2014 Fleet Service Discussion

[WeAAsles]

 
Don't agree. When the NMB issues their SCS for the Association there will be a 30 day window to allow another third party to submit enough cards to trigger another choice in an election. In the event another 3rd party does not surface the choices will be Association and No Union. That being the case, it is absolutely in our collective interest to start the process of trying to gather all the information of two vastly different CBA's  and prioritize what the attention will be.
 
To combine two CBA's is not an easy task and that work should be taking place right now so that when the NMB says "go," we are ready to spend the time actually negotiating and not trying to put together a strategy.
 
Each work force has very different cultures, contract language, histories with OT, bids, changes of shifts, rules, and processes.
 
Why waste time now when we could be getting the heavy lifting done. Having each Local send out a different survey will create confusion and "lines to be drawn" before we even get together with the IAM. Then once all the issues are sorted out with each Local we will have to start the process all over again with the IAM. If there are any changes to agreed priorities negotiated with each Local, then the process goes back to the Presidents and the whole thing is mired in controversy and finger pointing.
 
Not a good way to start a set of negotiations with the conditions in our favor since the contracts of 2001. Are we going to waste this opportunity?

What doesn't seen to be being considered in this assessment aside from not truly knowing how the NMB will ultimately rule is the fact that there will be three parties involved in those negotiations. Both sides can set what their particular priorities might be but the company also has to agree to those priorities as well.

The obvious first step is going to be comparing the language to see who has the better agreement when it comes to each and most issues? The preference is going to be in trying to extend that language to the other group to capture those gains for both. There may even be areas that we would like improved that neither side find acceptable? Will any negotiator be arguing against the stronger language? Of course not.

What also needs to be considered is gains in other contracts outside our two and the pitfalls as well in those. It would be doing a disservice to all to not consider everything out there at the moment.

We don't really need surveys to know what the members will more than likely side with? Those will be mostly direct and tangible improvements such as wages, OT, holidays, vacation, medical and retirement that will have the most attention. As far as everything else IMO that is what we vote in leaders for so they can prioritize from there? I expect that there will be more than enough experience in that room on both sides to be able to figure it out.

 

[JFK Fleet Service]

Don't need surveys? Pardon me but I realllllly can't wrap my head around simply "letting the guys in the room work it out".They aren't gonna' be working under it,at least pretend to care what the line dogs think.
 
I want scope tightened up, I'm sick of dodging minimum wage subcontractor commandos on our ramp servicing all the One World carriers.LAN, TAM,Royal Jordanian,Finnair have all brought Triangle and Swissport onto our ramp,our bagrooms and into our breakrooms.There are about a dozen OW carrier flights at JFK that we don't work.

 

[WeAAsles]

Don't need surveys? Pardon me but I realllllly can't wrap my head around simply "letting the guys in the room work it out".They aren't gonna' be working under it,at least pretend to care what the line dogs think.
 
I want scope tightened up, I'm sick of dodging minimum wage subcontractor commandos on our ramp servicing all the One World carriers.LAN, TAM,Royal Jordanian,Finnair have all brought Triangle and Swissport onto our ramp,our bagrooms and into our breakrooms.There are about a dozen OW carrier flights at JFK that we don't work.

So how do you propose to secure OAL work if you don't work for other airlines? Just because an airline is a member of One World doesn't mean that they are obligated to use AA Union members to perform work at a substantially higher rate then they can acquire through sub contractors. Yes you can tighten SCOPE that they can't use AA bagrooms and that you should be the one's loading the carts for any equipment owned or leased by AA. But as for the rest we have to compete for that work just like anyone else out there.

If you really want to secure that work then I suggest you get involved in the initiative going on over there to raise the wages for low wage airport workers in the Tri State area. The difference between what we make and what they make is stark and makes it almost impossible to compete against that.

And I am a line dog bro. The reality is that those surveys only usually show that people want the money and never really truly understand SCOPE and what that means for securing and growing jobs. Would you prefer that I lie about that?

 

[NYer]

 


Is this your perception of things or were you in the room when discussions were taking place. Yes that is where the letter of support was signed after the explanations as to what was going on at that moment was given from the TWU perspective, but I'm quite sure with the length of that meeting many other items were discussed as well.
 
As far as the surveys, they are being distributed by the Locals and so far all the surveys are different, with different methods of collecting information and even different options to choose from.

