United Mechanics vote on new contract extensio

[WeAAsles]

In a word - WRONG

You think this is about keeping the road clear for AMFA? You think it was all just a bunch of disgruntled former AMFA members who petitioned the company and shot Teamcare down the last time it was proposed?

It wasn't about AMFA the last time, and its not about AMFA this time - Just so you don't embarrass yourself any further you should know that the Teamcare proposal that was shot down, had a termination clause allowing the company & members & retiree's out.


View attachment 17606


So even if we had gone into Teamcare, and then wanted to vote the ibt out, our medical was safe. Teamcare posed no hindrance to a drive for AMFA or any other union that the membership might choose. We shot it down because it was a crap plan.

Don't try to speak to my motivations on this matter when you are clearly clueless on its specifics

Wow man you don’t even understand the language you just posted. It’s a wonder to me sometimes how Companies don’t roll over their employees even more than they do now when they can’t comprehend simple language.

Let’s try to make this simple.

Teamcare becomes an “””OPTION””” at UAL for those of you represented by the Teamsters. Some members decide to give Teamcare a shot and it winds up working for their needs. Now sometime down the line here comes another endless AMFA drive. That drive puts continuing participation in Teamcare (Not UAL Medical) at risk if M&R dumps the IBT. So members who like Teamcare go “Hey wait a minute, I’m not dumping the IBT if I lose my better medical coverage!!!! Screw you and your AMFA Cards”

Sorry man but it shouldn’t take a Rocket Science degree to have understood that I never mentioned anything about you losing any other subsidized Medical coverage offered by your employer. Choices, choices, choices. Can I hear a shout out for “multiple” choices!!!!

If people like Teamcare and it’s tethered to the Teamsters they aren’t going to sign a card for any other Union. Be that Union AMFA, IAM or TWU. Unless of course one of those groups can guarantee them even better Medical.

BTW I’m not judging if Teamcare is great or sucks Donkey Balls but I can bet a certain segment of your coworkers make sure it doesn’t stand a chance. And I doubt the motivation for that is really what many of you pretend it is.

 

[WeAAsles]

You think this is about keeping the road clear for AMFA? You think it was all just a bunch of disgruntled former AMFA members who petitioned the company and shot Teamcare down the last time it was proposed?

I’m beginning to suspect it is, yes.

 

[ThirdSeatHero]

Wow man you don’t even understand the language you just posted. It’s a wonder to me sometimes how Companies don’t roll over their employees even more than they do now when they can’t comprehend simple language.

Okay you want to continue to embarrass yourself, I'm here for it.

Below are your words, an example you brought up to try and insinuate that the current rejection of Teamcare language is solely AMFA based

But I get it. The IBT couldn’t win the contest against the IAM at USAIRWAYS partly because the Mechanics didn’t want to see there IAMPF frozen not knowing how long it would take to reach a new retirement deal.

You are clearly citing the uncertainty of having a frozen pension while not knowing how/when a new agreement is reached - If your pension is frozen, you're no longer accruing, if you have no second retirement vehicle ready then that time is lost equating to lost $$$/pension earnings you would have otherwise had if the pension had never been frozen. You never said "losing" but thats what this example clearly infers.

Thats where the language from the failed TA comes in - the teamsters had been told repeatedly prior to the TA being reached it was DOA if there wasn't an out clause - UAL MX had changed unions twice in the previous 12 years and the mechanics weren't about to entertain ANY plan locked to any union without an out clause - Thats where the language came from.

As to your next pathetic attempt to make this about AMFA when it clearly isn't ...

Teamcare becomes an “””OPTION””” at UAL for those of you represented by the Teamsters. Some members decide to give Teamcare a shot and it winds up working for their needs.

LMFAO! 🤣

Are you so damn desperate to somehow make this about AMFA that you fail to realize your "option" just shot down your original argument?
You yourself have posted language from our current CBA concerning Optional Medical Plans - You correctly cited ...

As I read this if the Company wanted to they could tell the IBT sure we’ll include your Teamcare as an “option” for your represented employees? As long as they continue to offer the other plans at the negotiated rates they would remain in compliance.

You have also correctly stated that the teamsters don't need contract language to talk with the company ...

Again your Union (Any Union) does not need to have Contract language to have your permission to have a “conversation” with the Company about anything.

So the teamsters by your very own reasoning are free to talk with UAL about a Teamcare medical "option" plan, and with current language in our CBA which you cited, could have that "optional" plan implemented.

