American Airline Mechanics couldn't have rejected a much better contract
- Thread starter ReadyNow
- Start date
WeAAsles
Veteran
- Joined
- Oct 20, 2007
- Messages
- 24,123
- Reaction score
- 5,269
The way negotiations are supposed to work this time is going to be very different from the past. It's supposed to be a complete democracy. 6 people will be on the IAM side and 6 people on the TWU. So they will vote on moving items forward and the majority will rule with no "Roll Call" by anyone who represents more members than another.Vortilon said:
You guys I know trust Gary so I hope he gives you the straight poop if there is any type of coercion going on in those talks? There are absolutely I'm sure going to be things he might want that will be voted against because of the majority rule? You might not like it (Neither might I?) but you can voice your displeasure about that with your vote.
Here's a list of the people who will be in the room for the IAM side.
http://www.iam141.org/us/index.html
The fact of the matter is that no matter the structure, no matter who the people are, no matter the name of the organization even with the best of intentions the ONLY leverage your negotiators have is the membership. While leadership is important if management knows they can stonewall the Union, and still get what they want from the membership, no matter if its TWU, IAM, IBT , AMFA, CWA etc etc then you are not going to get anything. IIRC back in 2000 there were articles in the newspapers describing the "Summer of Hell" as UAL mechanics and pilots showed their displeasure with how management was approaching negotiations, a short time later these groups were getting wage increases that nearly restored real compensation to early 1980s levels.
Members have faced demoralizing challenges since then, not only did we face challenges from the broader economy and world events but we had Union leaders that were in the company's pockets that helped the company exploit these events to the max. Companies won concessions beyond their wildest dreams, some even went back for seconds knowing that the six figure earning leaders would stand by and do nothing as their members got raped and no doubt surprised that the members just accepted what was being done to them. While we suffered under huge concessions our Union leaders were upgrading their waterfront homes and posting pictures of themselves on their yacht aptly named "No regrets". We had leaders such as Little, Conley, Gless and Videtich who had agreements with the company to get flight benefits for them and their family similar to those that Board Members and top executives of the company get, they also padded their pensions by having their pension from AA based upon what the Union reported and not what they would have received under a TWU contract. For example Little would have earned around $75,000 a year in pensionable income as a dispatcher, but his Union pay was around $220,000, nearly triple (and thats on top of his TWU pension with a 2.5 multiplier times that salary). Conley went around in the press telling us we needed to "put this contract behind us and do what is best for American Airlines', Gless said to the media that we "Needed to lower our expectations", Videtich kept a steady supply of company propaganda flowing to the negotiating committee such as "fuel went up a penny a gallon today, thats another $ X million a year deeper into the red for the company'- no reports were given when fuel went down though. The company position that in house overhaul was a huge liability not only went unchallenged by the International but it was reinforced and actively sold as such. Real Union leaders would have made arguments highlighting the advantages of in house maintenance, some but very little of this was half heartedly put out. Just enough to cover them. The Little team not only delayed starting negotiations (the 2003 contract had an early opener clause) but allowed the company to drag things out by agreeing to infrequent meetings. These people deliberately keep us stalled in the Sect 6 process from 2007, past the 2010 rejection of an NMB mediated TA till nearly 2012 when AA filed BK, (actually 2006 when you consider the early opener language that the Union refused to act on-the only group that defied the International was the dispatchers lead by Plowman.
I was elected in Jan 2009, by June it was clear to me that if the company had not moved in the two years prior off their zero cost contract, they were not going to move. That we were wasting time and it was not in our favor to do so, by June, when the company put forth their "white spaces" sideshow I said we need to start pushing to be released. I said "If they haven't moved over the last two years, they are not going to move and as long as we stay at this stage in the process they will never move." Why would they? We were dead last in the industry. Pushing to be released would get us to the 30 day cooling off period where there would be equal incentive for all parties to move towards a ratifiable agreement, or self help-or PEB. A PEB mediated agreement would take management off the hook and if other groups chose the same path the company would have actually done better than they were doing. Other groups not only had favorable wage structures but similar Scope restrictions the company wanted to remove. So whatever the company lost on M&R they would have more than made up for with most of the other groups if they had pursued going to the next step in the process.
