Nov/Dec 2013 Fleet Service Discussion

[robbedagain]

orgac  i believe that the donkeys want iam to go into the transition talks  thus bypassing the sec 6 talks  bec they would have the upper hands.   i think thats their strategy.    our shop steward told me about a week or so ago he thinks that there would be a merger settlement then look for some kind of possible deal betwn the iam and the donkeys  by xmas    thats just his own opin  but only time will tell

 

[ograc]

orgac  i believe that the donkeys want iam to go into the transition talks  thus bypassing the sec 6 talks  bec they would have the upper hands.   i think thats their strategy.    our shop steward told me about a week or so ago he thinks that there would be a merger settlement then look for some kind of possible deal betwn the iam and the donkeys  by xmas    thats just his own opin  but only time will tell

robbedagain,
I hope your shop steward is basing his or her speculaton on their own personal opinion. I will hold out hope that our District Leadership and our NC will not give in to abandoning Section 6 negotiations for the US Fleet Service prior to entering into Transition negotiations. Contract for US Fleet Service first... Transition Agreements second. You are right though Brother... time will tell.

 

[700UW]

I cant speak for 141, but I know 142 will not abandon Section 6 negotiations for a JCBA if the merger goes through.

 

[charlie Brown]

While I am only one member of the NC. We have made it clear that we will stay in section 6. IMO, I don't see any merger announcement changing the committees position. We must stand strong in section 6 negotiations. If the company wants to get us to transition talks, then they can agree to a T/A in section 6, then we will be glad to go to transition talks.

 

[robbedagain]

cb thats the way it has to be    too bad the nmb wont release us n 142  bec i for one dont believe the donkeys will budge bec theyre soo hell bent on the merger

 

[charlie Brown]

cb thats the way it has to be    too bad the nmb wont release us n 142  bec i for one dont believe the donkeys will budge bec theyre soo hell bent on the merger

If and when the merger happens. We will have to use our leverage that we have to keep the work groups seperate everywhere. Don't let them combine operations since we won't be under one agreement. The synergies that fleet and maintenance can keep them from realizing will come into play eventually.

 

[robbedagain]

sorta like the pilots crap thats still on going since 2005?

 

[psa8979]

CB you are right  about our leverage. The problem going forward will be to keep the majority of IAM FS/MR Members on board not selling themselves short when the merger is approved and the AMR Group propaganda starts to divide/conquer ?????

 

[P. REZ]

While I am only one member of the NC. We have made it clear that we will stay in section 6. IMO, I don't see any merger announcement changing the committees position. We must stand strong in section 6 negotiations. If the company wants to get us to transition talks, then they can agree to a T/A in section 6, then we will be glad to go to transition talks.

I am in total agreement with CB as a NC member too.

 

[cltrat]

I am in total agreement with CB as a NC member too.

here's hoping the two of you can keep the top leadership on those thought lines.

 

[ograc]

While I am only one member of the NC. We have made it clear that we will stay in section 6. IMO, I don't see any merger announcement changing the committees position. We must stand strong in section 6 negotiations. If the company wants to get us to transition talks, then they can agree to a T/A in section 6, then we will be glad to go to transition talks.

This is the strategy that must be adhered to. It is the strategy that has the best interests of US Fleet in mind. US Fleet; like other labor groups sacrificed much to keep this company in the game. It's time to pay the piper. Once the company has made good on past debt we will be glad to entertain transition talks. Do not waiver from this quest CB.

 

[ograc]

I am in total agreement with CB as a NC member too.

P. Rez,
As I have advised CB: do not waiver from this strategy and belief. It's about what is owed to us based on previous sacrifice. Sacrifices the Fleet Service group is still currently working under. We stay in Section 6. We LOCK AND LOAD! I don't give a damn how long it takes. It's about principal and standing up for what is right.

 

[charlie Brown]

I would say P REZ and myself have a pretty good feeling for the rest of the committee. I don't think any of you have to worry about us personally supporting section 6. My only worry is like PSA said earlier. The membership must stay strong and determined. We are there as the memberships voice, we can only be as strong as the membership is determined to make us.

 

[necigrad]

Just out of curiosity, in the event the merger is approved, would there be any value in some type of combined Section 6/JCBA negotiations?  What I'm thinking is that there could be an agreement that negotiations would be for the JCBA but under Section 6.  Obviously this agreement would require company acceptance of IAM positions from Section 6.  This would likely shorten negotiations, start JCBA while maintaining Section 6 status, and potentially eliminate the companys positions of only being the #5 carrier (which IMO is a BS copout).  I'm NOT suggesting just moving to JCBA talks and fully support the position of Section 6 first, but I think (in the unlikely event the company agrees) that this might be just as productive for us and more efficient for all.

 

[700UW]

No, the IAM's position is Section 6 must be done first, then JCBA talks. The membership needs improvements now, not later.