NWA mechanics to rally at Capital on Monday

[finman]

...people why you're worth what you have gone on strike for, and start representing yourselves as prudent and upstanding citizens.

Great post Sir.

The conversation has deteriorated quite considerably since I first started following this board. There are some on this board on the union side that I find very thoughtful and pleasant, (Kev is the only one that comes to mind right now), but he/they get drowned out by the vile rhetoric and name calling from the majority. I don't know how many outsiders read these boards, but I think people take the anonymous nature of the communications a bit too far. I have found myself doing the same thing, and have had to step back from it a bit and self-reflect.

However unfair it may be, I know from my own personal reaction to this site, that the image of a large group of poeple can easily be stained by the actions (and words) of the unchosen few.

 

[robbedagain]

well pto if the NWA shuts down say tomorrow and you cant collect unemployment will you scream and whine to the lawmakers and say that you earned unemployment cause you scabbed at NWA and now out of a job due to a shutdown? I will say it again, those AMFA people deserve to collect unemployment because the MGMT FAILED to NEGOGIATE
with the union

 

[B.O.B.]

I do suffer very badly from insomnia.

Poor little SCAB. Let me get the violin out and play you a song. Oh wait my violin can't play tunes for SCABS!

 

[finman]

Minnesota Lawmakers pushing for unemployment benefits for AMFA members.

On a side note, since every station save MSP, DLH & DTW was to be eliminated in the company's proposal(s), why shouldn't AMFA members in those cities be entitled to UI benefits?

I may be a bit naive as to how the bumping process works, but how would the state that would have to pony up this unemployment be able to know which members would have been able to bump to a different location had their job been eliminated.

Again, maybe that's not how it works, but if it is, then it would be a theoretical excercise to figure out which members would have actually been laid off had there not been a strike, and they are the only ones that would get unemployment. Then you'd run into a fairness issue amongst the striking mechanics if only a portion of them are getting unemployment. I think you see the point I'm getting at.

 

[groundcontrol]

I may be a bit naive as to how the bumping process works, but how would the state that would have to pony up this unemployment be able to know which members would have been able to bump to a different location had their job been eliminated.

Again, maybe that's not how it works, but if it is, then it would be a theoretical excercise to figure out which members would have actually been laid off had there not been a strike, and they are the only ones that would get unemployment. Then you'd run into a fairness issue amongst the striking mechanics if only a portion of them are getting unemployment. I think you see the point I'm getting at.

I think you are missing the point of unemployment. People pay into it, some their entire life without having to use it. It was started back in the depression "brother can you spare a dime" may sound familiar to you. It was to keep people from welfare. Roosevelt and his key officials, continued to favor unemployment programs based on work relief rather than welfare. It's pretty much a mute point on which mechanic would be entitled to it. They are all entitled especially since they have paid into it.

Why the State of Minnesota would not protect their jobless (this is what unemployment was designed for) is beyond me. Perhaps they have an overfunded welfare program they would rather see everyone collect instead.

FYI the State I live in recognizes strikes as a viable reason to collect unemployment. I was able to collect 4 months worth (as it took them that long to research it before they cut the checks) Problem is, NW appealed it, just to be SOBs. They will not win the appeal. However, they have managed to stop payments while it is in the appeals process, which will probably take some time. NWA is just continuing to twist the knife.

Just like they wasted money training replacements they continue to waste money paying high priced attorneys (who will not win)to fight unemployment claims.

I feel for all the remaining NWA employees (scabs excluded) as in effect you are paying these unnecessary costs with your give backs and wage decreases.

 

[upsilon]

[quote post='355845']I think you are missing the point of unemployment. People pay into it, some their entire life without having to use it. ...... They are all entitled especially since they have paid into it.[/quote]

You are misinformed. No worker in any state pays one dime into the state unemployment compensation fund - Does not now and never has.

All UC fund payment are paid entirely by the employer.

 

[Kev3188]

I may be a bit naive as to how the bumping process works, but how would the state that would have to pony up this unemployment be able to know which members would have been able to bump to a different location had their job been eliminated.