I know of no case under NMB mediation where after an NMB mediated agreement was rejected by membership votes that the NMB denied allowing the parties to move to the next step in the process. If the TWU had asked in September of 2010 to be released, I'm certain, based on the 89 year history of the RLA, that we would have proceeded to the cooling off, self help step of the process. Now the question of striking is another issue, but the NMB is there to mediate, not determine the outcome or rig it in favor of one party, thats up to the PEB, and if the deal they propose is still rejected-the Congress of the United States.
The only way that we would be allowed to strike would have been if the company approached the government and assured them that they were confident that they could continue operations without us, otherwise we would have ended up in a PEB. I believe the company would have accepted a PEB. Historically PEBs have been fair. The only argument the company had was our scope, which required that they continue maintaining older model aircraft in house. We on the other hand had the lowest wages, the lowest Holiday pay, the fewest holidays, the least amount of vacation, the least amount of sick time, training on straight time, lowest shift differential, most expensive medical, in addition to work rules which created and allowed low paid OSMs. So the company had the Scope, and we had everything else. Other work groups basically had the Scope but also had wages that were industry standard or even leading depending on how you defined it. So other work groups at AA had good cause to kick the can down the road, we didn't.
I'm of the opinion that had we been independently represented and not tied to groups that were differently situated among their peers in the industry we would have pursued the release-self help-possible(likely) PEB path and would have been in a much better position when AA went into BK. Sure we may have had less restrictive Scope but we didn't get much value for it anyway in BK. (In bankruptcy the company revealed that since they had low cost in house alternatives and capacity issues for NB outsourcing they didn't need or want to outsource all of OH- something I'd been posting for years leading up to BK) Don Videtich basically gave them more than they were asking for for free by changing the metric from hours to spend, so they took it. If it had been percentage based hours then the number would have remained proportionately constant, if total in house hours remained the same so would the number of allowable outsourced hours, regardless of whether it went to shops in the US or shops in China. But with Dons gift, every time we get a wage increase they get an outsourcing spend increase, and they can eliminate more in house workers. Don also made sure we had no legal way of verifying with absolute certainty the numbers because contracts with vendors tend to be confidential.
I'm also of the opinion that had we had our own representation, independent of other TWU groups, we would have made out better even if we went into BK than we did. Since we were tied with groups that were not at the bottom of the industry we were treated as one lump package and whether you were at the bottom or the top the percentage demanded was the same (we actually had to give a higher dollar value than any other group despite being at the bottom) , our condition became irrelevant and our lawyers failed to make a real concerted effort to get our story put into the record of the proceedings or split us off from the others. Compare that to the Pinnicle Pilots, who like us were similarly situated among their peers, their lawyers made the case that its unfair to make a group thats already granting the company a discount on labor subsidize managemenets incompetence by forcing them to accept even less. Pinnicle sought to abrogate and impose, the Judge denied their application. Something our lawyers told us the court would never do but a path that the language of the law about as clearly as it gets says the court should do.
The leaders of other Unions didn't provide much leadership either but I cant say whether thats due to them getting similar perks for selling out their members or simply as a response to allow their members employer to compete with the industry leading concessions that the TWU put in place at AA. The IBTs can kicking over at UAL leaves me to believe the post 9-11 "bend your members over and make them take it" mindset is still prevalent among the top IBT Union leadership who don't have to live under the conditions their members do, and there is little indication that the UAL mechanics are going to do anything about it other than comply, despite record profits UAL is earning. United is now in Sect 6, but they are still not even attempting to take advantage of the process. Clearly an industry leading deal by them, sooner rather than later would be better for all workers. Our September mid term wage adjustment would alleviate some of uncompetitive pressures of such a deal for UAL, Delta would match or better that to keep the Union out, and AA management has already offered Delta, or United plus 7%.