Correct and there should have been a more uniform approach to conducting those surveys IMO.

 
Well, if you're implying that I don't know what happened in that setting because I wasn't there, then I guess you don't know what happened either and therefore your opinion is moot....you know, because you weren't there. An experienced person would certainly know those meetings did little to prepare the Association for upcoming negotiations, since in fact it wasn't an Association negotiations prep meeting, it was a TWU Presidents' Council meeting which are held whether there are or aren't negotiations pending.

 

[ograc]

What doesn't seen to be being considered in this assessment aside from not truly knowing how the NMB will ultimately rule is the fact that there will be three parties involved in those negotiations. Both sides can set what their particular priorities might be but the company also has to agree to those priorities as well.

The obvious first step is going to be comparing the language to see who has the better agreement when it comes to each and most issues? The preference is going to be in trying to extend that language to the other group to capture those gains for both. There may even be areas that we would like improved that neither side find acceptable? Will any negotiator be arguing against the stronger language? Of course not.

What also needs to be considered is gains in other contracts outside our two and the pitfalls as well in those. It would be doing a disservice to all to not consider everything out there at the moment.

We don't really need surveys to know what the members will more than likely side with? Those will be mostly direct and tangible improvements such as wages, OT, holidays, vacation, medical and retirement that will have the most attention. As far as everything else IMO that is what we vote in leaders for so they can prioritize from there? I expect that there will be more than enough experience in that room on both sides to be able to figure it out.

Hate to keep whipping the horse; but let's not forget protecting existing work and attempting to bring more outsourced AA work in house. Let's protect the scope language in the newly ratified agreement at US. Let's remember... this merged airline is projected to make billions. Let's make certain we are at the table for our slice of the pie. The days of "cost neutral" negotiations are over. This is not an airline in bankruptcy anymore. The economics have changed dramatically. Everyone; from the Association to the NC and the membership must keep this in mind. It's time to regain what has been sacrificed! 
Lock and Load!

 

[NYer]

What doesn't seen to be being considered in this assessment aside from not truly knowing how the NMB will ultimately rule is the fact that there will be three parties involved in those negotiations. Both sides can set what their particular priorities might be but the company also has to agree to those priorities as well. --By definition, there are only two parties that will be involved which would be the Association and the Company. Three way negotiations will lead to gridlock and is wholly ineffective and most likely, counterproductive.

The obvious first step is going to be comparing the language to see who has the better agreement when it comes to each and most issues? --If that is the obvious first step, then we're already in a hole. The TWU and IAM seem to be preparing separately. In the TWU's case, they are asking for issues to be prioritized in a point of the process where that can't be effectively done since those being asked are unfamiliar with the opposite CBA. Preparing in that manner is ineffective and will surely lead to longer and harsher misunderstandings once the Association negotiating committee does get together. Having each Local distribute different surveys will only make the possibility of an agreement even further away than it is now.
 
The preference is going to be in trying to extend that language to the other group to capture those gains for both. There may even be areas that we would like improved that neither side find acceptable? Will any negotiator be arguing against the stronger language? Of course not. -- Can't know any of that and can't plot a course for any of that if the two sides don't get together first. What would you prioritize Holidays or Overtime and why?

What also needs to be considered is gains in other contracts outside our two and the pitfalls as well in those. It would be doing a disservice to all to not consider everything out there at the moment.

We don't really need surveys to know what the members will more than likely side with? Those will be mostly direct and tangible improvements such as wages, OT, holidays, vacation, medical and retirement that will have the most attention. As far as everything else IMO that is what we vote in leaders for so they can prioritize from there? I expect that there will be more than enough experience in that room on both sides to be able to figure it out. --They can't figure out how to even get together and suddenly there is faith they figure out something as complicated as bringing two contracts together?

 

[WeAAsles]

 

What doesn't seen to be being considered in this assessment aside from not truly knowing how the NMB will ultimately rule is the fact that there will be three parties involved in those negotiations. Both sides can set what their particular priorities might be but the company also has to agree to those priorities as well. --By definition, there are only two parties that will be involved which would be the Association and the Company. Three way negotiations will lead to gridlock and is wholly ineffective and most likely, counterproductive.

