TWU informer
Veteran
- Nov 4, 2003
- 7,550
- 3,731
I challenge you to produce any section of the Railway Labor Act that would allow "Binding Arbitration" to be mandated by Executive Order?
I believe you are patently incorrect!
AA still will not bargain in good faith
- Thread starter Hopeful
- Start date
I challenge you to produce any section of the Railway Labor Act that would allow "Binding Arbitration" to be mandated by Executive Order?
I believe you are patently incorrect!
FrequentFlierCA
Veteran
- Feb 25, 2008
- 591
- 35
Not sure about the binding arbitration issue (I share TWU Informer's doubts) but I would bet that a Presidential Emergency Board would be called before pilots are allowed to strike.
AirLuver,
You're totally wrong.
-When the NMB mediator releases both parties, the 30 day cooling off period starts.
-When that ends with no agreement, labor can strike or the company can "lock out" the employees.
Both actions shut down operations.
Only then, (within minutes as has been proven), the President can order a Presidential Emergency Board (PEB) that proceeds with an intensive 30 day negotiation period followed by another 30 day cooling off period.
If that fails, you get another strike or lockout.
The only goverment action available at that point is for Congress to wrtie a contract for APA. I believe the alleged party of freedom and non-goverment intervention (the Republicans) would have written a AMR contract for APA just a couple of years ago. Not anymore. They lost their chance.
The other factor with the 1997 PEB was "battle fatigue". The APA membership was uneducated on the process at that time. We all faced major stress leading up to the strike, and then the PEB happened. After 60 days, we were beat.
Not this time. Everyone will prep for a strike, but will be ready for a slight delay for a PEB to make a Politician to look good.
I think AA actually thinks this tactic will work this time. It won't. It's just another "wack on the hornets nest".
You're totally wrong.
-When the NMB mediator releases both parties, the 30 day cooling off period starts.
-When that ends with no agreement, labor can strike or the company can "lock out" the employees.
Both actions shut down operations.
Only then, (within minutes as has been proven), the President can order a Presidential Emergency Board (PEB) that proceeds with an intensive 30 day negotiation period followed by another 30 day cooling off period.
If that fails, you get another strike or lockout.
The only goverment action available at that point is for Congress to wrtie a contract for APA. I believe the alleged party of freedom and non-goverment intervention (the Republicans) would have written a AMR contract for APA just a couple of years ago. Not anymore. They lost their chance.
The other factor with the 1997 PEB was "battle fatigue". The APA membership was uneducated on the process at that time. We all faced major stress leading up to the strike, and then the PEB happened. After 60 days, we were beat.
Not this time. Everyone will prep for a strike, but will be ready for a slight delay for a PEB to make a Politician to look good.
I think AA actually thinks this tactic will work this time. It won't. It's just another "wack on the hornets nest".
Sorry, I confused binding arbitration with the fact that the Congress could re-write the contract (a much worse scenario).
It is still a possibility that the government would step in with a congressionally written contract, with all of the PAC contributions that AA makes. Especially given some of the antics of the APA in regards to billboards and press releases and letters to management - i.e. the one accusing management of driving someone to suicide.
The other option is for AA to shut down the operation in the event of a strike, and declare bankruptcy. Which is the likeliest scenario. If Delta, NW, United and USAir, had not given their houses away in their contracts prior to bankruptcy, not all would have filed for C11. But Delta/NW and USAir had to "me too" the UA contract, and hence their spiral into bankruptcy.
The general economy is in the tank. With the drop in fuel prices, AA may make a small profit next year, if passenger loads don't completely dry up. But not nearly enough to make up for the loss in the 2nd quarter this year, let alone snap back wages for all employee groups. AA management will not look at any higher wages for any employee group, without some corresponding workload increases and/or work rules relaxation.
Well for the TWU there are no contractual workload limitations and what are the workrules that we have that other better paid workers dont have?
T
The Goose
Guest
I'll second that.
What are these work rules and changes I keep hearing about? Are these "rule changes" any different than doing the job I'm supposed to be doing as I was hired to do?