Other than inherent problems associated with a structurally divided membership with this BS Association with a deliberate absence of the ability to have a single visible leader for the entire membership to rally behind, we face other challenges with the non-sect 6 JCBA process. Our leverage is compromised from the start so the best option for any deal is to seek the shortest term possible. We should be seeking compensation no less than UPS but the gains we make will be limited to the unilateral valuation of the JCBA from the company's point of view. If they don't see any valuation they have the option of saying-"come see us in 2018". Unfortunately the IAM side already gave away a lot of the value when in Sect 6 they agreed to not only our Bankruptcy induced wages, but also to allow us to do their work. We need to make clear that if we cant get a fair deal through a non-sect 6 JCBA that when we get to Sect 6 we will seek expedited talks for UPS plus 7 citing the fact that negotiations have been ongoing since 2015 and the profits that AA has enjoyed. Of course, much like the Summer of Hell in 2000, membership performance could increase the leverage of those at the table by encouraging management to offer terms that would allow them to see smoother operations, absent membership pressure the company has little incentive to move beyond what they have already offered.
Members have faced demoralizing challenges since then, not only did we face challenges from the broader economy and world events but we had Union leaders that were in the company's pockets that helped the company exploit these events to the max. Companies won concessions beyond their wildest dreams, some even went back for seconds knowing that the six figure earning leaders would stand by and do nothing as their members got raped and no doubt surprised that the members just accepted what was being done to them. While we suffered under huge concessions our Union leaders were upgrading their waterfront homes and posting pictures of themselves on their yacht aptly named "No regrets". We had leaders such as Little, Conley, Gless and Videtich who had agreements with the company to get flight benefits for them and their family similar to those that Board Members and top executives of the company get, they also padded their pensions by having their pension from AA based upon what the Union reported and not what they would have received under a TWU contract. For example Little would have earned around $75,000 a year in pensionable income as a dispatcher, but his Union pay was around $220,000, nearly triple (and thats on top of his TWU pension with a 2.5 multiplier times that salary). Conley went around in the press telling us we needed to "put this contract behind us and do what is best for American Airlines', Gless said to the media that we "Needed to lower our expectations", Videtich kept a steady supply of company propaganda flowing to the negotiating committee such as "fuel went up a penny a gallon today, thats another $ X million a year deeper into the red for the company'- no reports were given when fuel went down though. The company position that in house overhaul was a huge liability not only went unchallenged by the International but it was reinforced and actively sold as such. Real Union leaders would have made arguments highlighting the advantages of in house maintenance, some but very little of this was half heartedly put out. Just enough to cover them. The Little team not only delayed starting negotiations (the 2003 contract had an early opener clause) but allowed the company to drag things out by agreeing to infrequent meetings. These people deliberately keep us stalled in the Sect 6 process from 2007, past the 2010 rejection of an NMB mediated TA till nearly 2012 when AA filed BK, (actually 2006 when you consider the early opener language that the Union refused to act on-the only group that defied the International was the dispatchers lead by Plowman.
I was elected in Jan 2009, by June it was clear to me that if the company had not moved in the two years prior off their zero cost contract, they were not going to move. That we were wasting time and it was not in our favor to do so, by June, when the company put forth their "white spaces" sideshow I said we need to start pushing to be released. I said "If they haven't moved over the last two years, they are not going to move and as long as we stay at this stage in the process they will never move." Why would they? We were dead last in the industry. Pushing to be released would get us to the 30 day cooling off period where there would be equal incentive for all parties to move towards a ratifiable agreement, or self help-or PEB. A PEB mediated agreement would take management off the hook and if other groups chose the same path the company would have actually done better than they were doing. Other groups not only had favorable wage structures but similar Scope restrictions the company wanted to remove. So whatever the company lost on M&R they would have more than made up for with most of the other groups if they had pursued going to the next step in the process.
