It's been some time since the last report as I've been having difficulties with my email program. I recently upgraded my Yahoo account so hopefully these problems won't continue. I've attached a few documents to this report and they will be available on the blog via the website soon.
The first two documents are the arbitration decision and the Union's dissent. I felt last April that the Union did a good job presenting this case and I still feel that way even after the decision. I'm sure you're questioning now why I feel that way, especially since the arbitrator ruled that the Company didn't violate the agreement. The reason for this is the reading of the arbitrators decision on pages 12 and 13 which states; "On the other hand, the Union correctly contends any third party on-call maintenance at EWR or PHL in situations which are not an emergency should not be excluded from the -13- protections in Article II.D.5. The work at issue in this case includes not only the initial inspection of open log book items and repair as necessary to clear those items so a flight may depart, but "easy, simple fixes" of deferrable items [TR 277:5-278:7]. Unlike on-call maintenance necessary to resolve open log book items affecting flight schedules, there is no evidence in this record which supports the notion that discretionary non-routine maintenance on such aircraft can properly be considered emergency work when performed merely for convenience. Otherwise, the parties' inclusion of "emergency" as the modifier of "on-call" in that sentence would have no meaning. For this reason, the performance of non-emergency deferrable maintenance by third party vendors at EWR or PHL cannot be sheltered from the job security protections otherwise afforded by Article II.D.5." The arbitrator left it to the parties to determine the remedy. Based on this language, in my opinion, he has given the Union a solid position to recapture this work. In other words the arbitrator ruled that the vendors can be utilized only to defer items to continue to a maintenance station. I urge you to read both the decision, and especially the dissent.
EDIT: Here is the Dissent, and here is the Arbitrator's decision
The next attached document I think can be attributed to Karen Asuncion from IAM District 141. This is obviously a campaign document for the upcoming District elections, and I wouldn't normally include it, but it brings to light some interesting items regarding the cost of maintaining a District Lodge. Of note, the author of this piece claims the District has outsourced the duties of the Secretary-Treasurer, yet continues to pay him his salary of over 100k dollars. In addition, each AGC makes over 100k. I bring this up because some folks in SFO are trying to organize the IAM on this property and have promised we would have our own Locals and District. I talked about this before, but I think it bears repeating. Were we to go down this path, under the IAM there would be a little over 3 million dollars to spend annually nationwide. Of this amount, if we used similar staffing of IBT reps handling the unit, which is more in line with the stated IAM goals, we would be spending close to half our money on District salaries, and that doesn't take into account AFL-CIO or Grand Lodge per capita tax. It also doesn't take into account Local salaries, conventions/conferences, Local expenses, and also negotiation expenses. The other big item discussed in the document was arbitration and its costs. Fortunately the IAM doesn't use attorneys in arbitration, or directly at the table for negotiations, so we would be able to save some money in those areas. My guess is if we chose to change representation again, we would be able to survive, but not in the manner the old Local 9 guys are promising. Reading the document, I can understand the anger in 141, especially in light of the District President's mandated (without a membership vote) sick leave point system that was recently implemented. "No fault" sick leave programs are definitely not the best for employees, and to date, I haven't heard of one being instituted by the IBT without a vote. Do you figure those fellows from old Local 9 have been promised 100k jobs for delivering us over?
EDIT: Here is the referenced campaign document
I was going to discuss the pension survey and petition I recently saw, but in light of the fact that in an un-scientific poll, less than 8 percent of the membership participated, why bother. I'm sure you could get 8 percent of any group to say they had strong feelings about any issue either for or against, without reflecting the majority opinion using the same metrics that were used to achieve these results. I will say this though, growing up in Pittsburgh PA, in a strong union atmosphere, (most of my family and friends belonged to unions) I wouldn't dream of committing the treasonous act of betraying my Brothers and Sisters by becoming a Company stooge, and undermining negotiations.
I know this is getting long, but because of the merger rumors, I think it's important you have this information. Carlos Barrantes from SFO sent this article to me a couple weeks ago. It is from Reuters and discusses the foreign ownership piece of the European "Open Skies Agreement". This issue hasn't been widely discussed in the States, but I'm sure it will affect us quickly if enacted. On a related note, I posted in January that USAirways was a potential merger partner, but I'm still hoping CAL enters the mix as they are definitely the better partner.
I'm going to close without the usual department reports because of the length of this article. I'll resume those next week with some additional inputs. We've started a weekly shop stewards conference call and they have been very productive. The stewards have agreed to give me a briefing of the items they've worked on during the week, which may have been resolved without grievance action, so that you can get a more detailed report.
That's all for this week,
Bob
