2014 Fleet Service Discussion

[john john]

One thing I would like to see you guys rectify in the JCBA is the misuse of the US/FS “Lead” classification. Management currently uses the leads as extensions of themselves! The leads are in a compromising position with management over this, as many are required to make-out work schedules, initiate disciplinary policies, and other clerical duties that management should be doing.

On the Passenger Service Agent side the CSS is give to a person that is hand pick by management and is usual a junior person. This process has been a problem for the CWA but week language allows it. With reduction in force the company has been know to lay off fulltime agents and kept the junior CSS that allows for job protection and loyalty to management

 

[WeAAsles]

One thing I would like to see you guys rectify in the JCBA is the misuse of the US/FS “Lead” classification. Management currently uses the leads as extensions of themselves! The leads are in a compromising position with management over this, as many are required to make-out work schedules, initiate disciplinary policies, and other clerical duties that management should be doing.
 
Maybe WeAAsles can elaborate on how AA handles these issues with their lead equivalents. The overall goal would be to preserve the classification with contractual language that separates managerial duties from the lead function.

Good morning guys. Sux to not have any sugar for your coffee in the morning. Forgot to buy it last night, argh.

Ok I'll give you the rundown from the two hubs I've worked in and your smaller stations are also somewhat similar as well.

Our Crew Chiefs have multiple responsibilities. On the line it's Control CC, Zone coordinators CC and then the gate CC himself. The Control CC is responsible for filling in the holes in the manning. If he knows ahead of time how many people are going to be missing for the next shift he informs management of the OT that will be needed. He also slots in those people to either gates or to the Zone CC directly. The Zone CC then sends out people as needed. Maybe to assist a heavy flight or to fill a hole if someone goes home mid shift for whatever reason.

As far as discipline. No our CC's do not administer discipline. If there is an issue they should contact a Steward to talk to that member. But now if an operational issue occurs due to the absence of a clerk who was assigned a flight and say didn't show up the CC may be forced to inform management. If he doesn't provide the info as to why he got a delay he will be held responsible and could receive the discipline himself?  It's a slippery slope because many CC's don't want to be called rats but at the same time if they don't rat it could lead to their own eventual termination if problems continue to occur? 

As far as your other thought Roa, I prefer our people being more responsible for operational issues wherever we can. That provides jobs for us over management. Our CC ratio in our current CBA is higher than the current IAM contract because of that. Management also cannot direct the workforce unless absent a CC and only under certain circumstances otherwise we initiate something called a "Form 1" which is basically Union discipline against management. A CSM getting enough Form 1's can lead to an issue down the road for that CSM so they are nervous about that. They are also never to perform or touch our work unless we refuse to do something because of safety concerns.  

 

[WeAAsles]

AF readers/posters ASSOCIATION Members . Do you think the NMB will require a vote?

The forming of this association within the context of a merger is a first so it's hard to say how the NMB will rule?

Name an ASSOCIATION that was made to vote whether they wanted a UNION / CONTRACT ?

I don't understand this question?

Why did the US/LCC NC and D-141 decide on a Signing Bonus with a stipulation that a Member had to be active for 9 months prior to DOS to receive ?  What was given up for SB ?

Negotiations are done between two parties. I very much doubt that your NC was the one who thought up the 9 month stipulation. A contract is agreed to as a whole document and not just considered for a few items whether to be passed on to you or not.

Has the ASSOCIATION behind close doors in secret chosen a JCBA Negotiation Committee?

Not that I have heard from our side as of yet but those talks have begun. When that is all finalized as to who will be negotiating for us I'm sure we will be informed.

Will US FS IAM Members still be in D-141 in 2015 ? Will the ASSOCIATION be given their own District?

If you read the documents as to how the association will work and be run I doubt there will be any reason for a new district to be setup. Aside from negotiations, the association is only scheduled to meet 4 times per year to discuss issues pertaining to it.

Will the IAM and TWU be merged into a Single Transportation Union?