I know of no case under NMB mediation where after an NMB mediated agreement was rejected by membership votes that the NMB denied allowing the parties to move to the next step in the process. If the TWU had asked in September of 2010 to be released, I'm certain, based on the 89 year history of the RLA, that we would have proceeded to the cooling off, self help step of the process. Now the question of striking is another issue, but the NMB is there to mediate, not determine the outcome or rig it in favor of one party, thats up to the PEB, and if the deal they propose is still rejected-the Congress of the United States.
The only way that we would be allowed to strike would have been if the company approached the government and assured them that they were confident that they could continue operations without us, otherwise we would have ended up in a PEB. I believe the company would have accepted a PEB. Historically PEBs have been fair. The only argument the company had was our scope, which required that they continue maintaining older model aircraft in house. We on the other hand had the lowest wages, the lowest Holiday pay, the fewest holidays, the least amount of vacation, the least amount of sick time, training on straight time, lowest shift differential, most expensive medical, in addition to work rules which created and allowed low paid OSMs. So the company had the Scope, and we had everything else. Other work groups basically had the Scope but also had wages that were industry standard or even leading depending on how you defined it. So other work groups at AA had good cause to kick the can down the road, we didn't.
I'm of the opinion that had we been independently represented and not tied to groups that were differently situated among their peers in the industry we would have pursued the release-self help-possible(likely) PEB path and would have been in a much better position when AA went into BK. Sure we may have had less restrictive Scope but we didn't get much value for it anyway in BK. (In bankruptcy the company revealed that since they had low cost in house alternatives and capacity issues for NB outsourcing they didn't need or want to outsource all of OH- something I'd been posting for years leading up to BK) Don Videtich basically gave them more than they were asking for for free by changing the metric from hours to spend, so they took it. If it had been percentage based hours then the number would have remained proportionately constant, if total in house hours remained the same so would the number of allowable outsourced hours, regardless of whether it went to shops in the US or shops in China. But with Dons gift, every time we get a wage increase they get an outsourcing spend increase, and they can eliminate more in house workers. Don also made sure we had no legal way of verifying with absolute certainty the numbers because contracts with vendors tend to be confidential.
I'm also of the opinion that had we had our own representation, independent of other TWU groups, we would have made out better even if we went into BK than we did. Since we were tied with groups that were not at the bottom of the industry we were treated as one lump package and whether you were at the bottom or the top the percentage demanded was the same (we actually had to give a higher dollar value than any other group despite being at the bottom) , our condition became irrelevant and our lawyers failed to make a real concerted effort to get our story put into the record of the proceedings or split us off from the others. Compare that to the Pinnicle Pilots, who like us were similarly situated among their peers, their lawyers made the case that its unfair to make a group thats already granting the company a discount on labor subsidize managemenets incompetence by forcing them to accept even less. Pinnicle sought to abrogate and impose, the Judge denied their application. Something our lawyers told us the court would never do but a path that the language of the law about as clearly as it gets says the court should do.
The leaders of other Unions didn't provide much leadership either but I cant say whether thats due to them getting similar perks for selling out their members or simply as a response to allow their members employer to compete with the industry leading concessions that the TWU put in place at AA. The IBTs can kicking over at UAL leaves me to believe the post 9-11 "bend your members over and make them take it" mindset is still prevalent among the top IBT Union leadership who don't have to live under the conditions their members do, and there is little indication that the UAL mechanics are going to do anything about it other than comply, despite record profits UAL is earning. United is now in Sect 6, but they are still not even attempting to take advantage of the process. Clearly an industry leading deal by them, sooner rather than later would be better for all workers. Our September mid term wage adjustment would alleviate some of uncompetitive pressures of such a deal for UAL, Delta would match or better that to keep the Union out, and AA management has already offered Delta, or United plus 7%.
