THOUGHTS ON A NO VOTE

[cavalier]

airknocker

No, not a surprise, I work with these guys the same as you and realize what you are saying is very true. I just feel it's indicative of the mechanics mentality everywhere in the unionized majors, because it is human nature. What happened here in the BURGH is not an isolated event, this happened in the manufacturing sectors of the entire country. I am also skilled in another field completely unrelated to aviation, and can tell you it took more training than what it took me to earn my A&P. With this skill and experience, one cannot find the kind of earning potential to match what a A&P will find working for a major airline. It’s more in line with what an A&P makes working for an FBO on commuters. Why is this: Obviously it’s the unions at those majors that make this possible. Here then comes a BIG problem. Right now this company is fighting for its very life, and right now is when the mechanics feel they must make a stand not only for themselves, but the entire industry because of pride and a it’s not fair attitude. The companies just around this area left thousands and thousands people jobless from a We Must Stand Up Attitude, nothing more than pride. The entire airline industry is changing completely, the days of high pay for doing next to nothing are over. It took awhile, but now we will make less and do more or look for another field to make a living. People pushing brooms for close to $20 an hour, mechanics cleaning out stuck toilets and changing light bulbs for $30 an hour will end. And it will end not just at U, but everywhere there are A&P mechanics, it needs to for the companies to even survive. We are standing right in front of a fast moving freight train. You can stay there out of pride, me, I am getting off the tracks. Before you say it, yes I know, Southwest is paying more and many others are too. Ok then, take your very sought after skills and see if the others will give you employment, but do it before you bury U with your no vote, give other people a chance to earn a living.

And by the way, thanks for all of thoughtful input, including you airknocker, I appreciate the open honesty into your reasoning.

 

[jettek]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 9/8/2002 6:35:18 PM A320 Driver wrote:

Cav,
Your post was great but I'm afraid your wasting your time. There is a great confrontation brewing that has been coming on since October 1992. This is like reasoning with a drunk...just when you think your getting somewhere, you end up starting all over. These folks won't listen until this thing comes to a head. Let it happen and I think we will all be better off for it in the end. No one group of employees is the "backbone" of our company. We haul people in airplanes for money and EVERY employee is a support function of that. No one employee is any more or less important than the rest. But we are dealing with a group of people who consider themselves so important that the world will stop turning without them. WE WILL FIND A WAY TO SURVIVE! The REALITY CHECK takes place after the next "NO" vote. The guy at the top of this outfit is not as stupid as some folks think.

Looking forward to it!

A320 Driver
----------------
[/blockquote]
We know full well what this vote will bring. How many times have you complained for a pushback crew ,or cleaners were late on board. Last minute bags left on the ground when ramp walked off because they thought loading was done. We voted for work rule changes,not protections. We simply want the income we deserve without being forced to subsidize groups by our union.

 

[t-man]

I don't know maybe they wouldn't.
If only we could convince the company to be fair.

 

[jettek]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 9/8/2002 720 PM t-man wrote:

jettec,
If the company are the good guys then why aren't they asking us what they need to change on the proposal instead of trying to force it down our throat?
----------------
[/blockquote]
t-man,
If they were trying to force this on us they would not have allowed a second vote. This is an attempt to allow the union and it's membership to resolve it's issues.
The fact is, as Scotty Ford who attended my meeting so eloquently summed up is, Where do you guys think you will find a job without us? Who was he talking to. I do not think it was the mechanics because if it was, your vote should be very clear to him. They represent all groups not just mechanics. They will resist allowing one group to maintain status quo and the others to stop paying dues by having their work done by people already on the property. It's all about dues unfortunately.

 

[AOG-N-IT]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 9/8/2002 7:46:32 PM t-man wrote:

I don't know maybe they wouldn't.

If only we could convince the company to be fair.
----------------
[/blockquote]
Sadly to say...The time frame for fairness has lapsed. The IAM im my opinion only offered token resistance to the companies demands. Fairness to them (The IAM) was summed up in how many jobs the could hope to retain...and continue to get full dues from those of us that happen to remain. We are being wounded with cuts, furloughs, and reduced benfits....then like a carc*** picking buzzard , The IAM comes in to peck away at the scraps. This was..and is the IAM's only real concern period. [img src='http://www.usaviation.com/idealbb/images/smilies/7.gif']

 

[t-man]

If thats the case then thats why we must vote NO.
I'd rather have the judge put the screws to me than do it myself.

 

[AOG-N-IT]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 9/8/2002 8:22:39 PM t-man wrote:

If thats the case then thats why we must vote NO.

