TULE Recall Questions

[Giver Hell]

I was furloughed from AA as an Title 1 OSM at the Tulsa base in 2003. I recently call the Local 514 to check just how far down the recall list I was at which was about 400. I am curious about how the company is recalling back employees. Do they plan on recalling back furloughed employees "all at the same time"? Or do they plan on calling back a few at a time? Also I heard that AA plans on buying out the top senority employees on the up coming contract so furloughed employees will be called back. Is this true?

 

[TWU informer]

I was furloughed from AA as an Title 1 OSM at the Tulsa base in 2003. I recently call the Local 514 to check just how far down the recall list I was at which was about 400. I am curious about how the company is recalling back employees. Do they plan on recalling back furloughed employees "all at the same time"? Or do they plan on calling back a few at a time? Also I heard that AA plans on buying out the top senority employees on the up coming contract so furloughed employees will be called back. Is this true?

You would have to break into the Local 514 Hall and obtain the secret letters of agreement, along with details on how they screwed the RIF up to begin with to be able to answer your questions accurately.

Become a fly on the wall, and then listen to the secret contract negotiations that have been taking place in regards to any buy-outs for recalls.

While you are at it and on the inside, please view the "big picture" and then post what it looks like for those of us with 20+ plus years that have never seen it.

Good Luck!

 

[eolesen]

I would expect a few at a time. The reason you see flight attendants and pilots being recalled in blocks is because they have to be re-qual'd, and it doesn't make sense to ramp up the training center for just one class. For the other workgroups, it's typically just a matter of finding someone who can step in and do OJT, or using full-time/part-time instructors who are already carved out of the manning to do recurrent training.

I seriously doubt that there would be buyouts. The rationale used in 2003 was that they cost way too much, and furloughing was cheaper.

It's a heartless way of looking at this, but what motivation does management have to bring back furloughees aside from being able to issue a press release?

Equally heartless, what benefit is there for the TWU to push for this, aside from lowering the overall dues base (assuming they're still based on hourly wage, right?)?

WN is offering them, but they're not bringing back furloughees -- they're hiring replacements off the street (and that assumes they're replacing them on a one for one basis). They've got a totally different retirement plan; when their employees retire early, they have their 401K, and management gets to wash their hands of any future obligation aside from pass travel.

When AMR employees retire early under a buyout, pension fund payments replace payroll (albeit at a lower monthly rate). More people drawing a pension than forecast means the fund probably has to be topped off sooner than it would have otherwise.

 

[ch53D]

I would expect a few at a time. The reason you see flight attendants and pilots being recalled in blocks is because they have to be re-qual'd, and it doesn't make sense to ramp up the training center for just one class. For the other workgroups, it's typically just a matter of finding someone who can step in and do OJT, or using full-time/part-time instructors who are already carved out of the manning to do recurrent training.

I seriously doubt that there would be buyouts. The rationale used in 2003 was that they cost way too much, and furloughing was cheaper.

It's a heartless way of looking at this, but what motivation does management have to bring back furloughees aside from being able to issue a press release?

Equally heartless, what benefit is there for the TWU to push for this, aside from lowering the overall dues base (assuming they're still based on hourly wage, right?)?

WN is offering them, but they're not bringing back furloughees -- they're hiring replacements off the street (and that assumes they're replacing them on a one for one basis). They've got a totally different retirement plan; when their employees retire early, they have their 401K, and management gets to wash their hands of any future obligation aside from pass travel.

When AMR employees retire early under a buyout, pension fund payments replace payroll (albeit at a lower monthly rate). More people drawing a pension than forecast means the fund probably has to be topped off sooner than it would have otherwise.

I don’t fully understand it, but there is something to do with social security that has to be bridged up front with an early out. It’s a big cost to the company up front, but on the back side the company makes out.

There really aren’t too many AA natives left with 30 + years. It’s hard to figure out how many TWA guys are over 30 + years. I would guess there’s less than 400 total with 30 + years. It would most likely not benefit the company to spend the up front money.

 

[TWU informer]

I don’t fully understand it, but there is something to do with social security that has to be bridged up front with an early out. It’s a big cost to the company up front, but on the back side the company makes out.

There really aren’t too many AA natives left with 30 + years. It’s hard to figure out how many TWA guys are over 30 + years. I would guess there’s less than 400 total with 30 + years. It would most likely not benefit the company to spend the up front money.

