Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Plz read

Expand Messages
  • pat nolan
    If you have questions about the tentative agreement plz read It s lengthy but worth reading and so on point. A worthy passionate post from the IAM Stakeholders
    Message 1 of 7 , Feb 18, 2013
    • 0 Attachment
      If you have questions about the tentative agreement plz read
      It's lengthy but worth reading and so on point.



      A worthy passionate post from the IAM Stakeholders Group 
      Orlando Galvez If I remember correctly, the last time we found ourselves in similar circumstances UAL had just furnished its fleet with the notorious 777.Today, just a yesterday we find ourselves once again in negotiations and with the newest aircraft in the market. Same product, different sales pitch. It is not difficult to understand how their latest addition of its costliest aircraft ever purchased-Dreamliner was somehow made reality considering our economic climate. 
      I am beginning to see a pattern.

      The items this contract has to offer, are items that if you remember, had already been negotiated by our union representatives once before. Vacation (5th week added), holidays, base pay at a rate of $24, and sick pay to name a few, all had been negotiated as a result of post ESOP concessions. 

      What this contract is in essence doing is creating an imaginary impression of a "new" contract. The question I'm asking is, whats new about it, other than its date and a few more takeaways?

      All of the items that have a "catchy bite" to them, such as "vacation 5th-week added", or "100% sick pay", and "holiday" are parts of a list that we painfully sacrificed in 2002/3 as a result of a collective effort to save our jobs as a consequence of our airlines bankruptcy hearings. Retirements for those who honorably dedicated a lifetime of good health to keep this airline operating efficiently where sacrificed then, and similarly today, we find ourselves yet again, sticking it to our retiree's with the elimination of their essential health insurance at a time when they will be needing it most. Two self inflicting wounds that sooner or later, we are all destined to feel, if we allow. Again, I'm beginning to see a pattern.

      If you look closely at all the costs of living variables such as that of gasoline, groceries, rents, gas and electricity, unlike our base pay, all have risen steadily in the last decade. This is where the devil is hidden, in the details. Almost everything that we gave up in hourly wages, vacation, sick pay, holidays, etc, one decade ago is being wrapped up in a nice package and being passed as the "new agreement." So, again, to put it differently, how can something that we already once had be new again? The answer is-it's not new. It's not better. And it's far from being reasonable for our families and ourselves especially considering our current economic climate.

      There is nothing new to this contract. Many, if not all, of these items should be returned right back to us unhampered and with the addition of real "NEW' increases added for losses lost over time. If not, then it will be as if this contract simply got extended by remaining unchanged from as far back as 2002 (see a pattern?) when we had all of these already familiar items negotiated once before. Problem is, none of our costs have remained the same. And if none of our living costs have remained the same, then why should we accept our pay to remain the same? Heck, even UAL's aircraft have not remained the same.

      Andy, you mentioned that you are kinda surprised that this is so generous an offer because we need consider our economic climate. Really? I wonder, will UAL consider raising our pay and family benefits should the economic climate suddenly become bullish (as it has shown it can be)? Did UAL consider the economic climate recently with its insensitive and arrogant purchase of the most costly state of the art aircraft in its history of operations while simultaneously using its merger as cover to buy time to operate under expired terms stalling our wage and benefit increases saving them millions in operating costs? Do you not think that this doesn't favor its interest and incentive to generate generous returns for its shareholders and come up with undeserving, overinflated end of the year bonuses for it's executives and CEO (pattern?). With this in mind, I am not convinced that our airline is not capable of giving us what we want and need (not a pattern).

      Andy, you are correct when you say that life was different for our parents. Our parents, unlike so many of us today, sacrificed and fought stubbornly in solidarity to get what they well deserved. Our parents did not stand for this ideology of "well I moved, you can too." Greg is correct in his plea for the needs of those at the line stations and we as one brotherhood have an obligation, "not a choice", to back his cry for support. Greg is absolutely correct when he says that they at the lines perform to the standards as the hub stations, and in doing so, deserve just the same as those at the hubs. 

