AA/APFA Negotiations

[jersey777]

With the 2012 re-election campaign starting up in the next 10 months, I suspect you have a very short window for anyone to be released into a 30-cooling off period. As in between now and October. After that, and it becomes a political football and none of the political appointees sitting on the NMB are going to put their future at risk by messing with Obummer's chances at re-election.

That said, I think you're kidding yourself if you expect a release after the first session with a new mediator.

Well the mediator could have scheduled a series of talks but he didn't. You are probably right though. I don't see why things would get rolling in this process. The NMB has dropped the ball IMO. The only reason I can see them releasing us now is the fact it is the depth of Winter when we could do the least amount of damage. But then again, there is Presidents Day weekend in February.

 

[FWAAA]

CNN reports that over 400,000 have unemployment claims. Thats far from 14.9 Mil WTF???

The 400,000 you (and CNN) refer to are the number of people with new unemployment claims in the most recent week. The 15 million people is the number of total unemployed people, which is probably a low estimate if you factor in all the discouraged workers (those who have given up and are no longer looking for work).

 

[MCI transplant]

<_< ------ Anyone remember, way back when Uncle Ross P. referenced the "Big sucking sound of jobs going over seas"?------ Well guess what? 😉

 

[jimntx]

CNN reports that over 400,000 have unemployment claims. Thats far from 14.9 Mil WTF???

As someone who used to work for the Texas Employment Commission, now known as the Texas Workforce Commisssion, I can answer that one.

The 400,000 number reported on CNN is the number of people who filed an initial claim for unemployment within the last week. In other words, they just became unemployed recently. Once you are drawing unemployment, you are not reported again in those numbers.

Also, the number of people drawing unemployment compensation has little relationship to the number of people unemployed. Not everyone is eligible to draw--for several reasons. The employer may not have been subject to the Unemployment Compensation Payroll Tax--small companies with total payroll under a certain amount are not subject to the law. And, before you make the mistake of arguing that everyone pays the tax, this is a common misconception. Employees do not pay a dime toward unemployment compensation. Unemployment Insurance (UI) benefits are funded totally through a payroll tax on the employer. It is a violation of Federal law for the employer to deduct anything from the employee's pay for this tax. No, it is not part of the FICA deduction from your paycheck. That is strictly Social Security/Medicare which is administered by a totally separate Federal agency. Unemployment Compensation is administered by the state employment agencies under the direction of the U.S. Dept. of Labor.

The employee may not be eligible for UI payments.

1. Certain job classifications are not covered--IIRC correctly (it's been 30+ years since I worked in the field, but the law has not changed significantly since then), people who work on straight commission, such as real estate agents, and part-time employees are not covered.
2. The law states that the employee must have lost their job through no fault of their own. if an employee is fired for cause--such as, stealing from the employer--the employer can dispute a claim for UI and usually wins.
3. The person filing for unemployment must be "ready, willing, and able" to work full-time in order to draw UI benefits. If a person is too sick to work or an an the job injury prevents employment (covered by the Workmen's Compensation law), they are not eligible for UI payments. If they refuse suitable work without good cause, they are not eligible. If it is determined that the person is not making a suitable effort to seek work, their initial claim can be denied. Or, if they are already drawing, the claim can be terminated.
4. The person may not have worked long enough to be eligible. You must have 5 quarters (15 months) of continuous work at a covered employer to draw UI if you lose your job. (This is not necessarily one employer, but all of them must be covered by the law. If you worked for a covered employer for a year, quit or got fired, and you just got fired from 3 months of mowing the lawn for the guy next door, you are not eligible.)

As FWAAA, stated above, if you have become so discouraged that you have quit looking for work, you are not counted as unemployed. The Bureau of Labor Statistics has a very complicated and sophisticated method of computing the "official" unemployment rate. However, it is a generally accepted belief that the actual unemployment rate is at least 3%-5% higher than the "official" rate.

 

[737823]

The 400,000 you (and CNN) refer to are the number of people with new unemployment claims in the most recent week. The 15 million people is the number of total unemployed people, which is probably a low estimate if you factor in all the discouraged workers (those who have given up and are no longer looking for work).

As someone who used to work for the Texas Employment Commission, now known as the Texas Workforce Commisssion, I can answer that one.

The 400,000 number reported on CNN is the number of people who filed an initial claim for unemployment within the last week. In other words, they just became unemployed recently. Once you are drawing unemployment, you are not reported again in those numbers.

<cut>

As FWAAA, stated above, if you have become so discouraged that you have quit looking for work, you are not counted as unemployed. The Bureau of Labor Statistics has a very complicated and sophisticated method of computing the "official" unemployment rate. However, it is a generally accepted belief that the actual unemployment rate is at least 3%-5% higher than the "official" rate.

