JCBA Negotiations and updates for AA Fleet

[WeAAsles]

Please Please post it!!!!!! Don't tease us

You asked for it Al. Hot off the presses it's Timmy part Deux.

"Hot News Part 2 (Update)


Since I posted the "Hot News" after the August Fleet Service negotiations, it stirred up a hornets nest as both the Association and the company immediately put out its own narratives.


Interestingly, but not surprisingly, neither refuted the cheat sheet I put out based off of the August Fleet negotiations which listed all the agreed to items. I have no interest in arguing the Association narrative or the company narrative other than to say that each was accurate, as based off July negotiations.


Nonetheless, I wanted to clarify a few items that members have PM me about.


1. The info I received was from a special key person who is credible. No, I will not reveal. But the info was down to the penny and minute. For instance, breaks will go from 12 minutes to 15 minutes in the contract. Not that it's a big thing but just want to point out to those "in the know" that there are some 'loose lips' who dropped me this info.


2. Why did I say that the LUS will keep the IAM Pension when the company clearly said that it would NOT negotiate the IAM pension but insist on a 9% 401k? LOL, I can't speak for the company, ask them. But the info I received, based off of the executive negotiations in August clearly had the IAMNPF for LUS, plus an increased amount of $2.


3. You said you were uncomfortable posting information about part time since you don't have the language, why was that? All I know is that the TWU caved regarding part time language. I don't know if part time is unlimited or how much more flexible. I do know that the company scored regarding this issue and that this was a deep concession to work rules.

Do I have the language? No, but this was a big concession for members (not necessarily the TWU and IAM, which will gain more members and more dues by increasing part time ranks.)


4. The IAM said that the company put out garbage proposals and that it wouldn't negotiate the LUS health care away, is that true? Unfortunately, the IAM coughed up LUS medical. You will have to ask the LUS negotiators why the IAM claims it didn't and said it would be "garbage" to do so Then measure their word when you see the TA.


5. How do you know that your 'source' didn't just play you?

It's not for me to say. Consider the information and compare it to other sources of information.


6. Do you like the so called "Agreement in Principle"?

No. Although I haven't seen actual language, I'm very uncomfortable with a weakened TWU/IAM stance on part time issues. It won't affect me as much since I have over 30 years but it will be a full time job killer, and eliminate almost all Overtime, if it mirrors Delta and IAM United. It was the dues grab that the unions were looking for. Remember, 2 part timers = 1 Full timer dues x 2.


7. You are LUS, you don't want a contract, do you?

Of course I do, and all LUS. It is only myth that we don't. We just don't want to serve up concessions to a company that is projected to make over $30 billion in net profits over the next 5 years. Why should any of us lose anything? Why should we lose part time language? Health care benefits, etc? We want our vacations, holidays, sick time, shift differ, overtime bypass all back. Are we desperate? No. We aren't starving.


8. You posted $32 top out for fleet but that is more than Delta + 3%??? Yea, so, here is what happened. The company kept its offer of Delta + 3% in the August negotiations. Realizing any ratification will happen no earlier than December, the company was willing to assume that Delta's 2018 wage rate (set to be announced next month) would be an additonal 3% or go from $30.16 to $31.06. Remember, your JCBA will reflect 2018 wage rates and that necessarily will be at least $32.


9. The TWU negotiators put out a letter saying they will not negotiate any concessions, including getting rid of key part time language, right? I'm not going to get into the TWU narrative but yes, they did toss a bucket of water on the LAA part time language, unfortunately. So much for the "Best of Both"."

 

[737823]

PHL CLT are larger hubs than PHX. DCA has a statue mile limit w few exceptions.

Remember Robbed DCA and PHL have significant Eagle/Express flying that fleet service doesn't work.

Point still stand that while AA TWU has fewer stations there's more headcount (dues) and the stations that are TWU staffed are larger than the IAM with small stations like BDL, MCI, ONT, etc.

