Us Airways Machinists Blast Ceo

[700UW]

USA320Pilot comments: Mike, I do not like this any more than any body else, but I have simply posted facts. Do not "shoot the messneger". In regard to ALPA, you are correct.

Regards,

USA320Pilot

What facts have you posted? I posted a point by point refute of your so called facts and it is hours later and you still have not posted ONE LEGITIMATE FACT, you post your usual falsehoods and you repeat them to yourself enough times to make you believe you have posted facts.

So tell me how the IAM is gonna lose? POST A FACT!

You posted the IAM loses all it grievance, I have posted the major arbitrations and grievances that show the IAM WON, not lost as you say.

Dude, you really need a reality check, because everyone sees thru your posts and And the IAM knows all about you.

 

[Hope777]

I guess it is time for our fine Pilot to write yet another letter to the Charlotte Observer telling everyone his point of view.

 

[700UW]

From Judge Cindrich Memorandum:

Since the beginning of the parties’ collective bargaining relationship in 1949, US Air has never subcontracted this type of heavy maintenance work on any aircraft equipment in its fleet. Indeed, in collective bargaining negotiations between the IAM and US Air in 1999, US Air recognized that it did not have the right to subcontract airframe heavy maintenance work.

During those negotiations, US Air sought to obtain that subcontracting right from the IAM by proposing that it be allowed to contract out heavy maintenance work, like the SCheck, on its Boeing aircraft then in need of such service. The IAM rejected that proposal.

In the Spring of 2003, US Air indicated to the IAM that it was considering whether to subcontract the S-Checks on its Airbus fleet. The IAM responded to US Air on August 4, 2003, indicating that any attempt to subcontract such work would be
a violation of the CBA and constitute a “major disputeâ€￾ under the RLA. US Air responded in turn on August 8, 2003 indicating that the dispute was a “minor disputeâ€￾ under the RLA because the disagreement involved a dispute over the
interpretation of Article 2 (Scope Clause) of the CBA and therefore required the issue to be arbitrated in accordance with the RLA. US Air did not offer any interpretation of Article 2, however, and further indicated that it had not decided how the upcoming S-Checks would be handled. The IAM subsequently refused to submit the dispute to arbitration. On October 6, 2003, US Air advised the IAM that it was contracting out the first ten Airbus aircraft S-Checks to Singapore Technologies Mobile Aerospace Engineering in Mobile, Alabama. US Air also stated that certain IAM-represented employees would be sent to Alabama to train the
subcontractor’s employees in US Air’s practices and procedures for performing heavy maintenance work on the Airbus, including gaining familiarity with the Airbus maintenance manual and related FAA guidelines. Two additional IAM-represented employees would be sent to Alabama to perform quality assurance work in connection with the subcontracting. The IAM responded by filing the instant complaint seeking a temporary, preliminary and permanent injunction directing US Air to cease and desist the subcontracting of airframe heavy maintenance work on the Airbus fleet and all other heavy maintenance work
covered by the CBA.

We reach that conclusion with some confidence based on the following, undisputed facts:
(1) the longstanding and uninterrupted practice and custom that heavy maintenance types of work such as an S-Check has always been performed by IAM-represented employees;

(2) the fact that such work has always been considered within the exclusive province of those employees under the CBA as evidenced by the aforementioned history of the parties’ actions under the CBA; and

(3) the fact that US Air recognized through bargaining conduct as late as 1999 that it had no right to subcontract such work, even though section (G) had been part of the CBA for many years. Indeed, there can be no argument that heavy maintenance work like the S-Check has been customarily contracted out to vendors because there are no facts to support such an argument.

US Air’s parsing out of this last sentence of section (G) for the proposition that it is to be read as a stand-alone provision which allows the company to contract out any work where there is a dispute as to whether there are adequate facilities or tools to perform such work is not arguably justified. Indeed, US Air could unilaterally void the entire CBA based on such interpretation simply by not providing IAM represented employees with adequate facilities or tools to
perform their work.4 Thus, US Air has not met its burden, as light as that burden is, of establishing a minor dispute. US Air’s attempts to contract out S-Checks on its Airbus fleet is not arguably justified by the CBA, particularly not by US Air’s out of context reliance on the last sentence of section (G) of the Second Clarification which claim we find to be obviously insubstantial. Under the guise of a claimed dispute about the meaning of language in the CBA, US Air is attempting to remake or amend the most elemental and consequential provisions of the CBA.