Guess what? I agree! ... "IF" it was an option

Which brings us back to where this little sleigh ride began ... if the teamsters are freely able to present Teamcare as outlined above, then why would they need to add the current Article 16 language to our extension TA?

Precisely because they don't intend for it to be an "option"


But hey, you go on tilting at those AMFA windmills Don ...

 

[SWAMECH]

As our toolbox stickers state; "you just can't fix stupidity" especially from NON-mechanics that know nothing about your employer and your unions tactics. These yahoos embarrassed themselves many years ago and continue to do so. "You can't fix stupid" is in full wide open throttle... I'm out of popcorn, stand by why I reload for the **** show to continue...

Quite laughable for someone to even think that this issue at UAL was all about AMFA, especially when it has 100% NOTHING to do with AMFA at all, only with teamcare and teamsters.

 

[WeAAsles]

Okay you want to continue to embarrass yourself, I'm here for it.

Below are your words, an example you brought up to try and insinuate that the current rejection of Teamcare language is solely AMFA based



You are clearly citing the uncertainty of having a frozen pension while not knowing how/when a new agreement is reached - If your pension is frozen, you're no longer accruing, if you have no second retirement vehicle ready then that time is lost equating to lost $$$/pension earnings you would have otherwise had if the pension had never been frozen. You never said "losing" but thats what this example clearly infers.

Thats where the language from the failed TA comes in - the teamsters had been told repeatedly prior to the TA being reached it was DOA if there wasn't an out clause - UAL MX had changed unions twice in the previous 12 years and the mechanics weren't about to entertain ANY plan locked to any union without an out clause - Thats where the language came from.

As to your next pathetic attempt to make this about AMFA when it clearly isn't ...



LMFAO! 🤣

Are you so damn desperate to somehow make this about AMFA that you fail to realize your "option" just shot down your original argument?
You yourself have posted language from our current CBA concerning Optional Medical Plans - You correctly cited ...



You have also correctly stated that the teamsters don't need contract language to talk with the company ...




So the teamsters by your very own reasoning are free to talk with UAL about a Teamcare medical "option" plan, and with current language in our CBA which you cited, could have that "optional" plan implemented.

Guess what? I agree! ... "IF" it was an option

Which brings us back to where this little sleigh ride began ... if the teamsters are freely able to present Teamcare as outlined above, then why would they need to add the current Article 16 language to our extension TA?

Precisely because they don't intend for it to be an "option"


But hey, you go on tilting at those AMFA windmills Don ...

Never wrote that the rejection of Teamcare was “solely” based on any continuing AMFA nonsense. I said I’m “beginning” to “suspect” it is. I’m sure like all Medical plans it has its good and bad aspects.

Thank you for admitting that I’m right. I’m also right that you are NOT voting on Teamcare though and Teamcare is NOT in your TA. Not a single one of your responses can change that FACT.

Are you walking around your shop floor trying to convince people that there’s a Boogeyman under their beds? Your continuous responses here are why I have to consider your motivations to be suspect.

Why is that paragraph in your TA? Because most people are highly focused on their constantly rising Medical costs and would love to get some relief. A smart Union wouldn’t ignore that fact and should want to let their memberships know they are trying to seek ways to bring down those costs. In other words they don’t want their membership thinking they’re just sitting on their hands doing nothing.

Sadly my guess is Teamcare actually would have lowered costs for many (Not all) but an agenda of hatred against the Teamsters themselves brought it down. I call them the “loudest voices” in the room. People like you who probably go to meetings and make sure things don’t happen.

 

[WeAAsles]

As I’m reading this my guess is the Network mostly consists of areas around the Midwest particularly Chicago.

Hopefully the IBT Membership at UAL can tune out all the white noise some day so this can be offered to them as an option along with the other plans contractually available to them from the Company.

https://teamsterspipeline.com/app/uploads/2018/11/TeamCare_Brochure.pdf

 

[ThirdSeatHero]

Thank you for admitting that I’m right.

No need to thank me, you accurately pointed out that the teamsters have always been able to talk with the company, and propose "OPTIONAL" medical plans per our CBA - thus clearly illustrating my point, and the obvious threat the new article 16 language represents ... TEAMCARE won't be just an option.

I’m also right that you are NOT voting on Teamcare though and Teamcare is NOT in your TA. Not a single one of your responses can change that FACT.