The bumping process at NW is fairly straight forward. For example, if displaced, I can bump anyone anywhere in my classification (ESL) that has less seniority. If I can't bump anywhere using that seniority date, I can use my other seniority dates (in other classifications) to do so. I imagine with the AMT's, there are certain qualification factors that come into play (for example certain Plant Maintenance employees were still on the payroll on 20.Aug.06 despite relatively low seniority due to having boiler licenses, etc.). Perhaps NWA/AMT or another AMFA member can expand on the specifics for that group.

I suppose the easiest way to determine eligibility for UI benefits would be/would have been to find out from NW the "minimum seniority" required to stay employed at any remaining locations.

For what it's worth, I believe an AMT would have needed roughly mid-Eighties seniority to stay employed.

Again, maybe that's not how it works, but if it is, then it would be a theoretical excercise to figure out which members would have actually been laid off had there not been a strike, and they are the only ones that would get unemployment.
Then you'd run into a fairness issue amongst the striking mechanics if only a portion of them are getting unemployment. I think you see the point I'm getting at.

I do. Which is why I think it should have been/should be uniformly applied.

There are some on this board on the union side that I find very thoughtful and pleasant, (Kev is the only one that comes to mind right now)

Thank you for the kind words.

 

[finman]

Which is why I think it should have been/should be uniformly applied.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on that point. I don't think willingly leaving your job for any reason (strike, or otherwise) should be grounds for receiving unemployment insurance, which as was stated, is funded by the companies doing business in that state. That is why NWA challenges those claims, because NWA's UE insurance premiums will increase to cover those payouts attributed to them.

I would be in favor of those below the minumum seniority getting unemployment, since they were out of a job regardless. But then again, that would create some fairness issues for those on the fence. Going on strike shouldn't be an easy decision, and the risk of willing unemployment (and thus no unemployment insurance) is needed as a disincentive for this type of work action.

 

[peaches]

VERY well said USAir757.

No PhxMama I am not an AMT I am a A&P Mechanic. What did you think I was?

PhxMama: AMT=A&P. 2 terms for the same thing: Aircraft Mechanic. Aviation Maintenance Technician is a newer term. Airframe & Powerplant Mechanic is the older term.

Kev, I do suffer very badly from insomnia. It is most miserable at times.

You should see a Dr about that. Could be sign of more complicated medical issues.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on that point. I don't think willingly leaving your job for any reason (strike, or otherwise) should be grounds for receiving unemployment insurance, which as was stated, is funded by the companies doing business in that state. That is why NWA challenges those claims, because NWA's UE insurance premiums will increase to cover those payouts attributed to them.

Reagan tried to deny unemployment to those who were getting out of the military on the grounds that they "quit" their jobs. It was fought and the workers won unemployment.

 

[PhxMama]

PhxMama: AMT=A&P. 2 terms for the same thing: Aircraft Mechanic. Aviation Maintenance Technician is a newer term. Airframe & Powerplant Mechanic is the older term.
You should see a Dr about that. Could be sign of more complicated medical issues.
Reagan tried to deny unemployment to those who were getting out of the military on the grounds that they "quit" their jobs. It was fought and the workers won unemployment.

Peaches, Thanx for the input but I was trying to be funny in the original post. I guess it didnt go over well.

 

[finman]

Reagan tried to deny unemployment to those who were getting out of the military on the grounds that they "quit" their jobs. It was fought and the workers won unemployment.

And that is relevant how? I would think an honerable discharge from the military (which I'm assuming your referring to) would be viewed completely different than quitting your civilian job.

The argument for unemployment of striking workers needs to be justified on its own merits. If you think a private company should be financially burdened with increased unemployment insurance costs due to the willful act of it's employees, then please justify that position.

As I've stated, I think those that would have been laid off had the contract proposal been accepted should be entitled to unemployment benefits. That seems like the only equitable way to handle the situation. Those that walked off the job with enough seniority to hold a position under the proposed contract are quitting their job by definition, and thus should not be entitled to any benefits.