Great explanation from both FWAA and Jim, and I'll also add that underemployment is not included-i.e. someone working only part-time who is seeking a full-time job or a professional that has been laid off who is currently working in restaurants or retail. I think the Bureau of Labor Statistic (BLS) methodology does understate as they have specific questions for surveys conducting in different regions and industries throughout the country to make a best point estimate.

Josh

 

[737823]

Yea, we can look and see what a great job they did at USAIR, the IAM started the concessions train in 2002 by opening up their contract to supposedly avoid BK, they gave the company everything they wanted, the company filed, then went back for two more rounds of concessions in BK, then they helped NWA bust AMFA only to be rewarded by being decertified when the owners of NWA sold the company to Delta.

And what happened at DL has worked well for them. The employees are by and large happy, well compensated, and the company is solidly profitable. Need I say more?

The IAM abandoned their members at TWA. The IAM had a successorship clause but abandoned it rather than risk being screwed out of money TWA owed their pension plan and lease payments for an engine they owned.

My limited understanding is that APFA facilitated the seniority integration and AA's hands were tied as required by law at the time and APFA shafted the TWA workers by stapling them to the bottom of the seniority lists, however provided a fenced base at former TWA hubs STL/JFK so TWA workers could maintain relative seniority among their counterparts. You are obviously much closer to this matter than I am so I could be wrong. I do know that since the TWA merger new bi-partisan legislation from MO senators McCaskil (D) and Bond (R) stipulates future mergers must integrate based on date of hire, along with other changes such as extending recall rights for furloughed workers.

I once had a high opinion of the IAM, they have negotiated many good contracts over the years but for the last ten they have been in a downward spiral.

I'm confused. Your usual attack has been management and the interest of the traveling public to travel on cheap fares for the race to the bottom in airline employee wages and benefits, now when it's convenient you scapegoat IAM?

While the number may look high, top out of $57/hr, those are flight hours only. If you figure they work 80 flight hours per month (they dont get paid on the ground even though they are working) that comes out to just $55,000 after 16 years at the end of the contarct. A new hire would be making around $25000/year. My 16 year old daughter would be making more than that if she worked full time.

I think the $57/hour has built in the value of the ground time, so while the clock may not be running, were ground time to be included the hourly wage would be lower. APFA and other FA unions agreed to that in their contract-for APFA to blast management in YouTube videos over their "work" during boarding and at airports while "signed in and on-duty" is outrageous but certainly not unexpected from the union.

Why should a new hire make more than $25k or a 16 year employee make more than $55k? At the risk of being blasted for pointed out the cold hard facts, while many FAs may have college degrees (I imagine some even have graduate degrees) the degrees really aren't essential to the position as its essentially customer service and safety compliance and fulfillment in the air. I'm in no way discounting the work FAs do or lives that they continue to save but you don't see workers at restaurants or department stores demanding benefits and pay along the lines of flight attendants.

Considering many FAs only work 80-95 hours/month MAX its significantly less than a traditional full time schedule of a salaried professionial-you can't compare apples to oranges.

I think the notion of FAs being a 'career' needs to shift and we should promote young folks 20-30 years old interested in working for 5-7 years as a job-big difference. Management aside, people don't apply to work at Macy's or Starbucks as with the expectation of staying for their career they are JOBS for short-medium term employment.

What "Josh" seems to forget is that long negotiations seem to be the case when labor is in a position to make gains. It took three years for the NMB to release tiny little Spirit Airlines, who later successfully struck the carrier, when the NMB starts releasing the workers at AA, who are at or beyoind that three year mark now, then the company will have to start negotiating because they wont win a strike. People arent eager to work for airlines anymore. Delta was trying to intmidate their FAs by bragging that they recieved 87000 applications but with 15 million unemployed that means that 14.9 million would rather remain unemployed than work for Delta as a Flight Attendant.

I think it speaks more to the union leadership and attitude of the membership. As Steven Ellis pointed out, in 2003 the APFA concessions were obtained in 17 days-largely because the union was in the fetal position (along with other AA employees) and was seriously concerned about AA's viability at the time. Say all you want that it was all a bluff, but the leadership and membership had serious concern for the companies stability at that time.

While the company has been successful at getting Flight Attendants to return (at top pay rates with full vacation allotments) they havent been that successful at getting their mechanics back. In the Northeast they've wiped out their recall lists, and had to trick upgrades into filling vacancies. New York wiped out their list which had around 300 names on it quite a while ago, Boston had around 38, 5 came back but three immediately put in for MIA, so out of 38 they eneded up with two.

