CS Policy

[OldGuy@AA]

I haven't heard of anyone having trouble with a cs. Where did you here this from?

I am in Tulsa and as far as I know it there is no CS policy at all anymore. 

 

[blue collar]

Its not, at US its a contractual right at AA its a privilege that can be revoked. (Would they? Doubtful because doing so would likely provoke the rebellion that losing 50% of our compensation, holidays, vacation, sick time, pension etc etc failed to ). At US the contract sets a minimum that can not be denied, at AA there is no minimum and past practice is not a strong enough argument because the practice has been different between stations and classifications. If you are going to argue past practice which one would you chose? The fact that they are all different would support the companies argument that its a privilege given at the companies discretion. Thats the reason why Unions put stuff like this into contractual language. The fact that NYer says we are better off to not put it into the contract reveals his true pro management sympathy. 

I figured it was as restrictive as NYer implied. At US you are allowed a minimum of 26/qtr, which is enough to do double/double/single each week. If for some reason you were to need more, you would ask for more- and I never was refused. As far as OT policy, I agree that the AA rules are superior (that is, if you still have doubletime). I never liked that the OT hours wouldn't reset, and running the list shouldn't fall on the union- that's a management function.

 

[Bob Owens]

I figured it was as restrictive as NYer implied. At US you are allowed a minimum of 26/qtr, which is enough to do double/double/single each week. If for some reason you were to need more, you would ask for more- and I never was refused. As far as OT policy, I agree that the AA rules are superior (that is, if you still have doubletime). I never liked that the OT hours wouldn't reset, and running the list shouldn't fall on the union- that's a management function.

We have no double time EVER, we also get straight time on training done off shift. So we could be assigned our regular 8 hr shift, then have to stay 4 more for training at straight time rates. I heard that one manager has claimed she can assign people to 16 hour shifts at straight time. You must realize that our union had anti-union people running it for a long time, AA got things that even Non-union companies wouldn't have taken, they did a lot of damage. 

 

[blue collar]

We have no double time EVER, we also get straight time on training done off shift. So we could be assigned our regular 8 hr shift, then have to stay 4 more for training at straight time rates. I heard that one manager has claimed she can assign people to 16 hour shifts at straight time. You must realize that our union had anti-union people running it for a long time, AA got things that even Non-union companies wouldn't have taken, they did a lot of damage. 

Thats rough. The IAM OT rates are better (need to get doubletime back after 12hrs), but the TWU OT rules are better.

 

[MetalMover]

I figured it was as restrictive as NYer implied. At US you are allowed a minimum of 26/qtr, which is enough to do double/double/single each week. If for some reason you were to need more, you would ask for more- and I never was refused. As far as OT policy, I agree that the AA rules are superior (that is, if you still have doubletime). I never liked that the OT hours wouldn't reset, and running the list shouldn't fall on the union- that's a management function.

Allowed a MINIMUM of 26/qtr? Don't you mean maximum?
As far as who runs the OT list, I would say the company would be more than willing to have the union run it. this way when there is a bypass, you can't grieve it because you can't grieve your union!
No, no much better having them run it.

 

[blue collar]

Allowed a MINIMUM of 26/qtr? Don't you mean maximum?
As far as who runs the OT list, I would say the company would be more than willing to have the union run it. this way when there is a bypass, you can't grieve it because you can't grieve your union!
No, no much better having them run it.

You are guaranteed a minimum of 26/quarter, like I said, if you need to go above you can ask your manager/supervisor.

 

[MetalMover]

I have heard that TULE has all but eliminated CS's. 
 
I have a theory.
 
I believe this is yet another tool the company is using to "herd the sheep" to vote for the alliance and accept U.S. Airways contractual CS Policy, which is much more limited than American Airlines.
 
After this is accepted the new CS policy will be forced on the line and will hamper those workers flexibility and pay.
 
Watch and see. 

Have been hearing chit-chat about a change in the CS policy for the line stations as well. Since US has it contractually, maybe the company wants to align with their policy as eventually we will all be single carrier.

 

[FLYNFISH]

I haven't heard of anyone having trouble with a cs. Where did you here this from?

Are you at the Tulsa Base? If so and you are having no trouble with the cs policy good for you. Big difference between whats allowed on the line compared to the base. The line policy offers much more flexibility. 

 

[FLYNFISH]

I am in Tulsa and as far as I know it there is no CS policy at all anymore. 

I believe you are correct. I thought some time ago Danker was to discuss the cs situation with the company. You would think if Tul is going 7 day coverage that a cs policy that is equal to our coworkers on the line would be ok.

 

[Bob Owens]

Are you at the Tulsa Base? If so and you are having no trouble with the cs policy good for you. Big difference between whats allowed on the line compared to the base. The line policy offers much more flexibility. 

