questions and answers with jeff hayden

[605AW]

Hi Jeff...Why is the Change of Control and the T/A one dog fight? These are two seperate agenda's as the recent vote has shown.

 

[allstrike]

Hi Jeff...Why is the Change of Control and the T/A one dog fight? These are two seperate agenda's as the recent vote has shown.

Ya Jeff why is that. Why is the company so anxious to drop the CIC.Why is the union willing to go along with it.Also explain how droping the profit sharing for a couple of bucks an hr is worth while.

And while were at it explain why the 60 day rule isnt really droped,its smoke and mirrors.

 

[jeff hayden]

Jeff,
For those who don't know, why don't you tell us how you became a Committee Chair. Was there a vote? And how long had you been an ACTIVE (i.e. shop steward, etc...) member of the local? Is it true that "more qualified" guys were running the local after the "PHL22" debacle until you came in and said "Tony says you are out and I'm in."?

hey crushed I became involved in the union during the last bankruptcy. A group of guys and myself were in the fishbowl, complaining about the union guys and what they were doing. It dawned on me that if I didnt like what was going on I should get involved myself. I went over to the union office and asked tony if I could help. I started out attending the bk hearings, then politacal and union functions with our vice president. I then did the sick reviews for the membership. Also I did general shop steward work during this whole time. My best training came from tony, during this time frame and today i did everything with tony, from arbitrations to dealing with the company in crystal city, to handling local problems. As far as more qualified people running the union in phl, if a member is not involved and somethong happens to the current leadership that postion will transfered to a committee man or steward who is currently involved until the next election. That is only fair since they are doing the work. Tony never stated who was in or out that decision was made by a committee. Please I have a limited amount of time to answer questions, I think the membership will be better served if the questions are about our current agreement, arbitration case, transtion agreement, union problems. Thanks jeff hope its not to hot for you down there

 

[jeff hayden]

No Jeff, that's not what I was saying. I was not specifically referring to the money you or any other worker puts in his 401k, I thought i was clear, I explicitly stated the money your company was putting in the 401k.

Separately, I know Tony Armedio and I've had my disagreements with him. But I honestly do not believe Tony would have signed this last contract. Who put his name on this contract? Simple question, but deserves an answer because we all knew where Tony stood.

regards,

I will not speak for tony, tim but he is not hard to find, i think should address that question to him. Everyone on the jnc agreed including tony that of our options that the ta would put the most money in the memberships pocket and secure the most work without assuming any risk in the arbitration case. I am not a very good typer please lets try to post questions that will benefit the membership. thanks jeff

 

[jeff hayden]

Worked a lot of ot????????? Who are you kidding????? Listen Jeff, you may be able to try to pull the wool over other station's eyes, but those in PHL know that you haven't actually WORKED ot in years. Isn't it true that you have it BUILT IN to your paycheck??? Even before you were a committeeman???? Why don't you just keep your lies and half-truths in PHL, take your blinders off, and go get the membership what we deserve. This company is going to make almost a billion dollars this year, the execs are getting richer by the day off our backs, and you and your boys brought back that piece of trash that the membership (even the class II cities ) threw back in your face. We are the 5th largest airline in the industry and almost dead last in pay scale. Listen to the membership for once and fight for what we deserve.

hI pit what you are refering to is, prior to having part of my knee replaced i worked ot before my injury, i was restricted to 40 hrs a week by the company doctor. The union fought and won thru workmens comp that members on light duty or restrictions should not suffer a loss because of a on the job injury. This is a good thing and it just doesnt apply to me it applies to all members. I have never lied to the membership and I do not have blinders on. I welcome you to get involved and help us with the fight. thanks jeff please these are the type of questions that limit my time to address the real issues I am at work everyday I will gladly discuss this with you at work.

