PDA

View Full Version : Strike Against FlightSafety



papajoe
01-09-2007, 09:19 AM
Has anyone heard about this or know any details?

http://www.ktul.com/news/stories/0107/386662.html

Union May Strike Against Vance Contractor
Tuesday January 09, 2007 8:07am

Enid (AP) - Strikers may be walking picket lines next week outside Vance Air Force Base in Enid.

Members of the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers union are considering a strike against FlightSafety International because of a contract dispute.

Union local president Jerry McCune says a strike vote is set for Saturday and picketing could begin Tuesday. He says the Air Force will assign the union a gate to picket and all other union workers will enter the base through a separate gate.

An official with the 71st Flying Training Wing at Vance says base officials have no comment. Frank McIntyre says any strike wold be against FlightSafety International and not against the Air Force.

McIntyre says base officials have no problems with a strike as long as picketers don't interfere with traffic or create a safety hazard.

Textech
01-09-2007, 09:59 AM
In a nutshell.(as I heard it through the grapevine) FSSC picked up the T-38C contract on 1 Oct. All employees were picked up, and given the Oct. raise that was negotiated with Boeing last year.

The Union wanted FSSC to just sign on to the CBA that they had with Boeing. FSSC wanted to negotiate a new CBA. IAM walked out.

They got together again. FSSC objected to deducting union dues out of employees pay, as they are not in the business of being a collection company for the union. Employees who want to be union are responsible for paying thier own dues. Turns out that most employees are not voluntarily paying their dues. IAM walked out.

I heard that the other sticking point is that the union doesn't want the Shop Lead to be a "working supervisor". All of FSSC's maintenance leads are working, senior, technicians. There is a site Manager, and an Administrator/HR at each site, so another "manager" is not required. Not to mention a tremendous waste of money.

It looks to many of us that if IAM would try to negotiate instead of trying to dictate. And quit walking out. This strike could be avoided.

PhantomPharter
01-09-2007, 05:52 PM
Having been under IAM and Teamsters on contracts it seemed IAM has always talked and not listened no matter where I've been. Teamsters had an open ear. But, other folks may have had it the other way-that's just my own experience with both through the years.

guest
01-10-2007, 01:33 AM
Here is a little more information:

http://www.enidnews.com/localnews/local_story_008235148.html

Textech
01-10-2007, 08:27 AM
Here is a little more information:

http://www.enidnews.com/localnews/local_story_008235148.html



“The company refuses to do a bridge agreement,” said Mc-Cune. “They want to try to gut it (the contract), to take away wages and benefits. They are a very negative company. The only recourse we have is a work stoppage.”

FlightSafety International, McCune said, wants to “scratch bargain,” to completely do away with the present contract and start over.

“We aren’t asking for anything additional, we just want to maintain what we have,” said McCune. “To do that every time a contractor changes, we can’t do that. They are trying to take stuff away that has been there for 20 years or more. We are forced to take a strike action.”

Isn't FSSC entitled to their own CBA?

The "bridge agreement" was given to the employees. IAMAW showed up 2 weeks later, making demands that the employees didn't know about. None of which did anything for the employees, just for the union.

They didn't change the wage agreement at all.

These folks have been union for just over a year at most of the sites involved. It didn't change 20 years of anything.

Contract changes happen every 5-10 years. If the union can't negotiate a CBA every 5-10 years, what are your union dues going to?

liljoe2k
01-10-2007, 03:46 PM
I'm one of those Boeing people who was "absorbed" by Flight Safety. help:

I think we all need to hear more from FSSC argue: as well as the Union representatives before too many people start jumping to conclusions! purplex:

I know the sample CBA that was supposedly presented by FSSC in a Nov. meeting of the sides does not particularly sit well with me just in the basic nature of how it is composed and the content of it. A CBA really isn't necessary as a satisfactory one was in place. What seems to be the major bone of contention is FSSC is not willing to negotiate a "Bridge Agreement," which could easily and quickly resolve most all of the issues as I see it! huh4: Of course, I am only one individual in this whole thing.

valliesgirl
01-16-2007, 04:08 AM
The FSSC employees affected by the quoted news article have been unionized for well over 20 years and each time a CBA has expired the new CBA has been negotiated using the previous agreement as a shell, so to speak. This has been the case at least since McDonnell Douglas/Boeing won the contract from Lockheed Martin and for every CBA since.