      The point is, it is this very same lack of support that Greg has to plea for ( a plea that as a union brother he should not have to make, a plea that our fathers would translate to as a result of someone being disloyal) that has over the years weaken our nations unions as a whole. It is this selfish mentality of "I got mine, I don't care if you don't get yours" that has crippled the American unions and in turn, strengthen managements position to outsource jobs without a unions consent inside those ivory towers you spoke of.

      This is how the end begins for American unions and over time erodes our middle class (i.e. our standard of living). For generations, this has been a long term strategy for management. Convince just enough folks to get a mediocre contract passed, then, once it does, let the disagreements amongst members continue to simmer while in the meantime, just as Greg warns, as a result of lack of solidarity, which in turn increases managements leverage facilitating their strategic positions that aid them in contracting out jobs. "Our" jobs, not their jobs.

      As a case in point, take Greg's example of Eastern. Eastern strategically began contracting out their lines and eventually, very cleverly lead to the contracting out of the jobs at its hubs over the long haul. And where is Eastern today? This is not a consequence of our economic climate, but rather a strategy that has worked successfully in managements favor for generations while weakening unions over time. The only way to avoid such tragic losses and in turn preserve us as a middle class is to remain constantly vigilant while keeping one step ahead. This means taking risks. Risks like perhaps not accepting the companies first and only offer. Does this mean sacrificing? If need so-yes. Am I willing to make such a sacrifice for a better tomorrow that will not only benefit my family and I, but also benefit my union brothers at vulnerable line stations ? Absolutely! 

      This is not a good deal for us. I am not going to consider our present economic climate because I am confident that as always, it "will" change. By voting no, one is saying to them, you can do better (they can, don't kid yourself). I gave when management asked me to give. And just as they always have found a way to give generously to shareholders and CEO's, regardless of the economic climate, it is now managements turn to give back to those who have worked diligently to make this airline what it is today. These are not gifts, they are well deserved "earned" wages and benefits that will in the long run pay off as a direct result of investing in its number one strength-its laborers. By doing so, it will in turn produce an even better, more profitable service/product as an airline than ever before. Thus, keeping its workers from slipping out of America's already endangered middle class status without sacrificing compensation for investors. We don't have to be the first Walmart of U.S. airlines. And make no mistake, this is where we're heading if we accept this offer.

      When the economic climate changes and UAL finds itself posting record profits once again (and it will), I will say, "you see, I told you so." One cannot make any progress by consistently taking two steps back and one forward. This is stagnation. This is not how our parents did it and it's not how we should do it either-specially in today's competitive economic climate.
    • pat nolan
      Shane, We are all entitled to our opinion and our vote,however ALL information should be looked at befor voting.....Just a small raise will suffice for some,
      Message 2 of 7 , Feb 18, 2013
      • 0 Attachment
        Shane,
        We are all entitled to our opinion and our vote,however ALL information should be looked at befor voting.....Just a small raise will suffice for some, and for some the WHOLE  package is important....We need to concern ourselves with OUR airline and not any other airline. Everyone should educate themselves as this is something that will effect your lives.
        Also remember if we vote no.....we DO NOT STRIKE ...they would have to go back to negotiations, it's a long process and then the President of USA gets involved and more than likely he will not allow us to strike. Our current contract will stay in place till we ratify a new one.....
        Hope this helps ...
        Pat

