PITbull
Veteran
- Dec 29, 2002
- 7,784
- 456
Below is an AFA MEC E-line sent out tonight from the MEC President...finally a good update...he needs to follow through and put Jerry G. "in check". Here is a little insight on Doug Ps anti-employee sentiments and in hiring Ford and Harrison Legal Consultants (Anti-union/Union Busters) on the property; at every negotiating table for the transition. Jerry came from Ford and Harrison before he came to U, and was hired to first bust morale and then take all he could from labor. Ford and Harrison now have a permanent place at the NEW U. Hope all airline industry folks read this and be prepared...Ford and Harrison make millions doing what they do best...taking from the rank and file. The BOD then rewards senior level managment and reap the benefits in stock.
Here's a taste of the difficulty at the table...(JNC means AFA "Joint Negotiating Committee" East and West)
MERGED CONTRACT NEGOTIATIONS
The Joint Negotiating Committee (JNC) met with the Company last week in CLT. Sections discussed were Section 24 (USA), Grievance, Investigation and Discipline and Section 25 (USA), System Board of Adjustment. Very little progress was made.
We presented a Grievance proposal to the Company the JNC believed streamlined the grievance process while maintaining the integrity of the USA section. The Company response was woefully inadequate and would decimate decades of bargaining contained in the USA contract.
The Grievance response from the Company coupled with the various open issues that still remain in Section 27 (USA) Safety and Health and Side Letter L20, Missing, Internment, Hostage, Prisoner of War and Hijacking are causing serious concerns about whether this Company really wants to merge the two contracts. The open issues remaining in Section 27 and Side Letter L20 are primarily monetary. For example, in Section 27, the Company has agreed to certain pay protections for Flight Attendants involved in serious incidents such as:
Planned or actual evacuations
Decompressions
Turbulence that causes injury to passengers or crew
Death on board
Serious injury to a Flight Attendant
Physical assault of a Flight Attendant
Bomb threats
Specific terrorist threats
Fire or smoke on board resulting in injuries.
The Union proposed complete pay protection for the trip on which the incident occurred and up to two days of pay protection for a subsequent back to back trip if one existed. The Union further proposed the use of sick time for subsequent days of the back to back trip with no sick occurrence charge. The logic is that if an incident occurs on the last leg of a trip the Flight Attendant would not have to fly the next back to back trip and be pay protected. The Company response was to pay protect for only the trip on which the incident occurred. We all know that when an incident happens it is likely that the scope and effect of the incident on the Flight Attendants involved are not fully realized until after the event.
This Section also includes provisions for Safety and EAP reps required or needed as a result of an accident, serious incident or hijacking. Unfortunately US Air had a number of accidents in the 1990's. From experience we know the investigatory process can be lengthy and the effect on Flight Attendants both involved and not involved in the accident can require extensive EAP counseling. The Company believes the expense for lodging, meals and expenses for any Safety or EAP reps responding to an accident should be borne by the Union. The Company refuses to discuss Flight Pay Loss for those reps until we discuss the Association Activities section. Both of these positions are in complete denial of past practice at US Airways.
The open issue in Side Letter 20 remains a floor on pay protection for a Flight Attendant who is missing, held hostage or prisoner as a result of a terrorist act or hijacking. This is a dangerous world we live in, and while we hope this will never occur, it could. The Company agrees to pay a Flight Attendant for their six month average if subject to one of the covered provisions. The Union proposed that in no case would a Flight Attendant receive less than 85 hours but the Company believes the minimum guarantee is appropriate. So let me get this straight; if I am held hostage in a cave for a month, 73 hours is adequate compensation? I guess I will tell my captors I am required by contract to have 11 days off from captivity during the month(s).
I am very disturbed by the Company's "nickel and dime" approach to the items in Section 27 and Side Letter L20. For the Company to put up such resistance to items that rarely happen or in some cases have never happened is clearly an indication of their intent to further extract cost savings from our agreement.
Furthermore the response to our Grievance proposal indicates a desire to erode no cost sections of the US Airways agreement.
We have all heard Doug Parker speak the Company mantra that "no cost contracts" must be achieved as part of the merger synergies. Mr. Parker has said in his many Town Hall meetings is that the overall cost of the two contracts must remain constant. That is going to be impossible without concessions and givebacks in one or both of the existing contracts. As I have maintained all along the US Airways Flight Attendants are not going to participate in a fourth round of concessionary bargaining. The last two negotiations sessions clearly indicate to me this is precisely what the Company expects. While he has maintained this is a negotiated process he states if we can not reach a deal with the Company they believe they can simply force our contract on the America West Flight Attendants. Both the America West MEC and the US Airways MEC are in complete agreement on two things; 1) neither side is interested in any sort of concessions to facilitate an agreement and 2) any attempt to simply roll one group into the others contract will be met head on with every legal resource at our disposal.
