Possible Restoration of Lost Wages for Flight Attendants

[xUT]

 
I'm glad the FAs got their raise.  But the "No" voters do have a point.  Why was there a vote if the APFA leadership can override it anyway?  The leadership pushed hard for the TA, the membership (barely) said no, and the leadership basically said: "Too bad.  We know better than you, anyway, so we are going to ignore the results."
 
(I agree that the leadership did know better in this case.  But really, why vote at all, then?)

That's a conundrum.
Right, wrong or indifferent circumventing a democratic vote sets a precedence that may one day may not work in the employees favor in the future.
If it can be acceptable for the perceived good of the membership then, at a 'possible' future date, taking concessions without a membership ratification should be equally acceptable.
At least the IAM in BK 2 sent it back for a re-vote as they were confused...
A re-vote in this situation would be better than an arbitrary acceptance from the APFA.
 
JMHO
B) xUT
 
PS:
I think the decision to accept wage and benefits increases in spite of membership misunderstanding is a positive, it"s the process that"s flawed. APFA accepting terms for a CBA without membership ratification sets a poor precedence.

 

[Bob Owens]

 
You must be trying to save face since you shared that if they get the raises, it MUST mean Parker took something else. Plainly, you were wrong. Just say it.
 
Well, the arbitration award specifically calls for the aggregate based adjustment:
 
 "In the event United implements an initial flight attendant joint collective bargaining agreement after the American JCBA is implemented, the company and the certified collective bargaining representative(s) of the flight attendants in the service of the Company shall determine how the initial United joint collective bargaining agreement affects the "market-based in the aggregate" analysis for the American JCBA. Such determination shall be conducted in accordance with Section B(S) freudian slip?of the 2014 Negotiations Protocol Agreement Among American Airlines, Inc., US Airways, Inc., The Association of Professional Flight Attendants, and the Association of Flight Attendants."
 
2014 Negotiations Protocol Agreement: Section B(5)..."In the event that United implements an initial flight attendant joint collective bargaining agreement after the American JCBA is implemented, beginning no later than thirty (30) days after the initial United joint collective bargaining agreement has been implemented, the Company and the certified collective bargaining representative(s) of the flight attendants in the service of the Company shall determine how the initial United joint collective bargaining agreement affects the "market based in the aggregate" analysis for the American JCBA."

Thats proves nothing because its under Section B, "Interest arbitration", something the TWU has been highly critical of in the past, what you quoted applied to the award but not any agreement struck afterwards. The APFA was unhappy with the Award and approached the company, and the company agreed to a new deal, no different than the hundreds of times the company approached us about the Wallen Report , at any time we could have struck a new deal. 
 
You conveniently omitted A 5,
 
"If a tentattive agreement is not ratified or if a tentative American JCBA is not reached , any outstanding disputes, including, but not limited to dispites regarding economic valuation, shall be submitted to final and binding arbitration in accordance with paragraph B,,,,"
 
 This is just like the matching funds, didn't you repeatedly state that we were getting those funds? Well its going on three years and I still havent got mine. 
 
So lets get this clear its your position that the aggregate based adjustment as described in the award is part of the new contract struck on Dec 18th? Your position is that the flight attendants are contractually entitled to both the arbitrated award and the $80 million in wages? A simple yes or no will do. I hope the answer is YES and you are right because that can only be good for us, they got the bird in the hand and the two in the bush. They have the fixed raise and it can be adjusted up with the industry aggregate. If thats the case, voting no did get them a better contract because that was not in the TA. 
 
I suspect that we wont find out what the truth is until after UAL gets a contract, then when the APFA approaches the company, just like the Prefunding match that the Union told us we could bank on, we will find out the company's interpretation of what was agreed to. So far you have produced nothing that says that the company agrees that the Aggregate based adjustment per the Award still remains. Even the APFA has not said that, they issue a statement saying what they thought it meant but never actually said that they retained that in the new agreement. 

 

[Bob Owens]

That's a conundrum.
Right, wrong or indifferent circumventing a democratic vote sets a precedence that may one day may not work in the employees favor in the future.
If it can be acceptable for the perceived good of the membership then, at a 'possible' future date, taking concessions without a membership ratification should be equally acceptable.
 

And it already is.
 
Like when Jim Little changed our agreement in 2003 without a vote. We got profit sharing and the ability to exchange one item for one of equal value, Tulsa tried to push through removing the Line Premium, they wanted the line to pay for more Holidays for them. 
 
