JCBA Negotiations and updates for AA Fleet

[Tim Nelson]

How deep can they cut before its over

Here is another multi employer International Association of Machinists Motor City Pension Fund that wants to cut retirees and everyone in half, and actually suspend benefits. If the treasury approves it, it will be green, however, since it is a multi employer plan as well, it can whack the benefits again and again, 50% of remaining. Because of laws, there is no end in sight. It's over for multi employer plans. The US Congress doesn't want to fund union pensions so it's not funding the PBGC multi employer protectons and it will die in 2022. Traditional pensions have funding from the PBGC.
https://www.treasury.gov/services/P...on-of-Machinists-Motor-City-Pension-Fund.aspx

When a multi employer plan says its green, it's only because it slashed benefits and mulched them and scattered them on the grass to make it green again. Our pension fund has done this twice since 2003 and will again VERY soon. then again. It's inevitable. It's a pyramid scheme and with the average age around 50, and no young blood coming in, it just tanks the plan Big League.

 

[Tim Nelson]

Josh

Its good to have you back, Josh

 

[pjirish317]

The one flight language is an LOA and it seems to have been agreed to in order to protect the IAM Members during the interim period between the IAM CBA ratification and the JCBA. Everyone would love to have that.

At the time, the priority was to get a CBA done in order to move into JCBA negotiations. That's another reason these negotiations may be taking longer as the IAM didn't address their issues during their last CBA negotiations, which were stalled for them as their management team was busy with the LAA unions and our MOU's.

Don't believe the one flight language was meant to be anything other than a placemat and protection from layoffs during the JCBA negotiations and transition from LUS to LAA.

Whether it is an LOA or not, that language is in the LUS CBA. By your post it seems you are advocating for the LAA scope. Why exactly is that? Why wouldn't LAA want the LUS scope? Why are you so quick to "roll over" for the worst of the 2 CBA's? I think you are suffering from Stockholm syndrome here. You should be advocating for the very best of the 2 CBA's, yet here you are trying to justify going to the worst.

 

[pjirish317]

I see you were one of them that was believing the unions that the ONLY 2 choices you guys had were asso. or not represented any longer. WRONG again on the unions part. That's exactly what they wanted the membership to believe, they scared you guys to death over the "no longer being represented lies" and simply put you guys fell for the BS. Gee once again the entire membership was lied to and bamboozled into retaining this scam of an asso. The reason the TWU and the IAM did not want a vote was because they (TWU/IAM) was scared to death of being removed from the property when the membership was gonna write-in AMFA and get both of the other unions removed. That is why they had to scare the day lights out of the membership with the "no longer be represented" scare tactic, it was the only thing to save their a$$es. Hate to say it but you got exactly what you deserve. You fell for the lies, confusion, and mislead propaganda from your very own 2 unions. Now you get to deal with the 2 headed union with internal fighting amongst themselves before they even start fighting with the company on each and every contract issue. I warned you about this for years now. Too dam many of you took the word of the unions so now deal with what you got or replace the asso. all together.


You are correct. By following the correct procedures and steps yes it very well could be renegotiated to become alive again. It was only frozen not killed or given up to the gov. Until then it is quite possible to entertain that. However, with that said, I don't believe the co. will want to reopen it with out some major changes in the cost structures as far as what they would be reliable for injecting into the pensions.

So AMFA was going after Fleet at LUS and LAA? Please, give me a break. AMFA was trying to get LAA MTC. AMFA failed miserably. I get you are upset that the so called Craft union got it's butt handed to them, and gave up attempting to get either LAA or the LUS MTC under it's banner. WHY were you so worried about OUR REPRESENTATION? Why were you so concerned about us being "bamboozled"? Was it because you knew the card drive for AMFA would fall short and the only hope was a "write-in" campaign? I am not a fan of the TWU,nor at times,of the IAM, I think the International interferes way to much, but together they might just be stronger that they would have been seperately. That was my choice. So tell me again, WHY WAS AMFA CONCERNED WITH FLEET AT EITHER LUS OR LAA? Would AMFA even consider representing FLEET anywhere? Why doesn't AMFA try and raid SWA Fleet to dump the EVIL TWU, or RAID SWA customer service to rid them of the EVIL IAM. You are trying to sell a union to us that wants nothing to do with FLEET. Please Stop it.

 

[NYer]

Whether it is an LOA or not, that language is in the LUS CBA. By your post it seems you are advocating for the LAA scope. Why exactly is that? Why wouldn't LAA want the LUS scope? Why are you so quick to "roll over" for the worst of the 2 CBA's? I think you are suffering from Stockholm syndrome here. You should be advocating for the very best of the 2 CBA's, yet here you are trying to justify going to the worst.

