What's new
By:

RIF Notices

I believe to minimize the impact, say for instance 300 AMT s slots are being dissolved by station closure or downsizing.. The juniorty date for the system 300th AMT is the cut off point.. At that point you inventory the available stations with slots below that seniority date and make these choices available to the senior AMT that is being displaced.. Continue the bump process until you reach the equilibrium of 300 slots.. It's not perfect but it also would eliminate a system rebid to pacify the whiners..
 
NYer said:
It's funny when some people complain, yet they don't have the basic understanding of the process that is clearly spelled out in the CBA. Those being RIF'd get the choice of whether they want to fill a vacancy or bump within the juniority list. If someone being displaced doesn't want to come to NY and their seniority allows them to hold somewhere else, then they should have that choice.

The juniority process used here is to try and impact the least amount of people as possible. Letting someone being RIF'd bump into anywhere their seniority holds has the potential to affect many, many more people unnecessarily. For instance, a 25 year year guys bumps a 24 year guy in NY, who bumps a 23 year guy in MIA, who bumps a 22 year guy in ORD, who bumps a 21 year guy in DFW, who bumps a 20 year guy in NY....and so on. In the end the junior guy get bumped, so instead of affecting all those people let's find out where that junior guy is and that's the choice for the person being RIF'd. It's just common sense.
Click to expand...

Well its really a question of do we simply honor seniority or do we do whats best for the company? Less moves means less moving expenses they have to reimburse, and less $12500 when we had it.

The Juniority process was put in place to save the company money, but we never got credit for it. They could give a rats ass about minimizing the disruptions to the workers, its the disruptions to the operations they are concerned about.

The way they are doing it is better for the company than truly honoring seniority, like we see at other carriers, not allowing the senior man whose job, through no fault of his own, is being eliminated to go wherever his seniority could get him, not necissarily the most junior man in the company, would be the best way to truly honor seniority but we have never had a true Union culture here, just individual silos. So we end up with Senior people sent to places where they would rather not be while Junior people occupy positions where the senior person would rather be. Sure this would be more disruptive than the way we are doing it but RIFS should be disruptive to the company, then they may be more inclined to avoid them. But as usual we aim to be accomodating. So senior people through no real fault of their own other than chosing the wrong place to go end up where they dont want to be while Junior people are where they would rather be.
 
Bob Owens said:
Well its really a question of do we simply honor seniority or do we do whats best for the company? Less moves means less moving expenses they have to reimburse, and less $12500 when we had it.

The Juniority process was put in place to save the company money, but we never got credit for it. They could give a rats ass about minimizing the disruptions to the workers, its the disruptions to the operations they are concerned about.

The way they are doing it is better for the company than truly honoring seniority, like we see at other carriers, not allowing the senior man whose job, through no fault of his own, is being eliminated to go wherever his seniority could get him, not necissarily the most junior man in the company, would be the best way to truly honor seniority but we have never had a true Union culture here, just individual silos. So we end up with Senior people sent to places where they would rather not be while Junior people occupy positions where the senior person would rather be. Sure this would be more disruptive than the way we are doing it but RIFS should be disruptive to the company, then they may be more inclined to avoid them. But as usual we aim to be accomodating. So senior people through no real fault of their own other than chosing the wrong place to go end up where they dont want to be while Junior people are where they would rather be.
Click to expand...

You look at it as being about the airline. The reality is that it helps to minimize the amount of people that are being involuntarily moved when it could be avoided. I could care less if it saves them money, I like the fact that is prevents many more people from having to pick up and move (even if they get $12,500) and it saves those affected from dealing with the hardships that it creates to be bumped.
 
NYer said:
You look at it as being about the airline. The reality is that it helps to minimize the amount of people that are being involuntarily moved when it could be avoided. I could care less if it saves them money, I like the fact that is prevents many more people from having to pick up and move (even if they get $12,500) and it saves those affected from dealing with the hardships that it creates to be bumped.
Click to expand...

And it saves the company money.

So let me get this right. Your position is that everyone should agree to bottom of the industry wages and benifits, and all the hardships that entails (plus it saves the company tons of money) so only a few people are laid off but when the layoffs happen seniority should be out the window so only a few people are disrupted. ( and it saves the company money)?

Despite what you say it seems thats to you its OK to cause hardship to everyone in the name of saving the few if it saves the company money, and its OK to disregard seniority under the guise of isolating the hardship to fewer people if it saves the company money.
 
Bob Owens said:
And it saves the company money.

So let me get this right. Your position is that everyone should agree to bottom of the industry wages and benifits, and all the hardships that entails (plus it saves the company tons of money) so only a few people are laid off but when the layoffs happen seniority should be out the window so only a few people are disrupted. ( and it saves the company money)?

Despite what you say it seems thats to you its OK to cause hardship to everyone in the name of saving the few if it saves the company money, and its OK to disregard seniority under the guise of isolating the hardship to fewer people if it saves the company money.
Click to expand...

Whether it saves the company money or not is not my concern...but if the process saves a few people from having to unnecessarily move or be disrupted. Then yes, I'd rather have this process. Your focus is on the airline and mine is for the affected members.
 
Bob Owens said:
Getting the same impression here as well. I thought that we were such a burden and they could do so much better by sending all this work out??

Just heard about a guy up here in NY who had 30+ years at USAIR, the other bottom feeder airline, our potential mate, who quit and went to Jet Blue. It was the PTO that swung him to give up his seniority and Union card.

AA and the ATD won, they got what they wanted, now they have to live with it. Do for them what they have done for you, should be easy.
Click to expand...