The obvious first step is going to be comparing the language to see who has the better agreement when it comes to each and most issues? --If that is the obvious first step, then we're already in a hole. The TWU and IAM seem to be preparing separately. In the TWU's case, they are asking for issues to be prioritized in a point of the process where that can't be effectively done since those being asked are unfamiliar with the opposite CBA. Preparing in that manner is ineffective and will surely lead to longer and harsher misunderstandings once the Association negotiating committee does get together. Having each Local distribute different surveys will only make the possibility of an agreement even further away than it is now.
 
The preference is going to be in trying to extend that language to the other group to capture those gains for both. There may even be areas that we would like improved that neither side find acceptable? Will any negotiator be arguing against the stronger language? Of course not. -- Can't know any of that and can't plot a course for any of that if the two sides don't get together first. What would you prioritize Holidays or Overtime and why?

What also needs to be considered is gains in other contracts outside our two and the pitfalls as well in those. It would be doing a disservice to all to not consider everything out there at the moment.

We don't really need surveys to know what the members will more than likely side with? Those will be mostly direct and tangible improvements such as wages, OT, holidays, vacation, medical and retirement that will have the most attention. As far as everything else IMO that is what we vote in leaders for so they can prioritize from there? I expect that there will be more than enough experience in that room on both sides to be able to figure it out. --They can't figure out how to even get together and suddenly there is faith they figure out something as complicated as bringing two contracts together?

 

Ok you make a strong emphasis for prep or being prepared which I agree with wholeheartedly, but what exactly do you quantify as the definition of prep from your perspective? As an individual if I was going to be involved in negotiations this is how I would proceed personally.

There are currently 4 contracts that I would have my main interests in. 2 of them are IAM contracts and 2 of them are TWU contracts. I already know the contract I live under so my concentration would be on the other 3. I would print all 3 of those contracts and start comparing each one to mine using 2 highlighters of different colors. Green for better than mine and red for worse, and I would number them for the best language of all. I would then write out a mock comprehensive proposal taking all of those best items that I would share with my IAM counterparts when we meet. Not saying that that is what we would submit to the company but it would be what I would show the negotiating committee as a baseline.

The Pilots from what I read were asking for 22% and the company has offered them 18%. So let's say for this exercise that 18% becomes the total offered? We already know unless we're naive that the surveys will come back with BASE rate being the highest want. The highest rate next September will be UAL at $25.35 so to best that we apply 10% to the highest base which is the TWU rate currently of $23.30 making our rate now $25.63 with 8% leftover for other items of importance on both sides that can be discussed. Prioritizing the items that held the greatest interests of the members combined going down the list for both.

The Association will have members on both sides that have been involved in negotiations before and they will also have access to each others resources when called on and needed. Some of those already known negotiators are right here on this website as well as others who have done this before. Basically there will be plenty of experience sitting in that room and they will talk and they will get to know and some of them will even wind up liking each other. I don't have any doubt about that.

I'd actually love to hear what they think of my little personal equations if they'd be so kind?

 

[NYer]

Ok you make a strong emphasis for prep or being prepared which I agree with wholeheartedly, but what exactly do you quantify as the definition of prep from your perspective? As an individual if I was going to be involved in negotiations this is how I would proceed personally.

There are currently 4 contracts that I would have my main interests in. 2 of them are IAM contracts and 2 of them are TWU contracts. I already know the contract I live under so my concentration would be on the other 3. I would print all 3 of those contracts and start comparing each one to mine using 2 highlighters of different colors. Green for better than mine and red for worse, and I would number them for the best language of all. I would then write out a mock comprehensive proposal taking all of those best items that I would share with my IAM counterparts when we meet. Not saying that that is what we would submit to the company but it would be what I would show the negotiating committee as a baseline.

The Pilots from what I read were asking for 22% and the company has offered them 18%. So let's say for this exercise that 18% becomes the total offered? We already know unless we're naive that the surveys will come back with BASE rate being the highest want. The highest rate next September will be UAL at $25.35 so to best that we apply 10% to the highest base which is the TWU rate currently of $23.30 making our rate now $25.63 with 8% leftover for other items of importance on both sides that can be discussed. Prioritizing the items that held the greatest interests of the members combined going down the list for both.

The Association will have members on both sides that have been involved in negotiations before and they will also have access to each others resources when called on and needed. Some of those already known negotiators are right here on this website as well as others who have done this before. Basically there will be plenty of experience sitting in that room and they will talk and they will get to know and some of them will even wind up liking each other. I don't have any doubt about that.

I'd actually love to hear what they think of my little personal equations if they'd be so kind?

