JCBA Negotiations and updates for AA Fleet

[Albert]

[
Weez Somewhere ,someone down the road is paying for that Using your philosophy why not get rid of the pay scale and pay everyone the same from day one, heck we are all doing the same work . If we were to do that you'd have to kiss the $30 good bye along with the new V6. Figure 20 bucks for everyone, great now we all have a chit job

 

[NYer]

BTW and unless someone can convince me otherwise, that last Association update disturbed me. For the entire process Fleet and Maintenance have been in lock step with each other on TAing items. But suddenly now I'm seeing the Maintenance group begin to pull ahead?

Now I know that some things will be different between the two groups but the perception for what they moved forward with gives me some cause for concern?

The comparisons aren't apples to apples. They have issues to deal with we don't and we have issues to deal with they don't. To simply believe the two groups need make simultaneous doesn't really paint an accurate picture of who may or may not be ahead. It will just lead to further frustrations to try and make those comparisons. You have thought this process would be quick but it is quite obviously not the case.

 

[WeAAsles]

If you're trying to bring up a point by using this quote Al, it's not going to work. The Double PT rate was "almost" implemented because of our BK.

When we received a 3% credit because the company lowered their ask from 20% to 17% due to the Pilots contract being abrogated. Our negotiators partly applied that credit to doing away with that piece of the pie.

On the other hand when you guys got your TA to vote on (Section 6) the Double Medical for PT was still there. That cost item could have been negotiated away but obviously the negotiators must like its existence.

If that piece should exist in our eventual JCBA you can probably be sure that somewhere near 30% (Our PT staff) of the TWU membership will vote NO.

So if 30% of the entire left over membership also votes no you can say bye bye birdie to that TA.

 

[WeAAsles]

[

Weez Somewhere ,someone down the road is paying for that Using your philosophy why not get rid of the pay scale and pay everyone the same from day one, heck we are all doing the same work . If we were to do that you'd have to kiss the $30 good bye along with the new V6. Figure 20 bucks for everyone, great now we all have a chit job

Put it to you this way Al. If the Double PT rate comes to my desk I'm going to vote NO. And my NO will be on principal alone since I doubt I'll ever be PT again.

 

[WeAAsles]

The comparisons aren't apples to apples. They have issues to deal with we don't and we have issues to deal with they don't. To simply believe the two groups need make simultaneous doesn't really paint an accurate picture of who may or may not be ahead. It will just lead to further frustrations to try and make those comparisons. You have thought this process would be quick but it is quite obviously not the case.

Ok do you need for me to send you a postcard with my face attached and in my handwriting saying I was wrong?

I'm not going to bow to you if that's what you're looking for or need.

 

[Albert]

If you're trying to bring up a point by using this quote Al, it's not going to work. The Double PT rate was "almost" implemented because of our BK.

When we received a 3% credit because the company lowered their ask from 20% to 17% due to the Pilots contract being abrogated. Our negotiators partly applied that credit to doing away with that piece of the pie.

On the other hand when you guys got your TA to vote on (Section 6) the Double Medical for PT was still there. That cost item could have been negotiated away but obviously the negotiators must like its existence.

If that piece should exist in our eventual JCBA you can probably be sure that somewhere near 30% (Our PT staff) of the TWU membership will vote NO.

So if 30% of the entire left over membership also votes no you can say bye bye birdie to that TA.

I seem to recall you saying you would have to look at the double medical. What makes you thing the 30% leftover would vote no. If put to the membership "ok the P/T are not paying double anymore, to meet costs the full timers will now pay 20% more. How do you think that vote will go. You should change your handle to Job

 

[NYer]

Ok do you need for me to send you a postcard with my face attached and in my handwriting saying I was wrong?

I'm not going to bow to you if that's what you're looking for or need.

For someone that likes to point out when he believes the other is wrong or misguided, you sure are sensitive.

 

[NYer]

I seem to recall you saying you would have to look at the double medical. What makes you thing the 30% leftover would vote no. If put to the membership "ok the P/T are not paying double anymore, to meet costs the full timers will now pay 20% more. How do you think that vote will go. You should change your handle to Job

The piece that may cause the PTers to vote for such a thing is the ability to be able to forgo medical and not pay anything (an option given during the BK). When you're young and without a family making less than top rates, that savings is very appealing.

It is also a danger since less people paying into an insurances makes the rates for everyone else to go up, especially if those in the plan are older and more prone to use the insurance at a higher clip.

 

[Albert]

For someone that likes to point out when he believes the other is wrong or misguided, you sure are sensitive.