While the Union at Vance has some good reasons to strike, so too does Flight Safety have some good reasons not to agree to all the Union's demands. My fear is that the Union is using this issue to set a precedent for future negotiations with FSSC, perhaps at a severe cost to the 4 FSSC employees.

For now, they have voted to strike but have postponed the strike until a federal mediator can be brought in to attempt to resolve this issue. We shall see...box:

shamus
01-17-2007, 10:50 PM
I would like to share a few things, as I understand them, about what is happening with Flight Safety.

First, all incumbent employees wanting to continue working with Flight Safety were hired at the rates and equivalent negotiated with Boeing CBAs, as required by law.

Second, yes, the bargaining units (all three) asked the company to sign bridge agreements with the Union for the CBAs in effect, as is the usual custom with companies taking over a service contract. I have been through this with two different companies and never had these problems. At least a portion of these CBAs were provided to each company submitting a bid, with the request for proposal, so the company was aware of what was in them. The company claimed not to know what a bridge agreement was so the Union presented them with one.

Third, yes, the Union did ask the company to perform dues check off, both to assist the union and the employees. The company is very hard lined against doing this, but is willing to do deductions for computers bought from Gateway and other allotments. I don’t understand the difference except for making things difficult for union members.

Fourth, only Vance AFB, as I know it, is a Federal Enclave where everyone is required to be a union member or pay a dues equivalent. Everywhere else is a right-to-work for less state and employees cannot be required to pay, so they must be voluntarily paying their dues. Let’s face it, DOL wages stink in most of these locations and if the employees go back to DOL rates, their pay will be reduced by up to 30%. Of course some locations have employees who choose not to pay dues and live on the welfare of their fellow workers. It’s interesting to me that they want to complain about not being included in the negotiation process or vote. That’s their choice however much many of us disagree with it.

Fifth, the Company just happened to hire the incumbent “maintenance leads” (hourly) as “maintenance managers” (salary) at five of the six locations, however the wages, from what I have heard, are the same as a tech III lead. Gee, does this not sound like a way to undermine the Union’s strength? Also, I heard that it is the Company’s plan to restore them to “maintenance leads” in the new agreement.

This sample CBA, given to us by the company at the first meeting, ultimately destroys most the rights we have bargained for over the years. Vance AFB has been organized forever, Columbus and Moody since 2000, and Randolph, Laughlin, and Sheppard recently, however at each location has chosen this path to increase their wages. It’s not a lot of fun to wait three or more years to get a raise through DOL.

I realize some folks will not like things I have said or may disagree with it; however some others may not be aware of some of the events. I chose to stick with this job because I enjoy it and love supporting our Air Force. Thanks for your time and good luck to each of you throughout this process. I truly believe that the Union does not want to strike, but will to protect its members.
deal:

simman4ever
01-29-2007, 11:10 AM
So, has anyone have any updates to the FlightSafety/Union issues?

shamus
01-30-2007, 05:09 AM
Things are kind of on hold as Flight Safety and the Union try to come up with dates to get together with the Federal Mediator. Its starting to look like talks will not be held until the end of February or beginning of March unless something changes in the next couple of days. Trying to get everyone together with conflicting schedules appears to be a great challenge.

Maverick
02-02-2007, 12:34 PM
In a nutshell.(as I heard it through the grapevine) FSSC picked up the T-38C contract on 1 Oct. All employees were picked up, and given the Oct. raise that was negotiated with Boeing last year.

The Union wanted FSSC to just sign on to the CBA that they had with Boeing. FSSC wanted to negotiate a new CBA. IAM walked out.

They got together again. FSSC objected to deducting union dues out of employees pay, as they are not in the business of being a collection company for the union. Employees who want to be union are responsible for paying thier own dues. Turns out that most employees are not voluntarily paying their dues. IAM walked out.

I heard that the other sticking point is that the union doesn't want the Shop Lead to be a "working supervisor". All of FSSC's maintenance leads are working, senior, technicians. There is a site Manager, and an Administrator/HR at each site, so another "manager" is not required. Not to mention a tremendous waste of money.

It looks to many of us that if IAM would try to negotiate instead of trying to dictate. And quit walking out. This strike could be avoided.