Highly doubtful. Remember that both organizations represent many different members in many different industries outside of just AA and US. I'm sure that both organizations enjoy their independance and prefer that to continue. This association could though start a chain reaction to working more closely together on issues that affect all of us within the labor movement?

Many questions ??? few answers 30 days after DOS . 

They'll always be questions but sometimes time is needed for those questions to work themselves out and be answered. Right now we're involved in a process that doesn't answer to our demands for a timeframe (NMB)

 

[roabilly]

Good morning guys. Sux to not have any sugar for your coffee in the morning. Forgot to buy it last night, argh.

Ok I'll give you the rundown from the two hubs I've worked in and your smaller stations are also somewhat similar as well.

Our Crew Chiefs have multiple responsibilities. On the line it's Control CC, Zone coordinators CC and then the gate CC himself. The Control CC is responsible for filling in the holes in the manning. If he knows ahead of time how many people are going to be missing for the next shift he informs management of the OT that will be needed. He also slots in those people to either gates or to the Zone CC directly. The Zone CC then sends out people as needed. Maybe to assist a heavy flight or to fill a hole if someone goes home mid shift for whatever reason.

As far as discipline. No our CC's do not administer discipline. If there is an issue they should contact a Steward to talk to that member. But now if an operational issue occurs due to the absence of a clerk who was assigned a flight and say didn't show up the CC may be forced to inform management. If he doesn't provide the info as to why he got a delay he will be held responsible and could receive the discipline himself?  It's a slippery slope because many CC's don't want to be called rats but at the same time if they don't rat it could lead to their own eventual termination if problems continue to occur? 

As far as your other thought Roa, I prefer our people being more responsible for operational issues wherever we can. That provides jobs for us over management. Our CC ratio in our current CBA is higher than the current IAM contract because of that. Management also cannot direct the workforce unless absent a CC and only under certain circumstances otherwise we initiate something called a "Form 1" which is basically Union discipline against management. A CSM getting enough Form 1's can lead to an issue down the road for that CSM so they are nervous about that. They are also never to perform or touch our work unless we refuse to do something because of safety concerns.  

Thanks WeAA...
 
I’ll assume Leads will become Crew Chiefs (CC) in the JCBA. The current US language concerning the Lead group is ambiguous at best, with “Lead and Direct” as a cornerstone. It appears you guys have the same problems with CC’s being placed into compromising positions regarding holding other Members accountable.
 
On the other hand, it would not be prudent to relinquish the CC classification in any CBA. Maybe the N/C, and the Association can get “creative” in this regard.
 
P.S. Did I just hear macaw calling with a teaspoon of sugar from some distant paradise? 

 

[WeAAsles]

Thanks WeAA...
 
I’ll assume Leads will become Crew Chiefs (CC) in the JCBA. The current US language concerning the Lead group is ambiguous at best, with “Lead and Direct” as a cornerstone. It appears you guys have the same problems with CC’s being placed into compromising positions regarding holding other Members accountable.
 
On the other hand, it would not be prudent to relinquish the CC classification in any CBA. Maybe the N/C, and the Association can get “creative” in this regard.
 
P.S. Did I just hear macaw calling with a teaspoon of sugar from some distant paradise? 

If I were a CC and had a member who was deliberately trying to take advantage of my usually good nature I would honestly nail his hide to the wall. I'm not going to wind up being the sacrificial lamb for someone else who has no concern for either his job and especially mine. What's more is I don't expect the rest of the crew to make up the slack for someone who is being paid to do a job.

Yes they are sometimes put in compromising positions. I personally consider a three strike rule myself. The CC should see if he can handle the problem himself first. From there he should inform a Steward to talk to him and after that all bet's are off IMO. I won't criticize a CC for doing what someone else has left him with no choice to do.

 

[AANOTOK]

...and if management won't do anything and the union uses the "by law, fair representation issue", and does not, cannot police their own...then bingo, you have pathetic workers with 20 plus years seniority. This in itself puts CC's in unneeded  pressure or awkward positions.
 