Weaasles coming out of the stall and you are washing your hands at the sink, how awkward is that

 

[WeAAsles]

I seem to recall you saying you would have to look at the double medical. What makes you thing the 30% leftover would vote no. If put to the membership "ok the P/T are not paying double anymore, to meet costs the full timers will now pay 20% more. How do you think that vote will go. You should change your handle to Job

If you go back and read what I said was if it was to come down to us I would like there to be a few years timeframe for people to get FT if they wanted it or a grandfathering of people already on the clock.

No way could I support the shock and awe theory if the costs they would have to carry would be substantially more than they're paying right now.

And I use individual friends of mine as a litmus for how I would feel if I was in their situation.

For commuters it's my friend Greg from MEM and for PT it's my friend Karlton who took the job mostly for the medical.

 

[WeAAsles]

For someone that likes to point out when he believes the other is wrong or misguided, you sure are sensitive.

Touché

 

[bob@las-AA]

Any word on the local 502 elections?

 

[P. REZ]

First off, the IAM side is not delaying anything. There are votes taken among us to decide on what direction to go on any given Article. Generally speaking, all of us agree when the Company hands us an Article that it is well below expectations. The Company is intent on giving us top pay only and substandard language and other benefits, FACT!!

I am not happy that we are still in negotiations with no true end in sight. I will not accept a bs contract under the conditions we are under, PERIOD!! Does this mean I am not willing to move on issues, NO!! I want a contract as soon as possible but not at the expense of anybody. My philosophy has always been to get 90% ratification of any deal brought back to the members.

P. Rez

 

[lax]

First off, the IAM side is not delaying anything. There are votes taken among us to decide on what direction to go on any given Article. Generally speaking, all of us agree when the Company hands us an Article that it is well below expectations. The Company is intent on giving us top pay only and substandard language and other benefits, FACT!!

I am not happy that we are still in negotiations with no true end in sight. I will not accept a bs contract under the conditions we are under, PERIOD!! Does this mean I am not willing to move on issues, NO!! I want a contract as soon as possible but not at the expense of anybody. My philosophy has always been to get 90% ratification of any deal brought back to the members.

P. Rez

Just curious what’s your definition of a bs contract. The way I see it is that anything offered in any article that is less than what lus has you would call bs. If that’s true, and speaking of pure bs, what the hell was the so called reconciliation process for other than an excuse to eat steak and lobster in las vegas on opm. This Ass group touted how they’d be so beneficial for the entire workforce but from where I sit looks like a complete mess. Week after week it’s the same worthless updates and continual whining about the company. Never have I read about the ASSs lack of ability, unreasonableness, or any accountability for lack of progress. The real problem is that no one in that room has the anecdote to reconcile this. 6 guys already had a better contract and now have the same money as the other 6 guys. So whereas the company may offer something that is quite an improvement to half the room(ie daily, weekly, annual departures of station staffing), the other 6 just shrug their shoulders in discontent and run back to the steakhouse. The Ass was supposedly put together to represent the interest of the majority. But in practice its really just two separate groups that happen to be sitting at the same table only representing their factions. And btw if 90% ratification is the goal maybe you guys need to revisit that disastrous cs policy that was somehow TA’d. other than weasel and a few others, I haven’t met many naatives that are happy about that one. Most call that bs!!!

 

[WeAAsles]

First off, the IAM side is not delaying anything. There are votes taken among us to decide on what direction to go on any given Article. Generally speaking, all of us agree when the Company hands us an Article that it is well below expectations. The Company is intent on giving us top pay only and substandard language and other benefits, FACT!!

I am not happy that we are still in negotiations with no true end in sight. I will not accept a bs contract under the conditions we are under, PERIOD!! Does this mean I am not willing to move on issues, NO!! I want a contract as soon as possible but not at the expense of anybody. My philosophy has always been to get 90% ratification of any deal brought back to the members.

P. Rez

Rez are you looking to get a 90% ratification from "your" members or are you looking to get a 90% ratification from "all" roughly 14,000 of us? Because the way I see it and have read some parts of your contract if some of those items remain you're going to lose a lot of votes on the TWU side who are used to a certain way things have been done throughout our entire careers. Taking as just one example how OT is doled out for instance.

I honestly do think you're in a tough predicament right now. How would you get the membership to give you that 90% if we already got most of the pay raises? How do you gain enough improvements for your members where they'll give you that pat on the back and say well done?

You just alluded to something in this quote:

"Generally speaking, all of us agree when the Company hands us an Article that it is well below expectations"

I'm glad to read that and of course it's something I would suspect and ALL of us members would rally behind you for. The questions come in for what happens when all of you don't agree? Is one side being cajoled or prodded into going along with something they don't like because the other side is used to THEIR way of doing things?

The question I have is at the end of the day when that JCBA finally is sitting on my desk am I going to be reading an IAM contract or am I going to be reading an ASSOCIATION contract? And I don't want to read a TWU contract over an ASSOCIATION contract either.

Can you give me an idea when this is all over what kind of contract am I going to be reading?