 
There must be a lot of rainbows and puppies in your neighborhood.
 
You may like to assume the biggest priority on the survey will be base rates, but from experience, I can tell you that there is no way to make that assumption. The surveys are uneven, some have "profit sharing" whiles other don't. One of the surveys has "rotating days off,' while the others don't. Then you have some that include 401K, then 401K-bonuses and yet another has 401K match. The point being that we can't come up with a comprehensive list of priorities if groups of Members have different lists than others. It is also very counterproductive to have different surveys without there being a comparison of the two contractual language points. To simply say OT is the priority, for instance, doesn't really nail down any concrete target.
 
The OT language in the IAM deal mentions the ability to have PT held before a FT if the position being filled is PT. Our contractual language isn't as detailed. So if we were to pick from either book, we probably would lose out to what is current procedure in most stations. If the Members aren't up to date with that scenario and the two unions aren't in a room talking about the differences then how can put together an effective strategy? The answer, we can't.
 
This isn't Section 6 negotiations, it is an effort to combine two completely different CBA's into one and do so with a management team no one on the TWU side has experience with.
 
If Base Rates does become a priority then the focus will be on things that shouldn't be the entire focus. It has already been publicly mentioned by Parker that he favors industry leading pay rates, so to make a priority is foolish since that is already something they have conceded, but at what cost?
 
Sending out surveys without preparing the Membership to understand the upcoming complexities and without the unions getting together and talking through what they see as obstacles is really short sighted. What is the priorities in the survey turn out to be Profit Sharing? We already know the other unions have conceded on that point and are looking to get compensation, so if it becomes a priority how does the TWU go back and say it is unattainable? Does that become a fight? Is it worth it becoming a fight? 
 
What if a station has rotating days off as a priority, what is told to that Membership when it becomes a moot point in the overall prioritizing since only one station continues to have rotating days off? You can be sure that President will be fighting tooth and nail to make that a priority. What happens at other stations where they don't have the ability to choose an "increase in differential" or "personal days" since only one survey contains those options?
 
The current method is used to give the impression that busy bodies actually translates into progress being made. It's probably the opposite, without the proper set of expectations being set. 

 

[WeAAsles]

 
There must be a lot of rainbows and puppies in your neighborhood.
 
You may like to assume the biggest priority on the survey will be base rates, but from experience, I can tell you that there is no way to make that assumption. The surveys are uneven, some have "profit sharing" whiles other don't. One of the surveys has "rotating days off,' while the others don't. Then you have some that include 401K, then 401K-bonuses and yet another has 401K match. The point being that we can't come up with a comprehensive list of priorities if groups of Members have different lists than others. It is also very counterproductive to have different surveys without there being a comparison of the two contractual language points. To simply say OT is the priority, for instance, doesn't really nail down any concrete target.
 
The OT language in the IAM deal mentions the ability to have PT held before a FT if the position being filled is PT. Our contractual language isn't as detailed. So if we were to pick from either book, we probably would lose out to what is current procedure in most stations. If the Members aren't up to date with that scenario and the two unions aren't in a room talking about the differences then how can put together an effective strategy? The answer, we can't.
 
This isn't Section 6 negotiations, it is an effort to combine two completely different CBA's into one and do so with a management team no one on the TWU side has experience with.
 
If Base Rates does become a priority then the focus will be on things that shouldn't be the entire focus. It has already been publicly mentioned by Parker that he favors industry leading pay rates, so to make a priority is foolish since that is already something they have conceded, but at what cost?
 
Sending out surveys without preparing the Membership to understand the upcoming complexities and without the unions getting together and talking through what they see as obstacles is really short sighted. What is the priorities in the survey turn out to be Profit Sharing? We already know the other unions have conceded on that point and are looking to get compensation, so if it becomes a priority how does the TWU go back and say it is unattainable? Does that become a fight? Is it worth it becoming a fight? 
 
What if a station has rotating days off as a priority, what is told to that Membership when it becomes a moot point in the overall prioritizing since only one station continues to have rotating days off? You can be sure that President will be fighting tooth and nail to make that a priority. What happens at other stations where they don't have the ability to choose an "increase in differential" or "personal days" since only one survey contains those options?
 
The current method is used to give the impression that busy bodies actually translates into progress being made. It's probably the opposite, without the proper set of expectations being set. 