 

[jeff hayden]

Hi Jeff...Why is the Change of Control and the T/A one dog fight? These are two seperate agenda's as the recent vote has shown.

hi 605 this reply is for allstrike also, we used the value of the cic grievance to leverage changes in our current cba which is not ammendable until 2010. The arbitration case does not address the bankruptcy imposed languauge in our contract. I believed the membership would have been better served by addressing all the issues not just the top out wage. Such as class 2, 60 day rule, etc. I will go into specifics with you later if you want. This why we had a vote so the membership could make the decsion not the jnc. I believe the membership always makes the right decsion and I support that decsion 100 percent. great question this is the type of information we need to get out to the membership. my mom is in the hospital so I wont be able to answer anymore questions now. I will be spending the afternoon with her, maybe late tonight I can answer more. thanks jeff

 

[crushed]

hope its not to hot for you down there

Ha! 72 and cloudy out here......I'll send your reguards down south though.

 

[orioleman]

hi 605 this reply is for allstrike also, we used the value of the cic grievance to leverage changes in our current cba which is not ammendable until 2010. The arbitration case does not address the bankruptcy imposed languauge in our contract. I believed the membership would have been better served by addressing all the issues not just the top out wage. Such as class 2, 60 day rule, etc. I will go into specifics with you later if you want. This why we had a vote so the membership could make the decsion not the jnc. I believe the membership always makes the right decsion and I support that decsion 100 percent. great question this is the type of information we need to get out to the membership. my mom is in the hospital so I wont be able to answer anymore questions now. I will be spending the afternoon with her, maybe late tonight I can answer more. thanks jeff

Jeff cut the b/s about "This why we had a vote so the membership could make the decsion not the jnc"... THE ONLY REASON WE GOT TO VOTE WAS BECAUSE THE CO. wanted to EXTEND our CONTRACT
which triggers a vote my the membership.. IF there wasn't a contract extension invovled then you and I know the union would have forced it on us[/b]..OK so you and Canale got the answer ..(which is no for the t/a..) unlike to cute little wording Randy puts on it saying "we vote to continue to COC grievance " what a line of crap .. Randy call like it is you feed us a bunch of s??t and we spit it back in your face

 

[jeff hayden]

Ya Jeff why is that. Why is the company so anxious to drop the CIC.Why is the union willing to go along with it.Also explain how droping the profit sharing for a couple of bucks an hr is worth while.

And while were at it explain why the 60 day rule isnt really droped,its smoke and mirrors.

hi allstrike The profit sharing was a very difficult decsion for me. I too had plans for that money. I came to the conclusion that in this industry we would always be better off with locked in wages or benefits, because the airline industry has traditionally lost more money than it has made. I dont see any reason to believe that trend will not continue. We have had profit sharing in our agreement since 1999 and the membership has recieved one payout of approx 800 dollars on average. In 1999 if we said we would rather have 20 cents more per hour instead of profit sharing everyone in our group would have earned 3328 dollars more. So it was a calculated decsion based on the past and an educated guess on the future, such as fuel prices, labor contracts, world politics, etc. To answer your second question had we accepted the transion agreement the 60 day rule would have been completely eliminated moving forward, that would have never happened to anyone again during the duration of the agreement. The arbitration case does not address the 60 day rule, it will remain in place win or lose, and the members working under that rule will not be brought up to their proper pay. The only portion we were unable to correct are the members who are currently on involuntary furlough would have to be called back to the station they were furloughed from.We cant always go back and fix the past but the 60 day rule would have been completely removed going forward. If you have any more questions please ask thanks jeff

 

[phillyone]

lets get one thing strait. there was no vote in philly he was appointed.. and as for Tony he was outside of the union hall teling everybody out there to vote no along with Boland.. while jeff was telling them to vote yes... they where told by us in philly we did not want a contract with an extention.. but they gave us one to vote on anyways... thats how well they listen to us... its bad enough we have to fight the company now we have to fight our own union to.... as for Canale never like him and i don't think he has our best interest at heart......hes on the borad of directors of united remember..... sorry for the spelling... thanks

 

[Tim Nelson]

lets get one thing strait. there was no vote in philly he was appointed.. and as for Tony he was outside of the union hall teling everybody out there to vote no along with Boland.. while jeff was telling them to vote yes... they where told by us in philly we did not want a contract with an extention.. but they gave us one to vote on anyways... thats how well they listen to us... its bad enough we have to fight the company now we have to fight our own union to.... as for Canale never like him and i don't think he has our best interest at heart......hes on the borad of directors of united remember..... sorry for the spelling... thanks

Everyone knows where Tony stood on this except maybe Jeff. Jeff brought out the point of 'unity' so I mentioned Tony's name earlier 'only' to flush out the BS. Mark my words, Tony didn't sign his own name on the contract. Somebody signed it for him. Jeff can talk around this all day.

