2014 Fleet Service Discussion

[WeAAsles]

what is the normal TWU process in negotiations? Prior to negotiations do they have station meetings and local or national surveys? Does each local president work off of a national survey or a local one? Pardon if it sounds ignorant but knowing that Twu locals are more autonomous and engaged, i was curious if all the local presidents brought their local surveys to the ATD and then crafted a strategy from there, of if all Local prez join the negotiation team and work off a survey or ATD baseline. With the iam, locals have nothing to do with these things (not saying bad or good).

They did independent surveys in all the locals. They should have done one uniform survey IMO personally. We all know what the members will say they want anyway though.

You're on our FB pages Tim. You've seen the conversations. No reason for you to shy away from that.

 

[WeAAsles]

 December 19th, 2014
 
Your CWA/IBT Association Negotiating Committee met this month in Dallas on December 17 and 18.
 
On Wednesday, December 17th, we met with the company and advised them in an opening statement that we were excited to be at the table with a company that is doing so well financially. We began the session by passing proposals to the company for Article 1-Purpose of Agreement, Article 8-Seniority, Article 11-Seasonal Employee Transfer, Article 16-Medical Examinations, Article 22-Probation, Article 26-System Board, Article 25-Grievance Procedure, Article 30-Health and Safety, Article 33-Union Security and Maintenance of Membership and Article 35-Amendments to this Agreement. The Company passed a response to Article 16-Medical Examinations and Article 30-Health and Safety. The Committee worked to put together counter proposals and submit new proposals for the following day.


http://american-agents.org/news/december-2014-bargaining-update/

 

[NYer]

what is the normal TWU process in negotiations? Prior to negotiations do they have station meetings and local or national surveys? Does each local president work off of a national survey or a local one? Pardon if it sounds ignorant but knowing that Twu locals are more autonomous and engaged, i was curious if all the local presidents brought their local surveys to the ATD and then crafted a strategy from there, of if all Local prez join the negotiation team and work off a survey or ATD baseline. With the iam, locals have nothing to do with these things (not saying bad or good).

 
There are several different surveys, with different choices and different forms of prioritizing. The best thing that should have been done is all the necessary parties should have gotten together to understand and go over each CBA. Both sides needs to know the important issues they face and what has been the US management positions in the past. At that point, a joint survey could have been conducted with members of each union going to meetings on a station to station basis to explain the differences and each gauge the importance of each item.
 
It is also important to recognize that none of the TWU AA Presidents has even been involved in a merger of this size. (if there is, it is a small number in the single digits). They have never negotiated with this management team and that experience is also very important to know and understand.
 
Waiting to have these issues addressed is only making this process more difficult and we may not be as prepared as this opportunity dictates we should be. If in fact there is no arbitration back drop, these negotiations could drag until the current CBA's become amendable and that would mean we missed the best opportunity we may have to get the best deal we can.

 

[Tim Nelson]

I can't see any arbitration backdrop until, at least, the Association is up and running and operating in solidarity.   I'm not familiar with the framework that management offered the stews regarding  arbitration, but I think we can learn from that and tweak the original framework.  Seems to me that the stews had a very low bar, if there was a rejection, so low that management came in and had to toss more money at them.  Again, not knowing the framework, I gotta think that if the IAM/TWU agreed to binding arbitration after a 6 month negotiation timetable, that some of the items going into to it would be changed to protect against a possible rejection.  I have mixed emotions about all of this.  OTOH, agreeing to binding arbitration gives the appearance of a quick contract that is fair, in a booming industry envioronment.  OTOH, it restricts things.  Not having binding arbitration allows freedoms, such freedoms of choice and negotiation may necessarily extend and/or delay negotiated settlements.  But, it would also delay the operational merger which keeps leverage for us.  The risk is that if things go a long time, the environment may sour.   In a perfect world, arbitration may look reasonable, but the stews showed us that no such world exist.  Tough call.

 

[charlie Brown]

There are several different surveys, with different choices and different forms of prioritizing. The best thing that should have been done is all the necessary parties should have gotten together to understand and go over each CBA. Both sides needs to know the important issues they face and what has been the US management positions in the past. At that point, a joint survey could have been conducted with members of each union going to meetings on a station to station basis to explain the differences and each gauge the importance of each item.
 
It is also important to recognize that none of the TWU AA Presidents has even been involved in a merger of this size. (if there is, it is a small number in the single digits). They have never negotiated with this management team and that experience is also very important to know and understand.
 
Waiting to have these issues addressed is only making this process more difficult and we may not be as prepared as this opportunity dictates we should be. If in fact there is no arbitration back drop, these negotiations could drag until the current CBA's become amendable and that would mean we missed the best opportunity we may have to get the best deal we can.