I like your assessment don't get me wrong but it also seems like you're attempting to build a Rocket Ship here where I don't think it's going to wind up being that complex? It sounds as if you're assuming that each person who will be negotiating is going to have their pet initiative that they are going to dig their heels in to hold hostage to the demands against the majority? From what I understand the Negotiating committee (Correct me if I'm wrong) is going to comprise an equal number of participants on both sides? That would mean that the former TWU way of "Roll Calling" will no longer exist and the simple majority should move the process along? If the tiebreaker winds up putting in something that would be unpopular among the membership as a whole it may be unwise to do that then since it could wind up being rejected by the membership and have to go back to the drawing board which is probably best not to get involved with in the first place.

Let's take the Profit Sharing idea. Yes you are correct that we "so far" are witnessing that the company has no desire to include that as a stand apart option if we use the two Union groups going for it as the example. So to me the emphasis becomes why bother to put up a major struggle? Best to try and get the most percentage as feasible in return for it, correct? How much do we consider to be reasonable winds up being the question. So I agree with you how much of a fight would we want to put up for something that no matter what is still in the realm of possibilities when it comes to payouts?

Back to the other idea you brought up about rotating days off. That's something unique on our side to New York and from what I've heard they're already fairly resigned to the fact that it will probably not exist in a JCBA. If the committee is going to negotiate using the idea of simple majority there won't be any examples of fighting tooth and nail against that premise. The parameters for negotiating are going to be quite different as I understand it from the way some people have been used to it being done in the past. That should move the process along quite nicely.

The expectations are going to be simple. To capture the most amount of gains possible that will be accepted by the membership as a whole. There will be items in a JCBA that people like and things people don't like as there always are. Impossible to please everyone.

And no puppies in my Neighborhood, just a bunch of ugly ducks at the moment. Florida.

 

 

[NYer]

I like your assessment don't get me wrong but it also seems like you're attempting to build a Rocket Ship here where I don't think it's going to wind up being that complex? It sounds as if you're assuming that each person who will be negotiating is going to have their pet initiative that they are going to dig their heels in to hold hostage to the demands against the majority? --Its happened before so you have to assume and expect it will happen again, if not there you're not prepare to deal with it. Ideally, you'd like to set up a system by which the possiblity is diminished but that hasn't happened as evidenced by the separate surveys.
 
From what I understand the Negotiating committee (Correct me if I'm wrong) is going to comprise an equal number of participants on both sides? That would mean that the former TWU way of "Roll Calling" will no longer exist and the simple majority should move the process along? --If that is the case then why are the Local creating and publishing separate surveys. What if a representative of the negotiating committee comes from a Local with a unique choice in their survey. Will that point be sacrificed for the better good or will they try to make it a point because he has to go back and get re-elected? You'd hope they'd do the right thing, but why have a system where that is even a possibility.
 
If the tiebreaker winds up putting in something that would be unpopular among the membership as a whole it may be unwise to do that then since it could wind up being rejected by the membership and have to go back to the drawing board which is probably best not to get involved with in the first place. Whaaaaaaa?

Let's take the Profit Sharing idea. Yes you are correct that we "so far" are witnessing that the company has no desire to include that as a stand apart option if we use the two Union groups going for it as the example. So to me the emphasis becomes why bother to put up a major struggle? Best to try and get the most percentage as feasible in return for it, correct? --We already did.
 
How much do we consider to be reasonable winds up being the question. So I agree with you how much of a fight would we want to put up for something that no matter what is still in the realm of possibilities when it comes to payouts? --If we are already getting industry leading or close to is, shouldn't the focus be on the language of the CBA which is more mundane but can also affect the bottom line. The differences between contract language and operational understandings should be presented to the Membership so we can better determine the importance of each item. If Members choose "Holidays" as a priority, isnt' that redundant since the IAM currently has more holidays and therefore by default we can make a gain. Do we really have to spend time and resources to argue that point in the place of something else that might be more of a danger to lose. If these difference aren't presented to the Members and if the two unions aren't sitting together and talking about these issues and diffrences in language, how can we expect to maximize this opportunity.