I think that would be the Medical benefits that must be bridged to Social Security. And I bet that is expensive, but those with medical issues will have them regardless if they stay employed or go, so it doesn't seem that would be a deal breaker since AA pays that medical either way. Maybe I too am missing something that would be additional cost.

As long as the replacement employee has no defined pension, which is surely coming, the cost difference would be as grand as the B-scale of the early 1980's. I look for some form of early out or buy out to come along with the ratification of the next labor agreement. That is of course assuming Jim Little allows us to "ratify" the next one. Look for the next agreement to also include recall of all that are laid-off along with hiring of additional. The TWU has made such an issue of recalls, that it will surely command a premium return of a something to AA at the bargaining table regardless of whether or not they would be recalled anyway.

I can see it now.

If AA gets employees with no defined Pension, a 20 year progression to top pay, and very weak out-of-pocket medical plan. Along with substantial work-rule changes and changes in the Crew Chief selection process.

The TWU will get everyone re-called, new hires to collect dues from, the ability to sell the new hires supplemental medical at inflated premiums, and the old timers will get an incentive to leave early. All with the promise of the all important third party work that will boost M&E profits and Management Bonuses.

 

[MCI transplant]

<_< ------- ch53, Your numbers on 30+ years for exTWAers sound about right. ( myself included!) And if there was a buy out, I'm sure it would turn MCI into a ghost town! ------- Informer, One other thing I hear management wants badly, is to get rid of the" protection clauses" in the next contract! But all of this is rumor until it actually happens!

 

[TWU informer]

<_< ------- ch53, Your numbers on 30+ years for exTWAers sound about right. ( myself included!) And if there was a buy out, I'm sure it would turn MCI into a ghost town! ------- Informer, One other thing I hear management wants badly, is to get rid of the" protection clauses" in the next contract! But all of this is rumor until it actually happens!

"protection clauses"?

In a TWU Contract?

What "protection clauses" would that be MCITransplant?

Are you talking about mergers and acquisitions?

 

[MCI transplant]

"protection clauses"?

In a TWU Contract?

What "protection clauses" would that be MCITransplant?

Are you talking about mergers and acquisitions?

<_< ------ No, I was referring to the "no lay-off clause", or "job guarantee", if you were on the payroll as of ??? Oct of 2000! ----- It don't currently apply to us exTWAers, so I'm really not up on it!

 

[Man of the People]

I was furloughed from AA as an Title 1 OSM at the Tulsa base in 2003. I recently call the Local 514 to check just how far down the recall list I was at which was about 400. I am curious about how the company is recalling back employees. Do they plan on recalling back furloughed employees "all at the same time"? Or do they plan on calling back a few at a time? Also I heard that AA plans on buying out the top senority employees on the up coming contract so furloughed employees will be called back. Is this true?

I hope you are not waiting for AA to recall you. In the four years you have been waiting for the phone to ring, you could've been educating yourself in another field. I hope you didn't waste that time sitting on your duff. The fact you are an OSM means that you probably are not licensed as an AMT. Don't plan on employee buyouts at AA. Whoever told you that must've been hitting the pipe pretty good.......

 

[Giver Hell]

"I hope you are not waiting for AA to recall you. In the four years you have been waiting for the phone to ring, you could've been educating yourself in another field. I hope you didn't waste that time sitting on your duff. The fact you are an OSM means that you probably are not licensed as an AMT. Don't plan on employee buyouts at AA. Whoever told you that must've been hitting the pipe pretty good......."

This information came from a Chrew Chief. The Tulsa base has already recalled some A/C Cleaners back. And no I am not wasting my time while I am layed off, it just that I enjoyed working at AA. I think my best bet at getting recalled will happen after the '08 contract is finalized. Thats just my two cents worth.

 

[AMFAMAN]

I think my best bet at getting recalled will happen after the '08 contract is finalized. Thats just my two cents worth.

No, history has proven that your best bet for recall is just before the vote for the next turd of a contract in order to secure your vote, in exchange for your recall. :huh: But if your theory is correct, the contract is so bad that many of us bailed out leaving the opening for your recall. :blink:

 

[The Goose]

I think that would be the Medical benefits that must be bridged to Social Security. And I bet that is expensive, but those with medical issues will have them regardless if they stay employed or go, so it doesn't seem that would be a deal breaker since AA pays that medical either way. Maybe I too am missing something that would be additional cost.

