AFA Labor Discussion (Work Conditions) 7-7 -

[HP2USFA]

I get the frustration from my east compatriots. I honestly do.

But what I don't get, and what I WON'T get is those among you who feel anything less than a return to the 2000 contract is a concession. If it's better than you have now, but still not what it was in 2000 or better, then a No vote must take place.

THAT is complete and total BS and is what I refer to when I say holding folks hostage. I'm fine with holding out for a better contract, I'm not for stretching this out for years on a pipe dream. We'll never get 2000 back, it can't happen. No company would willingly put themselves into a financially untenable situation. Fuel wasn't as expensive as it is now and the company couldn't afford the contract... what makes anyone think they can do so now?

There's sticking up for what you believe in, and then there's just being unrealistic. There is nothing NOTHING wrong with getting a contract that is better than what we have currently on both sides without expecting the sun, sky and all the dark matter in the universe handed to us on a silver platter.

I'd also point out that the much beloved, 'Me Too' clause granted you the pleasure of many of your current concessions before the Union even sat down to the table. I don't see how having that little tidbit of a clause is the promise land. Quite the opposite.

 

[cynic]

There's sticking up for what you believe in, and then there's just being unrealistic. There is nothing NOTHING wrong with getting a contract that is better than what we have currently on both sides without expecting the sun, sky and all the dark matter in the universe handed to us on a silver platter.

So everyone stomping their feet and holding their breath won't bring back PIT?

 

[ebwgs]

I'd also point out that the much beloved, 'Me Too' clause granted you the pleasure of many of your current concessions before the Union even sat down to the table. I don't see how having that little tidbit of a clause is the promise land. Quite the opposite.

HP your characterization of the Me-Too clause as being "that little tidbit of a clause" not only reflects your misunderstanding of how it has, in most cases, served us well, but also reflects the narrow view of many out west as to how a well negotiated contract can enhance the quality of life of all flight attendants. You may deride it all you want, but once it works in your favor then you will begin to understand why so many of us are fighting so hard to keep it. Overall, it must be a good thing or the company wouldn't be fighting so hard to kill it. It may not be The Promised Land, but I sure as heck don't want to take my chances on the potential purgatory or Hell that life without the Me-Too clause might become at the hands of the company.

 

[HP2USFA]

All I need to know about the 'Me Too' clause is the simple fact that it isn't some magic wand that grants us the FAA duty protections given to pilots. It's simply negotiated language like everything else in our contracts.

And the fact that while it may 'protect' it also damages. You can tout it as much as you want to but I don't think a clause that can allow the pilots to sign away our gains in negotiations is a good thing. I find it telling that none of you are willing to discuss that fact.

The pilots sat down in bankruptcy and gave away bits an pieces of your contract by simple fashion of giving it up themselves. Why would you want to grant another workforce the ability to hand you concessions by mere matter of default?

We can negotiate better protections for OURSELVES, BY OURSELVES. It's all negotiated language regardless of what you call it.

 

[HP2USFA]

Not to mention that I don't trust USAPA to negotiate ANYTHING that will benefit me. They haven't shown stellar abilities to date. Heck they haven't even negotiated more than 5 sections yet.

And we want to wait for them to get their act together.

No.

Thank.

You.

Negotiate better protections for ourselves, by ourselves!

 

[ebwgs]

HP:
We will just have to agree to disagree. You have your scheduling system that you've come to know and we have ours. I'd bet the farm that there are more flight attendants here in the east who have worked under your system than you have flight attendants who have worked under ours. And when I hear many of our f/as express their strong opposition to gutting the Me-Too based on their past experiences I listen. They have great credibility and their anecdotal accounts give power to those of us who want to maintain the MTC. I suspect you have few if any out west who have had the dual experience of having worked under both systems, so your shouting out against it is but a shreik of the fear of the unknown. The whole notion that we can't negotiate on our own is a rhetorical red herring aimed to simplify what is a very complicated undertaking i.e. successfully negotioationg a workable CBA. The fact that we have had the MTC is a product of our having negotiated it as well as other sections in our contracts past and present. You've only had one CBA in the west. We've had several. Again, I'd rather fight a day longer and get a workable contract that I'm proud of, than settle a day sooner and get a contract that I regret. No more concessions. Enhancements only please.

