US IAM Fleet Service topic 3/6-

[ChockJockey]

CJ,

Aren't all the recent PHX TL transfers considered to be voluntary, thus they would not have the ability to transfer back to LAS until all the involuntary transfers have been offered LAS? The PHX TL positions were not part of the original openings for the bids when the furloughs were announced, but rather just as available openings in the system on a very loose first come basis, thus I would think that any decision to go to PHX as a TL would void any recall rights back to LAS.

I have no idea.

 

[28L_or_10R?]

CJ,


P.S. Back to CreamHorn, get back to school instead of screwing-off for the next two years.

He should go to Thailand and stay at Jomtien Beach or Pattaya for the duration of his unemployment. He could live like a king there on his unemployment benefits.

 

[necigrad]

Aren't all the recent PHX TL transfers considered to be voluntary, thus they would not have the ability to transfer back to LAS until all the involuntary transfers have been offered LAS? The PHX TL positions were not part of the original openings for the bids when the furloughs were announced, but rather just as available openings in the system on a very loose first come basis, thus I would think that any decision to go to PHX as a TL would void any recall rights back to LAS. This would be especially true for those in LAS who had made the cut and had a position, but decided to transfer to PHX as a TL instead. I think if I was involutarily furloughed or involuntarily transferred from LAS and wanted to come back, I would be asking some hard questions as to if this would be a worthy of grievance.

It's a good question. I don't know the answer, but I'm going to suggest that those positions should have been available as displacement (the grievance goes back further then that), and thus it should be treated as such. I honestly don't know, just trying to make an educated guess.

 

[Jester]

It's a good question. I don't know the answer, but I'm going to suggest that those positions should have been available as displacement (the grievance goes back further then that), and thus it should be treated as such. I honestly don't know, just trying to make an educated guess.

Necigrad,

I would think it would also be a matter of timing in terms of recall rights.

For example, if someone was subject to the LAS staff reduction, and they went to PHL as part of being involutarily transferred, and later voluntarily transferred to PHX, the employee would still have recall rights to LAS (after the minimum time between stations)

However, if an employee subject to being part of the LAS staff reduction "won" a transfer to PHL, but never went to PHL on the reporting for duty date, by instead deciding to be a TL in PHX, then the employee did a voluntary transfer to PHX while still technically being based at LAS, and would not have recall rights.

In another example, if an employee subject to being part of the LAS staff reduction, did not win any of the cities listed on the bid, then the employee decided to accept the TL in PHX, the employee would not have recall rights. The employee did not accept any of the open positions on the bid (thus to be furloughed otherwise) and the employee voluntarily transferred to PHX while again, being technically based at LAS.

And finally, if a LAS based employee who made the staff reduction cut, decides on their own to transfer to PHX as a TL, then they lose recall rights as the choice was voluntary.

In essence, if the employee opts to go to PHX before the reporting date for duty to the bid issued station or fails to secure a transfer station when there were openings and transfers to PHX instead, then the employee loses recall rights. Thus, the only people subject to being recalled are those employees who accepted the involutary transfer to another station on the reporting for duty date, and those employees who took the furlough by either failing to secure another station or by choice to stay in Las Vegas.

This is how I am understanding the procedure based upon my conversations with some of the people who understand these rules. I think it is important to understand these rules as PHX might be next on the chopping block.

What's the word around your campfire?

So Queries Jester.

 

[mike33]

Necigrad,

I would think it would also be a matter of timing in terms of recall rights.

For example, if someone was subject to the LAS staff reduction, and they went to PHL as part of being involutarily transferred, and later voluntarily transferred to PHX, the employee would still have recall rights to LAS (after the minimum time between stations)

However, if an employee subject to being part of the LAS staff reduction "won" a transfer to PHL, but never went to PHL on the reporting for duty date, by instead deciding to be a TL in PHX, then the employee did a voluntary transfer to PHX while still technically being based at LAS, and would not have recall rights.

In another example, if an employee subject to being part of the LAS staff reduction, did not win any of the cities listed on the bid, then the employee decided to accept the TL in PHX, the employee would not have recall rights. The employee did not accept any of the open positions on the bid (thus to be furloughed otherwise) and the employee voluntarily transferred to PHX while again, being technically based at LAS.

