119 replies to this topic

[runaway]

Robert, on 24 February 2012 - 08:19 PM, said:

I have been rather silent as I have been dealing with a very personal issue at home.

I still stand by my statement! The airports people did not turn it down because maint was getting the short end of the stick, it was due to their not being happy with the aiports lot.
The unit still needs to be broken into two separate groups, no ifs and or buts about it

Robert, on 24 February 2012 - 08:19 PM, said:

airports group who out number us 4 to 1 get to vote on acceptance of the maintennace items. I will tell you now that maint is not happy one bit about this, but it is going to get shoved up our back sides by airport

You clearly stated the airports group would shove this up your backside! I guess we misunderstood that comment!
Your personal issue at home may be preoccupation posting comments on all the news sites that run stories about the union's TA being rejected ??

Edited by runaway, 24 February 2012 - 10:16 PM.

[mrlupin]

runaway, on 24 February 2012 - 10:14 PM, said:

You clearly stated the airports group would shove this up your backside! I guess we misunderstood that comment!
Your personal issue at home may be preoccupation posting comments on all the news sites that run stories about the union's TA being rejected ??

What exactly is your point of contention Runaway? Robert (and I) were wrong in our prediction of how a group totally different from maintenance would vote on a totally different proposal. The point being that the two groups have different issues and concerns and so therefore, in our opinion should not be grouped together. The result of the vote changes little. Even if AC had wanted to give more to maintenance, and that all in maintenance would have voted in agreement, the vote is still being diluted by a group whose interests are irrelevant to maintenance.

I think the conciliator's report will reflect that.

Edited by mrlupin, 25 February 2012 - 09:02 AM.

[Robert]

runaway, on 24 February 2012 - 10:14 PM, said:

Your personal issue at home may be preoccupation posting comments on all the news sites that run stories about the union's TA being rejected ??

Wow, I did not know we had Dr Phil on this board.

[GateKeeper]

mrlupin, on 25 February 2012 - 04:05 AM, said:

The point being that the two groups have different issues and concerns and so therefore, in our opinion should not be grouped together.

Runaway's post is valid.

You (Mtce.) wanted your own Negots Committee...you got it.
The fact that you aren't happy with what THEY recommended should be taken up with them. Attempting to blame Airports is garbage.

I have no problem with Maintenance choosing another union to represent them, if that is what they want.

Where I have a problem is people BSing folks on this forum about what is actually happening & attempting to hijack the agenda.

Edited by GateKeeper, 25 February 2012 - 08:54 PM.

[mrlupin]

GateKeeper, on 25 February 2012 - 08:47 PM, said:

Runaway's post is valid.

You (Mtce.) wanted your own Negots Committee...you got it.
The fact that you aren't happy with what THEY recommended should be taken up with them. Attempting to blame Airports is garbage.

I have no problem with Maintenance choosing another union to represent them, if that is what they want.

Where I have a problem is people BSing folks on this forum about what is actually happening & attempting to hijack the agenda.

I wanted and still want to get rid of the IAM. I just haven't succeeded yet.  If it is your perception that maintenance only wanted a seperate negots committee, then maybe you have gotten a different feel of the maintenance membership then what I got.

Cheers

[runaway]

mrlupin, on 25 February 2012 - 04:05 AM, said:

What exactly is your point of contention Runaway? Robert (and I) were wrong in our prediction of how a group totally different from maintenance would vote on a totally different proposal. The point being that the two groups have different issues and concerns and so therefore, in our opinion should not be grouped together. The result of the vote changes little. Even if AC had wanted to give more to maintenance, and that all in maintenance would have voted in agreement, the vote is still being diluted by a group whose interests are irrelevant to maintenance.

I think the conciliator's report will reflect that.

Point of contention? Is there one?? Wow! Did you predict or assume?  I suspect the latter. Consequently it failed the vote!!
Before the the vote on the T/A, Robert and his many other aliases were poking up the hornet's nest...so to speak. Blabbering ineptly to anyone and everyone about how the airports' group was going to push this T/A through and stiff maintenence. It was enough to get many maintenance people riled up even before they seen the T/A. It didn't get pushed through! He has a few lemmings following him as do you, but for the most part he was sh!t disturbing as he so frequently does. And he does it well!
And if he is in such great demand with his numerous endorsements, then WestJet would be more than happy to have him on their team!!

[malcolm]

The only way to settle this argument or at least bring in some rhyme and reason is if we knew how many folks actually voted and then the breakdown by group.  In other words was the agreement defeated because of an overwhelming turnout of Technical folks outnumbering the ramp staff or was the reverse true etc.

[mrlupin]

malcolm, on 26 February 2012 - 07:16 AM, said:

The only way to settle this argument or at least bring in some rhyme and reason is if we knew how many folks actually voted and then the breakdown by group.  In other words was the agreement defeated because of an overwhelming turnout of Technical folks outnumbering the ramp staff or was the reverse true etc.

Why black or white Malcolm? Are you open to a bit of both? A great turn out for maintenance (with more then likely, a majority no vote) and a majority no vote by station services. The union isn't very transparent but it probably does have a decent idea of how the vote was distributed. Maintenance and station were not voting at the same location in YUL. A simple ballot box report would give you a sample from which you could infer a projection. It might not hold true for other stations but it would give a rough idea. I just do not think the IAM will be open to releasing that information.