 

[groundcontrol]

As I've stated, I think those that would have been laid off had the contract proposal been accepted should be entitled to unemployment benefits. That seems like the only equitable way to handle the situation. Those that walked off the job with enough seniority to hold a position under the proposed contract are quitting their job by definition, and thus should not be entitled to any benefits.

Why are you dwelling on this? Shoulda, coulda, woulda...Why would you try to apply the above to this situation? It didn't happen that way!

would have been laid off = didn't happen
had the contract been accepted = didn't happen

Lets say that the guy/gal who would have been laid off voted yes for a strike...they were going to lose their job anyway. You think they should get unemployment?

Now lets say the guy/gal with lots of seniority voted no for the strike cause they wanted to keep their status. This guy has to either quit his position or up and move cross country for less pay with an unstable company? And they would not be entitled to unemployment?

I see nothing fair or equitable in either situation. :down:

So give it up already!!!!!

one union....one vote....one voice....one walks you all walk.....

and a SCAB is a SCAB

 

[finman]

1) Lets say that the guy/gal who would have been laid off voted yes for a strike...they were going to lose their job anyway. You think they should get unemployment?

2)Now lets say the guy/gal with lots of seniority voted no for the strike cause they wanted to keep their status. This guy has to either quit his position or up and move cross country for less pay with an unstable company? And they would not be entitled to unemployment?

1) Yes, that person was going to be out of a job due to no fault of their own, which is basically what drives eligibility for unemployment benefits.

2) That person could have went to work under the new terms, but chose not to. I don't view an organized "quitting" any different than quitting on your own, and I don't think the government should either. The stability of the company is irrelivant. Should I get unemployment if I quit because I'm unhappy with my pay cut and fear of Ch. 7? Of course not. Why should union members that quit be treated any differently?

 

[groundcontrol]

1) Yes, that person was going to be out of a job due to no fault of their own, which is basically what drives eligibility for unemployment benefits.

No fault of their own? All NW mechanics are out of a job (minus scabs) due to “no fault of their ownâ€￾.

2) That person could have went to work under the new terms, but chose not to. I don't view an organized "quitting" any different than quitting on your own, and I don't think the government should either. The stability of the company is irrelivant. Should I get unemployment if I quit because I'm unhappy with my pay cut and fear of Ch. 7? Of course not. Why should union members that quit be treated any differently?

Who “quitâ€￾ their job? Not me. (I still use NWA as my current employer on everything I fill out) My station was closed. Say I was most senior at my station, I would not be required to relocate, and I would be eligible for unemployment. I would also be eligible for unemployment if my pay was to drop by 20%. Hey, maybe that’s why I’m collecting.

ONE FOR ALL AND ALL FOR ONE...
Seeing how we will never get any where with this conversation...I will not be commenting again

 

[finman]

No fault of their own? All NW mechanics are out of a job (minus scabs) due to “no fault of their ownâ€￾.
Who “quitâ€￾ their job? Not me. (I still use NWA as my current employer on everything I fill out) My station was closed. Say I was most senior at my station, I would not be required to relocate, and I would be eligible for unemployment. I would also be eligible for unemployment if my pay was to drop by 20%. Hey, maybe that’s why I’m collecting.

I think this conversation has changed my position a bit. I agree with you that if your position is no longer available in the city in which you reside, then it is a de facto layoff regardless of seniority, and unemployment benefits do seem appropriate.

I would revise my assertion to be that those mechanics that were working in a station that still employ mechanics (hubs) should not be eligible for benefits, since they had the choice of showing up to work and continuing to be employed the day the strike began. Those are the mechanics that indeed did have a choice, and are now unemployed through their own willing action. Only if NWA refused to allow the mechanic to cross the picket line due to not needing that person should a mechanic in this category be eligible for benefits.

It's not a black and white issue, so I'm not sure why you would not welcome debate on an issue that you are obviously passionate about. I understand if you choose to not respond, but I would welcome your feedback on my revised stance. I think you make sound arguments, evidenced by my concession to you above on the outstation issue.