this company alive. It will be interesting to see if the other labor groups become part of the team and sacrifice as well.

However, there is now reason to believe if those unions who have yet to ratify costs fail to ratify their TA's, there could be much more deeper cuts in store for those labor groups, if the airline is not forced to liquidate by the the "money people" first.

Chip
----------------


Chip,

While I tend to agree with your point of view on the majority of issues and agree the pilots have taken a huge step to helping the company and will be asked to do more in the very near future with their pension.

You are overstaing the pilots original giveback as the 2001 parity adjustment that was scheduled to take effect was predicated on GDP performance over the latest two quarters prior to the parity increase effective date and was negative for two straight quarters.

However the confusion was created with the FEDs originally stated 1Q 2001 GDP number as it came out positive and triggerd the the parity increase and at the time rightfully so. However a month later the Feds restaed GDP as a negative for that quarter and therefore the pilots parity increase would not have been triggered and technically that 17% was never the pilots to give back as part of their concessions.

 

[diogenes]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 1/6/2003 3:59:40 PM chipmunn wrote:

In regard to the pilot pension, the pilots are taking the cuts and negotiating pension changes to support the retirement plan.

Each pilot has taken on average over a $120,000 per year cut so far in pay and benefits, with more cuts likely to save the retirement plan.

The pilot group represents about 10 percent of the employees, who have 30 percent of the labor expense, and took 60 percent of the total cut.

The remaining 90 percent of employees, who have 70 percent of the labor expense, took only 40 percent of the cuts.

I find it interesting that 10 percent of the employee group is shouldering an enormous financial burden, yet the other employee groups believe it is not enough.

The pension funding issue is largely due to ERISA and market conditions, which both could see a change in the future.

Meanwhile, the pilot group took enormous cuts to keep this company alive. It will be interesting to see if the other labor groups become part of the team and sacrifice as well.

However, there is now reason to believe if those unions who have yet to ratify costs fail to ratify their TA's, there could be much more deeper cuts in store for those labor groups, if the airline is not forced to liquidate by the the "money people" first.

Chip
----------------
[/blockquote]
------------------------------------------------------------

As usual, not the whole story.

The company has a 3.1 billion dollar DBRP liability over the next 7 years.

During Concessions,part II, the Company asked for $200 million annually from labor - 1.4 billion over the next 7 years.

Doesn't take rocket science, does it?

Lets take an example. Assume in 1990 U was depositing, annually, $100,000 in each pilot's DBRP pension, and $10,000 in an agent's DBRP pension.

Assume in 2000, U deposited $150,000 with the pilot, and $15,000 with the agent.

Under this scenario, Chip's charge of class warfare would be correct. If, in 2002, U said we need to roll everybody back to the 1990 level to preserve the airline, who could, in good conscience, quarrel with that?

But what really happened is far different. Some plans were frozen a decade ago while some were maintained. Those coverted to 401k's had to contribute after tax, take home money to this plan in the hopes of a retirement.

Enter 2002. U is in extremis, and I am amazed DBRP's are still a going concern. We were in far less dire straits a decade ago when plans were frozen. Why not now?

Money is fungible. You can pour it in one account, and it appears in another. It is simply disingenuous to suggest savings realized from fleet and CWA are not going into pension plans.



I would recommend the following.
1. The labor groups with DBRP's should go to management and request their current DBRP's be frozen. You gain two benefits from this.
a. You remove this club from management's hand - do you really think they're not going to beat you over the head again with it?
b. The frozen part, properly done, is untouchable in the future by the company. My plan was frozen in 1993. Upon retirement, I will be able to draw it whether US Airways exists or not. Oddly, while it enraged me at the time and for many years thereafter, I now view it as one of the few favors U has performed on my behalf, because now they can't get their hands on it or use it in any way as leverage. Not so oddly, they didn't intend for it to be a favor - it just worked out that way!

 

[chipmunn]

Diogenes:

I disagree with your comment that I did not tell the whole story. But, if you want more than just a numerical analysis I'll provide you with more facts.

When ALPA approved their restructuring agreement the airline employed about 4,700 pilots who took a $465 million annual cost reduction. That is on average about a $100,000 per year per pilot cut.

After the next round of furloughs are complete, ALPA will have less than 3,900 pilots active who will have taken another $101 million in concessions.

If we are conservative, 4,700 divided by $566 million per year is over $120,000 per pilot.

In addition, ALPA is going to take a significant pension hit, while Airbus (both big and little) and supervisory pilots gave even more. In addition, some pilots went from Captain back to First Officer, block holders to reserve, bigger to smaller equipment, etc. and all of these groups sustained an even greater loss.

Dio, what's enough, should pilots give back 60, 70, 80, or even 90 percent of their pay and benefits to keep the company flying, so you and your colleagues do not have to take a cut? What's enough in this "socialized" system?

Chip

 

[autofixer]

It just so happens I have my pay stubs available, as it is tax time again. (As A319 F/O) I just compared my 7-15-02 sub to my 11-15-02 (to avoid any retroactive pay cuts)stub and there was a 22.7% reduction in pay. Say what you want, but that is the case. (These figures do not take into account that in 2001 I was a 757 F/o after being bumped from 737-300 reserve Capt in 2Q 2001. I won't even go into how much of a pay reduction that was.)