        From: Shane White <urbuddha@...>
        To: pat nolan <ualnolan@...>
        Cc: aimee herrera <aherrera223@...>; amor kennealy <skiesdlimit09@...>; amy celis <celis305@...>; cathy bird <metroden222@...>; cathy carson <mykitcarson@...>; cindy christensen <keldanty3@...>; claire bender <CLAIRE.BENDER@...>; claudia fenton-snow <ckfckf2@...>; Darci <browneyedgirl614@...>; deb abeyta <ddabeyta@...>; debbie canning <dclei@...>; diane flannigan <dflannigan2416@...>; dulcie heiman <DulcieDuck@...>; Frances Finau <francesfinau@...>; gale abayon <ggabayon@...>; graciela kaden <egraciela@...>; karen koonze <kkoonze@...>; laura halliday <tannerlgh@...>; lisa shingu <ohsooblessed@...>; maria LEE <andmlee@...>; maritza saraga <msarragareyes@...>; mark manber <markdmanber@...>; masato inoue <etoile777@...>; michael jackson <mtj39@...>; nancy levensohn <NLevinsohn@...>; nancy lorenzo <doncel5@...>; "P@ti dewald" <pdfgxx@...>; richard jenkins <blkis007@...>; rosemary sullivan <sfsullivan@...>; Rubin Leandro <rubensinbox@...>; scott rothstein <scott@...>; "sfocs@yahoogroups.com" <sfocs@yahoogroups.com>; stephanie walchek <viktor100@...>; susanna segura <gitana747@...>; suzie egri <suzie.egri@...>; theresa flor <rluz874830@...>; tina hassmer <thassmer@...>; veronique salgado <cessette@...>; wally chew <sirchew@...>
        Sent: Monday, February 18, 2013 4:03 PM
        Subject: Re: Plz read

        If we vote this contract down we will be shooting ourselves in the foot. We would most likely find ourselves with the same pay we are making right now many years from now (see US Airways/America West it is still happening to them). If we vote pro contract we will at least have a raise and we all need that. If you want more money vote for this contract. I'm voting in favor :YES.

        On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 12:47 PM, pat nolan <ualnolan@...> wrote:
        If you have questions about the tentative agreement plz read
        It's lengthy but worth reading and so on point.



        A worthy passionate post from the IAM Stakeholders Group 
        Orlando Galvez If I remember correctly, the last time we found ourselves in similar circumstances UAL had just furnished its fleet with the notorious 777.Today, just a yesterday we find ourselves once again in negotiations and with the newest aircraft in the market. Same product, different sales pitch. It is not difficult to understand how their latest addition of its costliest aircraft ever purchased-Dreamliner was somehow made reality considering our economic climate. 
        I am beginning to see a pattern.

        The items this contract has to offer, are items that if you remember, had already been negotiated by our union representatives once before. Vacation (5th week added), holidays, base pay at a rate of $24, and sick pay to name a few, all had been negotiated as a result of post ESOP concessions. 

        What this contract is in essence doing is creating an imaginary impression of a "new" contract. The question I'm asking is, whats new about it, other than its date and a few more takeaways?

        All of the items that have a "catchy bite" to them, such as "vacation 5th-week added", or "100% sick pay", and "holiday" are parts of a list that we painfully sacrificed in 2002/3 as a result of a collective effort to save our jobs as a consequence of our airlines bankruptcy hearings. Retirements for those who honorably dedicated a lifetime of good health to keep this airline operating efficiently where sacrificed then, and similarly today, we find ourselves yet again, sticking it to our retiree's with the elimination of their essential health insurance at a time when they will be needing it most. Two self inflicting wounds that sooner or later, we are all destined to feel, if we allow. Again, I'm beginning to see a pattern.

        If you look closely at all the costs of living variables such as that of gasoline, groceries, rents, gas and electricity, unlike our base pay, all have risen steadily in the last decade. This is where the devil is hidden, in the details. Almost everything that we gave up in hourly wages, vacation, sick pay, holidays, etc, one decade ago is being wrapped up in a nice package and being passed as the "new agreement." So, again, to put it differently, how can something that we already once had be new again? The answer is-it's not new. It's not better. And it's far from being reasonable for our families and ourselves especially considering our current economic climate.

        There is nothing new to this contract. Many, if not all, of these items should be returned right back to us unhampered and with the addition of real "NEW' increases added for losses lost over time. If not, then it will be as if this contract simply got extended by remaining unchanged from as far back as 2002 (see a pattern?) when we had all of these already familiar items negotiated once before. Problem is, none of our costs have remained the same. And if none of our living costs have remained the same, then why should we accept our pay to remain the same? Heck, even UAL's aircraft have not remained the same.