Other than inherent problems associated with a structurally divided membership with this BS Association with a deliberate absence of the ability to have a single visible leader for the entire membership to rally behind, we face other challenges with the non-sect 6 JCBA process. Our leverage is compromised from the start so the best option for any deal is to seek the shortest term possible. We should be seeking compensation no less than UPS but the gains we make will be limited to the unilateral valuation of the JCBA from the company's point of view. If they don't see any valuation they have the option of saying-"come see us in 2018". Unfortunately the IAM side already gave away a lot of the value when in Sect 6 they agreed to not only our Bankruptcy induced wages, but also to allow us to do their work. We need to make clear that if we cant get a fair deal through a non-sect 6 JCBA that when we get to Sect 6 we will seek expedited talks for UPS plus 7 citing the fact that negotiations have been ongoing since 2015 and the profits that AA has enjoyed. Of course, much like the Summer of Hell in 2000, membership performance could increase the leverage of those at the table by encouraging management to offer terms that would allow them to see smoother operations, absent membership pressure the company has little incentive to move beyond what they have already offered.
Excellent point.toroshark said:
Rather than having the two Unions duke it out so we could have one voice, one leader to rally benind they decided, for purely selfish financial motivesto share us.
How would you like it if two yahoos showed up at your door and said the same thing, "we don't want waste effort or fight over her (or even gain her consent) so we decided to share her"?
Hmm, flew out of MIA yesterday, first flight to JFK -Delayed from 7pm departure to 10PM for maintenance, so I jumped on the next one to NY, screwed up, missed that there was another JFK I could have jumped on and jumped on LGA flight instead, pushed back on time, then returned to gate for maint, over 45 minutes before anyone even came out, 2 hour delayed departure. Turns out that I got to JFK at the same time as another employee who took the one I should have jumped on, so that was delayed by at least an hour as well. No different than DFW. Nobody jumping through hoops to go above and beyond.bigjets said:
Are you saying there is NO OT in the station you are at?
Yes there is more trouble on the floor in ORD and DFW due to the managers there. Its the same Local in NY, ORD, MIA, DFW and LAX, the managers are different. Five stations are running as normal as can be expected, two stations are generating more grievances and lawsuits due to management. From what I hear one comes from USAIR and has a Napoleon complex and the other thinks that if she takes a deep breath, and clicks her heels, that everything and everyone will go along with her ill conceived plans and forget all about their contractual rights and legal obligations as FAA certified Airmen.
toroshark
Senior
- Joined
- Mar 12, 2003
- Messages
- 266
- Reaction score
- 294
So basically "just get over it", "they can do that" , "we'll get them next time" or whatever new slogan you want to make up. You and your cronies just want to move forward to the next phase of the plan, which is to get a contract which strips us from 401k and puts us forcibly into the IAMPF. Whether the plan to raid our frozen pensions is a reality or not we will find out eventually. The whole concept of the association based on its inception and construction is 100% for the benefit of the Twu and the IAM. If you think any of it is for the benefit of the membership then you are a fool or a liar. I'm betting the latter.WeAAsles said:
Bigjets; It amazes me to hear how some people simply accept that their compensation has been cut in half, blame the Union but not the company, but still think that somehow, if they jump through managements hoops that they can control where, when and why management will put the work.
I agree with your sentiment on the Association, but I also agree with WeAAsles that right now there are two sides, the workers, unfortunate imposed Association aside, and the greedy bastards that are personally pocketing millions while depriving us a fair share of the BILLIONS in revenue that our labor and sacrifice generates. The people who despite BILLIONS in profits who are trying to steal the other half of our Prefunding accounts that aren't even on AA's balance sheet. The people who make us pay more for medical than any other major carrier while paying us bottom of the industry wages and work the least amount of recognized Holidays for half pay and give us one week less vacation as well. The people who gave everyone else a 4% increase but punished us for things we don't control. Right now we need some short term relief, nothing long term, then we can sort out this Association BS. Its either that or wait till 2018.toroshark said:
Similar threads
