Nov/Dec 2013 Fleet Service Discussion

[P. REZ]

The CLT Committee walked the break rooms last night. An email is being passed around this morning that represents a highlight sheet of a "tentative agreement" offered by the company. Can Charlie Brown or PREZ confirm or deny this? Why isn't this on the district website:
 
COMPANY OFFERED A TEN. AGREEMENT
HIGHLIGHTS ARE.
SICK PAY BACK TO 8 HRS
SIGN ON BONUS $1000.00
1 MORE WEEK VACA FOR 25 YEARS
TOP OUT 2$ AN HOUR MORE
10 HOLIDAYS WITH OPTION TO BID AS VACA
LEAD PAY 1.25 MORE AN HOUR
LONGEVITY PAY OR SHIFT DIFF .55 AN HOUR

First, I would like to say that the Company did not offer the following TA. We offered a comprehensive wage and benefit package with  improvements to said issues above plus others. The numbers you quote above I can't discuss but can say are not entirely accurate. I would also like to add that we have not proposed any give backs either.
 
P. Rez

 

[Tim Nelson]

First, I would like to say that the Company did not offer the following TA. We offered a comprehensive wage and benefit package with  improvements to said issues above plus others. The numbers you quote above I can't discuss but can say are not entirely accurate. I would also like to add that we have not proposed any give backs either.
 
P. Rez

+1

 

[robbedagain]

Prez now that the ch11 judge gave aa the go ahead to merge when does the iam 141 and the donkeys meet again? Or are you waiting to hear from them regarding your proposals

 

[cltrat]

rob I thought about you the other day, I was watching Let's make a deal and one of the zonks was a trip on donkey airline they had a plane with a donkey head on the front of it . I lmao

 

[robbedagain]

Was it dp or one of his side kicks! Lol

 

[ograc]

First, I would like to say that the Company did not offer the following TA. We offered a comprehensive wage and benefit package with  improvements to said issues above plus others. The numbers you quote above I can't discuss but can say are not entirely accurate. I would also like to add that we have not proposed any give backs either.
 
P. Rez

A "highlight" sheet being distributed in a major hub without mention of scope. A "highlight" sheet without credibility. This is why inside information on day to day negotiations should not be shared with the membership. Proposals on the table today are off the table tomorrow. Which is more dangerous? The lack of information or misinformation. The NC at this point realizes what the issues are. Let them represent. In the meantime... current negotiations and proposals are very fluid and should be kept in the "need to know" file. Eventually, all members will have an opportunity to judge and vote on the final product. Misinformation, such as the discredited "highlight sheet" being distributed serves no useful purpose other than to "muddy the waters" and mislead the membership.     

 

[P. REZ]

Prez now that the ch11 judge gave aa the go ahead to merge when does the iam 141 and the donkeys meet again? Or are you waiting to hear from them regarding your proposals

Robbed, the Mediator sets the dates not the Company or the Union. We have told the Mediator that we are available any time, any place. The hope is to meet soon and I believe will be by January at the latest. 

 

[charlie Brown]

The CLT Committee walked the break rooms last night. An email is being passed around this morning that represents a highlight sheet of a "tentative agreement" offered by the company. Can Charlie Brown or PREZ confirm or deny this? Why isn't this on the district website:
 
COMPANY OFFERED A TEN. AGREEMENT
HIGHLIGHTS ARE.
SICK PAY BACK TO 8 HRS
SIGN ON BONUS $1000.00
1 MORE WEEK VACA FOR 25 YEARS
TOP OUT 2$ AN HOUR MORE
10 HOLIDAYS WITH OPTION TO BID AS VACA
LEAD PAY 1.25 MORE AN HOUR
LONGEVITY PAY OR SHIFT DIFF .55 AN HOUR

Yes I'll comment on this, since it seems I'm the reason this happened. I was requested to brief a work area the other night, and I was trying to highlight some things that I thought we could get in our current section 6 talks, and then some things I personally think we should shoot for in the joint agreement. In just a short 12 hour period, that got turned into we have a T/A with all those things in it. I got hit with the piece of paper first thing this morning. So needless to say. My day was spent all day today going in break rooms telling them that the info was not correct and we do not have a T/A. Many things in that paper is incorrect. I have no idea who wrote that. Some of those things I think it's obvious we should expect to get back, but like ogracs post states. Everything is subject to change.