But then again as I have been hammered on this issue before, management hires, management fires...and when it isn't done, the above is the outcome.

 

[ograc]

...and if management won't do anything and the union uses the "by law, fair representation issue", and does not, cannot police their own...then bingo, you have pathetic workers with 20 plus years seniority. This in itself puts CC's in unneeded  pressure or awkward positions.
 
But then again as I have been hammered on this issue before, management hires, management fires...and when it isn't done, the above is the outcome.

 
As Grievance Chair in my station I can honestly say I spend far too much time having to mediate disputes between leads and agents concerning work performance. Let's be honest though. Some of our poorest performing are in fact leads. I will say the leads in my station always bring the problem to the union reps first before management. The local management supports this approach. It throws the issue of addressing "slackers" back to the union to fix. Sometimes it works other times it doesn't. In all my years of being a union representative I have never seen a Fleet Service employee terminated for poor job performance. How do you fix poor work ethic? It starts with co workers calling the slacker out. This applies to agents and leads. The slacker is self centered, can be an agent or lead, and has no regard for the extra burden put on fellow co workers because of his or her laziness. One thing is certain. This company and local management has a history of turning it's back on this issue. This inaction only allows the problem to fester. Management hires. Therefore, management must lead in addressing this issue. With an aggressive approach by the company the union can only do so much in defending repeated and blatant poor job performance. The company, historically has chosen to ignore the issue. Which is OK with the union but not the workers affected.  
 

 

[ograc]

Thanks WeAA...
 
I’ll assume Leads will become Crew Chiefs (CC) in the JCBA. The current US language concerning the Lead group is ambiguous at best, with “Lead and Direct” as a cornerstone. It appears you guys have the same problems with CC’s being placed into compromising positions regarding holding other Members accountable.
 
On the other hand, it would not be prudent to relinquish the CC classification in any CBA. Maybe the N/C, and the Association can get “creative” in this regard.
 
P.S. Did I just hear macaw calling with a teaspoon of sugar from some distant paradise? 

ROA,
The language in the US CBA could use some cleaning up. I don't have as much of a problem with "Lead and Direct" as I do with "temporarily resolving legitimate and serious personnel emergencies when management is not present or available." Define temporarily. Define legitimate. Define serious personnel emergencies. Temporarily resolving to me means, when management becomes available, they can over ride the actions taken by the lead and throw the lead under the bus. I can't speak for other outline stations... but in my station management not present or available occurs on a frequent basis. IMO... Lead agents or Crew Chiefs should never lose sight of the fact they are dues paying members and part of a Collective Bargaining Group. The bus the company throws them under may very well be driven by their own union.  
  

 

 

[psa8979]

WeAasles you have not answered any of the ??? I posted to the A/F Readers/Posters correctly . Any one else want to give it a wack ? I have read the MOU more then once AA /TWU Brother. Associations are not new by the way. Our Brothers/Sisters working PS for LCC/AAL are voting as we banter for CWA/IBT Association representation certification by NMB election 8/15-9/16 . Certified by NMB without election when US and AWA merged and became LCC . LEAD or CREW CHIEF name doesn't make a difference . Some can't and shouldn't be trusted because they're Company Snitches /Bitches who stay in UNION to protect their sorry lazy ass's. Maybe WE should look at LUV system under TWU CBA ? Supervisors don't pay dues and are not protected by CBA at LUV unless they return to Rank/File UNION .

 

[UnitedWeStand]

Article posted yesterday in wings:
 
Get Ready for Updates to the Non-Rev Travel Program


August 21, 2014

The next phase of non-rev travel changes will occur mid-September, when we’ll move to the new time of check-in boarding priority and providing access to each other’s non-rev travel systems.
 
 
Article 7 - Seniority
 
Date of Hire Seniority is defined as continuous US Airways
service in any department and shall be applied to: vacation
accrual, boarding for on-line non-revenue space available
travel, and service awards.
 
 
This is pretty blatant. 
 
I'd like to pose a question to anyone who might know;
Can the IAMAW file an injunction to prevent the company from doing this until such a time that it is settled through the grievance process?
 
