2014 Fleet Service Discussion

[WeAAsles]

Is it open ended if there is a 7% yearly cap currently? No.  If there isn't any current cap then the alternative would have been to negotiate a cap like the one just negotiated in the context of Obama at United.  Are the Obama taxes a real risk for the company? Yes.  Will the company have signed a TA without addressing this? No.    But handing a blank check is what I have a problem with because the letter becomes two party [arbitrator, company] once the arbitrator triggers any modifications or terminations.  I don't like the process.  It should have included the union, OR, the union should have negotiated a cap to limit whatever it is that is coming our way.

Would have, should have Tim and the issue is 4 years down the road. We still have caps in our CBA. Granted they are higher than what you currently have but just by the fact that they exist means that the company has to bargain still for a solution to merge the two CBA's. You are not thinking outside the box and factoring in our CBA in your thought process. My thoughts are factoring in the language in BOTH contracts. You have to start doing the same.

 

[WeAAsles]

And if you get the 'warm fuzzies' over the initial 90 day 'drop dead' negotiation window, then you might want to see how good that 90 day negotiating window did for those stations that were contracted out at United and pay attention to Brother Delaney's newest update where he has yet another Barbie tantrum saying the company is just "Wrong" to contract out our members because "I think we do a better job than vendors".   Sorry, but when the AGC's and Rich claimed greatness for negotiating sessions that are not longer than 'summer school',  I told folks it was all bull shitt then, like I'm telling you now that the 90 day 'summer school session' negotiations isn't going to do squat in 2018.  We will just have to bare the consequences that's all.  No cap, No nothing.  It's as simple as that.  
 
 
 

The reason that I posted that UAL news item yesterday was to point out that the union was able to keep just about everyone working. Yes it's a tube of toothpaste that small stations are closing and people are being forced to move from there homes but that's what happens when you do not have station protection language going into a JCBA. UAL was able to take full advantage of the prior lack of language on the sCo side. IMO being able to still provide people work if they want it shows that under the circumstances the negotiators did an excellent job. The airlines just do not want to subsidize small stations from the revenue they make in other areas (Hubs)

Both of our contracts have station staffing language and having that is tremendous leverage for our side when it comes to bargaining the next phase.

 

[Tim Nelson]

Tim I do not believe your cap would be waived but of course anything can be negotiated for the plan affected if it were agreed to remain in place? The issue would be if the plan is worth it and if there is a better one out there? And if it were to remain instead of an alternative being presented, who will bear the brunt of those taxes? If it is just taxes on the overage of the dollar amount that's been talked about through this thread, how much could that actually be anyway? It could wind up being a very miniscule amount that may wind up having you laughing in the end that you made such a big deal out of it?

The arbitrator has the power to not only waive any cap, but toss out a whole plan.  The reality of the situation is that everything is 'up for grabs'.  Kindly review the letter and how me where any deductible, any cap, anything at all is not up for modification.  The focus of the arbitrator isn't to keep things but to modify things, and if he can't guarantee, then....bad things man...bad things.

 

[Tim Nelson]

Would have, should have Tim and the issue is 4 years down the road. We still have caps in our CBA. Granted they are higher than what you currently have but just by the fact that they exist means that the company has to bargain still for a solution to merge the two CBA's. You are not thinking outside the box and factoring in our CBA in your thought process. My thoughts are factoring in the language in BOTH contracts. You have to start doing the same.

My thinking is 'inside the ta' only.  I am not comfortable assuming what we may or may not get in a joint contract down the line.  Maybe you are right and the company gives us better benefits or waives this letter. I feel that is impractical and not supported as I approach what is before me now.  Yes, this doesn't affect us for 3.5 years, but I'm in my 50's and I think that tells me that sometime between now and 60 that [law of averages] I'm going to have an appointment with someone other than my regular doctor.  Maybe if I were 30 and didn't have a family I would be more relaxed about just taking the money grab.  But I'm in my 50's and I will need health care the most as each year passes. Yikes!

 

[Tim Nelson]

The reason that I posted that UAL news item yesterday was to point out that the union was able to keep just about everyone working. Yes it's a tube of toothpaste that small stations are closing and people are being forced to move from there homes but that's what happens when you do not have station protection language going into a JCBA. UAL was able to take full advantage of the prior lack of language on the sCo side. IMO being able to still provide people work if they want it shows that under the circumstances the negotiators did an excellent job. The airlines just do not want to subsidize small stations from the revenue they make in other areas (Hubs)

Both of our contracts have station staffing language and having that is tremendous leverage for our side when it comes to bargaining the next phase.