        Andy, you mentioned that you are kinda surprised that this is so generous an offer because we need consider our economic climate. Really? I wonder, will UAL consider raising our pay and family benefits should the economic climate suddenly become bullish (as it has shown it can be)? Did UAL consider the economic climate recently with its insensitive and arrogant purchase of the most costly state of the art aircraft in its history of operations while simultaneously using its merger as cover to buy time to operate under expired terms stalling our wage and benefit increases saving them millions in operating costs? Do you not think that this doesn't favor its interest and incentive to generate generous returns for its shareholders and come up with undeserving, overinflated end of the year bonuses for it's executives and CEO (pattern?). With this in mind, I am not convinced that our airline is not capable of giving us what we want and need (not a pattern).

        Andy, you are correct when you say that life was different for our parents. Our parents, unlike so many of us today, sacrificed and fought stubbornly in solidarity to get what they well deserved. Our parents did not stand for this ideology of "well I moved, you can too." Greg is correct in his plea for the needs of those at the line stations and we as one brotherhood have an obligation, "not a choice", to back his cry for support. Greg is absolutely correct when he says that they at the lines perform to the standards as the hub stations, and in doing so, deserve just the same as those at the hubs. 

        The point is, it is this very same lack of support that Greg has to plea for ( a plea that as a union brother he should not have to make, a plea that our fathers would translate to as a result of someone being disloyal) that has over the years weaken our nations unions as a whole. It is this selfish mentality of "I got mine, I don't care if you don't get yours" that has crippled the American unions and in turn, strengthen managements position to outsource jobs without a unions consent inside those ivory towers you spoke of.

        This is how the end begins for American unions and over time erodes our middle class (i.e. our standard of living). For generations, this has been a long term strategy for management. Convince just enough folks to get a mediocre contract passed, then, once it does, let the disagreements amongst members continue to simmer while in the meantime, just as Greg warns, as a result of lack of solidarity, which in turn increases managements leverage facilitating their strategic positions that aid them in contracting out jobs. "Our" jobs, not their jobs.

        As a case in point, take Greg's example of Eastern. Eastern strategically began contracting out their lines and eventually, very cleverly lead to the contracting out of the jobs at its hubs over the long haul. And where is Eastern today? This is not a consequence of our economic climate, but rather a strategy that has worked successfully in managements favor for generations while weakening unions over time. The only way to avoid such tragic losses and in turn preserve us as a middle class is to remain constantly vigilant while keeping one step ahead. This means taking risks. Risks like perhaps not accepting the companies first and only offer. Does this mean sacrificing? If need so-yes. Am I willing to make such a sacrifice for a better tomorrow that will not only benefit my family and I, but also benefit my union brothers at vulnerable line stations ? Absolutely! 

        This is not a good deal for us. I am not going to consider our present economic climate because I am confident that as always, it "will" change. By voting no, one is saying to them, you can do better (they can, don't kid yourself). I gave when management asked me to give. And just as they always have found a way to give generously to shareholders and CEO's, regardless of the economic climate, it is now managements turn to give back to those who have worked diligently to make this airline what it is today. These are not gifts, they are well deserved "earned" wages and benefits that will in the long run pay off as a direct result of investing in its number one strength-its laborers. By doing so, it will in turn produce an even better, more profitable service/product as an airline than ever before. Thus, keeping its workers from slipping out of America's already endangered middle class status without sacrificing compensation for investors. We don't have to be the first Walmart of U.S. airlines. And make no mistake, this is where we're heading if we accept this offer.

        When the economic climate changes and UAL finds itself posting record profits once again (and it will), I will say, "you see, I told you so." One cannot make any progress by consistently taking two steps back and one forward. This is stagnation. This is not how our parents did it and it's not how we should do it either-specially in today's competitive economic climate.



      • Tpatel1105@...
        How about us getting $40.000.00!!!!!!! i am saying NO to Contract. United Continental Writes Labor Another Big Check By Adam Levine-Weinberg |
        Message 3 of 7 , Feb 27, 2013
        • 0 Attachment
          How about us getting $40.000.00!!!!!!! i am saying NO to Contract.

