The "Skinny" on what the newest Court Proceedings mean

[Charlie_Tuna]

What the CWA/IBT did was negotiate the arbitration away as a political move. The CWA/IBT got automatic recognition without a union vote. That's what the labor representatives got to protect thier interest and they did this without a vote I believe.

That is very true. But remember the CWA already had and has snapback provisions in their CBA something that the company removed from their final offer that was put before the IAM membership to vote on and approve.

As a note "snapback provisions" and "change of control" are completely different issues.

 

[Tim Nelson]

I have no inside knowledge and this is my own opinion but the only way they could have been close to a deal is if the company had sweetened the pot so much that the IAM was close to pulling the grievance. USAirways would never agree to a deal without having the change of control grievance pulled (hopefully the IAM has the same stance). If indeed the company didn't show up for negotiations the reason surely was because they just couldn't sweeten the pot enough for the IAM to agree so the company decided to throw the dice. Remember if the company loses (and it will be a huge loss) you can forget about ever seeing any of the true "semi snapbacks" (vacation, holidays, premiums, full sick pay, etc etc etc) that the company was putting on the table during negotiations. But the change of control award, if won, would trump all those by far. Even if the IAM loses they will probably still get the "other snapbacks" in a transition agreement. So the IAM has nothing to lose going after the change of control grievance and with the pot odds they are getting they would be crazy to fold and not call the companies all in raise.

I'd disagree somewhat with you Charlie. An arbitration award is just that, something already possessed. Much like the Airbus grievance. Negotiating a transition agreement would still be priority and the company desperately needs one.

With the arbitration award, it may mean the IAM gives up its option of big wage increases in 2010 and 2011 for other exchanges that are in the interest of fleet service. Dunno, but not in any context could the IAM have a weak hand in negotiations after hitting the "Mega Million" for over $600 million.

I think the company indirecly acknowledges further cost associated with a transition agreement in their court filing by recognizing a few hundred extra million dollars for the 'westies' alone.

So fleet service and M&R will have to hold off on the 'shiny new hitches' and plasma big screens a few more months.

regards,

 

[Charlie_Tuna]

Do you think it's possible that the IAM negotiators foresaw a possible takeover of US due to our low wages and immoral benefits by some low-rent outfit like AWA looking to make a quick buck and insisted on the snap-back? If so, I owe Canale a drink.

What do you mean insisted on snapback? You mean in recent transition negotiations or in the CBA? There are no snapback provisions in the current IAM CBA's. Do you mean the the change of control provision? No the company just overlooked it when it let you vote on their garbage offer.

 

[Tim Nelson]

What do you mean insisted on snapback? You mean in recent transition negotiations or in the CBA? There are no snapback provisions in the current IAM CBA's. Do you mean the the change of control provision? No the company just overlooked it when it let you vote on their garbage offer.

I think you flushed out what muircross meant. Nonetheless, I think US AIRWAYS has had a bad couple of weeks, but it happens to the best of us.

regards,

 

[Charlie_Tuna]

I'd disagree somewhat with you Charlie.

Dunno, but not in any context could the IAM have a weak hand in negotiations after hitting the "Mega Million" for over $600 million.

It is ok. I hope you are right. In any case hitting the "Mega Million" should be top priority, as everything else pales in comparision, as I have been saying all along.

I think you would have to agree "grievances" (the dropping of) many times have played a part of negotiations and I sure you would agree that some "grievances" should never be on the table (unless, of course, the company made some outrageous offer)

 

[Tim Nelson]

It is ok. I hope you are right. In any case hitting the "Mega Million" should be top priority, as everything else pales in comparision, as I have been saying all along.

I think you would have to agree "grievances" (the dropping of) many times have played a part of negotiations and I sure you would agree that some "grievances" should never be on the table (unless, of course, the company made some outrageous offer)

Yes, I agree that unresolved greivances have a part of negotiations. I realize I have been very 'literal' in the separaton of greivance and negotiation, but I realize sometimes they meet. I think it is bigtime important to keep this grievance far far away from negotiations, at least on the front end. We have already seen the IAM 'force' the company hand where the company assigned dollar amounts and meaning to this grievance.

Now with such admissions of monetary value from the company, the company can not go back after an IAM arbtration award and give lessor value to the awarded grievance at the transition negotiating table if any such award does in fact become a negotiated item on the back end.

regards,

 

[NevadaHP]

Tim i disagree with you, how will winning this arbitration help brothers and sisters in: RNO, SMF, TUS, COS, MKE, ONT, PDX, ELP, AUS, to name just a few of the cities that will be outsourced it sounds like your just out for yourself not the FLEET as a whole.

 

[smallstFSA]

Tim i disagree with you, how will winning this arbitration help brothers and sisters in: RNO, SMF, TUS, COS, MKE, ONT, PDX, ELP, AUS, to name just a few of the cities that will be outsourced it sounds like your just out for yourself not the FLEET as a whole.

Many were sacrificed in 2005. They were brothers and sisters, is trying to get their pay seniority back pimping for new members?

 

[NevadaHP]

Many were sacrificed in 2005. They were brothers and sisters, is trying to get their pay seniority back pimping for new members?

no that was pimping out the Fleet service west ramp. They agreed to a helping hand where west perform/helps the east in dual cities while on a CHEAP payscale. I dont mind making 19 an hour if we get the field stations so people dont have to move/relocate their families when they have worked there for 20+ yrs.