No on this you have been and remain WRONG - You already pointed out how the teamsters could seek an optional plan without the language - the fact that they included the new language when they didn't need too, coupled with their update clearly stating they are pursuing TEAMCARE - The language may not contain the name TEAMCARE but thats what it is there for - only the willfully ignorant, or blind such as yourself continue to insist otherwise.

Are you walking around your shop floor trying to convince people that there’s a Boogeyman under their beds? Your continuous responses here are why I have to consider your motivations to be suspect.

I have conversations on the floor, why would that be out of the ordinary when a new TA is being proposed? I have and will continue to respond on this forum and many others discussing this TA until it passes or is shot down.

This is MY contract - whats the motivation behind your continuous responses? Are you perhaps one of the ibt sympathizers, that ran interference for the TWU during AMFA's campaign there?

Why is that paragraph in your TA? Because most people are highly focused on their constantly rising Medical costs and would love to get some relief. A smart Union wouldn’t ignore that fact and should want to let their memberships know they are trying to seek ways to bring down those costs. In other words they don’t want their membership thinking they’re just sitting on their hands doing nothing.

OMG! you're getting desperate - the CBA language you yourself cited gave the ibt the ability to show they weren't ... just sitting on their hands doing nothing. That language has been in our agreement for YEARS and the ibt did nothing with it. Sorry, Weez no one here is buying that ridiculous crap.

Sadly my guess is Teamcare actually would have lowered costs for many (Not all) but an agenda of hatred against the Teamsters themselves brought it down. I call them the “loudest voices” in the room. People like you who probably go to meetings and make sure things don’t happen.

And sadly, just like many of your guesses you'd be wrong - The failed Teamcare TA had a cost listing by dollar amount for each of the first two years, and a clause that set a 9% increase cap on years 3 & 4. All members had this information prior to voting - so each member could compare their own individual cost against the Teamcare offer - Not only was it overwhelmingly shot down as inadequate, the "offer" was so egregious that the membership was moved to petition it off the table

It was a crap plan, and the membership rejected it - and despite the little voices in your head, AMFA had nothing to do with it

 

[WeAAsles]

No need to thank me, you accurately pointed out that the teamsters have always been able to talk with the company, and propose "OPTIONAL" medical plans per our CBA - thus clearly illustrating my point, and the obvious threat the new article 16 language represents ... TEAMCARE won't be just an option.



No on this you have been and remain WRONG - You already pointed out how the teamsters could seek an optional plan without the language - the fact that they included the new language when they didn't need too, coupled with their update clearly stating they are pursuing TEAMCARE - The language may not contain the name TEAMCARE but thats what it is there for - only the willfully ignorant, or blind such as yourself continue to insist otherwise.



I have conversations on the floor, why would that be out of the ordinary when a new TA is being proposed? I have and will continue to respond on this forum and many others discussing this TA until it passes or is shot down.

This is MY contract - whats the motivation behind your continuous responses? Are you perhaps one of the ibt sympathizers, that ran interference for the TWU during AMFA's campaign there?




View attachment 17607

OMG! you're getting desperate - the CBA language you yourself cited gave the ibt the ability to show they weren't ... just sitting on their hands doing nothing. That language has been in our agreement for YEARS and the ibt did nothing with it. Sorry, Weez no one here is buying that ridiculous crap.




And sadly, just like many of your guesses you'd be wrong - The failed Teamcare TA had a cost listing by dollar amount for each of the first two years, and a clause that set a 9% increase cap on years 3 & 4. All members had this information prior to voting - so each member could compare their own individual cost against the Teamcare offer - Not only was it overwhelmingly shot down as inadequate, the "offer" was so egregious that the membership was moved to petition it off the table

It was a crap plan, and the membership rejected it - and despite the little voices in your head, AMFA had nothing to do with it

No one here? Who’s here? You and I are the only ones here that I see.

What’s my motivation. Actually simple. Truth and Facts. The IBT clearly stated in that paragraph that if any plan is added it would have to be voted on. So if it comes later on you’ll have your chance to raise Hell about it.

But my other motivation is to see more ground worker deals completed when they look good. And yours looks pretty good.

At AA our TWU/IAM Association for good or bad depending on how an individual may view it have Fleet and M&R tied together. I view it as a good thing personally. But when we go into our negotiations we’ll likely again all go in together and all come out together. So seeing other Fleet and M&R Groups with good closed deals means we see where we’re likely headed.

You’re about to match SWA wages only with multiple thousands more jobs than them. How can you say that’s not fantastic. SWA Ramp is voting on a deal now also that looks ok. Delta of course will soon match or go just a tiny drop higher. So IMO it makes our guys job just a little easier.

