It's official!
- Thread starter IORFA
- Start date
-
- Tags
- t/a results.
- Status
I would think the smartest thing to do at this point is to poll the membership on what direction the APFA should go. 1-Should they fight it out in arbitration. Or 2- should they send out the original offer for a re-vote. I understand your frustration over the results. But I tend to also agree with some out here that they should never lose the PS, and should also enjoy some form of 401K matching. Having both will better align employees with a better retirement than what the old time pensions have done. The 401K was brought out to help supplement pensions not replace them in their entirety, the PS is a nice addition with the 401K's to help that. AA keeping the pensions frozen and not deleted completely will now just be an added bonus to help as well.IORFA said:
blue collar
Veteran
- Mar 17, 2008
- 1,241
- 901
At this point, the results should stand. The union needs to assume that everyone voted for their best interest and respect that. And those who didn't vote, hopefully this will show you the importance of voting.swamt said:
galley princess
Senior
- Nov 4, 2007
- 384
- 263
The angst and drama over this contract is baffling. This wasn't an "end of one, beginning of another" contract. This was a merger contract. The best of both, drawn together. One is a poorly negotiated mediocre follow up to a bankruptcy contract (US) and one is a mitigated white knight version of a bankruptcy contract. (AA). As US flight attendants learned - the hard way- you do not negotiate from where you were pre 9/11. You negotiate from the contract you HAVE. That means that the whatever you HAD is irrelevant to management, and more importantly an arbitrator/ mediator. There is no section 6. There is only a disgusted arbitrator wondering why AA flight attendants threw him a favorable deal that he has to remove money from and call it arbitrated.
There is NO better deal in the wings. There is NO renegotiation of sections. There is NO profit sharing. There is only economic redistribution. An arbitrator cannot award profit sharing. It isn't on the table. AT ALL. And so what? At best profit sharing represented 2 months salary and is an unknown. Mr. Parker is right, you can't take profit sharing to get a mortgage. A higher salary is finite and usable. Profit sharing is also generally the domain of historically bankrupt industries, used as a palliative for lower wages. It is the hope of many that we are leaving this behind. To cling to profit sharing as a reason to decline a raise is absurd.
Why not vote again? AFA submitted the US contract 3 TIMES. Each time it got worse. They told us the truth. The contract was marginally better than the one we were working under. It basically provided a small raise and specific language governing the already agreed to PBS system. There was no way to ditch PBS. It was either take it without protections or vote in the protections. APFA carried that language over. It will now protect 24,000 flight attendants. It also blew a ton of money on the reserve system. Again, that carried over. Any junior flight attendant that thinks this TA didn't have anything for them might want to talk to a 1989 hire at US. Reserve is now rotated, uses 12 hour shifts and provides a mechanism to choose your trip amongst what is available. Try straight reserve for 17 -20 years and then get back to me.
A union's basic function is to advocate and protect its members. I am SURE that it got old for AFA to send out a reshuffled mess 3 TIMES to its members, but it did it. With each vote, more education ensued, and it became clear that US flight attendants needed to vote the damn thing in so as to have a better starting point for this TA. We did our job. Now it's APFA's turn to do theirs.
There is no ethical conflict here. Every flight attendant gets to vote. If it's voted down AGAIN, then we go to arbitration, take less money and those with half a brain wonder what the hell universe they are in, but we go on. Mr. Parker is throwing us a bone here. Not giving the flight attendants another chance is abdicating the responsibility to obtain the best deal possible. Not to mention highly offensive to the US flight attendants that did vote for the TA, and the pre-cursor to it that allowed for a better TA.
There is NO better deal in the wings. There is NO renegotiation of sections. There is NO profit sharing. There is only economic redistribution. An arbitrator cannot award profit sharing. It isn't on the table. AT ALL. And so what? At best profit sharing represented 2 months salary and is an unknown. Mr. Parker is right, you can't take profit sharing to get a mortgage. A higher salary is finite and usable. Profit sharing is also generally the domain of historically bankrupt industries, used as a palliative for lower wages. It is the hope of many that we are leaving this behind. To cling to profit sharing as a reason to decline a raise is absurd.
