If this TA (CBA 2012) gets voted in it will be another new low for us. We lead the industry with concessions and givebacks. We introduced the retro active pay cut. Now we will be launching the deferred benifits CBA at a cost of all our leverage. This TA is no good. Don't forfeit the chance to negotiate the CBA 2009 by accepting the first offer. Vote NO this TA let's see revision A.
IAM Mech. & related thread
- Thread starter Edward
- Start date
- Status
PayParity
Member
- Sep 15, 2007
- 89
- 0
PayParity
Member
- Sep 15, 2007
- 89
- 0
That is not true.
See my post before on this
At the bottom of the page is the language for maintenance and related change of control. It was written into the CBA of October 1, 1995 as modified by the September 17, 2002 and the January 10, 2003 Restructuring proposals and kept in the January 31, 2005 CBA. It refers to Pay Parity Letter in the original October 1995 CBA to calculate wage rates.
The language refers to pay going back whatever the Oct 2003 pay parity adjustment would have been which as far as I know was never calculated as pay parity stopped just weeks before the Oct 2002 pay parity adjustment. If I recall correctly the mechanics were set to get an across the board 13% base rate raise and a .75 license increase in Oct 2002. I am not sure if that was per license or not but I will use per license figure. At the time a topped out mechanic was making 27.03 base rate and 2.90 for both licenses. So using those figures
27.03 + 13% = 30.54 Base
2.90 + 1.50 = 4.40 both licenses
That would be for Oct 2002...Oct 2003 rates are unknown
Excerpts from pay parity language
The Company and Union agree that effective twelve (12) months from the effective date of the parties bargaining agreement (the "Agreement"), and every 12 months thereafter up to but not including the amendable date of the Agreement (the "Parity Dates"), the hourly rates of pay ("Pay Rates") for Mechanic, Stock Clerk and Utilityman (the "Basic Classifications") under article 18 of the Agreement, and the license premium payable under article 12(I) of the agreement ("License Premiums") will be adjusted so as to equal 101% of the "Weighted Average" (as defined in Paragraph H(4) below) of the then-existing Pay Rates and License Premiums (calculated separately) for the same or similar classifications at American, Delta, Northwest, and United Airlines (the "Composite Competitor). (This shall be referred to herein as achieving "Parity Pay Rate" and "Parity License Premiums.")
This Letter of Agreement shall be effective on the effective date of the 1999 collective bargaining agreement, and shall terminate on the date by which all Pay Rate adjustments, if any, required by this Letter of Agreement have been implemented, at which point it shall have no further force or effect.
The amendable date of the agreement was October 10, 2004 so according to the Pay Parity Letter of Agreement the last Pay Parity adjustment would have been in Oct 2003 which is the date both the CBA of October 1, 1995 (as modified by the September 17, 2002 and the January 10, 2003 Restructuring proposals) and the CBA of January 31, 2005 change of control language refers to.
Change of Control language
Upon a change in control defined as the sale of all or substantially all of the assets or common stock of the Company or US Airways Group in a single transaction (or in multi-step related transactions) to a single purchaser (or a group of purchasers acting in concert), the hourly rates of pay under this agreement shall be increased to the rates which would have been effective following the Pay Parity Adjustment in October 2003 under the Letter of Agreement. In addition to such hourly rates of pay, the IAM will have the right to extend the duration of the IAM Restructuring Agreement for one, two or three years at the IAM’s option, past the amendable date of the IAM Restructuring Agreement, with across the board wage increases of four and one half percent (4.5%) on the amendable date and on each of the three (3) annual anniversaries of the amendable date thereafter (i.e. 12/31/08, 12/31/09 and 12/31/10). For the purposes of this paragraph, "Common Stock" is the Common Stock of US Airways Group then outstanding and the Common Stock issuable on exchange, exercise, and/or conversion of securities of the Company or US Airways Group which are then currently exchangeable into, exercisable for, or convertible into such Common stock.
PayParity
airplanes4sale
Member
- Mar 16, 2008
- 16
- 0
we all have to remember that we gave a retro payback because of hard times in airline industrys and when in Bankruptcy upper management got millions awarded to them by a judge
BeenThereDoneThat
Veteran
More like another "Merger" is in the wind and the name US AIRWAYS will not survive this time around. The COC would be a bitter pill for the new buyer.
It amazes me that many of our rank & file will state, "Something is better than nothing" which sounds to me like being a "LITTLE" pregnant. No such animal.
READ the T/A article by article and compare what you will GAIN, LOSE or TIE. Don't be sheep, make an intelligent decision based upon facts not emotions.
I agree, granted we gain 10% and lose profit sharing. A bird in the hand is worth 2 in the bush.
what did we lose for shift differential????
what did we gain for uniform allowance???
what did we gain for giving up "COC"
what did we lose for holiday's and vacation at a LATER DATE??????
who lost for sick change policy???
who gained buy giving up "STD & LTD"????
Seems pretty "cost neutral" to me.
they give us 10%, and yet take away 5%(in our 401k)
The ONLY gain is for our union,
5% taken from the workers.
Positive space travel.
I have nothing to gain by voting yes.