As long as the replacement employee has no defined pension, which is surely coming, the cost difference would be as grand as the B-scale of the early 1980's. I look for some form of early out or buy out to come along with the ratification of the next labor agreement. That is of course assuming Jim Little allows us to "ratify" the next one. Look for the next agreement to also include recall of all that are laid-off along with hiring of additional. The TWU has made such an issue of recalls, that it will surely command a premium return of a something to AA at the bargaining table regardless of whether or not they would be recalled anyway.

I can see it now.

If AA gets employees with no defined Pension, a 20 year progression to top pay, and very weak out-of-pocket medical plan. Along with substantial work-rule changes and changes in the Crew Chief selection process.

The TWU will get everyone re-called, new hires to collect dues from, the ability to sell the new hires supplemental medical at inflated premiums, and the old timers will get an incentive to leave early. All with the promise of the all important third party work that will boost M&E profits and Management Bonuses.

You forgot to mention that all of this will happen before AMR sells the MRO business, similar to what Boeing did with Spirit next door. The new ownership than can file a pre-packaged bankruptcy (a filing supported by another entity ensuring success, probably AMR Corp.), drop the wages, and do away with all pensions at the same time, leaving those who bought into the possible early out high and dry as PBGC won't pay until one has reached age 65.

 

[FWAAA]

You forgot to mention that all of this will happen before AMR sells the MRO business, similar to what Boeing did with Spirit next door. The new ownership than can file a pre-packaged bankruptcy (a filing supported by another entity ensuring success, probably AMR Corp.), drop the wages, and do away with all pensions at the same time, leaving those who bought into the possible early out high and dry as PBGC won't pay until one has reached age 65.

Two things: First, for the reasons mentioned by eolesen, buyouts are probably not in the cards. AA would probably rather watch natural attrition take care of the problem. After all, it's worked hard to create an environment where no self-respecting person would want to work, right?

Second, the PBGC certainly guarantees the pensions of people who retire early; it just reduces the maximum guarantee on a sliding scale due to age. It's why pilots who rely on the PBGC get screwed: Because of their mandatory early retirement (age 60) the maximum monthly check is much smaller than for employees who retire at 65 or beyond.

 

[The Goose]

Two things: First, for the reasons mentioned by eolesen, buyouts are probably not in the cards. AA would probably rather watch natural attrition take care of the problem. After all, it's worked hard to create an environment where no self-respecting person would want to work, right?

Second, the PBGC certainly guarantees the pensions of people who retire early; it just reduces the maximum guarantee on a sliding scale due to age. It's why pilots who rely on the PBGC get screwed: Because of their mandatory early retirement (age 60) the maximum monthly check is much smaller than for employees who retire at 65 or beyond.

I had been under the impression the PBGC didn't pay at all for those retired before 65, but with the drastic reduction in benefits you refer to that may as well be how it is.

Re: the early outs - after AMR and others got the pension relief they paid for (political contribs) even though Arpey made that comment re: "No early outs", now that there's an (+/-)extra 2% to play with in the pension funding equation it may well be a good "business" decision to get rid of the older individuals that remember how American used to be and resist the corporate 'working together' crap. We'll see how high a value the company (and the TWU) places on getting the older and more resistive contingent out of their way.

I do believe, however, that anything done by AMR Corp. and the TWU from this point forward will be to the workers' detriment.

 

[TIME FOR CHANGE]

I had been under the impression the PBGC didn't pay at all for those retired before 65, but with the drastic reduction in benefits you refer to that may as well be how it is.

Re: the early outs - after AMR and others got the pension relief they paid for (political contribs) even though Arpey made that comment re: "No early outs", now that there's an (+/-)extra 2% to play with in the pension funding equation it may well be a good "business" decision to get rid of the older individuals that remember how American used to be and resist the corporate 'working together' crap. We'll see how high a value the company (and the TWU) places on getting the older and more resistive contingent out of their way.

I do believe, however, that anything done by AMR Corp. and the TWU from this point forward will be to the workers' detriment.

I dont believe there will be to many people opting for the "early out package"
Most must now stay to make up for the last six years of the hot beef injection