You must of missed the part when I said everyone would love the LUS scope.

No one would advocate for a harsher scope, but the conversation is about whether we can keep the current LUS scope or if we'll be forced into something else.

It seems unlikely to be able to keep the one flight a day scope. We can push for it, and I'm sure they will, but it's unlikely to survive.

 

[robbedagain]

Tim that's pretty dam sad I like the idea of having 401K pension and SS for retirement but if the pension is not gonna be what has been reported then I see a lot of folks working til 65 or even older

 

[pjirish317]

You must of missed the part when I said everyone would love the LUS scope.

No one would advocate for a harsher scope, but the conversation is about whether we can keep the current LUS scope or if we'll be forced into something else.

It seems unlikely to be able to keep the one flight a day scope. We can push for it, and I'm sure they will, but it's unlikely to survive.

NOWHERE in the post I qouted from you do you advocate for the LUS scope, NOWHERE. I haven't seen you advocate for anything LUS has that is currenty better than LAA. The medical for example, your stance is that the LUS folks better get ready for the LAA medical costs because it is a foregone conclusion. How do you know this as fact exactly? You spout off as you know exactly what the scope flight threshhold will be as fact, yet offer no proof to back your "facts" up. Why don't you start advocating for the best? Instead of just accepting as "fact" that the worst will come to pass? Do I think that the scope will remain at 1 flight a day? No I do not, but I do not believe it will be anywhere close to the 15 a day that LAA currebtly has. I think somewhere about maybe 5-7 flights a day would be reasonable. I wouldn't like it, and it is a HUGE concession, but it is also a HUGE gain for LAA, so it would be a good comprimise. The medical is another story. There is absolutly no good reason we should give up our medical for yours. None. And you can't offer up a good enough reason either. The reasoning of "everybody else on the property has it" is a straw man arguement at best. And that is the only one you got. Our medical has survived 2, yes that is 2 bankruptcies. To give it up now for a "few pieces of silver" would be a travesty and I would have to say, it would be a HUGE dissappointment from the IAM to do so. I choose to have faith that the NC and the executive NC will do right by ALL the members.

 

[Koolcat]

Understand your perspective there, but why keep cheapening what will pass for a "union" job? As it some mainline FSC starting steps are barely above minimum wage in certain markets, and certainly so are most all vendors.

But the counterpoint is you have unorganized people at DL making over $30/he plus a rich profit sharing and taking home $75k+ without working overtime plus benefits. Sure there are ready reserves that equal the cost out, but the TWU also has OSMs for maintenance, colleges have adjunct faculty, pharmacies have pharmacy technicians, doctoratw PTs have associate degree PTAs performing many of the duties beside them. So it's hardly unique here.

Certain SEIU locals have quietly been opposed to increases in minimum wage because it will make it more expensive and difficult to organize plus they'll likely lose headcount.

I can only imagine what old school, hardcore, fighter, staunch union types would think today when a false unionist goes in with the company to put out such a pathetic CBA like the one at McGee. You think Samuel Gompers or Michael Quill would approve?

Josh

You can't compare the twu 1% of OSM to Delta's 40% of Ready Reserve that subsidize the few high paying wages

 

[Traymark]

When a multi employer plan says its green, it's only because it slashed benefits and mulched them and scattered them on the grass to make it green again. Our pension fund has done this twice since 2003 and will again VERY soon. then again. It's inevitable. It's a pyramid scheme and with the average age around 50, and no young blood coming in, it just tanks the plan Big League.

Tim,
This is absolutely spot on, the best description there is.
The numbers do not work, no matter how much P.Rez tries to prop them up , it will fail and those left in it won't even be getting 50 cents on the dollar at the end of the day.

 

[Traymark]

Do I think that the scope will remain at 1 flight a day? No I do not, but I do not believe it will be anywhere close to the 15 a day that LAA currebtly has. I think somewhere about maybe 5-7 flights a day would be reasonable. I wouldn't like it, and it is a HUGE concession, but it is also a HUGE gain for LAA, so it would be a good comprimise. The medical is another story. There is absolutely no good reason we should give up our medical for yours. None. And you can't offer up a good enough reason either.

First, scope ~ no way it stays at 15 per day, that number will higher, not lower.

Second, medical ~ You are correct, there is "no good reason" you should give it up, but give it up Sito will do , and I've posted on here before about his.
If anybody thinks the fact that there was no representation vote for the Association did come with a price, when all the company had to do was trigger one by disputing the forming of it to the NMB,
it was well within their right to do so,
You are about the find out what that price was.