Its already been established that once you selective bargaining agent they can do as they like with the contract. Good or from our perspective-bad. 

 

[kirkpatrick]

jcw is right.  Parker and APFA did not override the process.  The process was spelled out in detail, agreed to and went through to the end.  A TA was reached, voted on, voted down, and went to arbitration.  APFA presented its recommendation that all the 82 million be taken from pay rates to avoid making the TA unbalanced between LUS and LAA by eliminating vacation time, 401k contributions, bonuses for going to an inferior health plan, etc.  The arbitration panel agreed and issued its decision. 
 
However, the company had agreed to the money and expected to pay it.  Nothing in the process prevented the company or union from agreeing to put the money back.  In fact, even if we had been negotiating under section 6 of the RLA nothing would prevent such an action.  It's unusual, to be sure, but this was a deal like no other had been before.
 
I'll take the cash, thank you very much.  The loudmouths will continue to rant and rave on Facebook and now that it's all over, they can attempt to oust Laura Glading if they want.  They can also try to get AFA to start an expensive card campaign to change unions, but nothing will ever come of it.  They don't have the support they think they do.
 
MK

 

[700UW]

That's a conundrum.
Right, wrong or indifferent circumventing a democratic vote sets a precedence that may one day may not work in the employees favor in the future.
If it can be acceptable for the perceived good of the membership then, at a 'possible' future date, taking concessions without a membership ratification should be equally acceptable.
At least the IAM in BK 2 sent it back for a re-vote as they were confused...
A re-vote in this situation would be better than an arbitrary acceptance from the APFA.
 
JMHO
B) xUT
 
PS:
I think the decision to accept wage and benefits increases in spite of membership misunderstanding is a positive, it"s the process that"s flawed. APFA accepting terms for a CBA without membership ratification sets a poor precedence.

At US in bankruptcy part 2 there was no revote nor confusion, our CBA was abrogated.
 
You are confused with bankruptcy part one.

 

[Bob Owens]

At US in bankruptcy part 2 there was no revote nor confusion, our CBA was abrogated.
 
You are confused with bankruptcy part one.

I believe he was referring to UAL but didn't the IAM make them revote on BK one for the same reason, "because they were confused"?

 

[WeAAsles]

 
 The loudmouths will continue to rant and rave on Facebook and now that it's all over, they can attempt to oust Laura Glading if they want.  They can also try to get AFA to start an expensive card campaign to change unions, but nothing will ever come of it.  They don't have the support they think they do.
 
MK

They'll never stop trying. It's the only thing that loudmouths have in their lives.

 

[700UW]

The members voted the offer down in bankruptcy one.
 
Which triggered CEO Dave Siegel to send a letter to every US IAM employee in M&R, stating he would hold his own vote on the offer, and told everyone he would file to abrogate.
 
The decision to vote again was agreed to by the International and it passed by 57%.

 

[700UW]

I believe he was referring to UAL but didn't the IAM make them revote on BK one for the same reason, "because they were confused"?

UAL did not file twice, US did.
 
So no he wasnt referring to UAL.

 

[Bob Owens]

UAL did not file twice, US did.
 
So no he wasnt referring to UAL.

 
OK,
He didn't say they filed twice, he said BK2 which could refer to a second bite at the apple in one filing.
 
IIRC the IAM did put out a revote in Dec of 2002 at UAL and after the first filing at US made their members there revote as well. 

 

[Bob Owens]

The members voted the offer down in bankruptcy one.
 
Which triggered CEO Dave Siegel to send a letter to every US IAM employee in M&R, stating he would hold his own vote on the offer, and told everyone he would file to abrogate.
 
The decision to vote again was agreed to by the International and it passed by 57%.

Bottom line, they had a revote. 
 
Didn't you advocate for giving Siegal a chance? 

 

[NYer]

Thats proves nothing because its under Section B, "Interest arbitration", something the TWU has been highly critical of in the past, what you quoted applied to the award but not any agreement struck afterwards. The APFA was unhappy with the Award and approached the company, and the company agreed to a new deal, no different than the hundreds of times the company approached us about the Wallen Report , at any time we could have struck a new deal. 
 
You conveniently omitted A 5,
 
"If a tentattive agreement is not ratified or if a tentative American JCBA is not reached , any outstanding disputes, including, but not limited to dispites regarding economic valuation, shall be submitted to final and binding arbitration in accordance with paragraph B,,,,"
 
...And in the arbitration award, the arbitrator specifically mentions the "market aggregate" agreement from the Negotiations Protocol as part of his award. The agreement between the parties is still good and you were wrong that Parker would take it in exchange for the extra raise.
 