And finally, if a LAS based employee who made the staff reduction cut, decides on their own to transfer to PHX as a TL, then they lose recall rights as the choice was voluntary.

In essence, if the employee opts to go to PHX before the reporting date for duty to the bid issued station or fails to secure a transfer station when there were openings and transfers to PHX instead, then the employee loses recall rights. Thus, the only people subject to being recalled are those employees who accepted the involutary transfer to another station on the reporting for duty date, and those employees who took the furlough by either failing to secure another station or by choice to stay in Las Vegas.

This is how I am understanding the procedure based upon my conversations with some of the people who understand these rules. I think it is important to understand these rules as PHX might be next on the chopping block.

What's the word around your campfire?

So Queries Jester.

Jester

I believe the scenarios that you have come up with are valid ones, but wasn't the grievance that opened those positions won because those positions should have been on the list in the first place? If that is the case then a " Letter of Aggrement " should be in place to protect the recall of those that choose other station because the PHX TLs were not on the list.

 

[Jester]

Jester

I believe the scenarios that you have come up with are valid ones, but wasn't the grievance that opened those positions won because those positions should have been on the list in the first place? If that is the case then a " Letter of Aggrement " should be in place to protect the recall of those that choose other station because the PHX TLs were not on the list.

Mike,

If in fact, that is true, then your point is 100% valid. As I was not in LAS, has anyone heard of a "Letter of Agreement" issued on or about that time regarding the treatment of transferred TL's in PHX as having recall rights as if they were on the involuntary transfer bid? I know there was a grievance forcing of ramp agents into being TL's and that was the push to open PHX to TL's, but I was not aware of the formal linkage between the involuntary transfer bid and the newly opened TL positions in PHX.

So Inquires Jester.

 

[Cream Horn Pastry]

I believe the scenarios that you have come up with are valid ones, but wasn't the grievance that opened those positions won because those positions should have been on the list in the first place? If that is the case then a " Letter of Aggrement " should be in place to protect the recall of those that choose other station because the PHX TLs were not on the list.

But there is a problem. the bid was to be open only to those who would be out of a job but the leads in PHX were open to people who just wanted to transfer and be full time. I know one person that job was safe in LAS and was the first person to be offered the lead spot in PHX. that person went ahead of everyone else b/c he was first on the list for openings so it wasnt handled like a bid for the leads in PHX but just like another open position. If he was called after the persons who were to lose thier jobs then fine but he was first. This wasnt a bid b/c he wouldnt have been offered the lead position before everyone else. wheres this letter of understanding and who is the union person in LAS i can speak with or someone here?

CHP

P.S. Mai Tai anyone?

 

[mike33]

But there is a problem. the bid was to be open only to those who would be out of a job but the leads in PHX were open to people who just wanted to transfer and be full time. I know one person that job was safe in LAS and was the first person to be offered the lead spot in PHX. that person went ahead of everyone else b/c he was first on the list for openings so it wasnt handled like a bid for the leads in PHX but just like another open position. If he was called after the persons who were to lose thier jobs then fine but he was first. This wasnt a bid b/c he wouldnt have been offered the lead position before everyone else. wheres this letter of understanding and who is the union person in LAS i can speak with or someone here?

CHP

P.S. Mai Tai anyone?

Mine is an assumption of a " letter " and nothing else if indeed the furloughed had to report to their stations that they were awarded and not able to bid the lead positions according to Art. 8B.

 

[roabilly]

My Dear Gentle Mr. Roabiliy,

Unfortunately, my dance card is full on the day in question, so I must politely decline your gracious invite. However, might I offer additional food for thought with the following WSJ article: http://finance.yahoo.com/career-work/article/109471/meet-the-unemployable-man?mod=career-work

Within the article were various morsels of indigestion for those who have made US Airways their careers, in particular those who are unskilled and uneducated. To wit:

"One of every five men 25 to 54 isn't working."