Why not vote again? AFA submitted the US contract 3 TIMES. Each time it got worse. They told us the truth. The contract was marginally better than the one we were working under. It basically provided a small raise and specific language governing the already agreed to PBS system. There was no way to ditch PBS. It was either take it without protections or vote in the protections. APFA carried that language over. It will now protect 24,000 flight attendants. It also blew a ton of money on the reserve system. Again, that carried over. Any junior flight attendant that thinks this TA didn't have anything for them might want to talk to a 1989 hire at US. Reserve is now rotated, uses 12 hour shifts and provides a mechanism to choose your trip amongst what is available. Try straight reserve for 17 -20 years and then get back to me.
A union's basic function is to advocate and protect its members. I am SURE that it got old for AFA to send out a reshuffled mess 3 TIMES to its members, but it did it. With each vote, more education ensued, and it became clear that US flight attendants needed to vote the damn thing in so as to have a better starting point for this TA. We did our job. Now it's APFA's turn to do theirs.
There is no ethical conflict here. Every flight attendant gets to vote. If it's voted down AGAIN, then we go to arbitration, take less money and those with half a brain wonder what the hell universe they are in, but we go on. Mr. Parker is throwing us a bone here. Not giving the flight attendants another chance is abdicating the responsibility to obtain the best deal possible. Not to mention highly offensive to the US flight attendants that did vote for the TA, and the pre-cursor to it that allowed for a better TA.
jimntx
Veteran
Do you not understand that both sides agreed before negotiations ever started (see Negotiations Protocol) that if A: the company/union negotiators reached an impasse and could not produce a TA or B: the TA was rejected by the members that the contract issue would go to an arbitrator? It's too late to decide that arbitration is not a good idea. It never has been, but some f/as always think that the arbitrator is really Daddy or Mommy Santa Claus, and will give them everything they want.usfliboi said:
We have no choice now. Neither the company nor the union are interested in sending it out for a vote again. We tried that in 2003 (see E's post), and it resulted in years of distrust of the union by the members. (IIRC (remember I've slept since then) they partially re-opened voting after the members rejected the TA. On the telephone voting system, you could change your NO vote to a YES vote, but you were not allowed to change a YES vote to a NO vote.)
We've used binding arbitration for years on many issues--especially, on f/a terminations. Both sides agree to live with the arbitrator's decision. It actually makes things simpler.
But, this time we screwed ourselves. We were told that the contract was worth almost $100 million over "market aggregate" which is the maximum the arbitrator could award; so, if it went to arbitration, the first step would be to find the $92 (or 82 or 88) million to remove from the TA. We (rhetorical we) decided not to believe what the negotiators said. We were sure that the arbitrator would give us a contract that was beyond our wildest dreams. Not so.
jimntx
Veteran
Precisely. In fact that's what the company AND the union said at the meeting this week. There are to be no additions to the TA, and the vote of the membership must be respected. Arbitration City, here we come.blue collar said:
I can't understand why you would want another five year extension of the concessions you gave in 2003 and 2012.
Parker says he wants to pay you what you deserve, compensation that if its anything like the mechanics is roughly half what it was in the beginning of 2003 in real terms.
Do you people feel that you were overpaid in 2003 and that your current rates are fair? Especially when you factor in the Profits that AA is making off your labor? On top of half pay you are working in full planes, if anything you should expect more than you were making in 2003.
Parker is maneuvering like a slick used car salesman. Sure he wants to pay what he calls industry rates, but current industry rates are based upon bankruptcy contracts which at least offered the chance to recoup some of your losses if the company prospers through profit sharing. Parker doesn't want to offer that. If you think he wants to be fair then you are stupid. He is on a big ego trip to show non-union Delta that he can screw over his Union workers more than Delta can screw over their non-union workers. Its all about him and one thing you can be sure of is that he will get his share of the profits that your continued concessions provide.
Don't be dumb, expect and demand more. If your leaders aren't willing to lead then you have the means to take corrective action.
