119 replies to this topic

[boestar]

AC Maintenance will get screwed into another bad contract because the Rampies will vote in favour of it because they have solid gains.  AC Maintenance needs to dump the IAM with all due haste.  The union is yoiur issue NOT the company in this instance.

[Robert]

mrlupin, on 14 February 2012 - 06:46 PM, said:

How do you figure it will not pass? I thought ramp outnumbered maintenance 4-1? Are the station services people voting it down?

Eric
the highlites were full of inaccuracies and now that the entire agreement is out it is really bad. Rights to grieve removed, vacation assigned not bid,schedules imposed not negotiated, there is a whole list of poor items. The YYZ shop committee has recommended rejection and word is that now some of the negots reps are advising the same. This will be interesting. If you are not laid off, try to go have a good read, you will really be disgusted. I would post it but the file is far too large. There is an exam for the LAT5 level, the exam is not passable so the company has guarenteed themselves of not having to pay the new rate.

[mrlupin]

Robert, on 15 February 2012 - 09:04 AM, said:

Eric
the highlites were full of inaccuracies and now that the entire agreement is out it is really bad. Rights to grieve removed, vacation assigned not bid,schedules imposed not negotiated, there is a whole list of poor items. The YYZ shop committee has recommended rejection and word is that now some of the negots reps are advising the same. This will be interesting. If you are not laid off, try to go have a good read, you will really be disgusted. I would post it but the file is far too large. There is an exam for the LAT5 level, the exam is not passable so the company has guarenteed themselves of not having to pay the new rate.

You have my email, would it be possible to send a copy of the agreement?

[conehead]

Me too?

[boestar]

I am curious as well.

[GateKeeper]

mrlupin, on 15 February 2012 - 12:50 PM, said:

You have my email, would it be possible to send a copy of the agreement?

Well mrlupin have you had time to peruse the contract proposal?
Would you ascertain that Robert's statements about: "Rights to grieve removed, vacation assigned not bid,schedules imposed not negotiated,"
are correct...or not?

Edited by GateKeeper, 18 February 2012 - 06:21 PM.

[mrlupin]

I perused some of it.

I did not find right to grieve removed. Vacation appeared to be the same as before, it is just a different system for bidding and slot allocations. We will have to see if they remove slots. The new schedule is a deal breaker for some... 26 extra work days every year.Yes they can impose it.

It's a strange contract... introduction of yearly performance evaluations, some pay increase but AC is still falling behind. I do not know how it will go for the maintenance vote. It's mixed, some people like, some people hate it and most are underinformed.

How are things for station? I have not read your part of the contract but heard that the new employees were taking a hard hit?

[GateKeeper]

Thanks for your perspective.

Regarding my base (YVR), it's rather hard to read. Lots of emotion & misinformation.
Being a senior base there's a lot of concern about any possible pension changes.

Haven't read into any hard hit for new employees...other than they have to wait, upon hiring, for 6 months to receive pass benefits (which I think is reasonable).

I believe it will pass...imho.

Edited by GateKeeper, 18 February 2012 - 08:32 PM.

[Fido]

GateKeeper, on 18 February 2012 - 08:30 PM, said:

new employees...other than they have to wait, upon hiring, for 6 months to receive pass benefits (which I think is reasonable).

I am curious as to when that was not the case.

[GateKeeper]

Not sure Fido.

Evidently we've had a few new hires who, once employed, took off for sunnier climes & didn't return.

Edited by GateKeeper, 18 February 2012 - 09:07 PM.

[boestar]

The passes have been immediately effective for about 6 years.  this practice was recently revoked accross the board and reverted back to the 6 month wait for passes.  This however is not a contractual issue this is a company policy and is not contained in any union contract.

[malcolm]

How things have improved.  The 6 month wait was standard when I started, after that you had 1 pass a year but not transcon.  Those came a number of years later.  We could only use a pass to get to YYZ by going from YVR-MEX-YYZ.  The prohibition on transcon was of course because we (CP)m were limited to 1 or 2 transcon flights a day, AC had a strangle hold on the rest.
So we could go to SPL, TYO, HKG, LIM, SCL, BUE, MEX, HNL, NAN, AKL & SYD but not from YVR to YYZ.