Josh

 

[737823]

Remember, the IAM still has refused to give a letter of support for the TWU picketing. The IAM strictly limited their support to negotiations of "The Association". The Association did not authorize the picket. All letters of support are addressed to the TWU since it is their picket. Klemm only offered a letter of support supporting Sito. That's all. Egos I guess. But Weez is fine with settling for Klemm supporting Sito. Better than nothing. The reason why Sito will not show support is because of any potential fallout after a JCBA. He doesn't want any support letter to be used against him in any raid.

Tim isnt Sito technically LAA and a TWA LLCer? Sure he has gained familiarity with the LUS agreements and representation over the years but if he is technically part of the TWU side going into this why is he the representative for LUS? Just seems odd but then again I don't know if he has worked the line since TWA went belly up (likely many years before that in any case).

Do you know how many people in the GL Transportation department and DL 142 are from airlines that either no longer exist or are no longer IAM represented? Shouldn't they have someone from an existing carrier in that role?

Josh

 

[robbedagain]

DCA has more express but I believe PHL has more mainline But I don't know how they count e175s since its express n is worked by mainline

 

[Tim Nelson]

Tim isnt Sito technically LAA and a TWA LLCer? Sure he has gained familiarity with the LUS agreements and representation over the years but if he is technically part of the TWU side going into this why is he the representative for LUS? Just seems odd but then again I don't know if he has worked the line since TWA went belly up (likely many years before that in any case).

Do you know how many people in the GL Transportation department and DL 142 are from airlines that either no longer exist or are no longer IAM represented? Shouldn't they have someone from an existing carrier in that role?

Josh

Good points Josh but that's how it is. I think I have a decent chance to win the IP job. If I win, Sito will go under internal investigation immediately, even if he retires. There is reason to investigate. I went to a Boeing BBQ last month and met with many shop stewards and I have been building relationships with various other District Officers, Local Officers, eboards, and regular members. We are also looking fairly good at DL 141 for officer elections where I think we will really beat their asses this time. The part time schedules are killing United members and if we get a TA prior to January at American then I don't think the LUS AGC's will fair to well coughing up LUS insurance. It's exciting times for change within the IAM and I think both elections have some really good chances at success.

 

[WeAAsles]

Good points Josh but that's how it is. I think I have a decent chance to win the IP job. If I win, Sito will go under internal investigation immediately, even if he retires. There is reason to investigate. I went to a Boeing BBQ last month and met with many shop stewards and I have been building relationships with various other District Officers, Local Officers, eboards, and regular members. We are also looking fairly good at DL 141 for officer elections where I think we will really beat their asses this time. The part time schedules are killing United members and if we get a TA prior to January at American then I don't think the LUS AGC's will fair to well coughing up LUS insurance. It's exciting times for change within the IAM and I think both elections have some really good chances at success.

During your last run for the gold against either Martinez or Pantoja didn't you fare extremely well? I believe you won somewhere around 840,000 Districts or something right? What was that number again Tim?

 

[Tim Nelson]

During your last run for the gold against either Martinez or Pantoja didn't you fare extremely well? I believe you won somewhere around 840,000 Districts or something right? What was that number again Tim?

funny. Yea, so anyways, our campaign process and strategy has worked out quite well. The first process was to legally position the election in the hands of the members instead of the hands of the INTL officers by upholding the legal fight to defend the IAM constitution. Along the way, Sito told everyone we had no case and that his hotshot attorneys would dismantle my litigation. My legal arguments protecting the members rights and the constitution was successful, thanks to several special key people who supplied me with key information that showed 2 Districts blowing their members resources on the incumbants. And of course, my argument preserving the IAM constitution and its 25 local requirements. I'm like 7 for 7 now when I protect voting rights. It's like a layup. And, btw, I think only about 5 cases are overturned out of 20,000 elections each year, so I think I'm pretty good at fighting for members voting rights.

Phase 2 is to secure 25+ Locals. I'm not anticipating much of a problem considering the key people we already have.

Phase 3 is to get out the vote. This is going to be really tough but I like our chances, even though we are underdogs. The last election had a 10% turnout and our INTL Prez got 18,000 votes while the challenger got 11,000, which wasn't bad since he didn't have but half of a ticket and didn't have the resources we have secured for the campaign. I may even drop $100,000 between it and the District election. I've done pretty damn good this year thanks to the stock market.