Fleet service should be proud of voting that rag down, Jeff hayden should be telling how proud he is of fleet service voting it down but he won't.
The facts are that the union is united moreso today than anytime over the past 20 years. Also, your labor representative [insert IAM here] is also as united as ever. The problem is that the IAM is united with your company, whereas the workers are united with eachother. Unfortunately, your negotiating team just doesn't get it. The members have spoken and members of your negotiating team are still talking about the past like this this thing might live to see another day.

Jeff Hayden doesn't have any 'juice' in PHL. They don't listen to him at all. Pick up the phone and call PHL, don't listen to me. Look at the vote.

regards,

 

[hack73]

Jeff , please stay off this message board with your lies.All you are is a front man for Canale.Everyone knows your goal is to become an AGC and that you have no interest in your fellow union members.

 

[allstrike]

We have had profit sharing in our agreement since 1999 and the membership has recieved one payout of approx 800 dollars on average. In 1999 if we said we would rather have 20 cents more per hour instead of profit sharing everyone in our group would have earned 3328 dollars more.

The only portion we were unable to correct are the members who are currently on involuntary furlough would have to be called back to the station they were furloughed from.We cant always go back and fix the past but the 60 day rule would have been completely removed going forward. If you have any more questions please ask thanks jeff

Thats 416.00 a year at .20 for a 40hr week. Thats not better than 800.00

Seems to me those on VF should be included also.There the ones that took the hit so others could work.So now the junior guy profits off the senior guys back.Why did the company not include them.And why is the language so confuseing most people didnt even know what it ment.

Also why is the company starting rumors that Doug can make the west side go under the east contract,He cant do that.And he knows it.
And when are sec 6 negotiations going to start for the west fleet.

 

[wings396]

First of all, let's at least give Jeff some credit for coming on here to field some questions. To the best of my knowledge, he is the ONLY IAM rep to come onto this board so far under his actual name in an attempt to answer any questions. I'm sure there have been others that have kept their identity private, and they only spouted off a few remarks here and there. While I too would have liked to see a better T/A, I think that Jeff's point all along has been that this was somewhat better than being stuck under the current CBA for a few more years. With the T/A being voted down, there is no guarentee that anything else will be offered, and the COC issue is a roll of the dice. Adding 3 more years to the contract was not a good deal, and maybe there was some room to reduce the length of that term. I for one was very discussted that the 60 day furlough rule didn't pertain to those currently on furlough, and will always wonder just how much effort went into taking care of those members already on the street. I would have to guess that perhaps a few hundred furloughed people would return to work after being gone for over 2 years already. Some have moved on to better jobs, and others haven't, and would maybe come back to the company if they wanted to relocate or commute to work. I have heard many times before that the IAM membership doesn't want the high seniority people back on the job, and this may very well be the case with this issue. Given that the Fleet group was/is the ONLY unionized workgroup on the property with this issue, one must wonder who was really behing it all. IF the Company wanted to keep the furloughed people from coming back I would think that they would have forced this 60 day rule down the other workgroups throats as well. I haven't sat down and calculated the figures of what the wage increases would total for the next 2 years VS what the membership MAY get otherwise. Notice that I said what they MAY get, which could very well be nothing. I guess that if you are still employed that you may be in a better position to gamble a bit compared to someone who is on the outside looking in with dismal hopes of returning to work somtime before your recall rights expire.

 

[GoldenRam94]

Jeff is a good guy who is trying to do the right thing. Give him some credit for coming on this board and raising his hand to answer any questions you may have and to defend what your perceptions of him are.