I can’t say that I wouldn’t mind reaching a deal before our amendable date either. I believe it’s possible.

Time is money. Especially when we’re getting so much closer to retirement. You need money to make money. So stop arguing against your own best interests.

Stop worrying about that Boogeyman and any other agendas you might have and make sure you vote yes. And also thank you for your cooperation.

 

[WeAAsles]

Let’s make this even more simple. We all took jobs to get paid so let’s talk money.

$67.46 X 2080 = $140,316.80.

And that doesn’t include extras such as Holiday pay, Profit Sharing, Overtime or Retirement Contributions. So conservatively let’s just add another $25,000 onto the earnings.

$165,316.80. Yummy 😋

 

[ThirdSeatHero]

Time is money. Especially when we’re getting so much closer to retirement. You need money to make money. So stop arguing against your own best interests.

Typical Weez, you once again got it backwards ... I'm arguing for my best interest. I'm arguing for choice in options, I'm arguing for my lower cost medical so I can put more of that yummy raise into my retirement and not into teamster coffers.

$165,316.80. Yummy

It certainly will be ... right AFTER we have that thinly veiled TEAMCARE language removed ... and from the chatter on some of the other boards there might be a need for a few more changes as well.

 

[WeAAsles]

Typical Weez, you once again got it backwards ... I'm arguing for my best interest. I'm arguing for choice in options, I'm arguing for my lower cost medical so I can put more of that yummy raise into my retirement and not into teamster coffers.



It certainly will be ... right AFTER we have that thinly veiled TEAMCARE language removed ... and from the chatter on some of the other boards there might be a need for a few more changes as well.

Hero I doubt your UAL Medical is lower cost. I’m sure your Medical is around the same as the rest of the Industry as compared to AA, DL and SWA. And on that note considering out of pocket costs particularly for Family plans we pay a lot for coverage.

You see Teamcare, IAMcare, TWUcare as Boogeymen. Maybe you’d see AMFAcare as a Boogeyman too? I see language that says my Union (If I was in your Union) is open to discussing “adding” more options. Be that again Teamcare or whatever. And on that note because I believe my worst case scenario would be maybe having 3 to 5 plans to choose from I would vote yes.

If Teamcare came along later as an option to add to my other plans I would also vote yes.

If Teamcare came along later as my only option dumping my other choices I would likely vote no.

Either way the (Legal) language states “I” we get to decide that through our votes.

The Company would not want 14,000 people going out of their networks since the more people they have to offer Healthcare providers the lower they can offer costs. Basically the healthier people included pay for the sickly ones to a degree.

Question: When you turned down Teamcare all those years back was it being offered as an addition to the UAL plans or as your only choice? My guess is you would have continued to have choices.
——————————————————————————

On another note as far as other changes I wouldn’t vote no because I didn’t get offered a bonus. I’m fine with the idea that they don’t owe me anything. And I LOVE ❤️ the idea that I wouldn’t have to have another one of those long drawn out bullshit years long negotiating sessions to face so close to retirement. I’m pretty sick of that nonsense.

I’m topped out already so I wouldn’t vote no because I want the payscales shortened either. But I do understand junior members who do. I’m saying that it wouldn’t be a line in the sand for me.

Everything else in your deal from the outside looking in would get my thumbs 👍 up.

 

[ThirdSeatHero]

Question: When you turned down Teamcare all those years back was it being offered as an addition to the UAL plans or as your only choice? My guess is you would have continued to have choices.

And your guess would be wrong - the Teamcare TA that was shot down, Teamcare was the only option.

Hero I doubt your UAL Medical is lower cost. I’m sure your Medical is around the same as the rest of the Industry as compared to AA, DL and SWA. And on that note considering out of pocket costs particularly for Family plans we pay a lot for coverage.

You can doubt it all you wish, my costs were lower ... alot lower. Clearly that was the case for a vast majority of others as well as they not only shot the TA down, they petitioned the company to remove Teamcare from the table all together.

You see Teamcare, IAMcare, TWUcare as Boogeymen. Maybe you’d see AMFAcare as a Boogeyman too? I see language that says my Union (If I was in your Union) is open to discussing “adding” more options. Be that again Teamcare or whatever. And on that note because I believe my worst case scenario would be maybe having 3 to 5 plans to choose from I would vote yes.

I don't want the union involved with my medical period. Be that ibt or AMFA or any other union.