 

[unit4clt]

The IAM is asking Fleet Service to do what they asked us not to do in 1994. that is.. Trust the Company!

 

[tadjr]

Must we rehash and repeat the same posts that appeared back during the first round of talks? We've all suffered, we're all going to suffer again one way or another. We've all given til it hurts.

 

[smallstFSA]

This CWA/IAM vote comes down to one thing and that is RSA and Bronner.
If he's getting an incredible deal there will be a way around a no vote (just an opinion not a guarantee)
In the other case if he's getting cold feet it will be a wonderful excuse for him to take the financing and go home.
Personally I can't afford the bluff and will vote to keep the job going while continuing to look for employment elsewhere. My feelings toward the company grow darker everyday.

 

[BIGDOG]

I feel that we can still work for FREE and this company would still want more.

UNTIL they learn how to treat employees this company is going nowhere fast.

The old saying is you take care of the WORKERS THEY TAKE CARE OF EVERYTHING ELSE.

Working for $13.00 is not the answer.
This won't pay the bills and send Kids to college.
Let alone put food on the table.

I say lets go to the Rich pilots second homes and live there or move in with Rich CEO and his pals.

Let's vote no not to close the doors but to get the IAM back to the table and get us some kind of salary we can at least live with.

If CO Express can get $16.75 plus yearly raises why can't we.
We don't want to be millionares but we do want to LIVE.

"GOD BLESS US ALL"

 

[unit4clt]

If you're at a small station or even in class 1 station, and you are planning to vote yes. I believe its most likely
1. you have not even read the agreement.
2. you dont understand what you have read.
3. you believe in fairy tales.

 

[14all41]

We have read and fully understand attachments A and C in this small station.
A NO!! vote will get the Iam and Company negotiating, so that Fleet Service workers are not asked to approve an extreme and unreasonable agreement.

 

[Tim Nelson]

Very important answers to some of your questions.

1. Why won't Doctor Bronner pull out over ramp issues?
First let me give you the 'givens' that are independent from me and you.

a. The liquidation analysis which was part of the company's reorganization plan concluded the following according to the Pittsburgh Tribune's Jan 5th issue;
"The reorganization plans 'liquidation analysis' concludes that the airline is worth more alive than dead to those interested parties." (GE, RSA).

b. You also know that Doctor Bronner has a responsibility and duty to his funds stakeholders to get the best possible return. In this situation it would be keeping US AIRWAYS alive, not killing it.

In light of the conclusion of the company's own liquidation analysis (not mine), it is just unthinkable to suggest that somehow Doctor Bronner will pick his ball up and go home because of 'ramp issues'. To suggest otherwise is the same as saying one will drown while taking a bath.
In truth, it is ok to take a bath, and it is ok for the ramp to vote NO.
The only persuasion to not take a bath or vote no is to strike up fears or phobias. So it shouldn't be surprising to anyone to hear the desperate persuasion by some to manufacture a phobia to vote 'no'.

2. Tim, how is the ramp going to vote?
Time will tell, however I can tell you that this modifications approval is having bigtime and major trouble taking off.
I believe both the company and union are aware of this so here is what to look for in the next couple of days if not today. Look for a new Letter of Agreement (LOA) to clarify or enhance this modification. I only say that because they have 3 days to clean this thing up or do something before we vote.

3. What do you make of the company statements about no further specific plans of CWA, IAM, reductions?
I haven't read where he said that, however, I believe such talk should be expected since it is consistant with previous utterings. Workers prefer action in the form of written protections in a contract form to back up the talk. Unfortunately, no such protections were offered in contract form so take it FWIW.

4. Tim, why does the company want mail/cargo sortation scope out of our contract?
In part because of the new United code share. Let me explain. Right now, mail and cargo sortation doesn't make up a great deal of jobs at CLT, PIT, PHL, DCA, and BWI. However, with the new United Code share there will be a ton more mail and cargo and many more jobs associated with it.

For example, I work at O'hare and in fact I worked this morning. We had a great deal of 'code share' mail come in on this first day of 'code sharing'. Alot was going to PDX, and other west coast destinations and had to be moved to the appropriate place. All pieces of mail had the code share 'US' with the code share flight number. So realize that not only bags are code sharing but also mail and freight.
For CLT, PIT, PHL, BWI, DCA to give this up represents a job loss (Present + future). Please understand that United is a big freight and mail carrier with big facilities. The loss of mail/freight sortation represents many more job/work opportunities than you think

5. Tim, how much stock does management normally get in these situations? I haven't a clue but according to a editorial entitled "corporate greed" in a pittsburgh newspaper dated Jan 7th it says 2%.
If the "corporate greed" article is accurate then 7.8% is out of line for our management.

