Questions & Answers Regarding the New Fleet Service Agreement

[700UW]

it would be stupid to hold them after the vote.

Any questions they have now and can e-mail them to the district and there should be an informational meeting before the vote takes places.

The members can ask a question, ask if this is what they think and get a reply from the rep.

 

[700UW]

I have been to numerous and it can get quit loud and angry but answer are given and sides are allowed to explain the facts and how they feel.

Gee another insult that I take high offense too.

I guess at 50+ years old you havent learned using offensive terms, especially nazi jargon you have lost the little respect and credibility you had.

 

[scot]

Keep it on topic and stop the personal insults or someone will be getting some time off this week. I wont bother closing the thread since I'm sure thats what at least 1 of you would like to happen.

 

[700UW]

Thanks Scot.

Was trying to keep it on topic.

 

[Kev3188]

From whois.net

So how unbiased is this information?

Well look who owns www.joeynet.com/informedconsent.

Am I the only one who just assumed this was Tim's site from the get go???

 

[john john]

Am I the only one who just assumed this was Tim's site from the get go???

I agree it was petty obvious that it was one of Tim’s sites

 

[Tim Nelson]

I agree it was petty obvious that it was one of Tim’s sites

OK, it's my site, now can we move this discussion forward? I thought it was implied that it was my site when I linked the freakn thing and signed my freakn name on it.

Amazingly me and 700 actually agree on one thing, the arbitration is winnable. But even the IAm agrees to this. FWIW: Even though the IAM is pushing strongly for a yes vote, it has held its position that the grievance is winnable. As much as Freedom wants to think the IAM doesn't think this is winnable, it's only an illusion in his own mind. If the Vote is a yes vote for fleet, and the mechanics continue to force arbitration and win the award, then Freedom has no room to complain that the IAM told him it wasn't winnable. The IAm will be quick to point out Canale's letter which explicitly agrees with the court documents presented by the IAM's attorneys. Good for the mechanics to go to arbitration. Hopefully, fleet will not be hoodwinked with wage bait.

regards,

 

[727_4_Ever]

The IAM held there informational meetings in CLT and it confirmed what I already knew that I'm voting NO. They really couldn't give us any reason to vote for this deal as they even admitted it wasn't a great deal, especially for those of us in CLT. They never told us to vote yes as they knew it was a lost cause in CLT. They just said they thought they'd show us what the company offered before we went to arbitration in case we wanted it. It got very heated and showed that they couldn't justify telling us to accept this piece of trash. As for who's website it is that the Q&A is posted on makes no difference to me. My thoughts run very much in line with Tims. This is a bad deal or to quote Freedom "Piss Poor Contract". Vote no.....demand respect....and get a deal worthy of our work, sacrifice, and union dues.

 

[Kev3188]

OK, it's my site, now can we move this discussion forward? I thought it was implied that it was my site when I linked the freakn thing and signed my freakn name on it.

Exactly my point...which was why I was suprised it was treated by 700 as some sort of revelation....

 

[Ramp Rogue]

Any questions they have now and can e-mail them to the district and there should be an informational meeting before the vote takes places.

The members can ask a question, ask if this is what they think and get a reply from the rep.

I have been sending the iam questions for 5 years now, I haven't gotten one answer back yet!

 

[Tim Nelson]

It's time to clean up that union put it on solid ground and get rid of the dirty trash that keeps the worker down.

Ramp Rogue,
Hope you haven't been holding your breath all that time?

My understanding is that there are two 'internal disputes' that will be processed against IAM141. Internal disputes were filed before and were successful in proving criminal actions during an IAM election. The DOL department will be notified once more.

"Top" people are taking care of this. Although this would be something furthered with the labor department, my understanding is the difference this time is that unlike last time, there is the appearance of 'significant' monetary damages.

regards,

 

[b737200]

My understanding is that there are two 'internal disputes' that will be processed against IAM141. Internal disputes were filed before and were successful in proving criminal actions during an IAM election. The DOL department will be notified once more.

"Top" people are taking care of this. Although this would be something furthered with the labor department, my understanding is the difference this time is that unlike last time, there is the appearance of 'significant' monetary damages.

regards,

If there are monetary damages, who gets the cash? Are you spearheading the drive?
Where can I get more info you are posting..............are you exmanagement?

 

[Tim Nelson]

If there are monetary damages, who gets the cash? Are you spearheading the drive?
Where can I get more info you are posting..............are you exmanagement?

there are a few items (6) where some believe the district lodge may have violated its and the IAM's INTL bylaws and/or labor laws that can be enforced in a federal court. Any violation would have been against the members.