 This is just like the matching funds, didn't you repeatedly state that we were getting those funds? Well its going on three years and I still havent got mine.  --Not at all like the matching funds. That agreement has yet to be fulfilled. The BK issue with the Retirement Benefits is still a matter to be decided in the BK Court, under Judge Lane or the case dropped by the airline. The Trust being terminated, as agreed, has not happened and therefore we need to wait until the end of the court process before we can move forward. I guess it just a coincidence that both arbitrations on the matter have been pushed back by each union (TWU & APFA). The Court process is set to end by January 15th, unless Judge Lane gives them another extension....no arbitration before the Court process is ended because there is still no violation of the CBA's.
 
So lets get this clear its your position that the aggregate based adjustment as described in the award is part of the new contract struck on Dec 18th? Your position is that the flight attendants are contractually entitled to both the arbitrated award and the $80 million in wages? A simple yes or no will do. I hope the answer is YES and you are right because that can only be good for us, they got the bird in the hand and the two in the bush. They have the fixed raise and it can be adjusted up with the industry aggregate. If thats the case, voting no did get them a better contract because that was not in the TA. --It must be exhausting for you to continually try to find fault with everything. The market based wage adjustment is part of the Negotiations Protocol Agreement which came well before the Tentative Agreement. It was not tied to the Tentative Agreement being vote up or down, it was an agreement to try and ensure the "market aggregate" was maintained despite the timing of the UAL flight attendant agreement becoming effective and if that agreement would come about after a TA or an arbitration. They flight attendants didn't gain anything by voting no, as opposed to the voting yes for the TA.
 
Your long standing opinion that voting no yields a better return has yet to be shown in real world conditions. It didn't happen with the NWA flight attendants or mechanics, it didn't happen with the APA pilots at AA, and it didn't happen with the APFA at AA.
 
I suspect that we wont find out what the truth is until after UAL gets a contract, then when the APFA approaches the company, just like the Prefunding match that the Union told us we could bank on, we will find out the company's interpretation of what was agreed to. So far you have produced nothing that says that the company agrees that the Aggregate based adjustment per the Award still remains. Even the APFA has not said that, they issue a statement saying what they thought it meant but never actually said that they retained that in the new agreement. --Nothing except the arbitration award and the Negotiations Protocol Agreement, neither of which were tied to the Tentative Agreement vote. Nothing in the arbitration award walked back the signed agreement on the market based adjustment, to the contrary, it specifically calls for that agreement to remain in place.
 
Keep trying to dance around the fact you were wrong about Parker taking the wage adjustment in order to give out the raises. It's easier to say you were wrong.

 

[jimntx]

How is it that every friggin' flight attendant thread gets highjacked by the forces of "Delta does it better" and "the TWU would have done it better."  Bob Owens if you could have done it better, WHY DIDN'T YOU?  All we ever hear from you is how everyone else but you did it wrong.  Yeah, woulda, coulda, shoulda.
 
I'm beginning to wish for a restricted forum where everyone has to apply for access to every forum and thread except the Water Cooler and Airline News.  Maybe we could isolate the DL and TWU viruses to their own forums/threads and eventually they would die out for the boredom of talking only to themselves.

 

[WeAAsles]

Bob always says that he supports the members but that's not true. He supports the members in his town and that's only because they mostly go along with his way of thinking. He's been a guru to the NYC members for years now.

The reality is that whether he or I like it or not the members in NYC don't decide the outcome of issues for members in the entire Country. Working for an Airline means that people in different States have different wants and needs. What works for guys in NYC doesn't work for guys who live in Tulsa.

He will always continue to try to get the rest of the Country to go along with his way of thinking and there's nothing wrong with that but his battle continues to be an extremely uphill one.

 

[diamondcutter]

show me where he could have put in profit sharing when he has repeatedly said he wouldn't offer it.further, the value of profit sharing that brings AA FA compensation up to DL FA levels is far more than the value of the restored TA. It is not just another perspective or a rearrangement of the terms. PS comparable to DL levels is a significant increase in the value of the contract.it is precisely because he knows that difference that is willing to take a level which should have been accepted in the first plus.

You were asked this once and no response, I'll ask again what is the value of the DL fa's contract???