The simple fact of the matter is flight attendants are more replaceable than mechanics. Are you seriously going to dispute that? Mechanics have experience and certification that is sought after while there is a virtually endless supply of 20-30 year olds with retail/customer service experience that would gladly replace the APFA members, and they could replace the bilinguals too.

If tiny little Spirit could not bust their pilots then the larger carriers have even less of a chance at busting their unions.

AA, Delta or any other carrier has not indicated an intent to bust their unions (yeah I know all about AFA's bogus interference charges that will only delay the inevitable at very best). AA seeks an equitable contract that allows the company to remain profitable and bring its costs down to a competitive level.

Why do you care? Seems if your anti-worker, and anti-union as you have shown, you wouldn't want any union, right? Let alone the IAm.

It must be a boring day in the cubicle, maybe you and Ole can get together and sharpen some pencils or sort some paper clips. 😀

No. I respect workers rights to form unions and if AA workers want to join a union they are entitled. The problem I have with unions is when the work rules, pay and benefits in their negotiated contracts cripples the corporation (or government in the case of public workers). I also dislike the empty handed harassment and thuggery unions engage in and force their presence on workers. Unions are unwilling to respect that not all workers want to join or partake in their strike action. I dislike unions that protect incompetent workers while hindering the success and development of others actually interested in contributing to the company. The railway labor act does not afford that protection to workers in right to work state (ie FL, GA, TX, etc). I dislike out of touch, greedy, selfish and destructive union leaders taking excessive salary, housing, union vehicles, etc off the backs of the workers.

Sorry I'm not anti-worker or anti-union rather I'm anti-harassment, anti-thug, and anti-destructive.

Josh

 

[eolesen]

To add to Jim and FWAAA's points, also missing from the stats are under-employed (e.g. laid-off teachers now working at Starbucks), the self-employed who simply can't get any paying work, and those who worked for small independent contractors in the various building trades (e.g. plumbers, carpenters, painters, drywallers, electricians) who fell below the threshold mentioned above.

Considering the total drop-off in the housing construction industry, the latter figure could be quite substantial.

 

[damajagua]

No agreement. Am not surprise. It's time to get the clock ticking. The NMB has to release us.

 

[paul1]

No agreement. Am not surprise. It's time to get the clock ticking. The NMB has to release us.

well what happened

 

[Hatu]

well what happened

This is APFA President Laura Glading with a special Hotline Update for Thursday, January 6, 2011.

As Yogi Berra once said, “It’s déjà vu all over again.”

We ended this week’s bargaining sessions in Nashville without an agreement. We were able to clean up some loose ends on Article 10, Reserve,. The company made proposals on Benefits and some premium/training pay which put some money in one pocket, yet took it from another. Déjà vu.

Flight Attendants would still end up making less than they did in 2003.

We did everything we possibly could to achieve a deal but the company is still unwilling to recognize the value Flight Attendants bring to this company.

You’ve told us where we need to be and we will get there no mater how hard we have to flight. The 96.8 percent of the membership voting YES for strike authorization showed our strength and unity.

APFA’s Negotiating Team has made a promise to the Membership not to bring you a concessionary contract. We stand by that promise.

Mr. Gibbons will go back to the National Mediation Board Members and they will once again review our case and our request for release into a 30-day cooling off period.


Stay Unified, Stay Strong and Stay Informed.

 

[AANOTOK]

jersey,

I would think if one group can report something positive....

I guess not!

 

[Veritas]

My limited understanding is that APFA facilitated the seniority integration and AA's hands were tied as required by law at the time and APFA shafted the TWA workers by stapling them to the bottom of the seniority lists, however provided a fenced base at former TWA hubs STL/JFK so TWA workers could maintain relative seniority among their counterparts. You are obviously much closer to this matter than I am so I could be wrong. I do know that since the TWA merger new bi-partisan legislation from MO senators McCaskil (D) and Bond (R) stipulates future mergers must integrate based on date of hire, along with other changes such as extending recall rights for furloughed workers.

Your understanding, indeed, is very limited.

Let's see.

First, the IAM waived the TWA Flight Attendants contractual seniority protections (Scope and Successorship clause of the CBA) in return for an empty promise of a company provided facilitator to help the unions negotiate a seniority integration agreement. Of course, nothing could be done when the AFPA refused the services of the facilitator, Richard Kasher.

Secondly, during the IAM's preliminary meeting with the APFA, its representatives demanded DOH or nothing. They were not open to the idea of slotting, percentages, ratios or dovetailing. Guess what they obtained for their members? Nothing (actually, long periods of unemployment).

Then the IAM refused to fund the appeal of the trial court's dismissal of the seniority lawsuit.

This is all by a union who got on the premises by representing that none of its members ever lost a day of seniority during mergers and acquisitions.

The IAM botched the seniority integration, pure and simple.