[malcolm]

Not black and white only which the "etc." was meant to include in my post.  
Re the IAM releasing the information, I don't think that would be likely but perhaps those involved can request and post that information.

Cheers.

[conehead]

No way of separating the results in YYZ as both Maintenance and Airports voted at the same location.... however, it is known that combined, Toronto voted 90% "NO" to the contract, and 90% "YES" to strike.

[mrlupin]

conehead, on 26 February 2012 - 11:55 AM, said:

No way of separating the results in YYZ as both Maintenance and Airports voted at the same location.... however, it is known that combined, Toronto voted 90% "NO" to the contract, and 90% "YES" to strike.

Impressive. YYZ having the most employees for both maintenance and station services, I am guessing the other stations would probably have passed the TA.

[Specs]

Can somebody tell me the approx numbers of the IAM membership - Airports vs maintenance.  I know its 4 to 1 but what are the approx numbers.  Just curious.

Edited by Specs, 26 February 2012 - 12:53 PM.

[Lazionic]

Specs, on 26 February 2012 - 12:52 PM, said:

Can somebody tell me the approx numbers of the IAM membership - Airports vs maintenance.  I know its 4 to 1 but what are the approx numbers.  Just curious.

from what i was told theres approx 1600 maintenance employees.

[Robert]

runaway, on 25 February 2012 - 11:33 PM, said:

Point of contention? Is there one?? Wow! Did you predict or assume?  I suspect the latter. Consequently it failed the vote!!
Before the the vote on the T/A, Robert and his many other aliases were poking up the hornet's nest...so to speak. Blabbering ineptly to anyone and everyone about how the airports' group was going to push this T/A through and stiff maintenence. It was enough to get many maintenance people riled up even before they seen the T/A. It didn't get pushed through! He has a few lemmings following him as do you, but for the most part he was sh!t disturbing as he so frequently does. And he does it well!
And if he is in such great demand with his numerous endorsements, then WestJet would be more than happy to have him on their team!!

Other aliases, please enlighten me. I go by my given first name on this site, Mitch who is a moderator can confirm.

[boestar]

Runaway is a Troll with all of 2 posts to his credit.  He knows nothig of the real world.  There was good indication that the TA would pass if airports supported it just by shear numbers.  Yes that assumption was incorrect and that is a good thing.  the original assumption was based on solid history that airports will accept a contract that is detrimental to the maintenance group.  It has been like that for 25 years that I have been around on both sides.
Until they are bargaining as two seperate groups one will be propped up and the other brought down.  Not a good arrangement.

[runaway]

boestar, on 27 February 2012 - 04:29 AM, said:

Runaway is a Troll with all of 2 posts to his credit.  He knows nothig of the real world.  There was good indication that the TA would pass if airports supported it just by shear numbers.  Yes that assumption was incorrect and that is a good thing.  the original assumption was based on solid history that airports will accept a contract that is detrimental to the maintenance group.  It has been like that for 25 years that I have been around on both sides.
Until they are bargaining as two seperate groups one will be propped up and the other brought down.  Not a good arrangement.

Using a cap in troll? Interesting!
Lose the pretentiousness!

Robert, on 26 February 2012 - 07:30 PM, said:

Other aliases, please enlighten me. I go by my given first name on this site, Mitch who is a moderator can confirm.

On this site? I'm sure! Attempt at humoring is weak!
Some info....you perceive yourself as the great saviour of maintenance. You're being a tad bit presumptuous if you believe all are on your team!!

[boestar]

3...

[Mitch Cronin]

I'd rather avoid this, but since I was mentioned by name, I will say that I know Robert to be who he claims to be, and nothing less. He uses no aliases here, and as far as I can tell, has no delusions of being anyone's "saviour".

Now, can we please just get on with the business of keel-hauling the numbskulls who thought they could screw maintenance by offering the baggies the moon? (I don't understand why a huge majority of them wouldn't have voted to accept that offer? ....nor do I understand why, if we had separate negotiations, we didn't have separate votes? ... but then, there's all sorts of things I don't understand... like why do good dogs have such short lives while wicked people seem to last so long? ...or why do some people paint all the wood in their house?   )

[dagger]

I guess this is a message from the conciliator - Otis - to the arbitrator who will end up settling this "dispute"

Quote

In a final report dated Feb. 22, Louise Otis as conciliation commissioner writes, “this tentative collective agreement was the result of a fair and productive negotiation process by competent negotiators.
“Tense and arduous by all means, the negotiation was nonetheless undertaken rationally and professionally by both parties,” Otis said.
She called the tentative agreement reasonable and fair, and said the negotiation process, which was carried out diligently and competently, has been exhausted, and she does not recommend talks be resumed or a mediator appointed.

[mrlupin]

dagger, on 05 March 2012 - 11:17 AM, said:

I guess this is a message from the conciliator - Otis - to the arbitrator who will end up settling this "dispute"

Here's the full report...

http://www.iam140.ca.../otisreport.pdf