It's official!
- Thread starter IORFA
- Start date
-
- Tags
- t/a results.
- Status
jimntx
Veteran
It wasn't about avoiding bankruptcy per se. The members voted against a contrac which the company said would keep us out of bankruptcy (which it didn't when the company decided they wanted even more of our pay and benefits). The union did not allow a re-vote. They re-opened the telephone voting for a period of time. The bad feelings came from the fact that you could change a NO vote to YES, but you were not allowed to change a YES vote to NO. The company also implied that if the contract was ratified, there would be no furloughs. I was furloughed 3 months later.
johnny kat
Senior
- Oct 11, 2011
- 343
- 330
This is all so sad. I'll bet none of the NO voters has read the APFA offer to the arbitrator that actually shows the loss of millions of dollars over the 5 year term (ie: a raise that is substantially less money per hour than the failed contract offered) Every NO voter that I have spoken with cannot give any factual reason why they voted the way they did without getting emotional about their distrust of mgmt. or dislike for LG. IDIOTS. You can't fix stupid.
jimntx
Veteran
And, they are all convinced that the arbitrator will give us a better deal.
What I find disappointing is that I have a union official thinking that the arbitrator is going to award the FA's, more money then the Delta FA's, profit sharing, pay raises each year of a two year contract that will be greater then Delta's pay.
If the TWU doesn't learn the FA's lesson, we are doomed with another poor contract.
If the TWU doesn't learn the FA's lesson, we are doomed with another poor contract.
jimntx
Veteran
There does seem to be confusion between "market aggregate" and "pay parity." They are not synonyms. As I understand it, market aggregate is the same or closer to market average than pay parity. For instance if DL f/a Top of Scale is $56/hr and UA TOS is $46/hr, and those are the only two other airlines to be considered, then the maximum the arbitrator can award to AA f/as is $51/hr. Before any of you get your panties in a wad about actual pay rates, it's just an example. And, (I'm sure that someone will correct me if I'm wrong on either of these points) there is no guarantee that the arbitrator will award the maximum possible. His/her job is to get the total contract value down $82 million.
We had pay parity (or pretty darn close to it) in the rejected TA. Oh well.
We had pay parity (or pretty darn close to it) in the rejected TA. Oh well.
kirkpatrick
Veteran
A bit of background on 2003: all work groups were allowed to change their votes until the last minute except the FAs. Once we voted it was done. In the end when the contract failed this was pointed out. It was decided it wasn't fair (it wasn't) and it was extended for a day, resulting in passage.
People were ticked off because it appeared the vote had been manipulated. The situation where we couldn't change our vote but others could never should have been allowed in the first place. Also, people said management met airplanes informing FAs they could revote and just by chance happened to have ballots in their pockets. And it WAS allowed to change a yes to a no. I know because I did exactly that.
As for a revote on the TA, I can't imagine the union not pushing for it. There would be those who would vote no again, but I think enough of the no's now realize there really, really isn't going to be any more negotiating and they are NOT going to get their wish list, and the TA is definitely worth more than the TA minus 82 million. As for it being fair, well, if the arbitration agreement allows the union and company to decide it's OK and the arbitrators are OK with that, it would be criminal to deny over 24000 FAs 15000 dollars over the next five years if they can have it. Losing it might be an expensive lesson for the nobies, but it hurts the 50% of us who voted yes as well. My wife, kiddies and dog need that money.
MK
People were ticked off because it appeared the vote had been manipulated. The situation where we couldn't change our vote but others could never should have been allowed in the first place. Also, people said management met airplanes informing FAs they could revote and just by chance happened to have ballots in their pockets. And it WAS allowed to change a yes to a no. I know because I did exactly that.
As for a revote on the TA, I can't imagine the union not pushing for it. There would be those who would vote no again, but I think enough of the no's now realize there really, really isn't going to be any more negotiating and they are NOT going to get their wish list, and the TA is definitely worth more than the TA minus 82 million. As for it being fair, well, if the arbitration agreement allows the union and company to decide it's OK and the arbitrators are OK with that, it would be criminal to deny over 24000 FAs 15000 dollars over the next five years if they can have it. Losing it might be an expensive lesson for the nobies, but it hurts the 50% of us who voted yes as well. My wife, kiddies and dog need that money.
