JCBA Negotiations and updates for AA Fleet

[WeAAsles]

How's life in weaaselville?

C'mon next? And you're not going to get a 9.9% 401k contribution either, so also...........Next?

 

[Tim Nelson]

Exactly!

What are these guys doing? Since WeAAsles doesn't want to unpack the only 3 possible scenerios, i.e.,
1. A tentative agreement. The union agrees with the JCBA. Then why would the union flip like a pancake and then scream foul? Huh? Doesn't make sense. Not likely.

2. A Company proposal that is not agreed to but the union agrees to recuse itself and offer a "No" recommendation. More likely but why do we need a union then if the union recuses itself and the company brings a shiatt proposal to us directly? More likely, given Prez statements but very very bad idea because the company will sell the hell out of the shiaat agreement and it could pass if it was baited with a $5,000 signing bonus and a big buyout.

3. A company proposal that is not agreed to by the union and not recommended by the union. Again, see #2. Why do we need a union and what have we been doing for 4 years in negotiations if we just let the company negotiate directly with the membership? The only reason is for the union to wash its hands and try to bail out of its divided situation then point the finger to the membership, which it's good at doing.

One thing is clear, one shouldn't ever use a shiatt proposal as any baseline. Should stick with union principles and follow the direction of our proposals. Giving the company an avenue to negotiate directly with its employees is >advantage company.

 

[WeAAsles]

Exactly!

They will negotiate off the comprehensive proposal.

IF IF IF they get one. Notice I always have to do things like that here on Forums. (IF IF IF)

 

[WeAAsles]

What are these guys doing? Since WeAAsles doesn't want to unpack the only 3 possible scenerios, i.e.,
1. A tentative agreement. The union agrees with the JCBA. Then why would the union flip like a pancake and then scream foul? Huh? Doesn't make sense. Not likely.

2. A Company proposal that is not agreed to but the union agrees to recuse itself and offer a "No" recommendation. More likely but why do we need a union then if the union recuses itself and the company brings a shiatt proposal to us directly? More likely, given Prez statements but very very bad idea because the company will sell the hell out of the shiaat agreement and it could pass if it was baited with a $5,000 signing bonus and a big buyout.

3. A company proposal that is not agreed to by the union and not recommended by the union. Again, see #2. Why do we need a union and what have we been doing for 4 years in negotiations if we just let the company negotiate directly with the membership? The only reason is for the union to wash its hands and try to bail out of its divided situation then point the finger to the membership, which it's good at doing.

One thing is clear, one shouldn't ever use a shiatt proposal as any baseline. Should stick with union principles and follow the direction of our proposals. Giving the company an avenue to negotiate directly with its employees is >advantage company.

WTF? LMFAO.

 

[Koolcat]

What are these guys doing? Since WeAAsles doesn't want to unpack the only 3 possible scenerios, i.e.,
1. A tentative agreement. The union agrees with the JCBA. Then why would the union flip like a pancake and then scream foul? Huh? Doesn't make sense. Not likely.

2. A Company proposal that is not agreed to but the union agrees to recuse itself and offer a "No" recommendation. More likely but why do we need a union then if the union recuses itself and the company brings a shiatt proposal to us directly? More likely, given Prez statements but very very bad idea because the company will sell the hell out of the shiaat agreement and it could pass if it was baited with a $5,000 signing bonus and a big buyout.

3. A company proposal that is not agreed to by the union and not recommended by the union. Again, see #2. Why do we need a union and what have we been doing for 4 years in negotiations if we just let the company negotiate directly with the membership? The only reason is for the union to wash its hands and try to bail out of its divided situation then point the finger to the membership, which it's good at doing.

One thing is clear, one shouldn't ever use a shiatt proposal as any baseline. Should stick with union principles and follow the direction of our proposals. Giving the company an avenue to negotiate directly with its employees is >advantage company.

So you're saying be like AMPFA and keep negotiating past five years?

 

[P. REZ]

It's a phony sell. You can't change that. He said it. And how does a comprehensive proposal get to the members if the IAM doesn't sign off that it is a fair deal with a Tentative agreement? Prez violated the principles of non contradiction, i.e., the IAM TA's the proposal then Prez 'bait and switches" by washing his hands claiming he will phony sell a no vote. Really? Unless what he is saying is that the IAM won't agree, and will step aside, and allow the company to present its proposal to the membership, without union leadership recommendation. Either way, it's phony. They are commissionted to represent our proposals and to negotiate a JCBA, not to step aside and allow the company to present a proposal directly to the membership.