 

[smallstFSA]

no that was pimping out the Fleet service west ramp. They agreed to a helping hand where west perform/helps the east in dual cities while on a CHEAP payscale. I dont mind making 19 an hour if we get the field stations so people dont have to move/relocate their families when they have worked there for 20+ yrs.

Nevada, I'm with you. There's a lot of talk in this board about the IAM going after new members. Unless somebody tells me better they'e either furloughed east employees or "westies" the IAM has vouched to represent. I hope these folks get a fair shake no matter what happens.

 

[gso-crew]

"IAM ramp" in my city is gone ... out sourced. CWA customer service is still there .... three years after the last mainline flight took off. "CWA customer service" falls under the new "mainline express" category here. Thats worth about $15,000 a year. Year after year.

I would like to see the IAM back on the ramp in all the "EAST" mainline express cities. What's best for fleet, a big winfall for a few or jobs in many cities.

 

[Tim Nelson]

Tim i disagree with you, how will winning this arbitration help brothers and sisters in: RNO, SMF, TUS, COS, MKE, ONT, PDX, ELP, AUS, to name just a few of the cities that will be outsourced it sounds like your just out for yourself not the FLEET as a whole.

NevadaHP,
First off, convince the east employees why they should give up 'more' to subsidize the 'westies'? There is nothing unfair for the east to fight for what is already in the 'east' agreement. If they are suppose to have wages of $22 and change, why should they cash in their arbitration for PHX just so they can go back and tell their family they'd rather make $19 instead of $22.
For the west it would have meant an increase in pay, for the east it would have meant a concession. Remember, just because your company refuses to acknowledge the big wages that the change of control calls for, it doesn't mean the wages aren't real.

All's not lost on the 'westies' though. Any arbitration award would benefit them tremendously.

Figure, if the company was offering $19hr and the preservation of many small stations just to have the IAM throw out the grievance, then how much more would they offer if the IAM had the greivance award in hand? And what about the 'east' stations that your company shut down, shouldn't they be included in scope and not just the current west stations?

At any rate, even the company recognizes that the west will have a benefit increase if the arbitration is awarded. Notice the company's position with the judge. It said the award will be $439 million and once the west is incorporated it was something like $640 million. Exactly how does that NOT benefit the west?

As far as somebobdy being out for themself, I think everyone has their own interest and have a personal idea of how they would like this to shape up. But with $640 million in hand, I think there will be plenty of 'lovn' to go around. Maybe the retro checks get cashed in for more stations. Dunno.

But it can't be denied, an arbitration win would bigtime benefit the westies. As I said, just the front end of the grievance apparently forced the company to offer most stations AND $19hr. THe back end should provide even more increases unless the company wants to pay out the full retro awards.

Interesting discussion indeed.

regards,

 

[smallstFSA]

Thanks to a post on a different thread here's a list of all the stations that could have been outsourced based on the east 2/8/2005 mainline schedule and I would imagine they were:
mdt,msp,dtw,gso,iah,mci,alb,atl,abe,cle,pns,pwm,mke,bna,iad,ilm,myr,se
,chs,roc,san,syr,den,ric and orf.

How about these folks, or is it out of sight out of mind.

 

[Tim Nelson]

"""Alert"""

My understanding was that the snapback pay parity was based on $20.08hr which was a wage rate other than pay parity 2003. I have been told that the wage parity rate of 2003 snapback would be closer to $22hr which would eventually put fleet closer to $25hr after grievance 'housekeeping matters' are settled. I don't have an IAM fleet agreement laying around so please reference and verify the 2003 pay parity numbers with your committee chair.

Also, if the IAM was suppose to bring light of any future arbitration as a claim advocating for the members, then shouldn't it have followed that the company also should have brought forward this article and asked the judge to dismiss it for the sake of the shareholder? I agree with others that the company actually let this one 'slip by' unintentionally.

It can not be denied that the IAM, Judge, and Company agreed to the change of control article by approving the contract AND therefore had 'full' knowledge of its merger consequences.

regards,

 

[roadtrip]

NevadaHP,
First off, convince the east employees why they should give up 'more' to subsidize the 'westies'? There is nothing unfair for the east to fight for what is already in the 'east' agreement. If they are suppose to have wages of $22 and change, why should they cash in their arbitration for PHX just so they can go back and tell their family they'd rather make $19 instead of $22.

regards,

The east has lost countless cities thru a bloody slaughter on fleet service from BK contracts being shoved down our throats by US east former management. Now the east guys have a chance at getting some payback big time 22 to 25 bucks an hour with huge retro checks that will be in the thousands. I say I can understand the brothers concern about the west but many east guys have been there and done that with fleet stations closing. Those who chose to relocate to big cities are still employed those who didnt are gone. There are many US East guys who relocated to big cities to keep a 17 buck an hour job leaving there husband or wife to take care of the kids in there old base. These workers struggle to keep a "crash pad" and commute each week to there homes. Now to tell these East FSA to give up and except 19 bucks and hour is just well "nuts". I can understand the concern about the westie in a small city looking at a station being farmed out as scary but if they due opt to transfer to remain employed they will be able to afford it. This arbitration will effect the westies big time in the rate of pay they will be at going from top pay of 14.60 to a high of 22 to 25 an hour after a TA agreement they could afford a really nice "crash pad" at that rate in a new city.

Sorry to the westies not trying to pick a fight just telling you how the east guys are feeling.