Clarification

I reported in the previous weekly report that there was a third step settlement under AMFA from Denver. This is incorrect as the settlement came from Chicago and dealt with a persons right to recall depending on their physical status, IE whether they were on occupational or non occupational leave. The reason I thought it was from Denver is that one of the conscientious Reps from Denver kept a copy of this decision and told me he would forward the decision to me as soon as possible. He did just that and I have now had an opportunity to review the decision. I apologize for any confusion this may have caused.

That's all for now,
Bob

No weekly report this week

I took some vacation time last week and because of that the report will be issued next week.

Weekly report 6-21-09

General Items

Negotiations went ok this week with the company choosing two very difficult articles to start with. They were the grievance procedure and the new layoff and recall article. The official report can be found here.

I had the opportunity to meet with Labor Relations to discuss some open issues and resolution was reached on testing for bumping into the MM side.

Chris Moore from the TAMC (Teamsters Aviation Mechanics Coalition) walked the floor on Thursday evening and Friday morning. Chris met with several members to discuss how the IBT could better represent us. I felt this was a productive visit and several ideas were passed to Chris.

Tom Reid and Jeff Conley lobbied this week with the TAMC to address three issues. The issues were Outsourcing, the Express Carrier language, and the Employee Free Choice Act. According to both of them the meetings went well. The objective was to reach Republican Senators to explain our stance on these issues. For the outsourcing everyone understood that foreign MRO's need to operate in the same manner as domestic facilities, and this apparently got a lot of traction. Also the Express Carrier legislation was received well. However the EFCA was met with a resounding no from Republican members of the Senate.

MM

As stated above the testing issue has been resolved. There will be tests but they are to evaluate training liabilities only. One member that had been denied entry will be reporting on Monday as well as all the recalls. I do not yet know the report dates for the GQ/PV personnel transferring into MM.

I am working on resolution of an outstanding third step which dealt with an incorrect recall and subsequent bump of one of our members. This issue would have been resolved already but apparently a previous third step decision may have changed the recall process. This decision came from Denver under AMFA and I am waiting to get the file for review.

The cabin crew eight hour day has been given to the local Managers from what Ron Buettenmuller told me on Friday. I pressed Ron to review a possible plan for a ten hour schedule for this group, and Ron's answer was no. I explained that the IBT wanted the cabin crew to work every bit as much as the Company did, but that it was unlikely this goal could be achieved on a 6 & 2 schedule. Ron reiterated that the Company did not want to expand the ten hour schedule as they were looking to remove it for the rest of the station minus the late days crew.

GQ

Eric Harger has volunteered to help with the TAMC by writing articles for "Nuts and Bolts". If there is an issue you would like addressed in this publication please see Eric.

A perception that the Union made a deal to bring in a mechanic from Boston was brought to my attention this week. As I am responsible for ensuring the contract is enforced here at Dulles I can assure you this is not true. I found the answer to the recall question in an older version of series 75-2 on page 118 and the Company performed the action correctly. The timing of the opening is the only open question and I will pursue this if the member bidding MM declines that position. I agree it would have been better if the Company actually put paper in the local bidders hand prior to declaring a vacancy, but again this was no deal on my part.

PV

The Labor Management meeting will be held on Wednesday at 2:15pm. We will discuss open grievances as well as the outsourcing in the shop.

There were several questions regarding the 59 day assignment for HVAC as well as the bidding procedure for the shop. I will bring both of these issues up at Wednesday's meeting. Our language is not the best for both of these issues but they are being addressed in negotiations. Both can be reviewed in the Union's opener found here.

If anyone is interested in contributing to "Nuts and Bolts" please let me know and I will pass your information on to Chris.

That's all for now,

Bob

Weekly report 6-14-09

General Items

This week I attended a third step discharge hearing with JFK Coordinator Larry Calhoun in New York. Larry represented the Union and did a fantastic job. The case itself has more holes than a block of Swiss cheese and Larry found every one of them. I rarely speak in absolutes regarding these procedures because of the unknown when going before an Arbitrator, but I am absolutely convinced the Grievant will be returned to work even if the Company decides to take the case that far.

Negotiations continue next week in San Francisco on Tuesday and Wednesday. The official update will be found here when released.