Somebody help me out here - if I'm supposed to be doing something else, I wasn't told.
Goose the management types have been singing this tune for years but everytime we challenge them all we get is silence.
TWU informer
Veteran
- Nov 4, 2003
- 7,550
- 3,731
I think this time around they are requesting hand picked Crew Chiefs and the ability to transfer people to work without regards to seniority or bidding. "Work Rule Changes"
Much worse for whom? You seem to have missed what happened Tuesday.
Did AA give more than the AFL-CIO?
Every time I check a flight its full.
Who says a loss has to be made up? A "loss" is not based in cash. Write downs, write offs, depreciation and scores of other legal accounting gimmicks allow corporations that are revenue positive to show losses.
After a PEB and after the rejection of the PEB recommendations, Congressional intervention has come in a number of ways:
1. A Special Board that may be basically a second PEB in authority - make recommendations,
2. A Special Board that can have hearings and impose an agreement usually with the PEB recommendations as a guide,
3. A straight-up arbitration, and
4. Imposition of PEB recommendations
But they can be any thing else that one can think of.
Congressional interventions are rare but have occurred a dozen or more times; all may have been on the rail side. The last I believe was in 1992.
You may find the Democratic controlled congresses have been more active in this area than their counter-parts.
In 1992, Congress (Demos) fashioned a last-best offer process for three separate rail carriers.
1. A Special Board that may be basically a second PEB in authority - make recommendations,
2. A Special Board that can have hearings and impose an agreement usually with the PEB recommendations as a guide,
3. A straight-up arbitration, and
4. Imposition of PEB recommendations
But they can be any thing else that one can think of.
Congressional interventions are rare but have occurred a dozen or more times; all may have been on the rail side. The last I believe was in 1992.
You may find the Democratic controlled congresses have been more active in this area than their counter-parts.
In 1992, Congress (Demos) fashioned a last-best offer process for three separate rail carriers.
Have any of then been concessionary or been concessionary on top of a previously concessionary agreement?
Several could be viewed as concessionary, e.g., a resolution of manning issues or a significant costly work rule change. I do not think any would be viewed as concessionary in terms what you have experienced, e.g., wage cuts, etc.
Management has not always been happy with the results. In several instances, the Congressional intervention was sought by labor.
Usually, the legislative staffing of any such process would focus on professional labor contract arbitrators. The trick would be to make sure you have input into both deciding on the process and in the method of selection of the arbitrators or Board Members used in the process.
Under the RLA: the majority of requests for NMB intervention are denied on the first basis.
The agreement by the TWU and AA for "expedited" negotiations as late as December only gave the compAAny breathing room: it is doubtfull that the TWU will seek the contract the IAM obtained at Boeing.
It allows the TWU and AA to duck the contributions of the M&E group to the bottom line of AA while forcing all contract groups into the joint negotiations we voted out of and into the TWU mantra that a loaf of bread costs all Union members the same.
Make a motion at your next Local Meeting for the M&E group to request NMB Mediation, and bring someone with you that will second the motion.
The agreement by the TWU and AA for "expedited" negotiations as late as December only gave the compAAny breathing room: it is doubtfull that the TWU will seek the contract the IAM obtained at Boeing.
It allows the TWU and AA to duck the contributions of the M&E group to the bottom line of AA while forcing all contract groups into the joint negotiations we voted out of and into the TWU mantra that a loaf of bread costs all Union members the same.
Make a motion at your next Local Meeting for the M&E group to request NMB Mediation, and bring someone with you that will second the motion.
eolesen
Veteran
- Jul 23, 2003
- 15,959
- 9,374
Before you get too excited about unions going out on strike... a refresher in the history of PEB's:
Bush called for two PEB's against airlines, which is more than Clinton's one PEB, but tied if you consider that APFA and AA were a judgement call away from being a PEB. Specifically, had Crandall turned down Clinton's request, there would have been a PEB, which would put Clinton at a tie with Bush II.