 

[flybynite]

HP:
We will just have to agree to disagree. You have your scheduling system that you've come to know and we have ours. I'd bet the farm that there are more flight attendants here in the east who have worked under your system than you have flight attendants who have worked under ours. And when I hear many of our f/as express their strong opposition to gutting the Me-Too based on their past experiences I listen. They have great credibility and their anecdotal accounts give power to those of us who want to maintain the MTC. I suspect you have few if any out west who have had the dual experience of having worked under both systems, so your shouting out against it is but a shreik of the fear of the unknown. The whole notion that we can't negotiate on our own is a rhetorical red herring aimed to simplify what is a very complicated undertaking i.e. successfully negotioationg a workable CBA. The fact that we have had the MTC is a product of our having negotiated it as well as other sections in our contracts past and present. You've only had one CBA in the west. We've had several. Again, I'd rather fight a day longer and get a workable contract that I'm proud of, than settle a day sooner and get a contract that I regret. No more concessions. Enhancements only please.

Well said

 

[MUTATIS MUTANDIS]

Not to change the subject, just curious,How many of the 400+ EXL's did the company go thru to get 175? Thanx in advance for the answer! MM!

 

[Travelpro72]

On September 18th Paul Kinsey informed Mike Flores that the company would need an ADDITIONAL 150 flight attendants beginning in March 2011. Due to attrition and additional flying (due to higher a/c utilization) the company stated that as the reason. Hector Adler made the decision to send recall notices to the remaining f/a's on the EXL list. As of now there are 277 still on the list. Of the original 430 when the recall was announced, the company received no response from 153 f/a's. They will be removed from the seniority list effective October 1. 174 "return to work" packets were sent out at the beginning of September with a 24th/25th response deadline. As of the 18th they had only 30ish responses. That triggered the need to send notices to the remaining 102 f/a's on furlough. Once this is over the company will offer returns to the VFLR (return as newhires) f/a's followed by off the street hiring.

 

[galley princess]

Regarding what US can or cannot afford, I believe that we can all agree that they are well represented and will definitely take care of their concerns.

F/As should focus on their own concerns, which is what this thread is about.

This particular TA is going to hinge very heavily on votes. It's important that East F/As realize that they must all vote in force, because there should be no doubt as to whether or not people were informed or represented themselves.

I expect West to vote for an upcoming TA simply because they're starting from a ground zero that is -unbelievably- worse that Easts'. So I am not surprised when a West F/A finds the whole MT discussion as well as bidsheet frustrating. You don't miss what you don't know.

This is a WAG, but I wonder if some of the hysteria that is building around this agreement is about numbers.

(Gross generalizations to follow)
Historically, PIT and PHL tended toward voting NO on TAs, both cities have a higher labor concentration. CLT tends to vote yes for proposed TAs. Now that we have three East bases and a West base, who IMHO reasons referenced earlier is more likely to vote for a proposed TA, even before seeing an agreement there is the perception that this is going to be close and those of us who want existing East work rules retained are getting nervous.

There are F/As that don't want to be held up by sections they don't care about. Fine. I don't want an agreement that denies me a quality of life that I got used to and then had taken away.

All I do know is that the one thing F/As do control in this is their vote. If the TA guts important sections, it needs to be voted down. If the union brings an agreement, and it's voted down, they go back and renegotiate. If the company balks and won't move, then the clock starts ticking. CHAOS is certainly sitting at that negotiating table. It's just quiet right now.

BTW, keep in mind that anyone can post here and talking down expectations is certainly part of the game.

 

[ggiby]

Not to change the subject, just curious,How many of the 400+ EXL's did the company go thru to get 175? Thanx in advance for the answer! MM!

I am not completely sure but they have all been recalled. Except those that took the buyout. They have not called them yet. Those are the ones that will go to the bottom of the list. Like a new hire.

 

[Travelpro72]

Read post 429. There is your answer.

 

[Onestep2flt]

HP:
We will just have to agree to disagree. You have your scheduling system that you've come to know and we have ours. I'd bet the farm that there are more flight attendants here in the east who have worked under your system than you have flight attendants who have worked under ours. And when I hear many of our f/as express their strong opposition to gutting the Me-Too based on their past experiences I listen. They have great credibility and their anecdotal accounts give power to those of us who want to maintain the MTC. I suspect you have few if any out west who have had the dual experience of having worked under both systems, so your shouting out against it is but a shreik of the fear of the unknown. The whole notion that we can't negotiate on our own is a rhetorical red herring aimed to simplify what is a very complicated undertaking i.e. successfully negotioationg a workable CBA. The fact that we have had the MTC is a product of our having negotiated it as well as other sections in our contracts past and present. You've only had one CBA in the west. We've had several. Again, I'd rather fight a day longer and get a workable contract that I'm proud of, than settle a day sooner and get a contract that I regret. No more concessions. Enhancements only please.