Parker says he wants to pay you what you deserve, compensation that if its anything like the mechanics is roughly half what it was in the beginning of 2003 in real terms.
Do you people feel that you were overpaid in 2003 and that your current rates are fair? Especially when you factor in the Profits that AA is making off your labor? On top of half pay you are working in full planes, if anything you should expect more than you were making in 2003.
Parker is maneuvering like a slick used car salesman. Sure he wants to pay what he calls industry rates, but current industry rates are based upon bankruptcy contracts which at least offered the chance to recoup some of your losses if the company prospers through profit sharing. Parker doesn't want to offer that. If you think he wants to be fair then you are stupid. He is on a big ego trip to show non-union Delta that he can screw over his Union workers more than Delta can screw over their non-union workers. Its all about him and one thing you can be sure of is that he will get his share of the profits that your continued concessions provide.
Don't be dumb, expect and demand more. If your leaders aren't willing to lead then you have the means to take corrective action.
OK this is not sect 6, so why would you want to add even more years before you get to section 6? When was the last time FAs at US were in Sect 6?galley princess said:
Is there anything stopping the Arbitrator from awarding a contract that becomes amendable under section6 in 2016, the year the UAL FAs contract becomes amendable?
Perhaps if the FAs started to show everyone what its like to have an unhappy workforce the arbitrator may not even have to decide. maybe start picketing, I would walk with you guys as I have in the past. We should be taking this public about how our compensation was cut in half because the Airlines lied and said they needed the cuts to make money, now they are making crazy profits and they don't even want to share any of the profits with us. If they want to restore our pay in real terms then fine, keep the profits, but to maintain much lower compensation and deny us profit sharing is simply shamefully greedy.
Pilots, mechanics and all other ground workers have an interest in seeing the FAs get profit sharing and I suspect if the APFA took this public that the other Union members on the property would rally behind the Flight Attendants.
La Li Lu Le Lo
Veteran
- May 29, 2010
- 7,414
- 2,649
They have the means but do they have the will?Bob Owens said:
My guess is they don't.
galley princess
Senior
- Nov 4, 2007
- 384
- 263
What part of "binding arbitration" is cloudy?
This thread is about the flight attendant contract, flight attendant issues and what is BEST FOR FLIGHT ATTENDANTS.
You want to fall on a sword for profit sharing, have at it.
Supposedly, this management gave the flight attendants another shot at this TA.
The merged AA flight attendant contract will be this TA or a reduced arbitrated version, with the term. The arbitrator isn't going to adjust the term either. He is only going to reduce it by 82 million.
If indeed there is another chance for flight attendants to vote in a superior alternative to an arbitrated contract worth 82 million less, then it is ridiculous not to take it.
Obfuscating the reality of our position is in the interests of whom, I do not know, but certainly not the flight attendants.
The choice is clear. Vote for a raise, or vote for a reduced compensation contract. That's reality, that is the truth, the rest is hyperbole and crap.
BTW, In 2018 the rules will be the same. You negotiate from the contract you're in, not what you wish it to be. So voting this down merely increases the height of the step up you want to take later.
This thread is about the flight attendant contract, flight attendant issues and what is BEST FOR FLIGHT ATTENDANTS.
You want to fall on a sword for profit sharing, have at it.
Supposedly, this management gave the flight attendants another shot at this TA.
The merged AA flight attendant contract will be this TA or a reduced arbitrated version, with the term. The arbitrator isn't going to adjust the term either. He is only going to reduce it by 82 million.
If indeed there is another chance for flight attendants to vote in a superior alternative to an arbitrated contract worth 82 million less, then it is ridiculous not to take it.
Obfuscating the reality of our position is in the interests of whom, I do not know, but certainly not the flight attendants.
The choice is clear. Vote for a raise, or vote for a reduced compensation contract. That's reality, that is the truth, the rest is hyperbole and crap.
BTW, In 2018 the rules will be the same. You negotiate from the contract you're in, not what you wish it to be. So voting this down merely increases the height of the step up you want to take later.
- Status