The McCaskill/Bond Amendment does not guarantee DOH. It provides mandatory arbitration to obtain "fair and equitable" seniority integration. "Fair and equitable" is based on many considerations including the relative seniority of the affected work groups, the relative sizes of the work groups, career expectations and date of hire amongst other factors.

Lastly, the McCaskill/Bond Amendment is not retroactive. It pretty much guarantees that the former TWA flight attendants will remain towards the bottom of any combined seniority list should AA merge with any other carrier.

This is APFA President Laura Glading with a special Hotline Update for Thursday, January 6, 2011.

As Yogi Berra once said, “It’s déjà vu all over again.”

<snip>

The company version:

APFA Negotiations Updates 2011

January 4-6, 2011
The company and APFA resumed mediated negotiations in Nashville, Tenn., this week under the guidance of Director of Mediation Larry Gibbons. At the request of the mediator, the parties began the session by reaching an agreement on which of the contract issues remained open, as well as each side’s position on those issues. Throughout the course of the week, the company offered proposals in the areas of pay, healthcare and reserve that moved toward the union. The parties also reached a tentative agreement on the outstanding elements of the contract article on Reserve. We remain committed and dedicated to this process in order to reach a new agreement with APFA.

We are awaiting next steps from the National Mediation Board, but it’s important to remember a release from mediation would only occur if the NMB believed that mediation would no longer be productive in reaching an agreement. This week, the company again demonstrated its willingness to continue to improve its last offer by addressing issues important to APFA. Unfortunately, APFA was unable to counter any of the proposals made by the company.

The company has real money on the table, and it is important to note that our comprehensive proposal is not zero-sum. Any flight attendant who flies at least 52 hours per month would have the ability to make more money than they do today, as well as receive increased sick and vacation time. While the week closed without the mediator scheduling new dates, we are hopeful to receive dates in the near future.

The company’s proposed areas this week are additions or clarifications to its comprehensive proposal presented May 2010 (the last time the company and APFA met).

More​

 

[paul1]

it looks like the co. is making in roads , but APFA President Laura Glading is just like the twu group they are digging themselfs in so far, that in the end we the membership will pay the price

 

[jersey777]

it looks like the co. is making in roads , but APFA President Laura Glading is just like the twu group they are digging themselfs in so far, that in the end we the membership will pay the price

I didn't see any inroads besides tweaking the medical plan with an option for the employee + one child. There was no talk about any increase in pay rates. They want to offer a 3% signing bonus for the past year and not an increase in pay rates. For the next year they are offering 2% structural increase. Compare this to Continental who have offered a 2.5% structural raise for last year and a 2.5% increase for this year. Basically as Laura said....it was the same old same old.

 

[737823]

Your understanding, indeed, is very limited.

Let's see.

First, the IAM waived the TWA Flight Attendants contractual seniority protections (Scope and Successorship clause of the CBA) in return for an empty promise of a company provided facilitator to help the unions negotiate a seniority integration agreement. Of course, nothing could be done when the AFPA refused the services of the facilitator, Richard Kasher.

Secondly, during the IAM's preliminary meeting with the APFA, its representatives demanded DOH or nothing. They were not open to the idea of slotting, percentages, ratios or dovetailing. Guess what they obtained for their members? Nothing (actually, long periods of unemployment).

Then the IAM refused to fund the appeal of the trial court's dismissal of the seniority lawsuit.

This is all by a union who got on the premises by representing that none of its members ever lost a day of seniority during mergers and acquisitions.

The IAM botched the seniority integration, pure and simple.

The McCaskill/Bond Amendment does not guarantee DOH. It provides mandatory arbitration to obtain "fair and equitable" seniority integration. "Fair and equitable" is based on many considerations including the relative seniority of the affected work groups, the relative sizes of the work groups, career expectations and date of hire amongst other factors.

Lastly, the McCaskill/Bond Amendment is not retroactive.

Thanks for the information, and as I originally posted I didn't think I had the full/correct information. Well then it's no wonder IAM failed miserably (30-70) at DL for customer service workers. I was talking to the agents at JFK Skyclub last week and they didn't want to touch the IAM or another union with a 10 foot pole and I see why.

What constitutes equitable? It's very subjective and inevitably one employee group will benefit disproportionately while another could get hosed at the same time. In a union shop isn't seniority what dictates pay, benefits, schedule, duties, etc so obviously it is very meaningul to the employees involved.

Also-I take it you aren't suggesting that were STL to not have lost it's hub TW employees still would have faced the same fate? (ie this largely happened before 9/11 and subsequent closing of STL)

Was the former STL base all PM-TW with the few that remained? I know some are getting recalled but things can't be too good for MO and STL

Josh