I'd rather have the judge put the screws to me than do it myself.
----------------
[/blockquote]
Here's where we fail to see eye to eye. The Judge is most likely, by historical presedence , going to side with the airline. You will lose out regardless...but this still does not cure the issue of the IAM winning a seat on the BOD....hince becoming more powerful. You will still end up paying dues at full rate too!!...with an abrogated contract standing on wobbely legs. The IAM will still get thier 1.25M for negotiating too. A No Vote out of anger, frustration or any other emotion you can imagine , still plays into everyone's hand but ours. We need to fight one frapping issue at a time. Trying to sweep this all into one pile....just makes a pile of you know what. If we still have an airline?...We will always have the chance to Vote on new representation later....Voting No , not only dooms what we have....it also opens up Pandora's Box to many un-certain possibilities. If just destroying the remnants of U and it's remaining employee's is the only motivation? Then by all means...register your anger by saying NO. Everyone's issues are different...I appreciate that completely. I just have no faith in the IAM..or any dillusions of a Judge making this any easier or better. We know for fact , that he does not have that kind of levity. NO ...or other negatives will be all we have to look forward too. The outlined cuts are clear....beyond that , The IAM (Mechanics and Related) are playing with un-restrained Hellz Fire.

 

[airknocker]

We will not be a party in lowering the bar for AMTs in the airline industry, Dave, Judges Mayer&Mitchell, the ball is in your court, have at it.

 

[chipmunn]

Pitguy:

Pitguy said: Since we already voted this same thing down once before, then why does the company not just go to the judge and have the contract thrown out and then they can do as they please?

Chip answers: Pitguy, I thought about the same question. After talking with Dave Siegel a couple of times for about an hour each time, one on one, and hearing him speak on a number of occasions, I believe he is an honest and sincere man. I also believe in his or her heart, once logic overcomes emotion, nobody including Siegel wants to have a S.1113 hearing. This will be an unpleasant experience for all and I think Siegel is giving the IAM-M one last chance by being what he believes is labor friendly.

The issue is not what we think we are worth, the issue is what the market will permit the company to pay it's employees, the required cuts necessary to get the DIP credit facility, emergence financing, and the long-term business plan credit rating to obtain the essential long guarantee.

As I have said before, Siegel is not the hammer. The hammer is the required cuts necessary to satisfy TPG, CSFB, BOA, and the ATSB. Dave has no choice if the restructuring agreements are rejected but to seek to eliminate any union contract that is not voluntarily restructured, so the company can survive and have access to required financing.

Chip

 

[repeet]

I'm fascinated at the lack of people commenting about a yes vote.

The judge will only rule on motions brought before him.

Vote no and the judge will give the company relief. Then we will be a Union group without a contract. The company will then either ask for a harsher contract or, let us work without any contract. Strike? How do you think the judge would rule on a injunction.

But abrogation is not decertification. There is no reason for the company to get rid of the IAM. If we get a harsh company contract imposed on us, the IAM by Federal law would be required to administrate it.

Or, if the judge allows us to be employed without a contract, then we will be paying dues to the IAM without anything for them to do for six years.

I now believe that a no vote is an irrational vote. This proposal is the best economic offer we are going to get. If you must vote no because you resent the wage of your unskilled coworkers, then I guess you must. But, if you think that we can get a better economic deal by voting no, then you still don't understand how the system works.

Also, a no vote will not stop our clas.s and craft from being diminished. We have been dragged into federal court and will be forced to work for less.

If you hate the IAM then decertify them. If you want to take home the highest wage possible, then vote yes on this contract proposal.

 

[pitguy]

Thank you for you reply chip. I would like to ask you another question please. One of the main reasons I see so many no votes is that most of us feel this contract has asked more from mechanics then what seems fair. If one truly understands our contract and what they are asking it just seems like there is too many concessions they are asking for. Not one thing in particular, but as a whole it is too much. So my question is why? Other labor groups where not asked to make all the work rule changes that they are asking from us combined with the pay cuts. Please also keep in mind we have taken concessions since the 1980's in our contracts. Even during the good years. During the times of record profits we could not get a new contract and worked under our old agreement for an extra 4 1/2 years. With no raises and no back pay when we signed. We are to get a bonus next year that was to make up for our signing bonus. It appears now that we are not going to get that even the our management will get their bonuses. Just a note my supervisor who makes more than me took a 8.2% cut. They want allot more than that from me. We feel like we have always ran away and voted to help the company and now we just want to be treated fair. Oh, and is their any truth that the reason we are taking such a hit is to protect other labor groups working under our contract? Please reply chip and others. Thanks.

p.s. Please note next month we are supposed to receive about a 15% raise since other airline mechanics make so much more. That is allot better than our one raise of 5 cents for the year.

p.s.s. Right or wrong. The mechanics are mad and it looks like it is going to be shot down by a higher margin than before.