I have consistently said that for those in the small stations that would have otherwise been affected at US AIRWAYS,  that they have reason to vote yes as our scope is good in those stations with this TA.  My station scope gets worse so please respect that.  I don't like the possibility of others doing my work, so my decision is different than someone in RNO.  The United contract sucks.  It has scope for only 7 stations.  I've never been impressed with the right to move 3,000 miles to keep a job due to your home station getting whacked.   7 stations under scope blows and things will continue to pile up at United.  When the movement stops, you will then see the onslaught of more full time jobs going part time over there as well since United can have 100% part time if they want.  It's a UPS contract for sure.  The IAM doesn't care though,  two part timers is twice the revenue of one full timer.  No, the union didn't do their job there as it got an "F" for effort.   That said, scope is #1 [ok next to seniority] so I put our TA as better than United's when it comes to full time issues.  But our TA is the worst for any part timer for sure.  Is the TA good enough for me to vote for? No, because of the clear and future issues with our health care, the cross utilization at my station, and the non address of my retirement.  

 

[WeAAsles]

My thinking is 'inside the ta' only.  I am not comfortable assuming what we may or may not get in a joint contract down the line.  Maybe you are right and the company gives us better benefits or waives this letter. I feel that is impractical and not supported as I approach what is before me now.  Yes, this doesn't affect us for 3.5 years, but I'm in my 50's and I think that tells me that sometime between now and 60 that [law of averages] I'm going to have an appointment with someone other than my regular doctor.  Maybe if I were 30 and didn't have a family I would be more relaxed about just taking the money grab.  But I'm in my 50's and I will need health care the most as each year passes. Yikes!

Well personally I think your thought process is flawed then. We ARE going to be ONE. That is an absolute fact. You need to start putting that into consideration. The merger is done. Help yourself to the cold chicken I have in our refrigerator.

Another thing is I think you have to stop focusing on just pieces of your TA and consider the language in full. What are the TOTAL percentage gains that have been achieved by this TA? Those gains will I'm sure far outstrip the one issue you have been so focused on the last few days in total value that you have and are going to receive by the time the "Possibilities" take affect.

 

[mike33]

Roabilly,
that letter is exclusive to excise taxes or other taxes that will come into play in 2018. Are you arguing that letter protects our current insurance from going up? Isn't there a 7% cap on yearly increases currently?  It seems as if you are suggesting that there are no current limits on how a company can increase cost to our current insurance, plus, you seem to be arguing that it can impute future cost as well without this letter.  Clarify please because if there is a 7% cap on yearly increases then that cap is waived for this one time 'get out of jail free' card exclusively in the hands of management.   And if there isn't a 7% cap on yearly increases then don't you think it would have been nice to negotiate a cap instead of agreeing to waive any and all future modifications/cost/deductibles [insert anything here] to a third party?

As i see it, the way the issuance goes is the way all work groups will probably go together. It only makes sense that as a group ( Company) the better insurance ALL will get. The group (Company)  now will have an extra 30,000 in the poole to shop around with. There should be no reason to panic concerning our insurance rates. We most likely will have the best in the industry as a group ( Company ) for years to come.

 

[WeAAsles]

I have consistently said that for those in the small stations that would have otherwise been affected at US AIRWAYS,  that they have reason to vote yes as our scope is good in those stations with this TA.  My station scope gets worse so please respect that.  I don't like the possibility of others doing my work, so my decision is different than someone in RNO.  The United contract sucks.  It has scope for only 7 stations.  I've never been impressed with the right to move 3,000 miles to keep a job due to your home station getting whacked.   7 stations under scope blows and things will continue to pile up at United.  When the movement stops, you will then see the onslaught of more full time jobs going part time over there as well since United can have 100% part time if they want.  It's a UPS contract for sure.  The IAM doesn't care though,  two part timers is twice the revenue of one full timer.  No, the union didn't do their job there as it got an "F" for effort.   That said, scope is #1 [ok next to seniority] so I put our TA as better than United's when it comes to full time issues.  But our TA is the worst for any part timer for sure.  Is the TA good enough for me to vote for? No, because of the clear and future issues with our health care, the cross utilization at my station, and the non address of my retirement.  

I'll give you this. In this comment I will respect your point of view. With ORD being a hub for AA you won't have to go anywhere if you don't want to though. You're pretty well safe there, just make sure you wear your TWU hat when the time comes. 

And I'm glad that we are not in the same position as UAL. Say what you want but those issues were and are very different from us.

 

[WeAAsles]

As i see it, the way the issuance goes is the way all work groups will probably go together. It only makes sense that as a group ( Company) the better insurance ALL will get. The group (Company)  now will have an extra 30,000 in the poole to shop around with. There should be no reason to panic concerning our insurance rates. We most likely will have the best in the industry as a group ( Company ) for years to come.

+1 Agreed. The sheer size has to be factored in to the equation.

 

[WeAAsles]

The arbitrator has the power to not only waive any cap, but toss out a whole plan.  The reality of the situation is that everything is 'up for grabs'.  Kindly review the letter and how me where any deductible, any cap, anything at all is not up for modification.  The focus of the arbitrator isn't to keep things but to modify things, and if he can't guarantee, then....bad things man...bad things.

Far too much doom and gloom. The glass is not always so half empty in life you know Tim.