"'A good guess…is that when the economy recovers five years from now, one in six men who are 25 to 54 will not be working,' Lawrence Summers, the president's economic adviser, said the other day."

"Demand for workers who haven't much education -- which includes many men, particularly minority-group men -- is waning."

"At the high end, demand for skilled workers and those who rely on their brains will return when the economy does."

"Men who in an earlier era would have been making good money on the assembly line are, and will be, working security or greeting at Wal-Mart, jobs that almost anyone can do and thus jobs that don't pay well."


With the aforementioned article, perhaps during your pourparier with Mr. Delaney, you might want to query as to how the IAM will protect you should the company close? Should Mr. Delaney appear to suffer from prebycousis, providing him a hard copy to some hard questions for the hard of hearing might settle the matter if should it not intefer with the group's altarage.

So Proposes Jester.

Hmmm... like the new avatar...and the “New Jester” seems to be more proactive, and helpful as well. However, I will remain skeptical until you run for a position in the IAM.

I think our education argument will ultimately be waged from wheelchairs manufactured in China, on laptops manufactured in Japan, running software written by programmers in India.

As the oatmeal runs from our chins, we will post and then counter post, as our personal assistants with PhD’s empty our bed pans.

All of this will be financed by the only remaining source of retirement income... as the entire American Economy was exported to the lowest bidder long ago... the IAM pension!

So proclaims, and prophesizes...

Roabilly

 

[robbedagain]

if LAS is recalling some of their PT agents, are they keeping their pay from where they're at? or is it like they keep their seniority for everything but the pay? just curious. we have 2 FT agents from LAS

 

[Cream Horn Pastry]

if LAS is recalling some of their PT agents, are they keeping their pay from where they're at? or is it like they keep their seniority for everything but the pay? just curious. we have 2 FT agents from LAS

I think it is at the same pay grade and date of hire. Thats what I was told by everyone before the furlough. Not many transfers to phl, dca, bwi want to come back. phx differenet matter. Different deal.

I heard 4 p/t were called back. few las have quit retired or transfer. company paying a pantful of OT. Not calling more back. does it mean more cuts in flights soon? Any news?

The eagle craps on sunday for online unemployment filing. surfs up.

CHP

 

[necigrad]

...but wasn't the grievance that opened those positions won because those positions should have been on the list in the first place? If that is the case then a " Letter of Aggrement " should be in place to protect the recall of those that choose other station because the PHX TLs were not on the list.

That's the ASSUMPTION I was under as well. I don't know that it's true, just trying to come to a logical conclusion. IF the positions were open, and IF the Company intentionally refused to open them , and IF they were opened up, then I ASSUME that the logic can be extended to being available to those displaced by seniority. IF all of that is true, then Section 9 C 3 should go into effect. That section states in part "Furloughed employees shall maintain recall for a period of four (4) years. Displaced employees shall maintain all recall rights."

I don't know how a voluntary transfer after displacement changes that. Honestly, I don't care ATM. In my humble OPINION, however, if the intent was to transfer to a station more suitable and convenient to the displaced employee, and if that station could be reasonably expected to have been on the displacement bid, then it should be treated as such. That would mean that the employee gets the new station and loses nothing regarding displacement.

 

[Jester]

That's the ASSUMPTION I was under as well. I don't know that it's true, just trying to come to a logical conclusion. IF the positions were open, and IF the Company intentionally refused to open them , and IF they were opened up, then I ASSUME that the logic can be extended to being available to those displaced by seniority. IF all of that is true, then Section 9 C 3 should go into effect. That section states in part "Furloughed employees shall maintain recall for a period of four (4) years. Displaced employees shall maintain all recall rights."

I don't know how a voluntary transfer after displacement changes that. Honestly, I don't care ATM. In my humble OPINION, however, if the intent was to transfer to a station more suitable and convenient to the displaced employee, and if that station could be reasonably expected to have been on the displacement bid, then it should be treated as such. That would mean that the employee gets the new station and loses nothing regarding displacement.