 

[ograc]

IMO... there seems to be a "disconnect" on what the definition of scope and job protection is between the members in outline stations and the District. Based on the recently ratified TA at UA the definition of scope and job protection by the District is the ability for members, whose jobs are being outsourced in outline stations, to relocate to a larger station in order to retain their employment. In contrast, the expectation of scope and job protection, of those currently working in outline stations, is to protect my work, my job in my location. The district can tout job security all they want; but at the end of the day their representation will be limited to 30 stations. Of which, 23 have no job protection past the ammendable date of the agreement. What leverage will the IAM have 5 - 6 years from now when they could potentially only be representing members in 7 stations? I hope our NC doesn't fall for the same. Job protection, scope and leverage in future negotiations is about system wide representation. Let's quit selling ourselves out!  

 

[robbedagain]

Thanks p rez...

 

[UnitedWeStand]

Yes I'll comment on this, since it seems I'm the reason this happened. I was requested to brief a work area the other night, and I was trying to highlight some things that I thought we could get in our current section 6 talks, and then some things I personally think we should shoot for in the joint agreement. In just a short 12 hour period, that got turned into we have a T/A with all those things in it. I got hit with the piece of paper first thing this morning. So needless to say. My day was spent all day today going in break rooms telling them that the info was not correct and we do not have a T/A. Many things in that paper is incorrect. I have no idea who wrote that. Some of those things I think it's obvious we should expect to get back, but like ogracs post states. Everything is subject to change.

 
I appreciate you being forthright. I also appreciate PREZ for his timely response. 
I will offer my opinion on this fwiw. There are people at this hub that are starving for information. Some want people to think they are in the know and pass on bad information. By the time the misinformation has morphed, it gets so blurred that people are arguing about which version is right and then damning the IAM for their sorry negotiation skills.
But it doesn't stop there. This melting pot of a hub has people passing this misinformation to their friends across the system and it snowballs. 
 
Where do we go to get good information? I chuckled the other day when I looked on the Union board in the break room. the safety section was up to date. The section used by the Grievance committee had a committee update letter from 2008 and a Shop Steward List from 2009. There was a Negotiation update posted above the time clock. Problem is it was someones email copied and posted so that people not on your list could have some information. 
 
There are alot of people that go to this forum to get information. You post updates here and I know people appreciate it. This place was buzzing when this BS Tentitive was being circulated. As soon as PREZ posted his reply, everyone knew it was BS. This forum has alot of power. The fact that it is ahead of the information curve needs to be discussed.
 
CLT has (2) AGC's. I have not witnessed a briefing from either of these representatives since the International rep visited the station this spring. I understand Fairbanks takes part in negotiations, but Hanlow has no excuse. He has the least stations. He should be briefing when negotiation talks are happening. Just sayin'
 
Charlie, you have two other committee people who can brief. You have alot on your plate and people understand that, but your selective impromptu briefings are making people feel left out. I heard, just yesterday, an agent remarked that (RR) is never seen until the bi-yearly Committee election. Then it's a solid month of kissing babies. Not everyone is on your email briefing list and it should be only one of many tools utilized to keep fleet in CLT informed.
 
I'm not trying to call you out, but the Local, District, and the International should be in full alert mode in keeping us informed. We have not had section 6 negotiations since 1999 and we are about to merge with another union.
 
Nuff said.
 
Happy Thanksgiving 

 

[700UW]

Having been on the Negotiating Committee for M&R during the second bankruptcy and things change so much that what you are told now can change at anytime and the the membership will accuse the union of lying. That's why you get generalizations about what is going on.

 

[Tim Nelson]

Having been on the Negotiating Committee for M&R during the second bankruptcy and things change so much that what you are told now can change at anytime and the the membership will accuse the union of lying. That's why you get generalizations about what is going on.

You cant control what people do with the info but you can give info.
That said, 142 has been more forthcoming plus management has given info. Cb giving info is also welcomed.

 

[700UW]

Tim,

for 2 years M&R barely released any information about negotiations, that's what was the main reason for the IBT drive.

You don't know ho much infighting was done during the raid for the information to be released, you can thank Will and Tommy for the info being told to the members

 

[robbedagain]

It wld be nice to see what if any kind of thing in the proposal was given just to give us an insight as to where things are