Nyer
I can tell you the IAM,s intentions are to do one survey for the combined membership. While I think it is always a good idea if individuals want to do their own survey in their selected station, as I did in clt before our last talks started. I think it's always a good idea to see if your own station is in tune with the system survey. The IAM hopes to meet sometime with the TWU side and get together one survey for all the membership. We tried to do this already once. This will be the survey that I hope will be used by the negotiating team. I say hope , because I am only 1/12 th of the committee. Hopefully the intl Presidents met and got everything ironed out and we will get going soon. I haven't heard if the meeting took place, or how it went. Which is frustrating in itself. But hopefully the two sides can get together soon and get this survey along with other things worked out, so we can get going.

 

[WeAAsles]

I can't see any arbitration backdrop until, at least, the Association is up and running and operating in solidarity.   I'm not familiar with the framework that management offered the stews regarding  arbitration, but I think we can learn from that and tweak the original framework.  Seems to me that the stews had a very low bar, if there was a rejection, so low that management came in and had to toss more money at them.  Again, not knowing the framework, I gotta think that if the IAM/TWU agreed to binding arbitration after a 6 month negotiation timetable, that some of the items going into to it would be changed to protect against a possible rejection.  I have mixed emotions about all of this.  OTOH, agreeing to binding arbitration gives the appearance of a quick contract that is fair, in a booming industry envioronment.  OTOH, it restricts things.  Not having binding arbitration allows freedoms, such freedoms of choice and negotiation may necessarily extend and/or delay negotiated settlements.  But, it would also delay the operational merger which keeps leverage for us.  The risk is that if things go a long time, the environment may sour.   In a perfect world, arbitration may look reasonable, but the stews showed us that no such world exist.  Tough call.

Wouldn't it be nice to own a Crystal Ball instead of one of those Magic 8 Balls.

 

[charlie Brown]

My personal opinion on arbitration in this situation is, I'm against it. I think the fact that the company wants the unions to agree to this while it may be a good thing to hurry and get a deal. I think it speaks volumes on our leverage. Yes we are making billions in profits right now and we want to go while the going is good. However the company wants these agreements done! Which IMO gives us some leverage. The word " some " being key. I think we can get an agreement without agreeing to any arbitration as long as the company truly wants these joint agreements like they are saying. There are certain things I just wouldn't want to put in a arbitrators hands. Just two issues right off that I can think of would be scope and insurance.

 

[WeAAsles]

My personal opinion on arbitration in this situation is, I'm against it. I think the fact that the company wants the unions to agree to this while it may be a good thing to hurry and get a deal. I think it speaks volumes on our leverage. Yes we are making billions in profits right now and we want to go while the going is good. However the company wants these agreements done! Which IMO gives us some leverage. The word " some " being key. I think we can get an agreement without agreeing to any arbitration as long as the company truly wants these joint agreements like they are saying. There are certain things I just wouldn't want to put in a arbitrators hands. Just two issues right off that I can think of would be scope and insurance.

Hey CB let me ask you a silly question. When you're negotiating are you going to want to stick with a weaker issue if it's in your current CBA if there is stronger language in either the TWU contract or maybe even another contract out there?

I know that the question probably sounds ridiculous but there really is a reason I'm asking.

And have you seen anything in either of our two contracts that you think either side may put up a stone wall and say we like our language better?

The only one I can think of is maybe some back and forth on the Pension VS the 401 but I'm sure some type of agreement will be hashed out.

 

[NYer]

Hey CB let me ask you a silly question. When you're negotiating are you going to want to stick with a weaker issue if it's in your current CBA if there is stronger language in either the TWU contract or maybe even another contract out there?
I know that the question probably sounds ridiculous but there really is a reason I'm asking.
And have you seen anything in either of our two contracts that you think either side may put up a stone wall and say we like our language better?
The only one I can think of is maybe some back and forth on the Pension VS the 401 but I'm sure some type of agreement will be hashed out.

The big deal will tien out to be the multiemployer medical plans.

 

[NYer]

I can't see any arbitration backdrop until, at least, the Association is up and running and operating in solidarity.   I'm not familiar with the framework that management offered the stews regarding  arbitration, but I think we can learn from that and tweak the original framework.  Seems to me that the stews had a very low bar, if there was a rejection, so low that management came in and had to toss more money at them.  Again, not knowing the framework, I gotta think that if the IAM/TWU agreed to binding arbitration after a 6 month negotiation timetable, that some of the items going into to it would be changed to protect against a possible rejection.  I have mixed emotions about all of this.  OTOH, agreeing to binding arbitration gives the appearance of a quick contract that is fair, in a booming industry envioronment.  OTOH, it restricts things.  Not having binding arbitration allows freedoms, such freedoms of choice and negotiation may necessarily extend and/or delay negotiated settlements.  But, it would also delay the operational merger which keeps leverage for us.  The risk is that if things go a long time, the environment may sour.   In a perfect world, arbitration may look reasonable, but the stews showed us that no such world exist.  Tough call.