MK
Onestep2flt
Senior
- Sep 27, 2007
- 386
- 155
If you are to believe the latest e-line the union put out that is what they did in mediation. Direct quote is below.kirkpatrick said:
" As was reported last week, the National Mediation Board facilitated mediation between the company and APFA. Unfortunately, the meetings were not fruitful. APFA asked for the following four items, and all were rejected:
1. Postpone arbitration and continue to negotiate.
2. Postpone arbitration and let the pilots’ arbitration take place before ours.
3. Agree to a new arbitration standard, making the ceiling the same value as the T/A.
4. Put the arbitrated agreement and the T/A up for a membership vote once the arbitration is completed."
I find this facinating. The union leadership kept going along with the company that the only items they would mediate would be what they would discuss at arbitration. This does not even begin to follow the definition of mediation is in regard to legal contract matters. This would appear to be a last minute awakening to the folks that have pointed that fact out for quite some time. If this would have been the union stance from the beginning it may have made some impact. Instead, it just once again makes them look foolish. Don't get me wrong. I am glad that they attempted to at least look like they were following the protocol. This has been the argument I had made. Regardless of the intent of what the word mediation meant in paragraph 5 of the protocol agreement it was there and should have been exploited to the fullest. It was not clearly defined but was none the less in the steps of what was to happen if T/A failed. They should have used it as a rally cry to the members that they would be moving forward with Mediation as called for in the protocol agreement. Keep repeating it and put the company on the defensive. Make the company defend THEIR position. Instead, they kept on agreeing with the company position. "The company would not budge on this." The company has made clear". "The only thing the company will do in mediation". Come on already, everybody already knows what THE COMPANY position is. It is not the union leadership's job to repeat what the company stance is. It is their job to say, "We hear you, and we will fight for you with every legal resource we have including mediation as called for in the protocol agreement". Instead, it is hard to figure out just who is representing YOU! They are both singing the same song.
Fighting over definition of market aggregate and pay parity although relevant is not helpful to YOUR cause. This falls into a trap of going along for a ride with the company. Instead, focus on the protocol agreement and decide the point that is helpful to your situation. This is where perhaps I did not give enough credit to the negotiators. Remember, my beef with the situation is they were just throwing Dollars at you to get you to vote yes. If we stop and think for just a moment this may be the negotiating teams saving grace. For the sake of argument just turn this all around for a moment. Everyone is focused on the $111 million now $112 million and the $193 million. Remember the floor of these negotiations are the current two contracts and must include "IMPROVEMENTS". That is your $111 million figure. The union claims to have garnered $193 million in "improvements" with the difference of $82 million. The argument here is that MOST of the improvements were in DOLLARS and to reduce anything else to get you to the $82 million number you must shave from the agreement would be unfair looking at the two contracts. While the arbitrator does not have to see it that way, it IS a fair argument because it does appear to be one of the only " IMPROVEMENTS " that would not lead to a disturbance in the balance between the two contracts. Thus the Dollars actually was kind of saving grace.
I know for a lot of you that you are focused on the $83 million that you are losing from the T/A. I would remind those folks that there were other things LOST in the T/A from both sides. Right or wrong a lot of the folks that voted no understood that. They have a good argument that you can not lose what you don't already possess. (The $83 million in question.) You can and did lose some provisions from both contracts which those folks decided they could not live without. For them they were not giving up $83 million but giving up things that are actually already a part of the contract. I am sad that those "improvements" are not going to be there for the flight attendants. I am glad that the process was a democratic one and you were able to vote on it. The reality in the end is that as flawed as the protocol agreement is and the seemingly lackluster performance from the union, you got to have a say. According to said protocol agreement you will receive "improvements" to your working agreement! What did you learn? Every vote counts!
I think what is important, is that the FAs are getting $82m less then what you would have gotten. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the TA an improvement over your current contract?
AA improved the contract and threw money at you, but the NO voters were smart enough to see it as a proy by the company, and the union? As what a plan to give you more money, better work rules, and more vacation. Those sons of b******.
AA improved the contract and threw money at you, but the NO voters were smart enough to see it as a proy by the company, and the union? As what a plan to give you more money, better work rules, and more vacation. Those sons of b******.
- Status
