JCBA Negotiations and updates for AA Fleet

[737823]

See that’s your problem, OT should be consistent on how it’s applied per station.

Under the LUS CBA you can local OT rules if the members, the union and the company agree. But it can’t be in violation of the CBA.

And I’m pretty sure their TWU counterparts informed and educated the IAM side on how the TWU does overtime.

Your doom and gloom posts shows me your condescending.

You knock the Association and the Negotiating Committee all the time.

You speculate on the JCBA and yet you don’t know its language.

Also FYI, The IAM Constitution discourages the practice of working overtime.

And if people need OT to survive then they are living beyond their means.

So I see you still don’t believe the three negotiators.

From what Gary has said and my IAM reps, I’m optimistic things will get so strong, especially since the company approached the Association for more dates.

And if you are focused on OT and CS only then you really don’t have the priorities in order.

And I for one is very happy that they are taking their time to get it right.

Would you have preferred to be under the gun with binding arbitration like the APA and APFA did and were at Parker’s mercy begging for more money?

People care about their own self interests and are eager to sign up for overtime.

The language, if I recall correctly, is prefaced with “in the interest of full employment”, aka the IAM can collect more dues/initiation fees by hiring more heads OR recalling anyone on furlough.

Josh

 

[swamt]

The IAM negotiators can say there have been improvements for both sides, but with all due respect, they haven't lived in the TWU side to gauge what we would deem an improvement.
.
On the same token, don't believe a TWU negotiator can set a two week timetable for a TA when Scope and Medical are the biggest issues in the IAM world unless we believe the airline will live with the 1 flight scope and the IAM medical.

I don't and I'd expect they'd fight for it.

Do you?

It seems these two are now setting themselves up for "concessions" to be revealed. They like to use the word "compromises". Let's just wait for T/A day and see all the concessions. I am positive the TWU side will not go along with the T/A if there are any concessions ("compromises") for the TWU side. They also keep saying "most" articles are improvements, easy to improve BK articles while making record profits. But why only "most" what ever happened to "all" and "industry leading contract" as promised??? Good luck NY'er, here's to us all hopefully getting a new contract sometime in 2018...

 

[NYer]

You keep saying the JCBA will go down in flames and send the committees back to the table.

What do you want them to tell you?

Every single detail of what is going on so you can piss off the members when they dont like some changes?

And negotiations are fluid, things change all the time, even if TA something, it is subject to change at anytime.

Once again, the LUS members know how JCBA talks go, it took almost three years for a JCBA in the HP/US Merger, and that was way easier than this process.

You talk out of both sides of you mouth, you bash the NC saying they should have met more before talks start, that wasnt their choice.

You say the JCBA is going down and the NC will be sent back to the table.

And I call BS, if the members dont read the TA, dont go to the road shows, then they are the ones who are the problem, as everyone should be informed on the JCBA as most as possible.

You say they need to be more information put out by them.

If people believe rumors, shame on them, all that does is hinder the process, and no one should believe any rumors, they should only believe the facts.

Things take time to happen, like I said would you have preferred to be in the APA and APFA shoes?

"You keep saying the JCBA will go down in flames and send the committees back to the table."
There you go again. Never said the JCBA would go down in flames or even that it will fail a vote. I do believe that it would have a better chance of passing if the membership would be more up to date with the differences and there was a conversation about the compromises needed to make a JCBA possible. We are not having those conversations and unfortunately, that may impact the final choices made by the members.

"What do you want them to tell you?"
What do I want them to tell us? Well, quite frankly it would be nice if we had information about the differences between the two CBA's and the cultures so that members could better understand the position each side comes from and in turn we can them have discussions on why certain changes will go with IAM language and why others would go with TWU language.

Take the CS's for instance. The IAM has contractual language and the TWU has a company controlled CS Policy. There could have been discussions as to why it may be better to have a process within the JCBA as opposed to a policy that can be changed at will. Since it is better to have contractual language then we need to discuss why it may be different from the policy. As it stands, that hasn't been broached so there is negativity that could have been minimized if explained.