6. Tim, why is Steve Wolf still here?
Again, I haven't a clue, ask management.

7. Tim, our union says this is a good deal, I think this deal is aweful, what is the union talking about?
It is a good deal for the IAM since it protects IAM headcount and offers a potential increase in dues-paying members. However, as you have indicated that doesn't mean it is a good deal for you. Primarily the company, union, pilots, etc., have their own interest to protect.

8. What about the pilots pension, why won't the company stop the rhetoric and admit that we are subsidizing the Pilots pension?
Good question. Look, back in the early 90's our pension was frozen and many if not all rampers/Res/Ticket counter workers believed and continue to believe they have been subsidizing the pilots pension for 10 years...not just now.
In return, the company is digging back into your pockets without the pilots pension resolved.
Now, that's what I'm talking about!

For the company to say that they are "still" negotiating with the pilots over this pension only adds insult to injury. It's only a $3 billion dollar problem that hasn't been resolved by our current management. This company should have taken care of its Billion dollar problems before coming back to address million dollar problems.

And I'm making the appeal on the floor for the ramp to give a big NO because of all the reasons I have listed on this thread.

just because we work the ramp doesnt mean we are stupid.

Thanks for your questions

Tim Nelson
IAM Local Chairman 1487
215-440-6392

 

[us10]

Tim,

Your wishfull thinking won't make the problems go away.Look I know this is difficult to confront but instead of facing the realty of our situation ,you've chosen to deny the true dangers of the moment. That's okay if it brings you a sense of peace.However, the risk I see is others may actually believe you and your flawed logic.
It seems to me that all you're saying is tha F/S is so unimportant and insignificant that they won't shut down over little ole us.It would seem to me if your so unnecessary you should be the last group to vote no.
Finally , If your group votes no are the rest of the employees supposed to make up the difference? My understanding is all agreements are subject to all other groups ratifying.

 

[binboy]

US10 wrote:

"Your wishfull thinking won't make the problems go away.Look I know this is difficult to confront but instead of facing the realty of our situation ,you've chosen to deny the true dangers of the moment. That's okay if it brings you a sense of peace.However, the risk I see is others may actually believe you and your flawed logic.
It seems to me that all you're saying is tha F/S is so unimportant and insignificant that they won't shut down over little ole us.It would seem to me if your so unnecessary you should be the last group to vote no.
Finally , If your group votes no are the rest of the employees supposed to make up the difference? My understanding is all agreements are subject to all other groups ratifying."
------------------------------------------------------------

Wishful thinking happens to be on your part US10 the realty
of the situation is that this company wants not just blood from the workers it wants the stone it came from as well. This modification is based on nothing but corporate greed that they will exploit from the workers with future profits they will be making. To allow this company to have the language that is in this modification is career suicide. You mention flawed logic from Tim's post but what you fail to mention is if you are a fleet service worker yourself? Have you read the modifications an seen how bad it is? Have you seen the language that will end in job losses for mainline workers?

After reading Tims post i see no flaws in his logic with the analysis of the information he quoted seems very sound.

So US 10 if you honestly believe in Doc Bonnerand threats I have beach front property for sale in Nevada just waitng for you!

 

[RedOne]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 1/7/2003 9:42:57 AM chipmunn wrote:

First, management would have to convince RSA, the unsecured creditors, the ATSB, and GECAS that it could obtain required cuts through other means to meet the financing requirements. These could include:
...............

5. Move to close more mainline stations, replace this service with RJs, and furlough CWA and IAM-FSA employees.......----------------
[/blockquote]

Chip & others,
This is part of the big problem many of us in the F/S & C/S agent category have with the TAs as being presented.
If we vote YES, because of the wording of the contract, we are agreeing to closing mainline stations and giving our "approval" to their being turned into commuter stations. Thus for many of us, a YES vote is voting ourselves out of a mainline job....and consequetly, another and even larger pay cut to follow (when the station becomes commuter)

A NO vote MAY mean no job...as #5 above could indeed happen. Maybe worse.
A YES vote to many, will mean we agree to no job as mainline...(it's just a question of how long will it take to close our station to mainline... 1 month? 6months? 1 year?) Many feel that all small stations and most moderate size stations will become commuter statations...under the TAs we have to vote on. Thus, a cut in pay which is so drastic that we can get jobs elsewhere making the same money...with lots less stress. It's not about wheather or not we like our job. If we didn't...just like you, we would have left long ago. Who would work under the kind of pressure we all have (even before all this) if we didn't love it? For most of us it has been more than "just a job."

Diogenes brought up a valid point which no-one has answered (to the best of my knowledge). The company has stated they need $25 mil from agents...yet the only thing they have asked from us is to pay more for medical coverage. The only way they are going to get the kind of money needed from us is to convert mainline stations into commuter stations. They just won't admit that is the game plan. BUT IT IS THE ONLY WAY THAT I SEE FOR THEM TO GET THE BIG BUCKS (at least big for us)...if there IS another way, I sure would love to know about it. IF they have other plans, I wish they would present them in black and white to us...it would convince me of my vote very quickly!

I feel if I vote YES...I AM cutting my own throat. If I vote NO...I MAY be cutting my own throat.

Am I concerned about you? Yes. However; if I am to be honest, just like you, my first and foremost concern is for me and my family.