1. membership questions regarding new workers who aren't members but being permitted to vote. Documentation has been cited. The use of unregistered ballots may complicate this for the IAM and put further pressure on the IAM.
2. My understanding is that Canale established the premise of the vote by letter that the vote would be for the proposal or workers would have to 'wait' till 2009. However, the west, a huge chunk of the votes don't have to wait till 2009 to negotiate.
3. District bylaws which explicitly say language regarding same day voting system wide. It appears to be applicable and mandatory since there was ample time.
4. AMerica West members voting on a east contract even though the contract's ammendable date was changed, together with the fact that there is no combined or joint seniority list established yet.
5. Voting places possibly being on company property which could provide an intimadating and coercive environment.

The above are just allegations and thus far they are 'under review' and a decision may be made shortly. I'm not an attorney but my understanding is that there is significant monetary damages on record of $627 million so there are a few who are putting together an internal dispute grievance within the IAM to get that started, but also pursuing and securing an attorney to argue in a Chicago Federal court to place the election on hold or set it aside. No fee amount has thus far been discussed but it would require more than a half dozen fleet service workers to pony up and support this cause if this were successful. If there is no support then no case and not worth anyone's time. Any money collected would be collected by whatever law firm is decided upon...if any.

These allegations may prove difficult but they may also be finally convincing and rewarding. The monetary damages, if any, would be against the union, not company is my understanding. The contract can even get voted in, with violations, and the courts have ruled favorably for companies, so it wouldn't be like a new contract would be voided if the courts didn't halt the ratification.

Anyways, things are in process but no decision has been made.

No, I am not ex management, nor present management for any company.

regards,

 

[b737200]

there are a few items (6) where some believe the district lodge may have violated its and the IAM's INTL bylaws and/or labor laws that can be enforced in a federal court. Any violation would have been against the members.

1. membership questions regarding new workers who aren't members but being permitted to vote. Documentation has been cited. The use of unregistered ballots may complicate this for the IAM and put further pressure on the IAM.
2. My understanding is that Canale established the premise of the vote by letter that the vote would be for the proposal or workers would have to 'wait' till 2009. However, the west, a huge chunk of the votes don't have to wait till 2009 to negotiate.
3. District bylaws which explicitly say language regarding same day voting system wide. It appears to be applicable and mandatory since there was ample time.
4. AMerica West members voting on a east contract even though the contract's ammendable date was changed, together with the fact that there is no combined or joint seniority list established yet.
5. Voting places possibly being on company property which could provide an intimadating and coercive environment.

The above are just allegations and thus far they are 'under review' and a decision may be made shortly. I'm not an attorney but my understanding is that there is significant monetary damages on record of $627 million so there are a few who are putting together an internal dispute grievance within the IAM to get that started, but also pursuing and securing an attorney to argue in a Chicago Federal court to place the election on hold or set it aside. No fee amount has thus far been discussed but it would require more than a half dozen fleet service workers to pony up and support this cause if this were successful. If there is no support then no case and not worth anyone's time. Any money collected would be collected by whatever law firm is decided upon...if any.

These allegations may prove difficult but they may also be finally convincing and rewarding. The monetary damages, if any, would be against the union, not company is my understanding. The contract can even get voted in, with violations, and the courts have ruled favorably for companies, so it wouldn't be like a new contract would be voided if the courts didn't halt the ratification.

Anyways, things are in process but no decision has been made.

No, I am not ex management, nor present management for any company.

regards,

Tim, you must have some kind of back ground in labor law!
What is disheartening about this whole ratification vote is the people who don't have a stake in the future
are trying to persuade the vote towards the IAM. Let the people decide. Some who are intoxicated
with the IAM brainwashing mentality are trying to stear the vote. Keep the info coming and those that
bash you should open thier minds to the fact that IAM 142 IS holding strong while the bone was thrown to us and we are the mice in the lab.....and everyone knows what happens to lab mice.
Keep up the good work.

 

[birdinhann]

i'm going to lean in that direction as well , considering we now fly under the monkier US AIRWAYS ... all of our uniforms say us airways , and in our case at least , the surviving union is the union they had at the orginal us airways .. it doesn't appear to me to be a buyout or sale , but a pure merger and while our board of directors may be the ones running the show , all of this is to a large extent us airway's show ... they have more people than we ever did , more planes , etc ... in reality it's more like us airways simply had a leadership change with a few more routes planes and workers thrown into the mix .. but like i said' i'm no lawyer...

You folks are totally missing the Key words in this Grievance. "Change in Control" Dose'nt really mattter who bought who, or who merged with who with who's money. I don't know who said it earlier, niether airline bought the other with its "own" money. "Outside" money was used to start a "New" company where AWA and AAA are now only subsideraies(sp). Hence the Change in Control grievance was triggered. Also Freedom pointed out earlier that it appears that no one on this board that was a Fleet Service Agent was against this TA. Well Im fleet service and can be counted as a big fat NO :down: BTW It's great to be back