 

[RedOne]

Pitguy,
1st of all...I am a F/S low-life (at least that is the way we think we are regarded). As an 36 yr agent, I am used to being had. Got it with Piedmont retirement...when converted to 401k...(no pension plan)...no 85 plan, so must work until cant physically do it...now getting another go round by going into the IAM pension plan (after doing this for 36 years...how is that going to help me?) Went for years after PAI was bought before getting a raise. Gave most of that back too. And no, IAM is not my union of choice either (most agents feel they are a mechanics union....I know, mechanics think it is an agents union)
.
Every group feels like they have given more than their share. If you don't think so...read the posts. I guess, what we have to ask ourselves is simply this...IF this company fails to exist...how am I going to earn a living...how is my family going to survive? With the economy as it is (at least where I live) can I find a job making close to what I will be making...after concessions. Am I going to be better off working for less at U...or starting another career elsewhere. (Forget wheather I like what is happening or not)

The next few days...weeks are going to be tough. I CAN take early retirement and survive...most of you can't. It is a tough decision. All of us are on edge. Let's try to treat each other with the same respect that we want to be shown. Good luck to all.

 

[diogenes]

Someone help me with the coattail argument.

Mech has been IAM for over 30 years. Fleet came into the IAM (not my choice, I voted Steel) 3 years ago. Our contract was inked April of 99, Mechs Sept 99. We've been here long enough to mess your deal up? With the POS intital contract we have? I DON'T THINK SO!! I can make an equally compelling arguement fleet is the IAM piggybank.

Mechs, as did ALPA and AFA, viewed parity plus one as a concession. I got the biggest raise since the merger with parity - proof positive fleet had been working for much less than parity. If parity was indeed a concession for you, then you had been exceeding industry standards for your class and craft.

Get real, and compare apples to apples.For example, fleet has in recent history made less than their counterparts at WN. In 2001, WN TOS became $24. We topped out at 21.60 - already less PRIOR to concessions. We're now headed for 19 and change - WN STILL at $24.

I proposed way back when to create an industry benchmark, including WN and CO, and counting all compensation, to be the baseline to determine U's concessions. I argued every U work group deviate from the baseline by the same percentage. What could be more fair? No takers, though. I wonder why. I'm guessing there were winners and losers in this deal, not an equally shared sacrifice. The big winner is management, who has baited us with divide and conquer. Obviously, we've taken the bait.

 

[t-man]

diogenes,
I'm glad to here that your parity raise was so good.
The 141-M raise was only a nickle.
Our big parity raise is suppose to come next month which is suppose to be about 13%.
That is one of the reasons I think this proposal will be voted down.

 

[chipmunn]

Hi Pitguy:

Pitguy asked: If one truly understands our contract and what they are asking it just seems like there is too many concessions they are asking for. Not one thing in particular, but as a whole it is too much. So my question is why? Other labor groups where not asked to make all the work rule changes that they are asking from us combined with the pay cuts.

Chip answers: Pitguy, there are 40,000 opinion on what is so called fair for each labor group. I can tell you the majority of the pilot group who makes up only 10 percent of the employees, 30 percent of the payroll, and gave up 60 percent of the total givebacks, twice the percentage of their total company labor expense believe they gave up to much as well. So does the CWA who have made similar statements on this message board.

However, the issue needs to be looked at not with emotion but with logic. The IAM & CWA have two choices: Ratify the restructuring agreements or likely have your contract terminated. The company cannot afford to let the TPG, CSFB, BOA, and ATSB agreements become null and void.

Another problem is that if the financing agreements would become void over a failed employee vote, this could open up Pandora’s box and let people like corporate raider Marvin Davis, who the CLT Observer said made an attempt to be the company's DIP investor, make a run on the company. Let's not forget that people like Carl Icahn are watching as well.

At this point, the IAM and CWA has two choices: Ratify the current restructuring agreement or have your contract eliminated, if the legal precedent of Judge Mitchell is a barometer, and have the company impose much, much deeper cuts in pay, work rules, and benefits.

Just one more thought, in some ways a no vote will help the company because they will be able to further lower CWA & IAM labor expense. I suspect if this occurs many of your colleagues would have no option but to accept a worse agreement and there are replacement workers available. HP & Express operators currently work for less pay and benefits than the restructuring agreements and likely would love to come to work at US and receive better pay and benefits with the restructuring agreement.

For those who do not want to work at US under the restructuring agreement, they do not have to. They can go apply somewhere else and always have that option.

If the IAM or CWA votes the restructuring agreement down and the court rules in favor of the company, neither group can strike and the union/its members could be saddled to pay the company millions of dollars in damages. Is this a risk worth taking by voting the deal down?

Chip