Here is what I know of the situation. Flight Safety obtained both the AETC Maintenance contract at all six facilities on 1 Oct 06. They also aquired the KC-10 Contract ( which is one contract for all including Maintenance, Instructors, and Courseware) at both Tavis and Mcguire. Flight Safety started negotiations with all six AETC sites (Columbus, Moody, Sheppard, Vance, Randolf, and Loflin) at the same time. Only Columbus and Vance are represented by IAMAW, all other sites are Associations. The first thing they did was to disolve the CBA at all sites including the KC-10 programs. The cut the negotiated benifits at all locations and did not give the moneys back to the employees as required by the Service Contract Act. They cut manning at both KC-10 sites. They cut shift deferitial in the AETC Programs. They are unwilling to negotiate the CBA, only pay and benifits. So I don't think that you can lay blame intirely on the IAM. Travis is an Association. Mcquire is still with IAM, but most of the AETC sites are not IAM. Bottom line is, they underbid the KC-10 contract by at least 40 million dollars over a ten year period, according to Boeing, and no one can understand how they expect to make up this money except to take it out of our butts. JP

Maverick
02-02-2007, 01:16 PM
Here is what I know. Flight Safety Services Corporation aquired both the AETC Maintenance and the KC-10 Contracts on 1 Oct 06. The AETC contracts are seperate for Maintenace, Instructors, and Courseware. The KC-10 contract includes Maintenance, Instructors, and Courseware. The AETC contract includes Columbus, Moody, Sheppard, Vance, Randolf, and Loflin. All sites are negotiating with Flight Safety at the same time at a pre-approved location. The KC-10 contract includes Mcguire and Travis. The negotiations are always kept seperate. IAMAW represents Columbus, Vance, and Mcquire. All other sites represent themselves as an Association. The first thing Flight Safety did was null and void the pre-negotiated CBA at all sites. Only the negotiated 1 Oct 06 pay was given as required by law. The benefits packages were cut at all sites, and money was not given as require by the Service Contract Act to replace the lost benifits at any of the sites. Shift Differential pay was cut at some locations. Sites were told the CBA would not be negtiated, only pay and benifits as required by law. The CBA that is used is used for all sites is the current C-5 CBA, and if you want to know how bad it is just find a C-5 Flight Safety employee and you'll get an earfull. If anyone thinks that the IAM is to blame for the failure in the negotiations just think how you wold feel if you had worked at a job for many years and a new company walked in and put you on a 6 MONTHS Probation and cut your benifits, told you they could work you as often as they liked, change you schedule whenever they pleased, send you TDY at there wim with little or no compenstion, and on top of everything didn't care about your sites specific problems that you had worked hard for many years to resolve with your current CBA. As far as the KC-10 contract goes, we were told that Flight Safety bid 40 million dollars less than Boeing over a ten year period. No one understands how they expect to make up this money. We suspect they will try to take it out of our butts as this is what we are experiencing at this time. Manning cuts, forced overtime, constant schedule changes. This program has touted as the best in the Air Force and all other AMC programs are planned to be mirrored to this one. We do all the training on site after the students leave AETC or come from another airframe. This saves the government milions of dollars in TDY costs. The only type of program that Flight Saftey understands is the C-5 program that operates with a Schoolhouse at Altus and does refresher training at the assigned bases. They want this program so they can get in and get prepared to bid the C-17 contract as soon as procurement is complete, thats when the contract will be opened up for bid. By having the KC-10 program and defining how to address all the problems with on site training, they will be in a better postion to aquire the C-17 contract and show the Air Force they can do it the same as we do.

Maverick
02-02-2007, 01:24 PM
Sorry, I guess I don't understand this site yet. I was try to post a thread not a reply on the second reply.

Maverick
02-02-2007, 04:51 PM
It seems the strike is on hold for Federal Mediations set for next week if it meets with everyones schedule for the AETC contract.

Textech
02-02-2007, 09:59 PM
Some of the above is correct. Some is assumption and conjecture, and some is completely wrong. It will probably be march before we know how the mediation went. I hope for the best for all the employees, and for FlightSafety. Rest assured that FSSC will cut manning before they cut wages. I have never seen them cut wages. The benefits package is not much different than what I had with Boeing. Laughlin is IAW not an "associate". FSI may be trying to bust the union, but I don't think they will be successful. They will ,however ,be able to start from the ground up; putting them in a better bargaining position. TDY with no compensation? What do you mean? They pay time, travel, lodging, and per diem. What else do you want?

Maverick
02-05-2007, 12:54 AM
Some of the above is correct. Some is assumption and conjecture, and some is completely wrong. It will probably be march before we know how the mediation went. I hope for the best for all the employees, and for FlightSafety. Rest assured that FSSC will cut manning before they cut wages. I have never seen them cut wages. The benefits package is not much different than what I had with Boeing. Laughlin is IAW not an "associate". FSI may be trying to bust the union, but I don't think they will be successful. They will ,however ,be able to start from the ground up; putting them in a better bargaining position. TDY with no compensation? What do you mean? They pay time, travel, lodging, and per diem. What else do you want?