Upon my return Thursday Chris Moore from the TAMC is tentatively scheduled to walk the property to report on the Teamsters Airline Mechanics Coalition and ask for your input. Also two mechanics from Dulles will be Lobbying on Capitol Hill with the TAMC on Wednesday.

MM

The van for transportation into and out of work was taken away again because of a decision made by Station Manager Sharri Kawell. Knowing this was a possibility a contract proposal was included in the Union's opener. The proposal can be found here on page 69 new paragraph P.

The Company has informed me that they will be testing any members bumping or transferring into the shop without a current license (current defined as exercised within the last 24 months). The Company claims they can do this because of the FAR's and the MOP. I am still researching this issue as it has never been done before and it doesn't seem to be happening at any other station.

I got a verbal on one of the second steps for an overtime bypass and it was sustained, and another OT bypass was still being considered. The other answers which are denials are promised in written form for Monday as I have a meeting with Labor Relations to discuss them next week. I will also be discussing our open third steps at this meeting.

There was a question of seniority usage on the Afternoon shift this week. There is a practice of using seniority for work areas as evidenced by the ESS sheet, and a grievance was filed. Like the van above the best way to eliminate questions is to memorialize this practice in the Agreement. As such there is a proposal in Article VI to further clarify this.

GQ

I believe I found the answer to the recall question when researching another item. As stated above I have a meeting scheduled with LR and will discuss this issue next week.

PV

Grievances continue to be filed on the PV outsourcing and there are currently two slated to be presented in the second step during the Labor Management meeting at the end of the month.

That's all for now,

Bob

PENS WIN!!!!!!!!!

Title says it all! WOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!

Weekly report 6-7-09

General Items

This week an issue affecting the GQ and PV shops which has potential systemwide implications was being addressed. The issue is a matter of seniority involving recalls and people who are involved in a current RIF (reduction in force), and who has the superior right the openings. In the January RIF we had twenty eight openings in MM while people were still on furlough. There was no dispute at that time that people in that RIF had the superior rights due to the fact that our members would have been the junior people on the system and would have been immediately displaced upon return. The situation is different in the GQ/PV departments because the recalls would not be the junior people on the system if returned to work. There is nothing to clearly spell out who has the greater rights in the current Contract or in Series 75-2 (the Company's interpretation manual). With that said I have written a letter to the Labor Relations department and we will have a conference call on Tuesday to discuss this matter further.

An e-mail was forwarded to me this week about a pension petition. I won't go into great details about this because I did a write-up on the blog the day after receiving it. Here is a link to that article.

If you don't receive the "Week in Review" from the Airline Division I recommend you read this week's edition. There are many things going on in regards to mechanics issues. Also if you are interested in going to D.C. to lobby let me or Tom Reid know so we can get your info to the right people.

If you haven't read the Arbitration submission for the Panasonic Grievance it can be found here. Also a letter from President Hoffa regarding the TSA Reauthorization can be found here, and a letter from Director Bourne to the Committee on Homeland Security can be found here. Both of these letters of thanks are directly related to the Mechanics and Related Class and Craft and provide insight into what the Union is currently doing on the Hill to preserve our jobs.

I appreciated the overwhelmingly positive response to the Unions opening proposal.

MM

The issue of concern this week continued to be the separate LM classification for the Cabin Crew. For those on the e-mail tree you already know the separate classification part of this issue has been resolved. It was good to see the Teamsters were able to resolve this with the Company. Hopefully the Company will continue working with us so better work schedules can be explored on a local basis.

I talked to Ron B in regards to the grievance answers he owes us and he told me they would be ready this coming week.

One of the members at a briefing this week expressed some displeasure at the process of "do now and grieve later". I share that member's frustration, but we need to realize that even if the Company is dead wrong on a contract interpretation issue, they will proceed no matter what the Union presents to them. I offer for examples the 20%, Station Closing, Panasonic, and the myriad of Discharge cases currently awaiting Arbitration. As you've not doubt already seen the Union is attempting to streamline this process with the elimination of the old third step and its replacement with the System Board of Adjustment. In my opinion this would be a huge step forward by reducing our wait times in the process thereby reducing that frustration we all feel.