Time will tell. But forcing democratic elections always keeps Union Officers accountable, whether I win or lose.

 

[pjirish317]

Good points Josh but that's how it is. I think I have a decent chance to win the IP job. If I win, Sito will go under internal investigation immediately, even if he retires. There is reason to investigate. I went to a Boeing BBQ last month and met with many shop stewards and I have been building relationships with various other District Officers, Local Officers, eboards, and regular members. We are also looking fairly good at DL 141 for officer elections where I think we will really beat their asses this time. The part time schedules are killing United members and if we get a TA prior to January at American then I don't think the LUS AGC's will fair to well coughing up LUS insurance. It's exciting times for change within the IAM and I think both elections have some really good chances at success.

Tim,

Please tell me you at least have qualified people running on your ticket this time? Last time on the DL141 election, your ticket was sorely underqualified, as one I recall never wrote a grievance. So, just be aware ALL of your candidates will be under the microscope for their experience. And I will never vote for you in any election, and will rally people against you.

 

[737823]

Tim are Roach and Buffy still involved to a degree or have they left the GL entirely to the new "leadership"?

I know Roach is doing something for a pension rights organization not sure if it is paid or not but I assume it's a pretty nice gig.

Josh

 

[737823]

During your last run for the gold against either Martinez or Pantoja didn't you fare extremely well? I believe you won somewhere around 840,000 Districts or something right? What was that number again Tim?

How did your slate do in local 568 election WeAA?

In Tim's defense the DOL even agreed the IAM had some questionable, at best, dealings in grand lodge election. So much so they supervised a re-run. Of course 700 would say it was a "voluntary" compliance and he would try to paint the IAM in good light. What happened with the DOL is a lot like at UA with Smisek and PANYNJ or what will likely happen with Equifax execs who sold those shares when they became aware of the breach and negligence on their companies part. They'll reach a "non-prosecution agreement" in exchange for payment of a small fine and other action but it hardly restores the integrity of the process and holds those who violated it fully accountable.

Has anything like that ever occurred with the TWU international or local 568?

Josh

 

[WeAAsles]

funny. Yea, so anyways, our campaign process and strategy has worked out quite well. The first process was to legally position the election in the hands of the members instead of the hands of the INTL officers by upholding the legal fight to defend the IAM constitution. Along the way, Sito told everyone we had no case and that his hotshot attorneys would dismantle my litigation. My legal arguments protecting the members rights and the constitution was successful, thanks to several special key people who supplied me with key information that showed 2 Districts blowing their members resources on the incumbants. And of course, my argument preserving the IAM constitution and its 25 local requirements. I'm like 7 for 7 now when I protect voting rights. It's like a layup. And, btw, I think only about 5 cases are overturned out of 20,000 elections each year, so I think I'm pretty good at fighting for members voting rights.

Phase 2 is to secure 25+ Locals. I'm not anticipating much of a problem considering the key people we already have.

Phase 3 is to get out the vote. This is going to be really tough but I like our chances, even though we are underdogs. The last election had a 10% turnout and our INTL Prez got 18,000 votes while the challenger got 11,000, which wasn't bad since he didn't have but half of a ticket and didn't have the resources we have secured for the campaign. I may even drop $100,000 between it and the District election. I've done pretty damn good this year thanks to the stock market.

Time will tell. But forcing democratic elections always keeps Union Officers accountable, whether I win or lose.

You're going to drop another 100k on an election run? Wow you really are a Market guru aren't you.

You go man. You own them.

 

[WeAAsles]

How did your slate do in local 568 election WeAA?

In Tim's defense the DOL even agreed the IAM had some questionable, at best, dealings in grand lodge election. So much so they supervised a re-run. Of course 700 would say it was a "voluntary" compliance and he would try to paint the IAM in good light. What happened with the DOL is a lot like at UA with Smisek and PANYNJ or what will likely happen with Equifax execs who sold those shares when they became aware of the breach and negligence on their companies part. They'll reach a "non-prosecution agreement" in exchange for payment of a small fine and other action but it hardly restores the integrity of the process and holds those who violated it fully accountable.

Has anything like that ever occurred with the TWU international or local 568?