Okay, Lets look at some of my conjectures. First I did not say anything about pay cuts. We know this is against NLRB rules because we have been down that path when Boeing won the KC-10 contract in 2000. Some employees quit because of the huge paycuts. I was hired after this time and joined the union. When this information finally was processed through the NLRB system, they made Boeing backpay every employee that had a pay cut, including the ones that quit. So Flight Safety did give us our Boeing negotiated wages on Oct 1, 2006. Manning cuts, we have already experienced them. Three of the employees were not hired in october when FSSC took over. This has lead to some very unusual scheduling pratices and mandatory overtimes. As far as the Benefits package goes, we gave up some of money that we were getting to not take the benefits package in our last CBA with Boeing. They wanted us to invest this money in our 401 retirement account instead. Many were not happy about it, but none were willing to strike on just one issue. We negotiated a 3.6% package deal, that we actually paid for the .6% that we gave up in the deal. Now FSSC comes along, and puts it back at 3.0% but does not give us back our money. Well this is not legal according to the (Service Contract ACT) maybe, paperwork is at work and I'm home. Point is some employees can loose up to $2000.00 in a year with this cut. It is unfair, and from what I've heard it might be the same in the AETC contract. Okay, I was wrong about Laghlin, I misunderstood the conversation I had with one of the other sites. This is really not a big deal though, point being they are represented as a group and not as individuals. TDY, well I'm here to tell ya, They Don't Care. If they need you, your going. We have guys going for three weeks at a time, away from their families, staying in a hotel by yourself. Travel pay, well if you fly to a job site, the company has to provide transportation and lodging. Now perdium, I live in California, they want to give us about $45.00 a day for meals at Mcquire. That is all three meals. It is kinda hard to cook or save food in a Hotel. If you eat at McDonalds everyday you might be able to make a little money on the TDY. Almost all the companies that I know of personally in this area provide per-dium to cover the travel, food, lodging and as an incentive to get you to go on these excurtions. Who is going to mow the lawn while these people are gone? Do they have to hire someone? Don't say the wife, especially if she is 65 years old, believe me some of the employees here are older than that. Is the $45.00 going to cover that also? That's only one example, ask anyone who as gone at these rates that didn't want to and I'm sure they could come up with many more. They also want to pay according to New Jersey overtime rules. What! we are California residents and pay Ca taxes, why should we fall under New Jersey rules? What do I want? RESPECT, WE ARE NOT IN THE MILITARY!! I am retired. I am a civilian. I have worked as a civilian, after I retired, in a union position with a company that had nothing to do with the government or the Military. I understand what fair treatment is, and as far as TDY's go, it's unfair treatment. I should be treated fairly and with respect just like any other civilian position. I am not trying to be disrespectful to anyone on this web site. What I am trying to do is to get everyone thinking about what it is that we all want in our jobs. We work as Government Contract Employees. The problem is, the government doesn't hold any value to us. Sure the people at the base you work at know how important you are, but if you have ever had any dealings with the contract system in the US Gov. you know what I am talking about. It wouldn't matter if the Wing Commander jumped up and down on their table, they wouldn't listen unless they wanted to. I don't know how to make the government look at these contracts and see that we are all the people that make them work, and they just keep dumping us from one contractor to another. Then they want us to work out the details, that we already worked out with the previous contractor, of the new contract without any help from the government. If we have a problem with the new company, no skin off their backs, they will just blame the failure on the new contractor. But, who gets hurt? Only the employees. With all the government simulator contracts, you would think there would be a National Organization that we could join. With the amount of people in just this one field, we could lobby congress on our own to make the goverment contract office provide some type of protections for all employees that work for THEM.

mbushaw
02-05-2007, 10:32 AM
What do I want? RESPECT, WE ARE NOT IN THE MILITARY!!

With the amount of people in just this one field, we could lobby congress on our own to make the goverment contract office provide some type of protections for all employees that work for THEM.

That's right, you are not in the milatary. That was a Government job, you had mandated protections and entitlements. This is the real world where all you have is yourself. Take a look around, how many other jobs in the civilian sector have the entitlements you are talking about?

As to the thought that you are working for the GCO, better look to see who is signing your paycheck.