          United Continental Writes Labor Another Big Check

          As United Continental (NYSE: UAL  ) merges the operations of its predecessors (United Airlines and Continental Airlines) the integration of its labor groups has been one of the toughest tasks. Full integration is necessary for United to realize the synergies it expects from the merger. While United's management originally hoped to complete integration in 12-18 months, significant work remains to be done more than two years after the merger was finalized on Oct. 1, 2010.
          Two weeks ago, United took another step toward completing the integration of its labor groups. The company announced that it had reached a tentative agreement with the IAM union, which represents more than 28,000 fleet service workers, customer service agents, and storekeepers for United. While it is critical for United to complete these new labor contracts, it has only done so by writing big checks to its labor groups. These costs may be filed away as "special items" in United's earnings reports, but they are eating away at United's cash flow nonetheless.
          Pilot payday
          United completed a new labor contract with its pilots last year. The pilot agreement boosted pay by an average of 43.2%, but also included a $400 million lump sum payment: roughly $40,000 per pilot. Including other costs, the ratification of the agreement led United to take a $475 million charge last year. The primary justification for the lump sum payments is that they represent retroactive pay; in other words, they make up for raises that employees would have received while negotiations were occurring.
          Deja vu
          This month's IAM agreement will also include a significant amount of retroactive pay. The IAM states that the current contract ought to have been completed as early as 2010, and employees have lost substantial income (in the form of foregone raises) due to the delay. According to a preview of the agreement released by the IAM last week, workers will share a total of $130 million in retroactive pay. The wage raises included in the agreement are fairly modest (5%-10%), but workers will also receive additional protection against layoffs and perks like more vacation time.
          The short-term costs of United's new labor agreements are significant, and it could take many  years for United to make up for these front-loaded costs in future savings. While United ended last year with plenty of unrestricted cash ($6.5 billion), that is down by $2.2 billion from the end of 2010, and is offset by United's heavy debt burden. The one-time costs of United's new labor agreements are just one reason why United is probably a value trap.
        • Beth Miller
          I would think k most are. The 80/20 is the main deal breaker for me.  Every department turned it down at least one time. If you take the first contract,
          Message 4 of 7 , Feb 27, 2013
          • 0 Attachment
            I would think k most are. The 80/20 is the main deal breaker for me. 

            Every department turned it down at least one time. If you take the first contract,  then it no longer is a negotiation.  But the IAM needs to have a good planning on their revised rebuttal.  

            You never take the first submission on the sale of your house. Both parties are interested in a resolution.  




            Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE Smartphone



            -------- Original message --------
            From: Tpatel1105@...
            Date:
            To: sfocs@yahoogroups.com
            Subject: [sfocs] Re: Plz read


             

            How about us getting $40.000.00!!!!!!! i am saying NO to Contract.

            United Continental Writes Labor Another Big Check

          • Tpatel1105@...
            Below are my thoughts. First, I do not think we should pay 20% copay for the insurance. If pilots want to pay, let them. I am certain that if we get what we
            Message 5 of 7 , Feb 27, 2013
            • 0 Attachment

               Below are my thoughts. 
               First, I do not think we should pay 20% copay for the insurance. If pilots want to pay, let them. I am certain that if we get what we want, the pilots will go to the corporate office (namely to Jeff) demanding 20% copay wave or will start unnecessary drama such as not flying the planes. They will ultimately leave us hanging and to deal with angry customers, which is entirely unfair. 

               If we end up paying 20% per person, we will be paying around $100.00 to $150.00 per month for premium, in addition to co-payments for doctors visits and hospital stays. If there is any doubt regarding this, I have proof that this will be the ultimate end result. In 2008, Mr. Vern Luxunberg (IAM) did me wrong. Because of him, I was sent to work at the maintenance base. He told me that he negotiated for me so I could keep my seniority and benefits. However, when I started working, United began to take out $179.00/month for insurance payments for Kaiser. This was taken out without my permission. I have yet to receive any written information, explanation, or confirmation from IAM or Vern. 

               Therefore, adding another 20% co payment will result in no benefit for us. In fact, it will harm us. IAM repeatedly informed us that we would get the best contract; if this is the best they can do, then this should be voted down. 