Back to the other idea you brought up about rotating days off. That's something unique on our side to New York and from what I've heard they're already fairly resigned to the fact that it will probably not exist in a JCBA. If the committee is going to negotiate using the idea of simple majority there won't be any examples of fighting tooth and nail against that premise. The parameters for negotiating are going to be quite different as I understand it from the way some people have been used to it being done in the past. That should move the process along quite nicely. --So why is it on the survey? And what happens to the leadership in that area if the priority becomes the rotating days off? They'll just say, "well, forget it it's not important anywhere else."? Again, that bring an extra nuance that will certainly complicate the entire process. The proper way to get this done is to have both parties at the table going over the CBA's and coming up with ONE survey to cover the entire process. There should also be a presentation to all Members on both sides to explain the differences and challenges are.

The expectations are going to be simple. To capture the most amount of gains possible that will be accepted by the membership as a whole. There will be items in a JCBA that people like and things people don't like as there always are. Impossible to please everyone. --The simple fact of saying that "expectation are going to be simple" is a large window into the fact that you're not acknowledging the complexities of the these negotiations.

And no puppies in my Neighborhood, just a bunch of ugly ducks at the moment. Florida.

 

 

[WeAAsles]

I'm heading off to work now and will have to continue the ideological conversation when I get home. It's not easy to formulate or convey thoughts when you are trying to type them out through a smart phone. I'm not sure though if you are picking up on the fact that there are areas that I am agreeing with you at least in some matters of direction? Debating doesn't usually leave much room for agreements, but conversations do. 

And another thing so I don't forget. Happy Thanksgiving to you and your family.

 

[ograc]

Going forward; It is important for everyone to understand and appreciate there are a multitude of parties and opinions on what will be in the best interests' of the membership. This merger presents great representational challenges and opportunities for each and everyone. In the end... I would like to believe we all want what we feel is best for the combined group. It is essential, through discussion and debate, that we find common ground. It is imperative we are on common ground entering into JCBA negotiations. The floor is open to discussion and debate; but in the end we must reach a consensus.
Happy Thanksgiving to all members!
Ograc  

 

[robbedagain]

happy thanksgiving to you all   be safe out there    
 
 
as for jcba  improve everything     grandfather current cities in   improve wages  benes  add 401k for LUS  with match      just food for thoughts  enhance scope......   

 

[NYer]

Going forward; It is important for everyone to understand and appreciate there are a multitude of parties and opinions on what will be in the best interests' of the membership. This merger presents great representational challenges and opportunities for each and everyone. In the end... I would like to believe we all want what we feel is best for the combined group. It is essential, through discussion and debate, that we find common ground. It is imperative we are on common ground entering into JCBA negotiations. The floor is open to discussion and debate; but in the end we must reach a consensus.
Happy Thanksgiving to all members!
Ograc  

 
Agreed. I don't believe the TWU Membership is being prepared for what is going to be a very complex set of negotiations. Not sure if the IAM side is any different, but they at least have the experience of past mergers to draw from. In negotiations, there is typically a set number on the management side and everyone works from that point. Hopefully, we can gain a larger number than what the negotiations began with but we must also understand that there are built in costs and those need to be factored in as the collective body moves forward.

 

[bob@las-AA]

Don't need surveys? Pardon me but I realllllly can't wrap my head around simply "letting the guys in the room work it out".They aren't gonna' be working under it,at least pretend to care what the line dogs think.
 
I want scope tightened up, I'm sick of dodging minimum wage subcontractor commandos on our ramp servicing all the One World carriers.LAN, TAM,Royal Jordanian,Finnair have all brought Triangle and Swissport onto our ramp,our bagrooms and into our breakrooms.There are about a dozen OW carrier flights at JFK that we don't work.

 
 

So how do you propose to secure OAL work if you don't work for other airlines? Just because an airline is a member of One World doesn't mean that they are obligated to use AA Union members to perform work at a substantially higher rate then they can acquire through sub contractors. Yes you can tighten SCOPE that they can't use AA bagrooms and that you should be the one's loading the carts for any equipment owned or leased by AA. But as for the rest we have to compete for that work just like anyone else out there.

If you really want to secure that work then I suggest you get involved in the initiative going on over there to raise the wages for low wage airport workers in the Tri State area. The difference between what we make and what they make is stark and makes it almost impossible to compete against that.

And I am a line dog bro. The reality is that those surveys only usually show that people want the money and never really truly understand SCOPE and what that means for securing and growing jobs. Would you prefer that I lie about that?

I would like to have some sort of process in place for us ramp humps to express and eventually influence what is voted on. Having the cartel tell the membership "this is what we think is in your best interest", in my opinion is out dated and should be elevated and enhanced to include the membership's wishes.