I'm sorry for the flames, I've been dealing with an instructor who is retired FAA and has the biggest entitlement attitude that I've ever seen. I read some of that same attitude in your post and it stirs up anger that should be directed elsewhere.

Textech
02-05-2007, 04:16 PM
I have an e-mail from on high that says ALL KC-10 incumbents were offered their jobs at the Oct 1. pay agreement. I assume from this that those three decided not work for FSSC, or they were management, which is almost never picked up on a new contract.

I'm not trying to be nasty, but you really should go out and work in real life first before you make judgements on what is "fair".

Maverick
02-05-2007, 05:30 PM
I have an e-mail from on high that says ALL KC-10 incumbents were offered their jobs at the Oct 1. pay agreement. I assume from this that those three decided not work for FSSC, or they were management, which is almost never picked up on a new contract.

I'm not trying to be nasty, but you really should go out and work in real life first before you make judgements on what is "fair".

All incumbents were not offered their position. One Instructor from each section was not rehired. Numerous Courseware individuals were not hired. All Simtechs were hired. Like I said in one of my earlier e-mails, our contract is not the same as the AETC contracts. We all fall under the same contract in the KC-10 program. The C-5 and C-17 contracts are all inclusive also. I did work as a civilian at Alaska Airlines as an A&P Mechanic for a year and a half after retired. My intention was to work in the FAA, but that never came to be due to a hire freeze at the Burlinggame site.

Luke
02-05-2007, 07:15 PM
It's not just FSSC. Everyone, and I mean every company out there who contracts or subs out, wants to make money for themselves and the shareholders, no matter who they step on or over. As I have posted earlier , most mangers don't belong in the positions they are in because they have no clue what the hell they are doing or how to run a business. They are in it for themselves and screw everyone else.

Ttiny
02-05-2007, 08:15 PM
Congrads Luke

You've hit the nail right on the head.

Textech
02-05-2007, 10:16 PM
I apologize. I was referring to simtechs. I do not know what happened as far as the instructors or software people go. But on the other hand, if you had a business, and you already had a competent courseware section; Why duplicate it if you could utilize what you already have by adding one more person, and not have three extras, and another location to worry about?

Management is management. They always have been, and always will be clueless to what we do. The end of the month numbers, and their bonuses are what keeps them going.

FSSC is not even bidding on the instructor contract for AETC. The money is in maintenance, and parts I guess.

kean
02-06-2007, 05:37 AM
Maintenance and parts is were the money is. About 6 years ago, in Florida Boeing would charge the government a standard engineering rate for technicians at $80.00 per hour. Then the tech got paid $22.00 per hour plus bennies. Most parts are marked up 100%.

In my opinion the problems mention in this thread with the government contracts are going to continue to happen until the sim techs really get organized. I believe that it is going to take a single union representing all sim techs to fix this. As long as we are fragmented and have no real voice these abuses will continue. Additionally the military shops are not the only place were sim techs are under appreciated and under paid. Just look at the independent civilian shops, the ones not part of an airline.

This is only my opinion and everyone knows about them! I hope I have not offended anyone.

Maverick
02-07-2007, 12:53 PM
Maintenance and parts is were the money is. About 6 years ago, in Florida Boeing would charge the government a standard engineering rate for technicians at $80.00 per hour. Then the tech got paid $22.00 per hour plus bennies. Most parts are marked up 100%.

In my opinion the problems mention in this thread with the government contracts are going to continue to happen until the sim techs really get organized. I believe that it is going to take a single union representing all sim techs to fix this. As long as we are fragmented and have no real voice these abuses will continue. Additionally the military shops are not the only place were sim techs are under appreciated and under paid. Just look at the independent civilian shops, the ones not part of an airline.

This is only my opinion and everyone knows about them! I hope I have not offended anyone.

Finally, someone who has seen the light. THANK YOU

Egyptian
02-07-2007, 10:05 PM
I saw that light years ago, just a small problem, we all have to belong to the same organization and speak with one voice, or it will never get a lot better. We are a unique group with a multitude of skills that most people do not need for their job. How many people do you know that work with optics in the morning and hydraulics in the afternoon? Someone want to take on the problem of organizing everyone? We would have one hell of a voice if we all did it together, not just FSSC or DELTA or NWA, you need everyone.

Egyptian

SimGuru
02-08-2007, 01:43 AM
This goes to what I have been saying for years. There needs to be a certification process for Sim Techs.

To work on an airplane you must be an A&P. To work on an air conditioner you must have the licenses and certifications. Ditto plumbers, electricians and a host of other occupations. Heck, who would take their car to a guy who was not ASE certified.