[boestar]

As was mentioned previously the passes were made available on day one about 5 or 6 years ago.  The problem is there were some who abused it by getting a job and going flying then quitting.  Blatant abuse of the system.  Last month they returned to the 6 month wait for passes.  Good Call IMHO.  Pass abuse has been rampant in the past.  Any company that is not ACM has had restrictions placed on their passes (Jazz, Sky Regional, Aveos) recently.

[seeker]

boestar, on 19 February 2012 - 02:30 PM, said:

As was mentioned previously the passes were made available on day one about 5 or 6 years ago.  The problem is there were some who abused it by getting a job and going flying then quitting.  Blatant abuse of the system.  Last month they returned to the 6 month wait for passes.  Good Call IMHO.  Pass abuse has been rampant in the past.  Any company that is not ACM has had restrictions placed on their passes (Jazz, Sky Regional, Aveos) recently.

Yes but you have to look at the reasoning - the justification for passes from day one was that it would compensate/attract people to the relatively low-paying job which would otherwise be very difficult.  You gotta pay one way or the other; wages or free passes.

[boestar]

Well the free pass thing is a misnomer.  Sure I can travel to my hearts content on standby.  With load factors being what they are these days, especially where Myself and the family fly, it really is not that great a perk as it once was.   don't get me wrong I do love it but it comes with a price.  I have been stuck in some places where it has cost me a pretty penny to be stuck.  I have flown 4 legs to get home from LHR with the possibility of being stuck at any of the interim stops.  I know a great many people who do not plan for contingencies if they get bumped and ended up in real trouble.
Trust me that life sucks when a 777 300 with 20 open seats is downgraded to a -200 and they are paying people to stay behind.

[skyline]

Whats the latest

[conehead]

see here...

http://theairlineweb...contract-offer/

[GateKeeper]

Robert, on 10 February 2012 - 12:58 PM, said:

The maint portion of this TA is not acceptable as it now leaves us even further behind the ret of the pack, once again the IAM sold maint downm the river for the gains of the airport group.
The vacation gains and now paid lunch apply only to airports and not maint.

Robert, on 10 February 2012 - 06:47 PM, said:

With heavy now gone, airports has a 4 to ratio on it. The company showed then something shiny and like fish they bit!

Now that the vote is in, do you stand behind those statements?
It's obvious that the membership AS A WHOLE didn't "bite", nor did the airport group sell Maintenance down the river.

What do you have to say on the subject now? You have been rather silent on this matter since your rant.

This TA was rejected across the spectrum.

Edited by GateKeeper, 24 February 2012 - 07:08 PM.

[mrlupin]

GateKeeper, on 24 February 2012 - 06:28 PM, said:

Now that the vote is in, do you stand behind those statements?
It's obvious that the membership AS A WHOLE didn't "bite", nor did the airport group sell Maintenance down the river.

What do you have to say on the subject now? You have been rather silent on this matter since your rant.

This TA was rejected across the spectrum.

I too thought station services would vote in the agreement. I do not think they voted no for maintenance. I suspect it had more to do with the loss of shift control and that sort of language.

Before I address the maintenance part,I need to mention that I despise the IAM. I think we would be better served with an association. I also still think negotiating with a group whose work and scope is so dramatically different is a bad idea and on top of that, the idea of one collective vote for two distinct groups has a stinky smell to it.

On another note, I do not think AC has much more room to sweeten the pot. I think it is in their best interest to find a way to get more adhesion from the maintenance group to any plan they want to put forward. Right now morale is extremely low as well as a lingering perception of no respect from upper management. That probably has more negative repercussions on productivity then most people realize. We had a town hall session with the VP of maintenance... he seems aware of one part of the problem...

[Robert]

GateKeeper, on 24 February 2012 - 06:28 PM, said:

Now that the vote is in, do you stand behind those statements?
It's obvious that the membership AS A WHOLE didn't "bite", nor did the airport group sell Maintenance down the river.

What do you have to say on the subject now? You have been rather silent on this matter since your rant.

This TA was rejected across the spectrum.

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