GQ

The big issue in the shop was addressed in the general items above.

PV

In addition to the seniority issue, work continued on the outsourcing in the shop. As well as the committee grievance on the Jetway issue many members are filing individual grievances when they see the contractor performing this work. I would also encourage members to file whenever they see vendors doing work we should be doing. As you all know the Company continues to farm out work that is covered by the Contract. The only way to stop this practice is to continue to use the grievance system we have.

That's all for this week,

Bob

Pension Petition

Yesterday an e-mail was forwarded to me by a friend with an author by the name "Horse Tayles". The body of the text was a poorly researched piece on the Western Conference of Teamsters Pension Fund with an attached petition demanding that the IBT never look at this plan for the membership.

Initially I was wondering why it was unsigned, but after reading the whole thing along with the attached petition, I understood this was purely an act cowardice as I first assumed. Karl Rove would be proud of this guy using falsehoods with small bits of facts to deceive trusting fellow employees.

Let's break it down and get the facts out of the way first since there are few of those. Each member currently receives roughly four thousand dollars per annum per the pension replacement LOA so we can accept as described "Doing the rough math, that is about $20,000.00 per mechanic or $100 million for our class and craft over the five year vesting period."

Before the rest of the e-mail is debunked I think the motive should be addressed. Is this an altruistic ploy or something else? This quote from the petition sums it up for me, "This gives the appearance of complicating, to the point of restricting any other union from organizing." The author appears to be afraid that if the membership is allowed to vote on the plan it will pass, and that will severely limit his opportunity to change unions. While that is a motive, it certainly doesn't appear to be in the best interest of the majority.

OK now that we're done with the facts we'll move to some outright misrepresentations (lies). The first "This plan is severely underfunded and our money will be used to prop up those currently collecting." Here is the letter from the WCT Actuary certifying the "Green Status" of the fund.

Next, "This is a classic pyramid scheme. Those new to plan pay for those currently in the plan." Here is a definition of an actual pyramid scheme from Wikipedia, and here is a link from The Free Dictionary, legal section on multi-employer pension funds. Reading the two definitions it is clear multi-employer pension funds are not illegal pyramid schemes. Calling it a scheme is a deceptive ploy to fill the reader with unwarranted fear.

Further down, "The Teamster Pension funds are suffering losses and they need to recoup those losses by fast tracking United mechanic contributions from our 401k. These plans are continually subject to criminal influence even today." Please refer to the Actuary's letter above regarding funding levels. As to criminal complaints against the WCT I was unable to locate any on the Department of Labor Website or using a Yahoo! search. In addition these funds are governed by ERISA enacted originally in 1974 and designed to protect participants funds through various measures.

In addition, "This fast tracking is causing our contract negotiations to be put on the back burner as well." Being a member of the Negotiating Committee, as well as the Pension Committee I can attest that this is not true. Sub-committees are typical in negotiations and this is no different.

Then "Remember the organizing promise of 10 years for 5? Like all the other Teamster promises, this to was an outright lie to get your vote during organizing. Ask any Teamster rep if that promise will be acted upon and the response goes something like this: We said you COULD get the 10 for 5, not that you WOULD get it." Please follow the above link to the WCT and read the Contribution Account Benefit tab. About halfway down it addresses the Non-Contributory Service Benefit. This is as described during the campaign and the WCT people that addressed a Steering Committee session in February told us we would be eligible for this.

I'm getting tired of writing this and if you are this far I'm sure you are tired of reading it so I will address the last paragraph in its entirety. "The Teamster negotiating committee is comprised of members with little or no experience. They do not have our interests at heart. This is nothing more than a money grab. Instead of funding Teamster pension plans they need to take care of our pay, job security and benefits.They should be working to increase the amounts the Company contirbutes to the 401k plan." As I've stated before we have an Attorney at the table with us at all times, our Chief negotiator as well as our Co, and Alternate Chairs have many contracts under their belts. As far as the 401k the author must have done much better than me last year because I was certainly far in the red. I make the same money as all of you and if I don't have your best interests at heart, I must have an IQ well south of 70. I could go on but I'm sure you get the point.

That's all for now,

Bob