A representation vote could have removed one or both of the IAM and TWU, no vote, they both stayed and continued collecting dues, largely because American Airlines let them stay.

 

[NYer]

NOWHERE in the post I qouted from you do you advocate for the LUS scope, NOWHERE. I haven't seen you advocate for anything LUS has that is currenty better than LAA. The medical for example, your stance is that the LUS folks better get ready for the LAA medical costs because it is a foregone conclusion. How do you know this as fact exactly? You spout off as you know exactly what the scope flight threshhold will be as fact, yet offer no proof to back your "facts" up. Why don't you start advocating for the best? Instead of just accepting as "fact" that the worst will come to pass? Do I think that the scope will remain at 1 flight a day? No I do not, but I do not believe it will be anywhere close to the 15 a day that LAA currebtly has. I think somewhere about maybe 5-7 flights a day would be reasonable. I wouldn't like it, and it is a HUGE concession, but it is also a HUGE gain for LAA, so it would be a good comprimise. The medical is another story. There is absolutly no good reason we should give up our medical for yours. None. And you can't offer up a good enough reason either. The reasoning of "everybody else on the property has it" is a straw man arguement at best. And that is the only one you got. Our medical has survived 2, yes that is 2 bankruptcies. To give it up now for a "few pieces of silver" would be a travesty and I would have to say, it would be a HUGE dissappointment from the IAM to do so. I choose to have faith that the NC and the executive NC will do right by ALL the members.

You're obviously interpreting my posts in your own manner.

We, on the LAA side would love to get the IAM Scope of one flight a day language and also the cheaper medical. WE WOULD LOVE AND WELCOME IT.

However, that is unlikely to happen because of the reasons stated in order posts.

Is that clearer?

And you're correct, about what may be reasonable and what should be the goals. My point is not an argument to accept what seems to be coming but merely the perspective of why it is unlikely for the LUS Scope and Medical to survive in its current form.

I'm all for them asking, demanding and holding the line on those items but it just doesn't seem likely the JCBA will contain that desired language.

The TWU seems to want to move on so we can gain what the IAM Members have in other language, like holidays. On the other hand, I completely understand why the IAM Members are in no rush whatsoever. Protect what you have, no need to run towards a knife.

Roles are reversed, we'd be feeling and doing the same thing.

 

[AANOTOK]

Again, when Parker welcomed the Association, he knew exactly what was coming with it, and it wasn't a quick contract.

Let me ask irish, our contract currently states that if I'm bypassed for dayoff overtime, I'm entitled to 8 hours pay while sitting at home. We here at AA call that rocking chair money. On the other hand, your contract states that with your bypass, you are offered hours at another time to make up for what you missed out on. Should we at AA hold out for our language or concede yours...I think they already have a T/A on that and I'm not sure which way they went, just curious if you think that is something we should never give up.

 

[WeAAsles]

First, scope ~ no way it stays at 15 per day, that number will higher, not lower.

Second, medical ~ You are correct, there is "no good reason" you should give it up, but give it up Sito will do , and I've posted on here before about his.
If anybody thinks the fact that there was no representation vote for the Association did come with a price, when all the company had to do was trigger one by disputing the forming of it to the NMB,
it was well within their right to do so,
You are about the find out what that price was.

A representation vote could have removed one or both of the IAM and TWU, no vote, they both stayed and continued collecting dues, largely because American Airlines let them stay.

Earth to Mars. We captured one of your citizens. We would like you to come and get him. No ransom and we'll even entertain counter offers for your acceptance of him.

 

[cltrat]

Again, when Parker welcomed the Association, he knew exactly what was coming with it, and it wasn't a quick contract.

Let me ask irish, our contract currently states that if I'm bypassed for dayoff overtime, I'm entitled to 8 hours pay while sitting at home. We here at AA call that rocking chair money. On the other hand, your contract states that with your bypass, you are offered hours at another time to make up for what you missed out on. Should we at AA hold out for our language or concede yours...I think they already have a T/A on that and I'm not sure which way they went, just curious if you think that is something we should never give up.

AANOTOK I know you addressed this to pj, I have been told the TA goes to your language, we used to have it that way in the contract before this one.I,m a big advocate for that as here in CLT admin does a horrible of calling OT making mistakes daily with no consequences .

 

[WeAAsles]

Earth to Mars. We captured one of your citizens. We would like you to come and get him. No ransom and we'll even entertain counter offers for your acceptance of him.

This was for the comment made by Traymark. Not sure why it said Mr Irish made the remark?