Necigrad,

If, in fact, CPH is accurate in his accounts, then those open positions were not handled part of the bid for displaced workers. It would hardly seem fair to decline someone with low seniority to award a FT TL position in PHX because another ramp agent with much higher seniority voluntarily decided to take a PHX TL position instead, and that person also has priority recalls rights over the lower seniority position. Now we can quibble people who were scheduled to be furloughed, but it is a specious argument to combine voluntary and involuntary transfers having the same recall rights just because they both accepted the open TL positions in PHX. It would be no different than you to decide to voluntarily transfer to PHL from LAS (the same place many involutary furloughs transferred), and then decide you want recall rights back to LAS ahead of those who were involuntarily furloughed or transferred.

I do not know how we can determine what "could be reasonably expected to have been on the displacement bid" as the Company did not think it was "reasonable" or "expected" as there were no bid lines. The Company handled this like just an open position available first come basis subject to any seniority should there be multiple interested parties. If the union thought it should have been on the displacement bid, then it should have lodged a complaint on how PT ramp agents in safe positions took the jobs of those FT employees who were being furloughed. You may argue that it saved someone from being displaced LAS by rescinding an involuntary transfer, but what is the 'saving' if someone was bumped down to a PT position as a result? Of course, it would be acceptable to take priority over a lower seniority person with the caveat, if and only if, it was NOT part of the displacement bid, but just an open system position.

Nobody has filed a complaint regarding the TL from PHX who was recalled to LAS yet?

So Adjudicates Jester.

By the way, how did the Q&A session go with Mr. Delaney, and did he already surrendered the idea of pushing for pay raises in the next CBA contract in lieu of scope and saving stations? I am guessing as the CLT meeting was a week ago, the answer was not as everyone had hoped, otherwise I am certain to have heard from some posters.

 

[roabilly]

Necigrad,

By the way, how did the Q&A session go with Mr. Delaney, and did he already surrendered the idea of pushing for pay raises in the next CBA contract in lieu of scope and saving stations? I am guessing as the CLT meeting was a week ago, the answer was not as everyone had hoped, otherwise I am certain to have heard from some posters.

Dear cooperative, and proactive Mr. Jester...

As a hard working Fleet Service Worker... (wink...wink) and staunch supporter of the IAM and its officers, you must be cognizant that telegraphing such positions and strategies in an open forum such as this would not be prudent.

Negotiations are not that far off now, so we must be careful in our communications. After all... you never know when someone from corporate, masquerading as one of us could be monitoring... and maybe even participating in discussions on these boards! (wink...wink)

So... I’ll close with a bit of food for thought...

JOB MARKET SHRINKING FOR COLLEGE GRADS!

So politely lampoons...

ROABILLY

 

[Jester]

Dear cooperative, and proactive Mr. Jester...

As a hard working Fleet Service Worker... (wink...wink) and staunch supporter of the IAM and its officers, you must be cognizant that telegraphing such positions and strategies in an open forum such as this would not be prudent.

Negotiations are not that far off now, so we must be careful in our communications. After all... you never know when someone from corporate, masquerading as one of us could be monitoring... and maybe even participating in discussions on these boards! (wink...wink)

So... I’ll close with a bit of food for thought...

JOB MARKET SHRINKING FOR COLLEGE GRADS!

So politely lampoons...

ROABILLY

My Dear Gentle Mr. Roability,

One does not need to be an expert negotiator to realize the proverb of getting blood from a turnip aptly relates to a company with no fore seeable profit. In economics, this is called "rent sharing," and it has little to do with your crowded double-wide. Informally, as pay raises are off the table, then the union leadership needs get something in return which doesn't cost as much, but provides a moral victory the under the guise of solidarity through scope and saving stations. Before you know it, you'll forget about the '08 promises for a pay raise... forget the Kool-Aid, this is Milk of Amnesia.

While I throughly enjoyed your job reports on college graduates, the article failed to provide the unemployment rates for the population in question. Not surprisingly, the current tough times affect just about every demographic as the old expression in finance goes that all boats fall in a low tide -- only difference being that those without a bachelors degree or higher are sitting in a leaky boat. Ahoy! Don the lifejackets, you're taking on water, Matey!

So Navigates Jester.