Bob,
You consistently defend Seham as awesome and TWU lawyers as lousy.
Really? Where have I said either? Actually certain ATD officials feel that way when they say to me that "Lee Seham writes your posts because you arent smart enough to write that stuff".
You know why. You are the one that said the TWU was participating in BK scare tactics. Bottom line Bob is you are whining about why we did not get at least what UA/CO got in 2011. We had that over a year before but for you that wasn't good enough. You and your bubba's got played plain and simple.
Wrong, it wasnt even close, vacation, holidays , work rules, we were nowhere near what UAL got.
AA is now in BK, they can leave the deal in place but in order to satisfy the creditors they need to restructure their costs. They did that and they had no other choice. You are the smart one Bob, there is difference between could have and have to. AA does not have to do anything as long as they stay within the boundaries of the law. They did and we have what we have now. You played the game and the outcome wasn't what you wanted.
There you go again, making excuses for management while pretending to be Union. They didnt have to take concessions from us. they were especially spiteful, sick time is a pefect example, we showed them how giving us back the two full days pay would save them $7 million a year, but they rejected those assumptions, based on their own information and put together by Tom Roth and decided to charge us for the one half day they put back in. They undervalued the jobs they outsourced as well, using US OH rates vs the Asian rates where they are sending the work. So you can go on kissing managements butt while pretending to be union and saying they were forced to do this but no one believes you, you dont even believe yourself, thats why you do it from behind an alias.
I voted in a deal that caps outsourcing at 35% of maintenance spend.
The number Gless quotes has to do with declining work requirements. That is temporary, as the new planes get older they need more work. More work costs money and only 35% of the direct labor and material spend can be outsourced. So future work is protected under the TWU scope clause. You know this but you continue to distort and lie.
You know why. You are the one that said the TWU was participating in BK scare tactics. Bottom line Bob is you are whining about why we did not get at least what UA/CO got in 2011. We had that over a year before but for you that wasn't good enough. You and your bubba's got played plain and simple. AA is now in BK, they can leave the deal in place but in order to satisfy the creditors they need to restructure their costs. They did that and they had no other choice. You are the smart one Bob, there is difference between could have and have to. AA does not have to do anything as long as they stay within the boundaries of the law. They did and we have what we have now. You played the game and the outcome wasn't what you wanted.
I voted in a deal that caps outsourcing at 35% of maintenance spend.
Because thats all the company wanted, what is the cap on OH Spend?
The number Gless quotes has to do with declining work requirements. That is temporary, as the new planes get older they need more work. More work costs money and only 35% of the direct labor and material spend can be outsourced. So future work is protected under the TWU scope clause. You know this but you continue to distort and lie.
Yes but that will not be till the next contract, when despite Dons efforts, OH will not be big enough to vote in more concessions to bring that work back in. Surely you are aware that management, including Ream and Rodriguez went around the line telling the guys to vote for this because it would allow the company to get rid of OH and then they could pay the line market rates?