Just dont understand why the union can't be happy with just taking dues?
As far asking any questions from the IAM or the pension reps you are going to hear what they want you to hear. Go to an independent financial adviser and ask him his UNBIASED opinion. I did. For a long term employee the 401 wins hands down due to the "magic" of compound intrest. Here is the interesting part of the pension as explained to me. For a short term employee close to retirement, the IAM plan wins. Reason: no long term compound intrest involved. If some one with 5 yrs to go has the company put approx $3000.00 yr in to the IAM plan (the 5% co. match based upon a$60,000.00 salary) then after 5 years the plan would have rcvd $15,000. The retiree would qualify for a monthly pension of $381.00/month or $4,572.00 yr.After only 4 yrs at age 64 the retiree would have rcvd $18,288.00 or $3,288.00 more that the company contributed. In this case a 55 yr old empoyee could not lose unless he died before age 64. I do not like the TA but these facts are facts. Study everything and vote accordingly. The losers in the pension plan are younger employees who have time on their side. But then again how much time does this sinking ship have?
I have nothing to gain by voting yes.
Just dont understand why the union can't be happy with just taking dues?[/size]
Just wait untill you get your dues increase to keep up with all the money these 12 union brothers spent doing whatever they did at the negotiating table
Just dont understand why the union can't be happy with just taking dues?[/size]
Just wait untill you get your dues increase to keep up with all the money these 12 union brothers spent doing whatever they did at the negotiating table
PayParity
Member
- Sep 15, 2007
- 89
- 0
It really depends on if you are West or East what you gained or lost.
Can you break it down by West and East what each loses/gains?
Obviouslt each will have their own agenda so thats the only way to compare the facts on who gains/loses
roabilly
Veteran
- Feb 17, 2008
- 2,136
- 2,355
Attention M&R... this is my previous post in Fleet ...this may also be apllicable to ya'll....sice they wantin' tahh remove COC frum you guys too .... read 'n ponder....
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OK... I have just one question for all…
We know good and well that the Company has been approaching the Union (Numerous times in the last few months)…requesting Transition Talks…They want something!
Something is up! My gut instinct is… they want the loose ends tied up, so they can now pursue merger or acquisition endeavors. They are more than likely, in the later stages of talks with someone.
As far as profit sharing goes…I’m sure any potential purchaser or merger partner would like to see that eliminated, as it was a post bankruptcy appeasement… for the imposed concessions.
Now…as far as the COC language goes…should we allow the IAM to forego future Merger and Acquisition protection for Fleet, no matter what the trade off return may equal in pay and benefits?
Should we (Fleet) not want some protection in this area, considering the likelihood of an M&A to be extremely probable? What about job protection… wage protection... seniority protection… etc.?
If an acquiring carrier has good COC, and we have none, we would be at their mercy! Especially, if the acquiring carrier’s compensation package is less than we may negotiate in this upcoming T/A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Last but not least…
Mr. Cornhole’e …tha Solidarity Network is ah lot smarter than y’all give us credit for.
We comin’ after yahh in June !
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OK... I have just one question for all…
We know good and well that the Company has been approaching the Union (Numerous times in the last few months)…requesting Transition Talks…They want something!
Something is up! My gut instinct is… they want the loose ends tied up, so they can now pursue merger or acquisition endeavors. They are more than likely, in the later stages of talks with someone.
As far as profit sharing goes…I’m sure any potential purchaser or merger partner would like to see that eliminated, as it was a post bankruptcy appeasement… for the imposed concessions.
Now…as far as the COC language goes…should we allow the IAM to forego future Merger and Acquisition protection for Fleet, no matter what the trade off return may equal in pay and benefits?
Should we (Fleet) not want some protection in this area, considering the likelihood of an M&A to be extremely probable? What about job protection… wage protection... seniority protection… etc.?
If an acquiring carrier has good COC, and we have none, we would be at their mercy! Especially, if the acquiring carrier’s compensation package is less than we may negotiate in this upcoming T/A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Last but not least…
Mr. Cornhole’e …tha Solidarity Network is ah lot smarter than y’all give us credit for.
We comin’ after yahh in June !
airplanes4sale
Member
- Mar 16, 2008
- 16
- 0
and if the IAM is not the surviving union then this IAM pension will go right out the window
pjirish317
Veteran
- Sep 21, 2007
- 1,240
- 743
Not necessarily(sp). You would still be a part of the IAMNPF, as long as it in your CBA. Whoever takes the IAM's place would have to enforce your CBA untill a new one is reached, which should include either a 401k company match, or some sort of pension fund. But just because you would not be a member of the IAM you can still have a defined benefit in your CBA that requires the company to contribute to the IAMNPF. The "surviving" union would have to enforce this. I believe that is how it would work.
airplanes4sale
Member
- Mar 16, 2008
- 16
- 0
we have to remember one thing also as much as the company wants to consider us unskilled labor there are other carriers hiring A&P mechanics and don't forget fed-ex and ups and they are paying more money so skilled mechanics are leaving and that means more cost for training new employees and then hope that they stay after getting all the airbus training. there are about 40 openings in philly alone. and most are looking for other jobs everyday.
- Status
