11 replies to this topic

[MadMan337]

The reason why we are not voting on the Facility Mx LOA is because the Company would not agree with adding them to the Mechanics CBA. To make sure they had some basic protections an LOA with provisions for a grievance process and very basic scope language was TA'd. Since this TA only pertains to the Facility Mx and does not affect the Mechanics CBA, the Fac. Mx guys will be the only ones to vote on it. As far as trying to have them added to the Mechanic's CBA during Sec. 6, that is a possibility only if the Company will agree to it.

Having all the work groups in the same class and craft in separate CBA's is not a good idea except in certain cases. Some of the groups could cause us to be marginalized if they are added to the Mechanic's CBA but not all. Facility Mx should have their own CBA but I see no harm in the others to be added.

[TheRaven]

The NMB or whatever federal dept. does determine what class or craft. It is up to the Union representing that group where they will fall into. That groups own contract or fit them into an existing contract. I am going to try and explain why aircraft mechanics need to have a stand alone CBA. Aircraft mechanics are at the top of the so called "money food chain" Another work group entering our CBA will just dilute the amount of money available in SWA's mx budget per individual, therefore lowering all parties involved top wages. In other words, there is less money to go around. The old saying of they are just riding our coat tails becomes true. I am not saying Facilities does not deserve the best contract AMFA can offer, just not on the backs of aircraft mechanics. With the new work groups asking to be represented by AMFA, Facilities, tech support, MX control, and MX training, they should just have their own inclusive CBA together. Use the aircraft Mx CBA as a template and move on. To be honest, I feel AMFA National is just out for a money grab, and is really not concerned about the SWA mechanics. Remember AMFA is still a business and it seems wants to make more money at the expense of the aircraft mechanic contract. I have posted the following question on this forum before and on AMFA32's website but no one ever seems to answer, which leads me to believe AMFA leaders are afraid to tell us the truth. Here it is again: If we vote down the LOA's pertaining to Mx ctl, tech support, and training then the membership has spoken and they will not be under our CBA correct? Also since we never got to vote on Facilities they will absolutely not be under our CBA correct? Anxiously awaiting an answer.

[swamt]

TheRaven, on 13 February 2012 - 10:38 PM, said:

The NMB or whatever federal dept. does determine what class or craft. It is up to the Union representing that group where they will fall into. That groups own contract or fit them into an existing contract. I am going to try and explain why aircraft mechanics need to have a stand alone CBA. Aircraft mechanics are at the top of the so called "money food chain" Another work group entering our CBA will just dilute the amount of money available in SWA's mx budget per individual, therefore lowering all parties involved top wages. In other words, there is less money to go around. The old saying of they are just riding our coat tails becomes true. I am not saying Facilities does not deserve the best contract AMFA can offer, just not on the backs of aircraft mechanics. With the new work groups asking to be represented by AMFA, Facilities, tech support, MX control, and MX training, they should just have their own inclusive CBA together. Use the aircraft Mx CBA as a template and move on. To be honest, I feel AMFA National is just out for a money grab, and is really not concerned about the SWA mechanics. Remember AMFA is still a business and it seems wants to make more money at the expense of the aircraft mechanic contract. I have posted the following question on this forum before and on AMFA32's website but no one ever seems to answer, which leads me to believe AMFA leaders are afraid to tell us the truth. Here it is again: If we vote down the LOA's pertaining to Mx ctl, tech support, and training then the membership has spoken and they will not be under our CBA correct? Also since we never got to vote on Facilities they will absolutely not be under our CBA correct? Anxiously awaiting an answer.

Good questions. I too would like to know the answers. I would love to see them under AMFA, but they need to have their own nego contracts. Is this not he very same reason we got the cleaners out of our contract? Hello??

[AvTech04]

And I can also see how having so many crafts under a single contract could be a detriment to CBA negotiations. Now you've added more groups with separate interests under your same agreement and that can severely sway a vote in the wrong direction if additional groups are not on the same page as the mechanic group. I.e. if we negotiate as raise, for example, on the AMFA contract and they don't get the same percentage raise on their end of the CBA, the the additional groups would have a vote and could possibly delay the mechanics portion of the CBA thus delaying the raise. Yea, I'd vote to keep'em separate!!