As for the rest of your musings, we've already discussed -and agreed - current language in our CBA allows for the ibt to discuss "optional" plans, thus removing the need for any additional language in this TA.

The fact that its there isn't some innocent pacifier for the membership, they are already talking with TEAMCARE. If all they were after was TEAMCARE as an option, why not say so? The ibt monitors these & other boards during times like this, they know what the membership has issues with, if this language is on the up & up like you want to speculate it is, then a simple update/briefing item stating unequivocally that they are only pursuing TEAMCARE to add as an option to our current selections, I'd vote Yes today. ... but they haven't.


As an outsider, you may like the deal - we at United however get to vote, and if a majority here don't like it, its going down regardless how you feel about it, or how we may have come to that decision

 

[WeAAsles]

And your guess would be wrong - the Teamcare TA that was shot down, Teamcare was the only option.



You can doubt it all you wish, my costs were lower ... alot lower. Clearly that was the case for a vast majority of others as well as they not only shot the TA down, they petitioned the company to remove Teamcare from the table all together.



I don't want the union involved with my medical period. Be that ibt or AMFA or any other union.

As for the rest of your musings, we've already discussed -and agreed - current language in our CBA allows for the ibt to discuss "optional" plans, thus removing the need for any additional language in this TA.

The fact that its there isn't some innocent pacifier for the membership, they are already talking with TEAMCARE. If all they were after was TEAMCARE as an option, why not say so? The ibt monitors these & other boards during times like this, they know what the membership has issues with, if this language is on the up & up like you want to speculate it is, then a simple update/briefing item stating unequivocally that they are only pursuing TEAMCARE to add as an option to our current selections, I'd vote Yes today. ... but they haven't.


As an outsider, you may like the deal - we at United however get to vote, and if a majority here don't like it, its going down regardless how you feel about it, or how we may have come to that decision

Ok calm down with the Teamcare now. You’re still more freaked out about it than you should be. IMO.

I would have probably shot it down too then if it was my only option.

I was comparing your Medical to the Industry not to Teamcare.

I’m glad the TWU doesn’t have Medical or is a part of any Multi Employer Pension plans like the IAM. The IAMPF had to cut their payouts a few times to keep it in the Green Zone. People in that case aren’t going to blame the fund’s administrators for the cuts, they blamed the IAM. So again I’m glad the TWU isn’t involved in any of that.

Your comment about Teamcare being an option and the IBT making that plainly clear is completely reasonable if they tried to make it your ONLY option in the past. It’s honestly probably the Company that’s saying take one or the other? Cost related I’m sure.

My two cents does come with an agenda related to my own pocket to a particular degree of course. You could understand it I’m sure if the shoe were on the other foot. And of course it’s your vote but after 29 years I’ve seen a few groups make mistakes and vote no when they should have voted yes and vice versa.

“Sometimes” the longer you wait the more money you actually lose. And sometimes it’s the opposite effect.

 

[WeAAsles]

I was just reading the threads below this one from April 2003 “Mechanics TA” and May 2005 “AMFA has Contract”

Hard to believe it’s been over 20 years now since we did our Concessions at AA and you went through that Bankruptcy.

Definitely been a bumpy ride in this Industry.

 

[ThirdSeatHero]

Ok calm down with the Teamcare now. You’re still more freaked out about it than you should be. IMO.

Calm down? Who's excited? You were the one asking questions and I answered. And FWIW I haven't been "freaked out" about a TA since bankruptcy.

My two cents does come with an agenda related to my own pocket to a particular degree of course. You could understand it I’m sure if the shoe were on the other foot. And of course it’s your vote but after 29 years I’ve seen a few groups make mistakes and vote no when they should have voted yes and vice versa.

“Sometimes” the longer you wait the more money you actually lose. And sometimes it’s the opposite effect.

True, I've witnessed the same. However in this case UAL and the ibt seem to have inadvertently given the membership the unique ability to shoot down a TA and lose nothing - the money didn't kick in til August, and there was no signing bonus DOS of any kind to lose.

Whatever issue(s) the membership forces back to the table, be it Teamcare, Holiday moves, PCL limits, or TTTO, if UAL truly wants this extension in place as they have initially indicated, then the remedy for any or all of theses could still be reached/voted before August, and we've lost nothing.

Worst case scenario, we ride out our current extension, our industry reset will payout in December - not as much as the TA to be sure, but its a raise without giving up or changing a word of our current CBA.

We'll see -