We expect the Company bargain in good faith. We stand by our belief that the Flight Attendants will not pay for this merger or the high cost of fuel in any way.
Thank you,
Mike Flores, President
US Airways Master Executive Council
Here's a taste of the difficulty at the table...(JNC means AFA "Joint Negotiating Committee" East and West)
MERGED CONTRACT NEGOTIATIONS
The Joint Negotiating Committee (JNC) met with the Company last week in CLT. Sections discussed were Section 24 (USA), Grievance, Investigation and Discipline and Section 25 (USA), System Board of Adjustment. Very little progress was made.
We presented a Grievance proposal to the Company the JNC believed streamlined the grievance process while maintaining the integrity of the USA section. The Company response was woefully inadequate and would decimate decades of bargaining contained in the USA contract.
The Grievance response from the Company coupled with the various open issues that still remain in Section 27 (USA) Safety and Health and Side Letter L20, Missing, Internment, Hostage, Prisoner of War and Hijacking are causing serious concerns about whether this Company really wants to merge the two contracts. The open issues remaining in Section 27 and Side Letter L20 are primarily monetary. For example, in Section 27, the Company has agreed to certain pay protections for Flight Attendants involved in serious incidents such as:
Planned or actual evacuations
Decompressions
Turbulence that causes injury to passengers or crew
Death on board
Serious injury to a Flight Attendant
Physical assault of a Flight Attendant
Bomb threats
Specific terrorist threats
Fire or smoke on board resulting in injuries.
The Union proposed complete pay protection for the trip on which the incident occurred and up to two days of pay protection for a subsequent back to back trip if one existed. The Union further proposed the use of sick time for subsequent days of the back to back trip with no sick occurrence charge. The logic is that if an incident occurs on the last leg of a trip the Flight Attendant would not have to fly the next back to back trip and be pay protected. The Company response was to pay protect for only the trip on which the incident occurred. We all know that when an incident happens it is likely that the scope and effect of the incident on the Flight Attendants involved are not fully realized until after the event.
This Section also includes provisions for Safety and EAP reps required or needed as a result of an accident, serious incident or hijacking. Unfortunately US Air had a number of accidents in the 1990's. From experience we know the investigatory process can be lengthy and the effect on Flight Attendants both involved and not involved in the accident can require extensive EAP counseling. The Company believes the expense for lodging, meals and expenses for any Safety or EAP reps responding to an accident should be borne by the Union. The Company refuses to discuss Flight Pay Loss for those reps until we discuss the Association Activities section. Both of these positions are in complete denial of past practice at US Airways.
The open issue in Side Letter 20 remains a floor on pay protection for a Flight Attendant who is missing, held hostage or prisoner as a result of a terrorist act or hijacking. This is a dangerous world we live in, and while we hope this will never occur, it could. The Company agrees to pay a Flight Attendant for their six month average if subject to one of the covered provisions. The Union proposed that in no case would a Flight Attendant receive less than 85 hours but the Company believes the minimum guarantee is appropriate. So let me get this straight; if I am held hostage in a cave for a month, 73 hours is adequate compensation? I guess I will tell my captors I am required by contract to have 11 days off from captivity during the month(s).
I am very disturbed by the Company's "nickel and dime" approach to the items in Section 27 and Side Letter L20. For the Company to put up such resistance to items that rarely happen or in some cases have never happened is clearly an indication of their intent to further extract cost savings from our agreement.
Furthermore the response to our Grievance proposal indicates a desire to erode no cost sections of the US Airways agreement.
We have all heard Doug Parker speak the Company mantra that "no cost contracts" must be achieved as part of the merger synergies. Mr. Parker has said in his many Town Hall meetings is that the overall cost of the two contracts must remain constant. That is going to be impossible without concessions and givebacks in one or both of the existing contracts. As I have maintained all along the US Airways Flight Attendants are not going to participate in a fourth round of concessionary bargaining. The last two negotiations sessions clearly indicate to me this is precisely what the Company expects. While he has maintained this is a negotiated process he states if we can not reach a deal with the Company they believe they can simply force our contract on the America West Flight Attendants. Both the America West MEC and the US Airways MEC are in complete agreement on two things; 1) neither side is interested in any sort of concessions to facilitate an agreement and 2) any attempt to simply roll one group into the others contract will be met head on with every legal resource at our disposal.
We expect the Company bargain in good faith. We stand by our belief that the Flight Attendants will not pay for this merger or the high cost of fuel in any way.
Thank you,
Mike Flores, President
US Airways Master Executive Council