Unfortunately the Line Policy varies from station to station as well but there does seem to be more flexibility on the line than at the bases. Some allow back to back while others don't, some allow short notice while others require 24 hrs, depending on who it is asking. We tried to get a defined CS language in the contract in negotiations,  several of the Title II guys were against it as they felt they were better off allowing the company to dictate per their discretion than secure defined contract language. IIRC Sam was OK with it but Hewitt and Carlisle were not very enthused, Hewitt insisted that Past practice would ensure that whatever flexibility the guys had would remain in place if we left it out of the contract. IIRC he said they had already won a case based on that argument, I never saw the case. I guess they are learning the hard way. 
 
While I took full advantage of the CS policy (routinely working two doubles and a single) before becoming President of Local 562 I do think that if the company were to go after it across the system it would strengthen the Union.  Members would realize that relying on contract language is always better than relying on company policy which the company can change for any reason at any time.
 
IMO the guys who are commuters and dependent on CS tend to be guys who bang out their work quicker and are more resistant to follow IAW as well. We also have a lot of guys who work two full time jobs and CS away a lot of their AA time, and the time they give away is worked by people putting in way beyond 40 hours a week at straight time rates, if they were restricted from CSing most would burn off their sick time and leave AA before they leave their other job, they too seem to be more willing to do whatever it takes to just get done.  Taking away the flexibility of CSing would force them to either quit or remove any motivation to not follow IAW. That, along with a huge increase in sick calls would drive up OT and put a lot more money in guys pockets. If they can't CS and can't go to work the money lost due to the 4 hour penalty on your first day sick call is more than made up by one 4 hour OT which equals six hours pay, even if they have no sick time they would only be short two hours pay while working four less hours for the week.  Cobbett used to threaten us with the CS policy all the time, I always told him the policy benefits the company as much as it does the guys (which is why most companies agree to put it in the contract), if they want to mess with it the guys are going to do what they need to do and the company will end up paying more sick time and OT. 

 

[NYer]

So you are saying that we are better off to not secure contractual language guaranteeing our right to CS and should continue to leave the policy at the companies discretion???  You prefer company privileges to contractual rights? --Wow, Bob, you're getting desperate to create something here aren't you. No, I'd rather keep what we have now over the current contractual language in the IAM CBA. If there is time in JCBA, maybe this can be addressed but until it is, I'd rather not take chances in losing what we currently have.
 
Hmm, sounds an awful lot like what Delta Management says about why their employees are better off without a union than with one.
 
Currently the company uses the CS policy as a form of discipline, they use it to pressure people to accomplish training without being assigned to do it. If we had it in our contract they could not take away CS's privileges like they often do because it would be a contractual right. --If we can get the current policy in the JCBA, then good for us. In the meantime, the choices are what we currently have and what the IAM currently has...I'd rather keep what we currently have. If you like the IAM language then that's your choice.
 
Certainly shows us where your mindset really is. Also makes it clearer why you support the Alliance, because its better for management. --We work the CS's, not management. If you believe the CS Policy is a tool of management and has not benefits for the Membership than just say so or move towards eliminating it.
 
You have to do better than this to try and discredit me, this wasn't even clever.

 

[La Li Lu Le Lo]

So you are saying that we are better off to not secure contractual language guaranteeing our right to CS and should continue to leave the policy at the companies discretion???  You prefer company privileges to contractual rights? 
 

I prefer that we don't allow the company to use the fear of loss to force an inferior CS policy on the American Airlines work group. 
 

I haven't heard of anyone having trouble with a cs. Where did you here this from?

I do not share where I get my information from. I say many controversial things on this forum and do not wish to expose people to fallout of unpopular comments I have and will make.  
 

I think its more geared towards causing more division between the line and the base.

and to that I say you are wrong. The company WILL use it as a weapon to push for an alliance agreement and impose an inferior CS policy on the employees. 
 
They will offer Tulsa something they currently DON'T have and threaten the line with the loss of something they currently DO have. That is what you call stacking the deck in your favor, or shorter and more to the point... manipulation. 
 

I am in Tulsa and as far as I know it there is no CS policy at all anymore. 

That was by design. Believe it. You were being "prepped".
 

Have been hearing chit-chat about a change in the CS policy for the line stations as well. Since US has it contractually, maybe the company wants to align with their policy as eventually we will all be single carrier.

Exactly.
 

Unfortunately the Line Policy varies from station to station

Stations to station..... big deal.....in Tulsa it used to vary from shop to shop. My favorite part is when it would vary from person to person.......
 
 
 
I closing I want to make something very clear..... I agree with Bob that the membership should attempt to secure contractual CS rules however, the TWU membership should not be so eager to take on an inferior policy just to "get it in writing". The company has shown us time and time again that they will not honor what they put in writing anyway..... THEY CAN DO THAT BROTHER.

 

[700UW]

We?

You don't work for AA anymore.

 

[iluvaa]

Ha coming from you, again the irony

 

[La Li Lu Le Lo]

We?

You don't work for AA anymore.

Yes WE.
 
I am directly impacted by the contract.... are you?
 
My household still has a vote in UNION contracts, maybe 2 if I am allowed to vote (I have recall).
 
Move along you troll.
 

Ha coming from you, again the irony

I agree.
 
Consider the source.