I would hate to see this in place for years until the grievance is heard

 

[T5towbar]

 
Article posted yesterday in wings:
 
Get Ready for Updates to the Non-Rev Travel Program
August 21, 2014 The next phase of non-rev travel changes will occur mid-September, when we’ll move to the new time of check-in boarding priority and providing access to each other’s non-rev travel systems.
 
 
Article 7 - Seniority
 
Date of Hire Seniority is defined as continuous US Airways
service in any department and shall be applied to: vacation
accrual, boarding for on-line non-revenue space available
travel, and service awards.
 
 
This is pretty blatant. 
 
I'd like to pose a question to anyone who might know;
Can the IAMAW file an injunction to prevent the company from doing this until such a time that it is settled through the grievance process?
 
I would hate to see this in place for years until the grievance is heard
 

The company will probably say that this is "company offered" which can be changed and modified at the discretion of the company. They will "ask" for your input, (probably a survey or two) but the airline has complete control of this benefit. 
 
I don't think that the Unions can do a whole lot about this one. The company may let the unions hash it out in some form, but in the end it the company will have the final say. This is company offered, and they can control it any way that they want it. I remember in my case, the company gave us "surveys", and in the end, the retirees lost their first boarding privilege before actives. The sUA people blamed sCO for this, but you have to remember, there are more sUA than sCO, and obviously active people on both sides of the house voted in their survey that actives take priority than retirees. (Some people think that they won't be around to retire, so get their flying in while they can now - and with what is going on now, they are probably right!)  
 
Either way this turns out, someone will be unhappy........

 

[700UW]

You do realize the AFA has already won a grievance on this in the past, and both the AFA and the IAM have filed grievances on this again.

 

[UnitedWeStand]

You do realize the AFA has already won a grievance on this in the past, and both the AFA and the IAM have filed grievances on this again.

 
 
Do you know who filed it for the IAM?
 
 
CWA has for sure
http://cwa-agents.org/non-rev-travel-grievance/

 

[UnitedWeStand]

The company will probably say that this is "company offered" which can be changed and modified at the discretion of the company. They will "ask" for your input, (probably a survey or two) but the airline has complete control of this benefit. 
 
I don't think that the Unions can do a whole lot about this one. The company may let the unions hash it out in some form, but in the end it the company will have the final say. This is company offered, and they can control it any way that they want it. I remember in my case, the company gave us "surveys", and in the end, the retirees lost their first boarding privilege before actives. The sUA people blamed sCO for this, but you have to remember, there are more sUA than sCO, and obviously active people on both sides of the house voted in their survey that actives take priority than retirees. (Some people think that they won't be around to retire, so get their flying in while they can now - and with what is going on now, they are probably right!)  
 
Either way this turns out, someone will be unhappy........

 
 
"Company offered" has nothing to do with black and white Contractual language. Changes have to be negotiated!

 

[UnitedWeStand]

You do realize the AFA has already won a grievance on this in the past, and both the AFA and the IAM have filed grievances on this again.

 
Not according to this
 
 

My apologizes, apparently we were mislead. The information below is from an AFA-CWA MEC e-line:


The Association of Flight Attendants (AFA-CWA) filed a grievance in February 2007 citing contract language in our Collective Bargaining Agreement that Flight Attendants use their date of initial training or Seniority Integration Date (SID), whichever is applicable, to determine non-revenue boarding. It should be noted that AFA-CWA is the only labor group on the property that has contractual language to determine non-revenue boarding based on a specific date.

The Company denied the grievance based on their interpretation that Company policy, rather than contract language, determined non-revenue boarding. An arbitration to hear the dispute was scheduled for November 29 and 30, 2007. Shortly before the arbitration, the Company cancelled the arbitration and a series of settlement talks ensued.

Since Company policy cannot trump contract language, the Company agreed with the Union's position regarding full date of hire, or SID, to determine non-revenue boarding and agreed to settle the grievance.

When was the CWA grievance to be heard?