This is a well thought out post. You get what you negotiate! Do not forget to change out the negotiators too. I think until this happens you guys are just along for a ride. I think that there are enough followers in the inner circle that if they are not somehow forced to the curb that you guys will get a poorly negotiated agreement that will not represent ALL flight attendants. Mr. Flores and his sidekick seem as invincible as a crooked used car salesman. I think you guys need to find another dealer that represents ALL of you guys fairly in any transaction. Your service contract lasts too long to be stuck with a patched up piece of crap that you can't trade in. Invoke the lemon law now!

 

[cactusgirl]

Regarding what US can or cannot afford, I believe that we can all agree that they are well represented and will definitely take care of their concerns.

F/As should focus on their own concerns, which is what this thread is about.

This particular TA is going to hinge very heavily on votes. It's important that East F/As realize that they must all vote in force, because there should be no doubt as to whether or not people were informed or represented themselves.

I expect West to vote for an upcoming TA simply because they're starting from a ground zero that is -unbelievably- worse that Easts'. So I am not surprised when a West F/A finds the whole MT discussion as well as bidsheet frustrating. You don't miss what you don't know.

This is a WAG, but I wonder if some of the hysteria that is building around this agreement is about numbers.

(Gross generalizations to follow)
Historically, PIT and PHL tended toward voting NO on TAs, both cities have a higher labor concentration. CLT tends to vote yes for proposed TAs. Now that we have three East bases and a West base, who IMHO reasons referenced earlier is more likely to vote for a proposed TA, even before seeing an agreement there is the perception that this is going to be close and those of us who want existing East work rules retained are getting nervous.

There are F/As that don't want to be held up by sections they don't care about. Fine. I don't want an agreement that denies me a quality of life that I got used to and then had taken away.

All I do know is that the one thing F/As do control in this is their vote. If the TA guts important sections, it needs to be voted down. If the union brings an agreement, and it's voted down, they go back and renegotiate. If the company balks and won't move, then the clock starts ticking. CHAOS is certainly sitting at that negotiating table. It's just quiet right now.

BTW, keep in mind that anyone can post here and talking down expectations is certainly part of the game.

I agree with everything in your post with one exception, your expectation of west voting:

"I expect West to vote for an upcoming TA simply because they're starting from a ground zero that is -unbelievably- worse that Easts'. So I am not surprised when a West F/A finds the whole MT discussion as well as bidsheet frustrating. You don't miss what you don't know."

The me too clause is of little discussion out here outside of the whole splitting with the pilots issue. Yes, that is a big issue, but not one that garners much talk out west because apparently there has been no decision made at the table. When there is, I expect that to change. The big topics right now seem to be the reserve section and the tidbits we've seen so far in scheduling. I'm hearing TONS of "I'm voting No" out here, people aren't happy with some of the things they are seeing already. The key to educating everyone is reminding people to look past the compensation section. If the east really sees the TA as no go when it comes out, spend your time on west a/c asking the west FA's what they are giving up in order to get the pay raise. I'm one you don't have to ask. Yes, I look at compensation then I look at all the other sections to see what I had to give up to get that raise. We aren't enemies in this. We all want to see certain things in a TA and if Lisa, Debra, Mike and Carol can't produce it, vote no, get new negotiators, rinse and repeat. Most FA's out here are already resigned to the fact the the first TA will get voted down because they've heard that the east always votes down the first TA. I don't know that to be factual, but I sure hear it a lot.

Just because we haven't been flying the skies for 30+ years or routinely flying international, doesn't mean we don't get how this industry and management works. We aren't all as naive as many think, keep in mind some of us have been in this game for 27 years.

I think, much to management's dismay and possibly our union, we can find some common ground and unite for what the LINE flying FA's want...not corporate and not the people holding office purely for perks, and union business pay.

Based on what I've seen so far, I don't know how I could vote any other way than "no".