Overage Leave Numbers

[jimntx]

Jim,

The source that L1011 and I rely upon is definitely not in the John Ward camp. The DOL preliminary ruling was discussed in a closed Board of Directors meeting. A resolution to require to open and count the disputed ballots by the National Balloting Committee in cooperation with Whitley Penn & Assoc. and the DOL was voted down eleven to seven.

Well, I think you know that I am not a JW supporter, but there is a reason for "off the record" sessions of the BOD. It's called confidentiality. If someone who is in those closed door sessions is telling what went on before the topic is disclosed to the membership in general, that is a breach of the confidentiality agreement that person signed. It's unethical and unprofessional. I guess what we know is that there is at least one member of the BOD who doesn't know how to keep their mouth shut.

Do you really want that person in the meetings when topics that need to be kept confidential are discussed? I don't. No matter how "juicy" or "anti-JW" the topic is.

 

[L1011Ret]

It appears that "observers" who were not allowed in closed session received information from BOD members whether rightly or wrongly heard, that these matters had taken place. Until APFA states what really happened, the information is conjecture. As already noted above there are conflicting accounts from different observer attendees. DOL information about the Sep date was published publically.

 

[Skyyggoddess]

The 777 award is being paid out the exact amount that was awarded by the arbitrator.

Rulings by an arbitrator are not legally binding. APFA has a history of not abiding by arbitration rulings - that is one reason why people take them to court now rather than wait on arbitration.

 

[jsn25911]

Rulings by an arbitrator are not legally binding. APFA has a history of not abiding by arbitration rulings - that is one reason why people take them to court now rather than wait on arbitration.

I am a little confused over the LATEST of this 777 award. I know there is an award by the arbitrator. What is it that is occuring now that is creating a problem? Where is the money coming from to pay the f/a's that get the award money?

I am confused over this - so I may be incorrect - but is there something going on with where the money will come from? Someone please explain this to me???

 

[jimntx]

I am a little confused over the LATEST of this 777 award. I know there is an award by the arbitrator. What is it that is occuring now that is creating a problem? Where is the money coming from to pay the f/a's that get the award money?

I am confused over this - so I may be incorrect - but is there something going on with where the money will come from? Someone please explain this to me???

It's not a new award. It's the "old" 777 award which the arbitrator ruled was owed to the affected flight attendants. The arbitrator ruled against the company (over a year ago) in the case where they unilaterally reduced staffing on the 777 creating extra work for the remaining flight attendants. They grieved for understaffing pay and won.

The superior negotiating skills of the APFA then came to the fore, and it was agreed that payment of the award would be postponed until 15OCT04, AND, it would be paid only to those affected flight attendants who were still on the payroll on that date. That's the source of the rumors about senior flight attendants heading for the door as soon as they get their 777 checks. As I understand it, some of them are due as much as 10k to 15k before taxes! I certainly would hang around to collect that much in a lump sum.

 

[s80dude]

One also had the option of taking the award in vacation time. For those who did not want to stick around until October, you could resign once 777 vacation bids were awarded and then the company would pay you the vacation time owed.

 

[L1011Ret]

Let's see, if I understand it, there were 16 votes that DOL told APFA should have been counted. APFA by vote at the most recent meeting in DFW has decided not to count those votes. Some of those votes are from STL. A STL TWAer has filed an EEO complaint alleging age and sex discrimination over the original SIA agreement. Since the easiest way to win a lawsuit over discrimination is through actions of the defendant (APFA) subsequent to filing the claim, in this case it could be claimed APFA has retaliated against the TWA F/As by attempting to disenfranchise them by not counting their valid ballots. Is APFA really a Democratic institution or do they just like to set themselves up for further lawsuits? After all, anyone who feels disenfranchised by APFA's refusal to count his/her valid vote could sue APFA.

As for the 777 award, it appears that three months of underfly at 2.3 million per month was or will be funded by the 777 award.

It would be only right that APFA members receive reasonable answers to these issues, but based on aPFA's history, it is unlikely that regular dues paying members will ever know the truth. So much for Democracy.b

 

[jimntx]

Let's see, if I understand it, there were 16 votes that DOL told APFA should have been counted.

As I understand it, the ruling was preliminary. The final ruling--the one that counts--might be different. So, if you count the ballots now and the DOL changes their mind, you've created an even bigger mess.

Also, consider this scenario...

1. The ballots are counted and JW is replaced by THB as President.
2. The final ruling of the DOL is that the election is so damaged that the whole thing must be done over by scratch.
3. Having seen the unity of the STL base and its effect upon the election, the JW camp is able to motivate the 12,000 non-voters to get off their duffs and vote the next time around.
4. Because of their fear of losing seniority to the fomer TWA flight attendants, they vote en masse for JW and company thereby nullifying the unity of the STL base.

Is that what you want? Why don't we all wait until the DOL tells us exactly what they think is wrong and what they think needs to be done to correct the errors?

 

[L1011Ret]

If the results were "preliminary", why would there even be a vote? And why has the membership not been told in some form, what is going on? Number 1 would be fine with at least half the membership, #2 is certainly problematic, #3 given the history of APFA voting appears as an impossibility, if #4 occurs, the unity among TWA F/As is likely to increase, and changes nothing about seniority issues.

 

[FA Mikey]

Voting irregularities seem to be a recurring problem for us. I honestly cant remember what year exactly it was, some where in the early 90's. We were able to be out from under government supervision on our voting. I think we will be under supervision after this disgusting display of power gone bad jw and his past administration

 

[L1011Ret]

Agreed, there are several suits over the RPA voting and now the election of officers debacle.