Kennedy (D) holds the title of being the President who has issued more PEB's in history, which is even more impressive if you consider that he didn't serve out both terms.
Since 1960, Democrats used the PEB (61 times) more than Republicans (45 times), which is even more ironic considering how few Democrats have held the presidency in that same timeframe, and how much labor continues to supports the Democratic party.
Here's the breakdown as of YE 2007.
Bush II = 8 (2 being UA/IAM and NW/AMFA)
Clinton = 12 (1 being AA/APA)
Bush I = 4
Reagan = 18 (13 of them dealing with either the LIRR or PATH)
Carter = 10
Ford = 5
Nixon = 10
Johnson = 9
Kennedy = 30
When you weight it by terms, Bush 1 & 2 each convened 4 boards per term, and share the low end of the spectrum.
Carter convened 10 and Kennedy convened 20 per term, sharing the high end of the spectrum with Reagan and Nixon, who each convened 9 per term.
Part of the drop is attributable to massive consolidation within the railroads -- the major railroads are about a third in numbers from what they were in the late 60's, although the number of unionized commuter railroads has remained somewhat constant.
Before Clinton stepped in with APA, there hadn't been any hint of presidential intervention with negotiations or strikes at airline unions since 1966, even during the darkest days at Continental or Eastern.
So, before you start making this a party vs. party issue, at least look at the entire picture and realize that in many ways, the Demoncrats have been talking out of both sides of their mouth when it comes to being Labor's Friend.
I personally don't believe that Obama will be any different than Clinton or Carter. He'll get a call from one of his godfathers in Chicago, be told that a strike by AA or UA will cripple the city, and he'll intervene. And it won't be pretty for either side if he does. Sacrifice. God forbid it be a workgroup like pilots who will be portrayed as earning more than the moving target of $250/200/150K per year quoted by Obama and Biden as being the dividing point between rich and middle class....
Bush called for two PEB's against airlines, which is more than Clinton's one PEB, but tied if you consider that APFA and AA were a judgement call away from being a PEB. Specifically, had Crandall turned down Clinton's request, there would have been a PEB, which would put Clinton at a tie with Bush II.
Kennedy (D) holds the title of being the President who has issued more PEB's in history, which is even more impressive if you consider that he didn't serve out both terms.
Since 1960, Democrats used the PEB (61 times) more than Republicans (45 times), which is even more ironic considering how few Democrats have held the presidency in that same timeframe, and how much labor continues to supports the Democratic party.
Here's the breakdown as of YE 2007.
Bush II = 8 (2 being UA/IAM and NW/AMFA)
Clinton = 12 (1 being AA/APA)
Bush I = 4
Reagan = 18 (13 of them dealing with either the LIRR or PATH)
Carter = 10
Ford = 5
Nixon = 10
Johnson = 9
Kennedy = 30
When you weight it by terms, Bush 1 & 2 each convened 4 boards per term, and share the low end of the spectrum.
Carter convened 10 and Kennedy convened 20 per term, sharing the high end of the spectrum with Reagan and Nixon, who each convened 9 per term.
Part of the drop is attributable to massive consolidation within the railroads -- the major railroads are about a third in numbers from what they were in the late 60's, although the number of unionized commuter railroads has remained somewhat constant.
Before Clinton stepped in with APA, there hadn't been any hint of presidential intervention with negotiations or strikes at airline unions since 1966, even during the darkest days at Continental or Eastern.
So, before you start making this a party vs. party issue, at least look at the entire picture and realize that in many ways, the Demoncrats have been talking out of both sides of their mouth when it comes to being Labor's Friend.
I personally don't believe that Obama will be any different than Clinton or Carter. He'll get a call from one of his godfathers in Chicago, be told that a strike by AA or UA will cripple the city, and he'll intervene. And it won't be pretty for either side if he does. Sacrifice. God forbid it be a workgroup like pilots who will be portrayed as earning more than the moving target of $250/200/150K per year quoted by Obama and Biden as being the dividing point between rich and middle class....