Josh

We got spanked silly man. My fault absolutely. I only invested $50,000 into the run to make $500 per month as an E Board member for the Local.

Next time though I'm going for the Grand Poobah High Chair. That pays $1000.00 per month. And because I've done so well myself in the market and on my side job (High price call guy for old Pension Ladies) I have $300k earmarked for my advertising blitz on our 3000 or so members here.

 

[NYer]

How did your slate do in local 568 election WeAA?

In Tim's defense the DOL even agreed the IAM had some questionable, at best, dealings in grand lodge election. So much so they supervised a re-run. Of course 700 would say it was a "voluntary" compliance and he would try to paint the IAM in good light. What happened with the DOL is a lot like at UA with Smisek and PANYNJ or what will likely happen with Equifax execs who sold those shares when they became aware of the breach and negligence on their companies part. They'll reach a "non-prosecution agreement" in exchange for payment of a small fine and other action but it hardly restores the integrity of the process and holds those who violated it fully accountable.

Has anything like that ever occurred with the TWU international or local 568?

Josh

Actually, the DOL became involved and overturned an election for Local 568 in 2009. Some of the folks WeAA ran with were involved in a scheme to try and diminish the number of members eligible to run for office. The DOL overturned their decision and forced a new election. The President of the Local when that change was made is now in with the International.

Then in the most recent elections, some of the same people involved in 2009, with whom WeAA ran with, hatched another scheme and tried to take away the eligibility of a group of members so they couldn't run for office either. The DOL was also aware of that situations and under scrutiny, the participants in that scheme were forced to rescind the ineligibility tag.

So, two out the last three elections in Local 568 had attempts to rig the elections in favor of a common group. Needless to say, they lost in a rebuke of their actions.

 

[WeAAsles]

Actually, the DOL became involved and overturned an election for Local 568 in 2009. Some of the folks WeAA ran with were involved in a scheme to try and diminish the number of members eligible to run for office. The DOL overturned their decision and forced a new election. The President of the Local when that change was made is now in with the International.

Then in the most recent elections, some of the same people involved in 2009, with whom WeAA ran with, hatched another scheme and tried to take away the eligibility of a group of members so they couldn't run for office either. The DOL was also aware of that situations and under scrutiny, the participants in that scheme were forced to rescind the ineligibility tag.

So, two out the last three elections in Local 568 had attempts to rig the elections in favor of a common group. Needless to say, they lost in a rebuke of their actions.

Would you like to discuss the group you ran with that had individuals "admittedly" say that they were going to collect election cards (A DOL violation BTW) from new hire kids? Or maybe the election committee man who ultimately wound up being in your back pocket that picked up all the ballets from the Post Office Box and brought them over to be counted?

Oh and no one made you (just you, no group) ineligible either. Even though your dumb ass forgot to pay your dues while out on ID and "maybe" you should/could have been.

But I guess anyone can drum up all sorts of accusations all over the place without any "actual" tangible, readable proof.

 

[NYer]

Would you like to discuss the group you ran with that had individuals "admittedly" say that they were going to collect election cards (A DOL violation BTW) from new hire kids? Or maybe the election committee man who ultimately wound up being in your back pocket that picked up all the ballets from the Post Office Box and brought them over to be counted?

Oh and no one made you (just you, no group) ineligible either. Even though your dumb ass forgot to pay your dues while out on ID and "maybe" you should/could have been.

But I guess anyone can drum up all sorts of accusations all over the place without any "actual" tangible, readable proof.

Great. You responded.

If anyone collected cards the election could have been contested or appealed, but it wasn't. So arguing that point after the fact is just sour grapes.

Thankfully, the Election Committee complied with the TWU Constitution and By-Laws and resisted the pressure to make many members ineligible as they did not follow the proper procedures if they wanted to collect dues from Members who were injured on duty. Historically, Local 568 did not pursue those dues and in trying to make members ineligible to run for office, they also didn't follow the process to collect those dues before trying to make someone a member in bad standing.

So, going back to my original post, which you did not refute, you were running with a group that tried to manipulate the elections by getting rid of the competition. Tsk. Tsk.

I can guess many reading this have a better understanding of your bromance.