Thats pretty sad that a 30yr+ guy would quit to go to Jetblue...Not surprising though
 
And that's a problem. Selfishness.

Beyond that, does it make good sense to have a guy with more seniority bumped to OSM and another station and then work next to a guy with less seniority and full AMT pay?

That's sorry union representation and bad business !!
 
NYer said:
Whether it saves the company money or not is not my concern...but if the process saves a few people from having to unnecessarily move or be disrupted. Then yes, I'd rather have this process. Your focus is on the airline and mine is for the affected members.
Click to expand...

Actually my focus is on Seniority.

Again, you were in favor of all the members being affected by giving concessions to reduce the number of people who may (or may not) be RIF'd, no concern about minimizing the disruption there, but in favor of having a senior guy bumped to a location he may not desire regardless of his seniority because the company decided to close his station. I know thats the way its been done here and I'm not saying that it should be changed now, it shoulkd have been addressed twenty years ago, but the logic you present as far as justifying it is inconsistant, if the arguement is to disrupt as few people as possible then it follows that a threatened RIF would have affected fewer people than definate across the board concessions. In that case the disruptions would have been by seniority, the low man gets disrupted instead of everyone, in the case of the RIF you advocate that the company gets to pick who gets disrupted and who doesnt because they get to choose where the reductions occur and where they can go, and the senior man is limited to chosing where the least senior man in the sytem is instead of like many other carriers, where his seniority allows. Another inconsistancy is if we are following the this process to minimize disruption then why are guys in MIA being bumped to New York? Two guys are being disrupted instead of one. Shouldnt all the vacancies be filled before anyone gets bumped? Wouldnt that minimize disruption?
 
Under the AMFA CBA at NWA, if you were RIF'd at your station, you chose any location where your seniority could take you. The caveat being that you had to take out the junior person at the station. You could not bump a guy on day shift, weekends off just because you had more seniority. Generally, nobody moved until all the bumping was over.

Of course, at one point we had a no layoff clause (did not mean you could not be bumped, just that you would not hit the street if you chose to exercise your seniority). We ended up with like 20 some extra guys at BOS and LGA because they were the junior stations and they chose to not hit the street.
 
Bob Owens said:
Actually my focus is on Seniority.

Again, you were in favor of all the members being affected by giving concessions to reduce the number of people who may (or may not) be RIF'd, no concern about minimizing the disruption there, but in favor of having a senior guy bumped to a location he may not desire regardless of his seniority because the company decided to close his station. I know thats the way its been done here and I'm not saying that it should be changed now, it shoulkd have been addressed twenty years ago, but the logic you present as far as justifying it is inconsistant, if the arguement is to disrupt as few people as possible then it follows that a threatened RIF would have affected fewer people than definate across the board concessions. In that case the disruptions would have been by seniority, the low man gets disrupted instead of everyone, in the case of the RIF you advocate that the company gets to pick who gets disrupted and who doesnt because they get to choose where the reductions occur and where they can go, and the senior man is limited to chosing where the least senior man in the sytem is instead of like many other carriers, where his seniority allows. Another inconsistancy is if we are following the this process to minimize disruption then why are guys in MIA being bumped to New York? Two guys are being disrupted instead of one. Shouldnt all the vacancies be filled before anyone gets bumped? Wouldnt that minimize disruption?
Click to expand...

I've learned that when someone changes the argument it is because they lost the previous argument. You focused on THE senior man getting to go where ever he wants as long as he has anyone beat at that station. But you don't address how your plan would make one person being involuntarily RIF'd into several people being involuntarily RIF'd just so that ONE person can get to choose where he wants to go...It might make sense in your mind, and you might need that for your agenda...but in the real world, you're affecting more people than is necessary.

Now you want vacancies to filled before anyone gets bumped, but that goes against your premise that THE senior guy being bumped should pick to go where ever he wants...If you fill vacancies with that guy, then he gets zero choice. You're a President, I'm sure you touched that subject in negotiations since the contract CLEARLY states that anyone RIF'd has their choice to fill a vacancy OR bump within the juniority list.
 
NYer said:
I've learned that when someone changes the argument it is because they lost the previous argument. You focused on THE senior man getting to go where ever he wants as long as he has anyone beat at that station. But you don't address how your plan would make one person being involuntarily RIF'd into several people being involuntarily RIF'd just so that ONE person can get to choose where he wants to go...It might make sense in your mind, and you might need that for your agenda...but in the real world, you're affecting more people than is necessary.

Now you want vacancies to filled before anyone gets bumped, but that goes against your premise that THE senior guy being bumped should pick to go where ever he wants...If you fill vacancies with that guy, then he gets zero choice. You're a President, I'm sure you touched that subject in negotiations since the contract CLEARLY states that anyone RIF'd has their choice to fill a vacancy OR bump within the juniority list.
Click to expand...


I would add that if the requirement was that all vacancies had to be filled prior to allowing someone to displace an individual on the juniority list, and the vacancy was at a station like SJU which no one being riffed selected, they would hit the street. Not a good situation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

B
More Rifs
2 3
Replies
42
Views
5K
Hackman
Hackman
4
Recall Links
Replies
6
Views
2K
AMFAMAN
A
iluvaa
RIF dates
6 7 8
Replies
107
Views
20K
Overspeed
Overspeed
S
Info About IOR RIF
Replies
9
Views
2K
Skymess
S
A
rif
Replies
0
Views
980
amerigojfk
A

Latest posts

Back
Top