 

[mike33]

A neutral arbitrator is a third party. Not sure why we have to discuss this.  But, the problem is compounded in that it isn't just a third party but after the third party gets selected, the remaining process shitt cans the union and it becomes a 2 party situation.  Sorta like a spouse getting to pick a divorce attorney for his wife but then he has to leave the building.   Remember, after the selection of the arbitrator, the remaining part of that letter is a two party relationship.  The only nouns are "Arbitrator" and "Company".  The only rights are "Company".   Below is the path, for your review and kindly show me where our union or us have any right in all of this.
 
Process:
1. Arbitrator determines any modification to ensure no taxes apply for company [not my words]
2. If Arbitrator can't guarantee modifications would offset the taxes for the affected plan then the company has the right [not my words] to terminate the plan.
3. If a plan is terminated then the arbitrator is empowered to designate [not my words] a new 80% plan.
4. If in the process, the arbitrator hasn't ruled yet, then the Company shall be permitted to implement and can make changes as it considers [not my words] necessary to avoid taxes.
5. Company shall have a reasonable time
 
As you see, the AGC"s are outright lying when they say that the union will be right there negotiating step by step.  The union will have to leave the building like Elvis.  It's in the letter and this will be NON NEGOTIABLE once the arbitrator is picked.  
  
 
 
 
 

 Show me where the UNION was designated as a party in designating the Original Insurance Packages? I'm not so sure that the Union has to be a party to the change. Why would they. The Arbitrator is suppose to be unbiased. 
  Your points are based way too much on assumptions that probably will never happen........
 Does the IAM have a Union Insurance Negotiator for CBAs'?
 
Most of our insurance language has mainly to do with Life/ Death / and Dismemberment. The only Negotiating i believe was to offer an IAM solicited insurance plan to be posted on IAM Bulletin Boards.

 

[Tim Nelson]

Well personally I think your thought process is flawed then. We ARE going to be ONE. That is an absolute fact. You need to start putting that into consideration. The merger is done. Help yourself to the cold chicken I have in our refrigerator.

Another thing is I think you have to stop focusing on just pieces of your TA and consider the language in full. What are the TOTAL percentage gains that have been achieved by this TA? Those gains will I'm sure far outstrip the one issue you have been so focused on the last few days in total value that you have and are going to receive by the time the "Possibilities" take affect.

The TWU members here in ORD are super great. We work right next to them now and they are strong union.  Although we say, 'look at the entire package',  we all look with different color glasses.  Like I said, I'm in my 50's so retirement and health care focus's in a lot more.  I've been fairly clear that the wage issue wasn't as big a deal with me as I don't have to feed more than one mouth and everything is paid off.   Don't get me wrong, I still have some years left working so if I were in RNO, JAX, or another small station then I would feel much better about this TA because health care, retirement, etc doesn't mean squat without scope....and currently their arses are on the clock.
 
You got any pasta to go along with that chicken?

 

[Tim Nelson]

 Show me where the UNION was designated as a party in designating the Original Insurance Packages? I'm not so sure that the Union has to be a party to the change. Why would they. The Arbitrator is suppose to be unbiased. 
  Your points are based way too much on assumptions that probably will never happen........
 Does the IAM have a Union Insurance Negotiator for CBAs'?

Doesn't matter if the IAM has a "Union insurance negotiators".  Our union won't be in position to negotiate this after the summer school negotiation session since the company is under NO OBLIGATION to come to an agreement.  In this situation, the scope of the arbitrator is bias towards guaranteeing that modifications will protect the company from the taxes.  After a third party is triggered, the union leaves the building and it becomes "Then there were two".  That is what you fail to understand.

 

[mike33]

Doesn't matter if the IAM has a "Union insurance negotiators".  Our union won't be in position to negotiate this after the summer school negotiation session since the company is under NO OBLIGATION to come to an agreement.  In this situation, the scope of the arbitrator is bias towards guaranteeing that modifications will protect the company from the taxes.  After a third party is triggered, the union leaves the building and it becomes "Then there were two".  That is what you fail to understand.

No......Then there were maybe 2 for 100,000 employees.....not 12,000 +. I cannot see the company screwing 12-14,000 on insurance and giving the other 80,00 a better ride. You are seeing the future thru a crystal ball that has cobwebs!

 

[Tim Nelson]

No......Then there were maybe 2 for 100,000 employees.....not 12,000 +. I cannot see the company screwing 12-14,000 on insurance and giving the other 80,00 a better ride. You are seeing the future thru a crystal ball that has cobwebs!

I'm just reading the health care letter and explaining the process.  What you have presented is an opinion that nobody can refute since we can't say how the company will fill out the blank check.  Perhaps you are correct and the company won't seek additional cost savings and protections from the real and future tax risk.  I myself haven't put a price tag on it since I simply don't know what our deductibles, cost, or which new plan we may get.  If you think we will get a better ride and you can't see how the company will want to screw anyone then that opinion is just as valid as mine since it will be a future company decision.