----------------
On 8/5/2003 2

10 PM RV4 wrote:
AMFA negotiated a 38% cap, which is a 62% improvement over what was currently accepted, and the fools keep claiming AMFA outsources job and lays off workers.
----------------
This appears to be the primary pro- or anti-AMFA argument, depending on the spin, so maybe someone can clarify it for me. According to Federal statistics, NWA is outsourcing 44% of the total maintenance budget. After reading the NWA-AMFA contract it appears that they can outsource up to 38% of the labor dollars. If they exceed that 38% then they must reimburse the association. Since the labor dollars are somewhat less than the total maintenance budget, NWA is probably substantially in excess of the 38% cap, much more than 6%.
My questions are:
1. If the company exceeds the cap and then pays the association the penalty, does that then make the association "whole"? Or is the company compelled to maintain that 38% maximum and the penalty is only meant for the period until the company gets back to it? The language, as I read it, seems pretty vague and I could read it either way.
2. Is the 38% exceedance a result of the Force Majeure layoffs or was the exceedence there prior to layoffs being declared "FM" layoffs? (I suspect it is the former)
3. Why have I not heard more about a grievance for exceeding the 38% cap? I keep my ear to the ground and have heard nothing about it. Is it that they hope to win the FM grievance and that will bring them back below the cap?