The leverage is the current status of oil prices, the premium to get a deal done before the Single Operators Certificate, the strong economy and rising stock price. To think that we will be able to back up the armored trucks will only allow the positive opportunity to whither away.

Aside from the financials, we have many issues that need to be addressed and that needs to be prioritized as well.

 

[charlie Brown]

Hey CB let me ask you a silly question. When you're negotiating are you going to want to stick with a weaker issue if it's in your current CBA if there is stronger language in either the TWU contract or maybe even another contract out there?
I know that the question probably sounds ridiculous but there really is a reason I'm asking.
And have you seen anything in either of our two contracts that you think either side may put up a stone wall and say we like our language better?
The only one I can think of is maybe some back and forth on the Pension VS the 401 but I'm sure some type of agreement will be hashed out.

I'm not a person that's concerned on saying who has the best language. I don't care who has the best language. I want the best contract in the industry whether it's in one of our contracts or any other airlines contract. Not sure I believe there are any issues either side should put up a wall on. I will say the I'm very glad we have the current scope language in the US contract with no drop dead date on it. I think that gives is the chance to get some really good scope language in the joint agreement. But I don't want to get too specific on this forum, as I know the company keeps track of this site. And like I said before. I am only 1 out of 12. But I can assure you, I'm not one of these guys that cares who gets credit for what language. I just want the job done.

 

[NYer]

My personal opinion on arbitration in this situation is, I'm against it. I think the fact that the company wants the unions to agree to this while it may be a good thing to hurry and get a deal. I think it speaks volumes on our leverage. Yes we are making billions in profits right now and we want to go while the going is good. However the company wants these agreements done! Which IMO gives us some leverage. The word " some " being key. I think we can get an agreement without agreeing to any arbitration as long as the company truly wants these joint agreements like they are saying. There are certain things I just wouldn't want to put in a arbitrators hands. Just two issues right off that I can think of would be scope and insurance.

The situation with arbitration was a prerequisite of the creditors committee that needed to sign off on the merger. If it's a matter of agreeing to arbitration and a minimum value to be gained (market aggregate), and no merger within bankruptcy, it seems the choice is clear and a no brainer. To have gains like they did within 2 years of the BK exit and a third of the way into their current CBA, they did better than what the alternative would have garnered.

 

[WeAAsles]

I'm not a person that's concerned on saying who has the best language. I don't care who has the best language. I want the best contract in the industry whether it's in one of our contracts or any other airlines contract. Not sure I believe there are any issues either side should put up a wall on. I will say the I'm very glad we have the current scope language in the US contract with no drop dead date on it. I think that gives is the chance to get some really good scope language in the joint agreement. But I don't want to get too specific on this forum, as I know the company keeps track of this site. And like I said before. I am only 1 out of 12. But I can assure you, I'm not one of these guys that cares who gets credit for what language. I just want the job done.

Nice response CB and I couldn't have said it any better myself. I'm pretty sure that everyone who walks into that room is going to feel the same way. Good icebreaker might be to talk about what music you like and bands you guys have all seen?

I know P Rez loves Zeppelin. I'd be touting up RUSH personally.

 

[charlie Brown]

The situation with arbitration was a prerequisite of the creditors committee that needed to sign off on the merger. If it's a matter of agreeing to arbitration and a minimum value to be gained (market aggregate), and no merger within bankruptcy, it seems the choice is clear and a no brainer. To have gains like they did within 2 years of the BK exit and a third of the way into their current CBA, they did better than what the alternative would have garnered.

Not sure we are on the same page. I was talking about taking contract talks to binding arbitration like both the flight attendants and pilots group have both agreed to do. Sorry of I wasn't clear.

 

[charlie Brown]

Nice response CB and I couldn't have said it any better myself. I'm pretty sure that everyone who walks into that room is going to feel the same way. Good icebreaker might be to talk about what music you like and bands you guys have all seen?
I know P Rez loves Zeppelin. I'd be touting up RUSH personally.

Lol. I here ya. P Rez, s brain is fried from living too long out there in the desert. No wonder he likes Zeppelin. Lol. Just kidding. But I'm more of a Van Halen guy myself. But I do like some Rush!