From the appellate court Judge Smith:

SMITH, Circuit Judge, Dissenting:

This case turns on whether the dispute between US Airways, Inc. (“US Airwaysâ€￾ or “the Companyâ€￾) and the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (the “IAMâ€￾) is characterized as “majorâ€￾ or “minorâ€￾ for purposes of the Railway Labor Act, 45 U.S.C. §§ 151 et seq. (“RLAâ€￾). The majority holds that it is a minor one “because both parties have asserted rights existing under the [collective
bargaining agreement], the dispute turns on the proper interpretation or
application of the CBA, and US Airways’ argument is neither frivolous nor obviously insubstantial.â€￾ Supra at 13. I agree with the majority that the
parties’ dispute is resolved by application of the CBA and the interpretation of its
terms. Where I part company with my colleagues is in their conclusion that US
Airways’ position is not frivolous. I agree, instead, with the District Court that, “nder the guise of a claimed dispute about meaning of language in the CBA, [US Airways] is attempting to remake or amend the most elemental and consequential provisions of the CBA.â€￾ Because I believe that US Airways has not presented a construction of the contract that even arguably supports its position, I respectfully dissent. A genuine dispute over the “‘meaning or proper application of a
particular provision’â€￾ in the parties’ collective bargaining agreement is “minor,â€￾ and subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the System Board of Adjustment.

 

[The Truth]

Lots of politics here, unfortunately many employees jobs are at stake while a union fights for its survival.

Real World,

Your comments are right on target. You understand what is at risk, and hopefully the employees will have the same logic. You speak the truth on this issue.

The IAM must put aside the politics. Now is the time to make a rational decision on the future of Airways. Playing "hard ball" will not benefit the IAM. Everyone will lose if they continue with this irrational stance. Each IAM member should question the hard line tactics of their union and whether it has their best interest in mind. I have my doubts. Don't allow your union to lead you astray and down the wrong path of no return.

There is a local afa leader that will find this out soon when the election results are counted and her hard line tactics and media blitz will only get her voted out of office.

 

[700UW]

Real World,
The IAM must put aside the politics. Now is the time to make a rational decision on the future of Airways. Playing "hard ball" will not benefit the IAM. Everyone will lose if they continue with this irrational stance. Each IAM member should your union to lead you astray and down the wrong path on no return.
question the hard line tactics of their union and whether it has their best interest in mind. I have my doubts. Don't allow
There is a local afa leader that will find this out soon when the election results are counted and her hard line tactics and media blitz will only get her voted out of office.

sorry birdman, we won't roll over and play dead for you, you and your management have done more damage to US in 2 years, then in the previous 52. You have polarized and solidified the IAM membership.

And there is not need to negotiate with men who have no honor and cannot adhere to contracts they have previously signed.

 

[diogenes]

I got 10 bucks sez Xidas gets re-elected.

 

[usfliboi]

Funny Those "facts" your posting sure do seem a little off...... My how one weaves a tangled web. Iam has placed themselves in the middle of a nasty tangled weave they help spin. If 320 needs help my friend, you think you might need some anger management classes? Please if your gonna preach "facts" use them . Its like saying i didnt lie when in fact all of the story wasnt told....

 

[usfliboi]

[c'mon sir...i really don't think flying during the IAM'S strike qualifies for seeing combat .

Ummm you need to look at that again.... Ever seen the damage "some " iam members did to equipment as well as cars in the employee parking lot.... close to combat as well ever see.....

 

[Phantom Fixer]

I got 10 bucks sez Xidas gets re-elected.

I have another $10 to add to that action.

Xidas is one of the few things around that is actually dedicated to those whom she represents.....and changing horses in mid-stream now would spell disaster for the AFA Local she's LEADING !!! <----- A catch word in light of what's not taking place elsewhere.

I wish Teddy had greater reach beyond that of just the AFA Local.....and I'm not saying he word "Just" to downplay what they are or what they do. Xidas , if placed in charge of employee relations? , would be exactly what this company needs to repair a broken culture and start building trust between the workers and management....note that I used the word building as opposed to re-building in that observation

A failed culture is but one of the many issues that Dave is honestly owning up too....but in fairness it extends to way prior to he and his crew taking the wheel here. I think he still needs to assume responsibility for his part in this....by adding to a known problem with further harsh actions and welcoming "Union-Busters" like Jerry Glass to his staff have not helped in changing things in a positive way at all.


You Go Ms. Xidas......I wish we had more like you around !

 

[700UW]

Funny Those "facts" your posting sure do seem a little off...... My how one weaves a tangled web. Iam has placed themselves in the middle of a nasty tangled weave they help spin. If 320 needs help my friend, you think you might need some anger management classes? Please if your gonna preach "facts" use them . Its like saying i didnt lie when in fact all of the story wasnt told....

what are you talking about? Go back and read the post where I posted the facts, point by point.

And what job do you do with the company this week?

 

[700UW]

Xidas in a landslide!

 

[PITbull]

Truth,

Real world is correct, because he's the "rule maker".


And you better hope and pray Xidas loses her election for all of CCY sakes.

 

[longing4piedmont]

And you better hope and pray Xidas loses her election for all of CCY sakes.

I'm sure it has been posted and I'm lazy to search for it, (and not enough time before my next flight) so when is the election?

 

[700UW]

There is a local afa leader that will find this out soon when the election results are counted and her hard line tactics and media blitz will only get her voted out of office.

Hey Dewey, don't count your chickens before you eggs hatch!

 

[PITbull]

Longing,

April 19.