Tim, Tim, Tim,

Typical of you to post bs. Kindly go back and read NYer's question and my response. He asked whether a comprehensive proposal was possible and if a vote could be forced off of a all in comprehensive proposal with the NMB recommending a vote too. I said a comprehensive proposal was possible but for the forced vote off an all in comprehensive proposal, my answer was no, we would negotiate off the comprehensive proposal. That has been done every time I've been in negotiations is we get a comprehensive and we negotiate off of it. What the hell? You are truly a con artist. Sheesh. Ask NYer.

P. Rez

 

[NYer]

So why hasn't these two wonderful unions been able to get that language into their contracts like the other 2 groups have?

They didn't have a 150-day clock ticking and having to accept the language they did because an arbitration would be worse.

For me, our process has taken too long but I think it's because they didn't get better prepared before the Association was certified by the NMB.

 

[NYer]

The raise was a year late and a dollar short.
The fact that they didn't true up the benefits too, and then turned around and gave the Pilots and FA's $900 million out of contract while our unions stood there and let them do that to us speaks volumes.

Sign that card.

 

[Tim Nelson]

So you're saying be like AMPFA and keep negotiating past five years?

Not sure who AMPFA is? What I'm saying is that they need to continue negotiating but need to flavor that with official activism.

 

[NYer]

He absolutely did a few pages over. When he answered your BFF NYer, he said he saw a comprehensive proposal coming in the near future, one which he would push for a no vote to use as a baseline for 'new' negotiations. A phony sell. A full blown Pontius Pilot washing of the hands.

I don't think a comprehensive proposal would be open ended. It would be contingent on a vote and that is something the NMB has been in favor of.

The alternative of not sending it to a vote could be to wait until the current CBA's become amendable.

 

[Tim Nelson]

Tim, Tim, Tim,

Typical of you to post bs. Kindly go back and read NYer's question and my response. He asked whether a comprehensive proposal was possible and if a vote could be forced off of a all in comprehensive proposal with the NMB recommending a vote too. I said a comprehensive proposal was possible but for the forced vote off an all in comprehensive proposal, my answer was no, we would negotiate off the comprehensive proposal. That has been done every time I've been in negotiations is we get a comprehensive and we negotiate off of it. What the hell? You are truly a con artist. Sheesh. Ask NYer.

P. Rez

I think a comprehensive proposal in near future is possible, the forced vote NO!! We would negotiate off the comprehensive proposal as we did in past, IMO.

So you clarified that the IAM would not force a vote with a company proposal that is not TA'd. Good.

BTW, why do you always talk down to peeps you are representing. You always gotta dig and call people names. As someone I am paying, I would expect you to be more professional. I hear you do the same things in the breakroom with anyone who disagrees with you or calls you out. Geez. Have a nice day Pat.

 

[Tim Nelson]

I don't think a comprehensive proposal would be open ended. It would be contingent on a vote and that is something the NMB has been in favor of.

The alternative of not sending it to a vote could be to wait until the current CBA's become amendable.

The contention I was referring to was that if a company proposal would be sent for a membership vote without it being a tentative agreement or having the unions recommendation. This happened before with the IAM.

Can that happen with the TWU, i.e., them sidestepping and allowing the company to present a comprehensive proposal to the membership for a vote, without such proposal being a tentative agreement or having a recommendation from the TWU?

 

[P. REZ]

So you clarified that the IAM would not force a vote with a company proposal that is not TA'd. Good.

BTW, why do you always talk down to peeps you are representing. You always gotta dig and call people names. As someone I am paying, I would expect you to be more professional. I hear you do the same things in the breakroom with anyone who disagrees with you or calls you out. Geez. Have a nice day Pat.

Tim,

No, I don't dig or call people names other than you. I have no problem toning down if you don't try and take a comment from me and spin it to suit your agenda. Agreed? You know I've tried to get along with you in the past.

P. Rez

 

[Tim Nelson]

Tim,

Unfortunately, no, I don't dig or call people names other than you. I have no problem toning down if you don't try and take a comment from me and spin it to suit your agenda. Agreed?

P. Rez

Carry on, Pat

 

[Tim Nelson]