              Lastly, job security for those who have less than 10 years with United should not vote if they are planning to stay with United for a long period of time. 



              Best,
              Mahesh Patel
            • scott@alumni.ucla.edu
              I don t think there are too many active people on this group anymore. I encourage you to join our TA discussion group and share your thoughts there. Send an
              Message 6 of 7 , Feb 28, 2013
              • 0 Attachment
                I don't think there are too many active people on this group anymore. I
                encourage you to join our TA discussion group and share your thoughts there.

                Send an e-mail to: sfocsta-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

                Original Message:
                -----------------
                From: Tpatel1105@...
                Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2013 18:03:15 -0500 (EST)
                To: sfocs@yahoogroups.com
                Subject: [sfocs] Re: Plz read




                Below are my thoughts.
                First, I do not think we should pay 20% copay for the insurance. If pilots
                want
                to pay, let them. I am certain that if we get what we want, the pilots will
                go
                to the corporate office (namely to Jeff) demanding 20% copay wave or will
                start
                unnecessary drama such as not flying the planes. They will ultimately leave
                us
                hanging and to deal with angry customers, which is entirely unfair.


                If we end up paying 20% per person, we will be paying around $100.00 to
                $150.00
                per month for premium, in addition to co-payments for doctors visits and
                hospital stays. If there is any doubt regarding this, I have proof that
                this
                will be the ultimate end result. In 2008, Mr. Vern Luxunberg (IAM) did me
                wrong.
                Because of him, I was sent to work at the maintenance base. He told me that
                he
                negotiated for me so I could keep my seniority and benefits. However, when
                I
                started working, United began to take out $179.00/month for insurance
                payments
                for Kaiser. This was taken out without my permission. I have yet to receive
                any
                written information, explanation, or confirmation from IAM or Vern.


                Therefore, adding another 20% co payment will result in no benefit for us.
                In
                fact, it will harm us. IAM repeatedly informed us that we would get the
                best
                contract; if this is the best they can do, then this should be voted down.


                Lastly, job security for those who have less than 10 years with United
                should
                not vote if they are planning to stay with United for a long period of
                time.






                Best,
                Mahesh Patel


                --------------------------------------------------------------------
                mail2web - Check your email from the web at
                http://link.mail2web.com/mail2web
              • scott@alumni.ucla.edu
                Tentative Agreement ... From: Beth Miller bg.miller@sbcglobal.net Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2013 07:48:09 -0800 To: scott@alumni.ucla.edu Subject: RE: [sfocs] Re: Plz
                Message 7 of 7 , Feb 28, 2013
                • 0 Attachment
                  Tentative Agreement

                  Original Message:
                  -----------------
                  From: Beth Miller bg.miller@...
                  Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2013 07:48:09 -0800
                  To: scott@...
                  Subject: RE: [sfocs] Re: Plz read


                  What is a TA? 


                  Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE Smartphone

                  -------- Original message --------
                  From: scott@...
                  Date:
                  To: sfocs@yahoogroups.com
                  Subject: RE: [sfocs] Re: Plz read

                  I don't think there are too many active people on this group anymore. I
                  encourage you to join our TA discussion group and share your thoughts there.

                  Send an e-mail to: sfocsta-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

                  Original Message:
                  -----------------
                  From: Tpatel1105@...
                  Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2013 18:03:15 -0500 (EST)
                  To: sfocs@yahoogroups.com
                  Subject: [sfocs] Re: Plz read

                  Below are my thoughts.
                  First, I do not think we should pay 20% copay for the insurance. If pilots
                  want
                  to pay, let them. I am certain that if we get what we want, the pilots will
                  go
                  to the corporate office (namely to Jeff) demanding 20% copay wave or will
                  start
                  unnecessary drama such as not flying the planes. They will ultimately leave
                  us
                  hanging and to deal with angry customers, which is entirely unfair.

                  If we end up paying 20% per person, we will be

                  --------------------------------------------------------------------
                  mail2web LIVE – Free email based on Microsoft® Exchange technology -
                  http://link.mail2web.com/LIVE
                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.