"Once again, the LUS members know how JCBA talks go, it took almost three years for a JCBA in the HP/US Merger, and that was way easier than this process."
You're correct and I have been sharing how this is a difficult process and it takes time. That's why I don't believe there will be a TA with only one week of negotiating Scope and the Economics and to express that timeline is somewhat misleading. The IAM side has more to lose than the TWU side, in my opinion, and they may be more deliberate in the process. The TWU side is looking at adding holidays, sick days and getting double time but there has been little in explaining the IAM side and the challenges they face. That void has created some animosity, as can been seen in these pages, only because we don't understand each others position.

"You talk out of both sides of you mouth, you bash the NC saying they should have met more before talks start, that wasnt their choice."
I'm not sure what you're reading but I have always maintained the responsibility of the two side not meeting at the feet of the TWU and have even drawn a timeline to substantiate that position. Have never blamed the NC for that lapse and it would be impossible to do so since the teams were put together after the NMB certified the Association and the meetings should have taken place well before. (In November of 2014 to be exact)

"You say the JCBA is going down and the NC will be sent back to the table."
Don't believe I ever said that, but it is absolutely possible.

"And I call BS, if the members dont read the TA, dont go to the road shows, then they are the ones who are the problem, as everyone should be informed on the JCBA as most as possible."
I agree, but I wouldn't blame the membership. This is a radical change to how we operate and expecting the members to know and understand each CBA and how the JCBA was put together is just not logical. There will be changes in absolutely every aspect of each CBA, each with 40+ articles. If we expect everyone to be versed in that then we are asking for the chaos that might ensue. These topics could have been broached over the last 24 months, it will be a daunting task for it to happen in 6 weeks or so.

Some member have already made up their minds just by what their heard on the rumor mill. That could have been minimized if there was more information and better communication from the Association.

"Things take time to happen, like I said would you have preferred to be in the APA and APFA shoes?"
We seem to be on the same page on most things but you're being a bit defensive so you may not have realized it yet.

 

[NYer]

It seems these two are now setting themselves up for "concessions" to be revealed. They like to use the word "compromises". Let's just wait for T/A day and see all the concessions. I am positive the TWU side will not go along with the T/A if there are any concessions ("compromises") for the TWU side. They also keep saying "most" articles are improvements, easy to improve BK articles while making record profits. But why only "most" what ever happened to "all" and "industry leading contract" as promised??? Good luck NY'er, here's to us all hopefully getting a new contract sometime in 2018...

It's obvious they have people already trying to move the goal posts as to what can be expected. As they downplay some of the changes it becomes clear they know they will not be popular changes. It is disheartening some of the same people seem to advocate for the leaders and downplay the members for which they're supposed to be advocating for.

They try to make me look unreasonable and put words in my mouth so they can control the conversation and turn the attention away from the substance and towards a person. Classic bait and switch. It doesn't work very well, most people can read and are looking for different viewpoints in order to make their decisions. Attacking others only takes away from any substantive argument they may have.

 

[WeAAsles]

People care about their own self interests and are eager to sign up for overtime.

The language, if I recall correctly, is prefaced with “in the interest of full employment”, aka the IAM can collect more dues/initiation fees by hiring more heads OR recalling anyone on furlough.

Josh

You have an extremely crude understanding of how dues work in both the IAM and TWU. First off though there is no financial motivation for any company to employ far more people than they need to satisfy an encamped Union on property. Your misnomer is foolish. Each employee brought in has a corresponding cost that gains productivity but also brings down profit if unneeded.

The Company essentially does not exist to service the needs of the Union and you are well aware of this.

Now the other item you are well aware of is that dues are weighted. The IAM does a weighted average and the TWU does two times the members base hourly wage per month.

So before you try yet again to spread a falsehood that the Unions are trying to replace us with lower skilled members, don’t. The influx of dues capital just does not support the nonsense you try to annoyingly spread.

Please desist in your attempts.

Fred

 

[NYer]

And some always seem to "overlook" the videos put out by GP in the past about how the company's offers are NOT industry leading. Sure there will be some improvements, hard not to have "some" improvements while making all time record numbers for several quarters now. The question is, will it be industry leading? I have my doubts as that would be a restore of all the takes for the last 30 years including the big one in 2003. GP has already lead on that they are not in the area of industry leading offers. With 2 weeks left, I just don't see it, and you are correct, why throw that date out as he has said several times now that they expect an agreement in principle (AIP) by end of Dec. just to knock the wind out of the sails of the membership once again. And now they are nego. the articles that, as GP has admitted himself, will take the longest and are the hardest to get through.

It's actually one week of negotiations towards new TA's.

This week will be to shore language on the agreed TA's and the following week it will be the beginning of the Scope and Economics.

Then again, failure to finish will just mean that "American broke their promise."

 

[Tom Talbert 1888]

And some always seem to "overlook" the videos put out by GP in the past about how the company's offers are NOT industry leading. Sure there will be some improvements, hard not to have "some" improvements while making all time record numbers for several quarters now. The question is, will it be industry leading? I have my doubts as that would be a restore of all the takes for the last 30 years including the big one in 2003. GP has already lead on that they are not in the area of industry leading offers. With 2 weeks left, I just don't see it, and you are correct, why throw that date out as he has said several times now that they expect an agreement in principle (AIP) by end of Dec. just to knock the wind out of the sails of the membership once again. And now they are nego. the articles that, as GP has admitted himself, will take the longest and are the hardest to get through.

Four months ago.

Guess you havent watched Gary' latest video?

It posted in this thread, the maintenance thread and your non-exsistant negotiations thread at the WN board.

 

[Tom Talbert 1888]

"You keep saying the JCBA will go down in flames and send the committees back to the table."
There you go again. Never said the JCBA would go down in flames or even that it will fail a vote. I do believe that it would have a better chance of passing if the membership would be more up to date with the differences and there was a conversation about the compromises needed to make a JCBA possible. We are not having those conversations and unfortunately, that may impact the final choices made by the members.

"What do you want them to tell you?"
What do I want them to tell us? Well, quite frankly it would be nice if we had information about the differences between the two CBA's and the cultures so that members could better understand the position each side comes from and in turn we can them have discussions on why certain changes will go with IAM language and why others would go with TWU language.

Take the CS's for instance. The IAM has contractual language and the TWU has a company controlled CS Policy. There could have been discussions as to why it may be better to have a process within the JCBA as opposed to a policy that can be changed at will. Since it is better to have contractual language then we need to discuss why it may be different from the policy. As it stands, that hasn't been broached so there is negativity that could have been minimized if explained.

"Once again, the LUS members know how JCBA talks go, it took almost three years for a JCBA in the HP/US Merger, and that was way easier than this process."
You're correct and I have been sharing how this is a difficult process and it takes time. That's why I don't believe there will be a TA with only one week of negotiating Scope and the Economics and to express that timeline is somewhat misleading. The IAM side has more to lose than the TWU side, in my opinion, and they may be more deliberate in the process. The TWU side is looking at adding holidays, sick days and getting double time but there has been little in explaining the IAM side and the challenges they face. That void has created some animosity, as can been seen in these pages, only because we don't understand each others position.

"You talk out of both sides of you mouth, you bash the NC saying they should have met more before talks start, that wasnt their choice."
I'm not sure what you're reading but I have always maintained the responsibility of the two side not meeting at the feet of the TWU and have even drawn a timeline to substantiate that position. Have never blamed the NC for that lapse and it would be impossible to do so since the teams were put together after the NMB certified the Association and the meetings should have taken place well before. (In November of 2014 to be exact)

"You say the JCBA is going down and the NC will be sent back to the table."
Don't believe I ever said that, but it is absolutely possible.

"And I call BS, if the members dont read the TA, dont go to the road shows, then they are the ones who are the problem, as everyone should be informed on the JCBA as most as possible."
I agree, but I wouldn't blame the membership. This is a radical change to how we operate and expecting the members to know and understand each CBA and how the JCBA was put together is just not logical. There will be changes in absolutely every aspect of each CBA, each with 40+ articles. If we expect everyone to be versed in that then we are asking for the chaos that might ensue. These topics could have been broached over the last 24 months, it will be a daunting task for it to happen in 6 weeks or so.

Some member have already made up their minds just by what their heard on the rumor mill. That could have been minimized if there was more information and better communication from the Association.

"Things take time to happen, like I said would you have preferred to be in the APA and APFA shoes?"
We seem to be on the same page on most things but you're being a bit defensive so you may not have realized it yet.

Your same diatribe and manifesto has been passed on, since you are outside the Circle of Trust Greg.

 

[WeAAsles]

It's obvious they have people already trying to move the goal posts as to what can be expected. As they downplay some of the changes it becomes clear they know they will not be popular changes. It is disheartening some of the same people seem to advocate for the leaders and downplay the members for which they're supposed to be advocating for.

They try to make me look unreasonable and put words in my mouth so they can control the conversation and turn the attention away from the substance and towards a person. Classic bait and switch. It doesn't work very well, most people can read and are looking for different viewpoints in order to make their decisions. Attacking others only takes away from any substantive argument they may have.

Until there is an “official” JCTA out for all to read you have both no viewpoints and nothing to argue about or against.

You’re falling in to the same trap as the average person in succumbing to rumors, hearsay and innuendo.

And you’re seeking a bedfellow in someone who knowingly does not work at AA and will not fall under any agreed to and passed Contracts at American Airlines.

Your “friend” works at/for Southwest Airlines.

 

[AANOTOK]

Oh look another one, lol.
View attachment 12251

Tim, I'm disagreeing with what you say, that's what those are for. Dude, you really need to grow up.
Post something I agree with and you will get a big fat check mark....

 

[Tom Talbert 1888]

Who is Tim?

Im Tom, something wrong Ken?

And I am IAM M&R, you wont ever agree with me, as you want to impose everything at AA on to us at LUS.

 

[AANOTOK]

Sorry Tom, my bad...

 

[AANOTOK]

Sorry Tom, my bad...

Not gonna get caught in your trap...have a good day...TOM

 

[WeAAsles]

Who is Tim?

Im Tom, something wrong Ken?

And I am IAM M&R, you wont ever agree with me, as you want to impose everything at AA on to us at LUS.

Hello Tim. I’m Josh.

 

[CremaDiLimone]

Too many people with their own “self” needs/wants to answer that question.

Take NYer here. His main importance seems to be ways of making more money above the FT 40 per week. As an individual because that might be more future restrictive he’ll probably be a no vote.

As for me “individually” I could care less if the two are more restrictive. I rarely utilize either and both items are extremely low on my priorities list.

If for Fleet the “rumor” mill is correct and we at least match many industry standard items and surpass on wages without any job function detriments, I can’t see any reason why I would vote no myself. I honestly don’t want to send them back to the table to try and wring out just a little more knowing that yes it could take years. That would be economically idiotic to me.

i agree. OT and CS is low on my importance list - if anything, i love the fact that the CS policy will become more stringent.

i expect a premium over industry standard due to a number of reasons (from expected 'concessions' on insurance to c/c language to the paltry profit sharing). though i do not work freight nor catering, i wouldn't object to the association making on a stand on outsourcing this work area/catering, any other outsourcing or scope, if aa is thinking of making a move here.

from what i understand, the company is looking to 'in-source' more passenger service work (baggage service, as an example). if so, no outsourcing at all.

as far as deicing, i'm not sure how to fight this, especially if cities/municipalities get involved. the airline is too big and has too much to lose, not to have it's own deicers on stand-by....you'd figure there would still be deicing shifts, even if airports provide pads/car washes.