General Items
I took vacation this week to deal with a family issue so this report will not be long.
Before vacation, Tom Reid shared some handbills that were posted on the Union bulletin board. These handbills used a David Letterman style top ten list to describe things that the IBT has done (or more precisely not done) for us in the last two years. They were obviously authored by someone that either lacks insight into the process, or who has an agenda of creating for himself a one hundred thousand dollar job in another Union. These flyers appear to have originated in SFO. The reason I bring the flyers up is someone is trying once again to sell us a "bill of goods". In these unsigned missives, we are presented with the proposition that better language is not needed, just get us the money. Is the loss of over ten thousand mechanics not enough to establish for the author the need for improvement to our current scope language? To this point, the pilots at Continental have been offered the Delta pilots agreement, which is substantially better pay wise, so Continental can get out of certain scope provisions regarding joint ventures. In addition, the AFA at United has been offered the Continental Flight Attendants agreement for similar reasons. Here is a link to UAL's April 5th update to the AFA membership explaining that the Company has no problem paying more money, if the Company is given the right to greater flexibility, which is given by the IAM in the agreement with the Continental Flight Attendants. In seeing that strong scope language is worth enough for these Companies to try to buy their way out of their agreements, how can anyone say that language doesn't matter? Will the author, or his followers, work to put the mechanics at this Company in a position to continually bargain from a position of weakness? It certainly seems that way. I don't think they realize what they are helping this Company to accomplish at our expense. At least that's what I would like to believe. The alternative, that they are in collusion with the Carrier to do us economic harm, is just too hard for me to fathom. Like you and the rest of the rank and file negotiating committee, I make the same wages as described in Schedule A of the CBA. After a year with no overtime, I certainly could use more in the form of wages. Along with the rest of the committee, I am still committed to achieving the high priority goal of improved wages. With that said, I have enough seniority that I'll probably be here for a while if we fail to deliver a decent scope clause. However, if during a negotiating committee vote, I agreed to keep the current scope language to get a little more money than we would have otherwise gained had we not improved our job protection language, and then afterwards lose many more mechanics, what does that say about me as a Representative, or for that matter as a person? There are so few of us left that we are not talking about agreeing to force people to the streets that we don't know when we say forget the language, get money; we are talking about our friends and their families. We lived under that concept for more than fifty years and I'm sorry, but this premise of continued language degradation for insignificant short term gains really infuriates me.
Another section of the flyer says "nothing". I strongly beg to differ with this point. While still in Section Six bargaining, the membership achieved a huge improvement in the Joint Board of Adjustment. With the establishment of the Joint Board (another language issue), in lieu of the third step of the grievance process, several members have been returned to work in months, rather than years, as a result of this faster procedure. There have also been many settlements and resolutions of third step grievances, both utilizing the board as well as settlements before reaching the Board, that date back to 1999. This is a huge improvement, speeding the grievance procedure, which the membership has been seeking for decades, and has now been delivered by the Teamsters. Language is crucial Brothers and Sisters, and any one telling you differently has an agenda.
It appears our hopes may be coming to fruition as far as a merger with Continental are concerned. This article tonight from Business Week seems to indicate that USAirways talks are being held in abeyance while United and Continental exchange financial information. According to the article we should know in a couple of weeks the direction these companies will take. Jock Creach from Seattle posted an interesting breakdown regarding the three carriers and that can be found here. As I've said in previous posts it looks like it will be an interesting summer with all the changing dynamics.
MM
There were a couple of grievances filed in regards to personal choice of physician language in Article XX. Several members have been denied the right to chose physicians in their home states, and these grievances will be processed to the second step. This issue is similar to a Joint Board case that I am currently prepared to present regarding the reasonableness of the application of the Article XX language. The option of making this a companion, or sister, grievance was offered, but one of the grievants felt their grievance was sufficiently different, and therefore, combining the two issues would not provide an adequate outcome. In respecting that member's wish, I will start this grievance at the second step and wait for a future JBA slot. A part of the case will certainly be the Virginia Workmans Comp legislation, which provides a base of the panel doctors, but no restrictions on personal physicians provided previous arrangements have been made. Here is a link to the Virginia statute for those inclined to read it.
According to one of the Stewards reports, after conferring with management, a member's discipline level was removed without going through the grievance process. Another Steward reported no answers to several grievances and they will now be elevated to the second step for resolution.
GQ
I came in on Tuesday for a couple of hours for a meeting with members of management from Chicago and Dulles as well as Stewards Joe Filice and Jay Obst. This move is seen as a positive change, and the Teamsters are committed to ensuring that through an approach of working towards the mutual goal of success of the shop, it will not just survive, but grow. Excerpts of Jay's write up of the session follows;
"To the GQ guys out there this should be look upon as a good move, Ames explained. No longer will we have to have every part we request scrutinized by local station management only to have our request denied.
Ames told us their extensive maintenance strategy planning has been in the works for some time now but only recently implemented into the line stations with positive results. Ames also pointed out the importance of a collaborative approach utilizing our employees' knowledge and experience to produce an effective, well developed maintenance program. With realized success in lower operation costs and greater productivity in the line stations, WHQGQ is now anxious to include the Hubs as well.
Getting our own department in order is the initial goal and the future GQ, Ames said, we want to expand to in-source work and looked upon by other carriers as their first source for their ground equipment maintenance needs.
Their plan was obviously well developed and not something just thrown together. It contains logic and some good business sense. It is also something that has been absent from our process for some time, Positive Direction.
As others will participate in future GQ planning sessions we should hope that our current contract negotiations will secure strong scope language that allows us to be the ones participating in the new maintenance strategy.
Jay Obst"
PV
The Stewards in PV will be out for training this week according to their report. Several issues are still being addressed including the application of the vacation rules, a bypass for a member of another workgroup performing PV work, as well as some outstanding outsourcing issues.
That's all for this week,
Bob
