🌟 Exclusive Amazon Black Friday Deals 2024 🌟
Don’t miss out on the best deals of the season! Shop now 🎁
Update
- Thread starter AIRWOMAN
- Start date
Awa Contract
Veteran
- Oct 3, 2005
- 820
- 1
There is a difference between work coming back and the company taking advantage of the IAM cheap labor for sub-contracting
i'm reporting on shift...punch in time......BTW how cheap?? only mere coinage I believe....
uh oh...looking on your IBT 104 website...looks like your wages aren't cast in stone yet.....
20. WAGE RATES 04/21/2005
700uw..you're relieved......i'll take it in from here....
Awa Contract
Veteran
- Oct 3, 2005
- 820
- 1
Your right not TA'd YET - but our admendable is better than your future - you just don't get it or is it because your sitting at home and not having to work for those wages that it doesn't bother you - The IAM has done real good at educating you guys how to defend them, just to bad the did not put the same effort into taking care of it's membership.
All the little quirps don't change the fact that 99% of your contract doesn't take care of the members. You can't get around all for the lower wages and benefits all you can do is try and pass the blame.
All the little quirps don't change the fact that 99% of your contract doesn't take care of the members. You can't get around all for the lower wages and benefits all you can do is try and pass the blame.
Okey Dokey 7, then does the addition of A330 parts in PHX mean we are getting the heavy MX here.. that is your reasoning isn't it??????
Why ship parts to CLT and planes to PIT, I guess you guys are so good you can fix'em without parts or planes. that explains the duct tape on the ones we see here....
gonzo
Veteran
- Oct 17, 2005
- 902
- 0
An investigation by whom? Did the police show up and say "we need to talk to these people", other wise the company can attempt to protect the rest of the employees from known violent individuals.
I believe that the company did the correct thing by restricting access to the property. No, they weren't on the clock at the time, but it was job related. They should be fired first and kept from the property second. The company is attempting to get control then let things proceed to solve this problem.
Some how I don't see any of this as "self defence" as the "legal crooks" would have you believe. That statement alone causes the "legal document" to appear to be less of a true complaint and more of a "we are going to appeal to the public" type statement.
I see the document to be more of a distraction than a legitimate complaint.
Hmmmm.....jury trial....."pick me...pick me"....
OP
AIRWOMAN
Veteran
- Oct 20, 2005
- 3,440
- 0
- Thread Starter
- Thread starter
- #114
That's the BEST response to the "raiding" claim yet. Thanks insp89.
QUOTE(700UW @ Mar 24 2006, 07:25 AM)
The company is obstructing an investigation, which by law they cannot due.
I think you mean do, not due, or is it dew??
Seriously, wasn't the union officials right there with the company during the investigation of the 22 employees?? I would think that they should be.....a joint investigation, a group effort? Or did the IAM not participate and maybe play the cards so that this entire mess has now surfaced? Something just doesn't seem to be in order.
- Banned
- #115
There are numerous cases of members being terminated for fighting then coming back to work.
The last one I remember was several months back two mechanics in ORF got into a fight, one was terminated and the IAM got him his job back at the third step hearing.
The company conducts its own investigation as does the union, under the RLA the company cannot block or hinder the union's investigation.
And it is DUE.
The last one I remember was several months back two mechanics in ORF got into a fight, one was terminated and the IAM got him his job back at the third step hearing.
The company conducts its own investigation as does the union, under the RLA the company cannot block or hinder the union's investigation.
And it is DUE.
allegheny37
Advanced
Nothing to brag about
gonzo
Veteran
- Oct 17, 2005
- 902
- 0
LOL.....I don't believe the company is "blocking or hindering" the union's investigation. The IAM is trying to make the company look like the "bad guy" in a situation were the IAM is clearly the bad guy. The company is not obligated to "bow down" to the union and open its doors freely. The company can choose when to allow the investigation to occur on company property, it doesn't have to be when the IAM wants it. The time will be allowed if necessary, by the company, but it won't prevent it. IMHO
- Banned
- #118
Gee since you are not in PHL, nor an IAM member how do you know what is going on?
I spoke to someone involved in the investigation and the company is not cooperating as they have to per the law.
The IAM is not the bad guy the inviduals involved are, with your logic and way of thinking then all ibt members are in the mafia?
I spoke to someone involved in the investigation and the company is not cooperating as they have to per the law.
The IAM is not the bad guy the inviduals involved are, with your logic and way of thinking then all ibt members are in the mafia?
what law are you espousing?? Criminal law, where I believe the govermental agency would dictate who investigates what, where, when and how. or are you saying law as in according to the contract, which is between the to parties and won't have any "laws" attached, if needed a civil lawsuit may be brought forward, but I would'nt use the tem Law for that.
As I have said before, the members have the right for the IAM to try on the merits of the contract in place to try to get the jobs back, but that is where it ends, they do not have to defend them against charges or lawsuits resulting (if any) of the incident.