At my shop I have repaired building wiring, repaired air conditioners, painted, plumbed and done a host of other projects (I will admit that they were all in preparation to install of a new device).

However for us techs --- anyone with a two year vo-tech degree in anything dealing with electrons in perfectly suited to be a Sim Tech in the eyes of management.

Folks, until there is a national standard for job skills that defines a Sim Tech and (hope upon hope) an FAA certification for the technicians that work on FAA certified devices that indicates we can maintain our devices in accordance with FAA standards ----- Well, we are at the mercy of the folks in the suits who can read a balance sheet but cannot pour piss out of a boot even if the instructions were printed on the heel.

Just my two cents for what it is worth. Of course my ideas, intelect and good looks plus $2.50 is all I need to get a beer at my local feed lot.

The Pirate
02-09-2007, 12:51 PM
been hear done this.

google the "electronics technician association", it would work for us sim techs.

SimDog
02-15-2007, 03:57 PM
All maintenance incumbents were rehired. The problem was we were talking to two techs to bring our level back to eleven where it has been for years. FSSC didn't want to hear it. So technically they did offer a position to the incumbents, but they deleted 2 slots and demoted a tech to fit their model. Are there worst companies, maybe ? but "Tight Safety" is a good name for them. Just curious, have Sim Techs gone on strike before against any other company?

guest
02-15-2007, 11:38 PM
All maintenance incumbents were rehired. The problem was we were talking to two techs to bring our level back to eleven where it has been for years. FSSC didn't want to hear it. So technically they did offer a position to the incumbents, but they deleted 2 slots and demoted a tech to fit their model. Are there worst companies, maybe ? but "Tight Safety" is a good name for them. Just curious, have Sim Techs gone on strike before against any other company?

Yeah, many of us have worked for "Tight" Safety.
But you haven't seen "Tight" until you've worked for
Pan-Handle...

help:

SimDog
02-16-2007, 08:56 AM
I'll bite. Pan-handle?

The Pirate
02-16-2007, 11:13 AM
PAIFA, PAN AM INTERNATIONAL FLIGHT ACADAMY, or, lovingly refered to as pan-am, pan-handle.faintt:

cgsimtech
02-22-2007, 09:42 PM
Yeah, many of us have worked for "Tight" Safety.
But you haven't seen "Tight" until you've worked for
Pan-Handle...

help:

Tight??? nono:
Hey, we use paperclips, bubblegum and duct tape...
Damn, we're out of duct tape! shocked:

The Pirate
02-23-2007, 12:03 PM
you got our deluxe tool box!!! we just make copies of parts and tools and tape them to the sim!!!!demon:

nastyb
02-23-2007, 09:58 PM
Paper clips, bubble gum and duct tape sounds like our jokes about working on military aircraft. biggrin:

WingNut
02-27-2007, 10:13 AM
I just saw a posting for a Sim Tech II at Wichita Falls, and I'm wondering where the CBA negotiations stand? Do they expect results as favorable as the KC-10 contract? Looking at Travis AFB, it looks as though the CBA hit about 30% over SCA wage. I'm hoping to find out what Wichita Falls wages are looking like.crossfing

Always Learning
03-26-2007, 02:53 PM
What was the outcome of the mediation? At one point someone mentioned being put on probation even though they were encumbent. If this happens it is only because your representation allowed it to happen. LB&B tried to pull the same thing on us at a site in MS and the iam broke it off in thier @#T$)&*!@# and told them THEY were on probation as the new contractor, not employees who had been in place for years, and that was it. No probation. I really hope things worked out for the simtechs involved in all this, but either way I would like to know what happened if someone knows. Thanks.ooh:

dalsimtech
03-31-2007, 03:07 AM
Looks like the responses to "Always Learning" are slow coming in. Somebody out there ought to know something. Any takers?

Textech
04-01-2007, 11:47 PM
There is NO news. We heard that mediations were postponed due to an illness at the IAM. The union guys(here anyway) are not getting any calls returned to keep them informed. It's fun to pick on them. I keep telling them that it's Union business, and has nothing to do with them. Just keep paying your dues like good little soldiers.

I hope the rest of you out there that are with IAM are having a better experience. Our shop has already decided that if we ever organize, we would be better off with representation by Wal- Mart.

The Pirate
04-02-2007, 11:33 AM
and we all know how wally mart LOVES dem union's!!!dunce: lolhit: