JCBA Negotiations and updates for AA Fleet

[charlie Brown]

Having been fortunate enough to have the pleasure of speaking with both you and others on the Negotiating committee I am highly confident in your abilities to explain any questions about the JCBA TA that can even possibly come up quite proficiently.

I think NYer and all of us in MIA will be extremely satisfied and maybe even dazzled by the Leadership we’ll be witness to when the time comes.

All confusion will melt away like butter.

I have had a few people in Dfw and DC( those are 2 of my stations) from the twu side tell me how important the cs policy is, and it’s a no vote if it changes. And All I ask them when they say that, is to make sure they are 100% sure why they are voting no. Because when they tell me what part of the cs policy that is important to them, I explain to them that that part won’t really change that much. And so then they are ok with it. The most important thing for everybody, when a t/a comes out and the roadshows start, is to make sure all your questions are answered, and if your voting no or yes for that matter, to know for sure why you are. You will only know that if you make sure you educate yourself on the whole t/a.

 

[charlie Brown]

I'm sure there would be substantial work being done to try and give out as much information as possible.

The concern is that this JCBA will be a substantial change in just about every article. The details and intricacies may be lost, misinterpreted and misinformed, especially with the advent of social media and instant information. I'm sure you'd agree that it will be a mountain of information and that could be daunting in a regular negotiation but exponentially worse in a JCBA.

If the negativity sets in because of the unexpected changes it may be a monumental task to overcome.

My point has been, if the differences between the two CBA's had been explained as we moved along some of the tough decisions which were made would be engrained and there would have been plenty of time to debate the issues.

As it stands, because it is mostly unexpected, wholesale changes to our CBA may cause a defensive reaction and an emotional vote that could jeopardize the outcome. People don't like change and may be opposed just because it's different, not necessarily because it's bad.

I don’t disagree with your post at all. However, like I said, I am confident if someone wants to be fully educated on the t/a then the resources will be there. Most of the people that are negative about a contract ( if it’s a good contract ) Those few CHOOSE not to be fully educated on the issues. And they would vote no, even if they were educated on the issues. There are a certain amount of people that are always going to vote no. I could name you a few good friends of mine that have never voted yes for a contract.

 

[WeAAsles]

I have had a few people in Dfw and DC( those are 2 of my stations) from the twu side tell me how important the cs policy is, and it’s a no vote if it changes. And All I ask them when they say that, is to make sure they are 100% sure why they are voting no. Because when they tell me what part of the cs policy that is important to them, I explain to them that that part won’t really change that much. And so then they are ok with it. The most important thing for everybody, when a t/a comes out and the roadshows start, is to make sure all your questions are answered, and if your voting no or yes for that matter, to know for sure why you are. You will only know that if you make sure you educate yourself on the whole t/a.

I have begun to also discuss the changes with some of my Brothers and Sisters here in MIA and for the most part once explained have met with little resistance.

I explained that what we have now on our side is a policy and always subject to change. And I then remind them of how many times it’s changed before in our careers. I’ve also explained that since the TWU never had the foresight to get it in writing in the first place, Management even if we voted no will eventually be making the change as it’s also the same upstairs and they want uniformity in Workbrain.

Admittedly even after all the explanations there are a small few that say they plan to stick with the no decision. That’s their prerogative but I have told them to at least read the TA, ask questions and attend a Roadshow when it comes around.

I’m not as concerned as my colleague NYer.

 

[AANOTOK]

I have had a few people in Dfw and DC( those are 2 of my stations) from the twu side tell me how important the cs policy is, and it’s a no vote if it changes. And All I ask them when they say that, is to make sure they are 100% sure why they are voting no. Because when they tell me what part of the cs policy that is important to them, I explain to them that that part won’t really change that much. And so then they are ok with it. The most important thing for everybody, when a t/a comes out and the roadshows start, is to make sure all your questions are answered, and if your voting no or yes for that matter, to know for sure why you are. You will only know that if you make sure you educate yourself on the whole t/a.

My question would be, if you have a T/A on lets say the cs policy, and obviously it's going from company policy to contractual, why can't you start letting folks know, publicly what to expect. It's a head start, and you get a few feelers.
Lord knows if it benefited the company by releasing it they would, similar to the letter the released to the world on Jetnet. Is it because although it is T/A'd it could be changed? I would appreciate it if Charlie answer this and no one else, it's directed at him.

 

[WeAAsles]

I don’t disagree with your post at all. However, like I said, I am confident if someone wants to be fully educated on the t/a then the resources will be there. Most of the people that are negative about a contract ( if it’s a good contract ) Those few CHOOSE not to be fully educated on the issues. And they would vote no, even if they were educated on the issues. There are a certain amount of people that are always going to vote no. I could name you a few good friends of mine that have never voted yes for a contract.

I think you even have a fellow Negotiator on the TWU side who has proudly stated he’s never voted yes for any contract either.

I expect this to be his first.

 

[AANOTOK]

I have had a few people in Dfw and DC( those are 2 of my stations) from the twu side tell me how important the cs policy is, and it’s a no vote if it changes. And All I ask them when they say that, is to make sure they are 100% sure why they are voting no. Because when they tell me what part of the cs policy that is important to them, I explain to them that that part won’t really change that much. And so then they are ok with it. The most important thing for everybody, when a t/a comes out and the roadshows start, is to make sure all your questions are answered, and if your voting no or yes for that matter, to know for sure why you are. You will only know that if you make sure you educate yourself on the whole t/a.

I know more than a couple who "claim" they have never voted yes on a contract.

 

[charlie Brown]

My question would be, if you have a T/A on lets say the cs policy, and obviously it's going from company policy to contractual, why can't you start letting folks know, publicly what to expect. It's a head start, and you get a few feelers.
Lord knows if it benefited the company by releasing it they would, similar to the letter the released to the world on Jetnet. Is it because although it is T/A'd it could be changed? I would appreciate it if Charlie answer this and no one else, it's directed at him.

AANOTOK
That is exactly the reason. A t/a is just that. It is subject to change or could be amended. We have had t/a,s opened up before and changed. Even in these negotiations. Another reason is because it takes negotiating leverage away from the negotiating team. Let’s say we discuss every big issue that we have a t/a on but your negotiating team is still pushing for more on another issue. If the majority of the people look at a t/a and post that they like it, then believe me, the company will know this, and leverage is lost at the table. A lot of negotiating is posturing, yes both sides know this, but still do it. But Your never going to act like your completely happy with a article. At least not in my opinion. Because no matter what you have agreed to, you should always be striving for more. Making negotiations public, takes a lot of this posturing away from the committee. Now some will say it could work in reverse too, to help the committee if the majority were against it. The catch is, we pretty much know when something’s not good enough, the tricky part is when you start improving a article, and your wanting more improvement, but many of the members if its made public, are happy with what they read. Then again you lost the chance to get more.
I will say, you can usually get a negotiator to tell you a few more details by word of mouth, than what you’ll see them put in writing.
Sorry for the long ramble. Just trying to explain.

 

[NYer]

I don’t disagree with your post at all. However, like I said, I am confident if someone wants to be fully educated on the t/a then the resources will be there. Most of the people that are negative about a contract ( if it’s a good contract ) Those few CHOOSE not to be fully educated on the issues. And they would vote no, even if they were educated on the issues. There are a certain amount of people that are always going to vote no. I could name you a few good friends of mine that have never voted yes for a contract.

There are always the philosophical no votes. There are the emotional no votes. There are the self-interest no votes.

The emotional no votes seem to be a bigger issue this time around as we may have quite a bit of Members built up frustrations even before seeing any language.

We've always been proponents of sharing as much information as possible because a lack of it creates a void that misinformation and rumors fill. That's hard to overcome.

Like I said, I'm sure there will be information available, although it seems it will be an overwhelming amount of information. That's concerning.

There is one flaw of giving out information and that is that the recepient has to be open to receive it. If their mind is made up at the initial stage of the TA being released they may not allow themselves to rationalize the changes, just react.

The hope is that we'd be debating all these issues before being inundated with information that could be overwhelming. That would give us time to allow the emotions to subside and allow decisions to be made based on the merits.

We've been sharing the CS changes and the initial response is negative but when explained it seems to calm them. If we were taking about that now then it wouldn't be much of an issue when a TA comes out. At the time of a TA we'd be analyzing 20% of the JCBA rather than 100%.

As it stands we'll have to ingest, digest and interpret changes in 40 Articles, not 5, 6 or 7 like in regular Section 6 negotiations. It will take weeks just for you guys to prepare the roadshow because of all the changes.

 

[AANOTOK]

AANOTOK
That is exactly the reason. A t/a is just that. It is subject to change or could be amended. We have had t/a,s opened up before and changed. Even in these negotiations. Another reason is because it takes negotiating leverage away from the negotiating team. Let’s say we discuss every big issue that we have a t/a on but your negotiating team is still pushing for more on another issue. If the majority of the people look at a t/a and post that they like it, then believe me, the company will know this, and leverage is lost at the table. A lot of negotiating is posturing, yes both sides know this, but still do it. But Your never going to act like your completely happy with a article. At least not in my opinion. Because no matter what you have agreed to, you should always be striving for more. Making negotiations public, takes a lot of this posturing away from the committee. Now some will say it could work in reverse too, to help the committee if the majority were against it. The catch is, we pretty much know when something’s not good enough, the tricky part is when you start improving a article, and your wanting more improvement, but many of the members if its made public, are happy with what they read. Then again you lost the chance to get more.
I will say, you can usually get a negotiator to tell you a few more details by word of mouth, than what you’ll see them put in writing.
Sorry for the long ramble. Just trying to explain.

No problem with ramble, as long as it makes sense, and it does.
The key here is getting a negotiator to discuss it a bit more in detail and not put it on paper. Fair enough.

 

[WeAAsles]

“status quo” under government watch

Not quite. I’ve seen a few instances where that status quo rule has not quite lived up to its expectations.

 

[charlie Brown]

There are always the philosophical no votes. There are the emotional no votes. There are the self-interest no votes.

The emotional no votes seem to be a bigger issue this time around as we may have quite a bit of Members built up frustrations even before seeing any language.

We've always been proponents of sharing as much information as possible because a lack of it creates a void that misinformation and rumors fill. That's hard to overcome.

Like I said, I'm sure there will be information available, although it seems it will be an overwhelming amount of information. That's concerning.

There is one flaw of giving out information and that is that the recepient has to be open to receive it. If their mind is made up at the initial stage of the TA being released they may not allow themselves to rationalize the changes, just react.

The hope is that we'd be debating all these issues before being inundated with information that could be overwhelming. That would give us time to allow the emotions to subside and allow decisions to be made based on the merits.

We've been sharing the CS changes and the initial response is negative but when explained it seems to calm them. If we were taking about that now then it wouldn't be much of an issue when a TA comes out. At the time of a TA we'd be analyzing 20% of the JCBA rather than 100%.

As it stands we'll have to ingest, digest and interpret changes in 40 Articles, not 5, 6 or 7 like in regular Section 6 negotiations. It will take weeks just for you guys to prepare the roadshow because of all the changes.

Well I can only answer your post this way. And I can only speak for my stations. Most people in my stations, if they care to be educated( and some don’t ) will not have to digest 100% of the jcba. It will be pretty easy to understand most articles and changes because they have been briefed pretty much on a regular basis. And many know the difference in The language between the two contracts. I say this not to brag about my stations ( because I know many of the negotiators have done the same thing in their stations ) but maybe you could get someone down there to start briefing Mia and answering questions. I believe it would help a lot.

 

[WeAAsles]

Well I can only answer your post this way. And I can only speak for my stations. Most people in my stations, if they care to be educated( and some don’t ) will not have to digest 100% of the jcba. It will be pretty easy to understand most articles and changes because they have been briefed pretty much on a regular basis. And many know the difference in The language between the two contracts. I say this not to brag about my stations ( because I know many of the negotiators have done the same thing in their stations ) but maybe you could get someone down there to start briefing Mia and answering questions. I believe it would help a lot.

We’re in the dark down here. Please for Gods sake send help.

I can’t do this alone.

 

[NYer]

No problem with ramble, as long as it makes sense, and it does.
The key here is getting a negotiator to discuss it a bit more in detail and not put it on paper. Fair enough.

At minimum, we should be talking about and getting to understand each other's CBA, not nevessarily getting details about TA's.

If we understand the differences in each CBA before a TA comes out it won't feel so foreign as it will inevitably feel. The leaning curve will be much more manageable.

 

[WeAAsles]

At minimum, we should be talking about and getting to understand each other's CBA, not nevessarily getting details about TA's.

If we understand the differences in each CBA before a TA comes out it won't feel so foreign as it will inevitably feel. The meaning curve will be much more manageable.

See what I mean? He’ll ramble on and on and on and talk you to death and never actually say anything.

Go ahead start talking about the differences. You’ve been talking about talking about the differences for over a year now but you never actually talk about the differences. Again you just talk about talking about it?

WTF?

 

[NYer]

Well I can only answer your post this way. And I can only speak for my stations. Most people in my stations, if they care to be educated( and some don’t ) will not have to digest 100% of the jcba. It will be pretty easy to understand most articles and changes because they have been briefed pretty much on a regular basis. And many know the difference in The language between the two contracts. I say this not to brag about my stations ( because I know many of the negotiators have done the same thing in their stations ) but maybe you could get someone down there to start briefing Mia and answering questions. I believe it would help a lot.

Good for your Members, but why hasn't the Association done this systemwide and in that way create a consistent message. As it stands, and no offense to you, we seem to just get individual opinion. You and PRez in this forum, then we sometimes get a different perspective from a TWU Local President

As a matter of fact, the Association put out a message that the only official message on negotiations would come from them and that creates a contradictory point.