odie01
Veteran
- May 11, 2010
- 1,321
- 473
HHS your link, won't link. Please explain
TWU negotiations.........what?
- Thread starter Chuck Schalk
- Start date
High Speed Steel
Veteran
- Feb 14, 2004
- 1,375
- 136
Sorry Odie, It was a link to your post #1983 in this forum. For changes to the articles I pointed out just find what you rejected in July and compare the improved language that was TA'd last week...
odie01
Veteran
- May 11, 2010
- 1,321
- 473
We would like to know how article 28, 30, and 31, benefit the membership, like you said. Please explain.
High Speed Steel
Veteran
- Feb 14, 2004
- 1,375
- 136
Nope...
Tex-Mech
Veteran
Did a side by side comparison.
Article 28 added "illegal" to the slow down, sit down, etc. language for 2 year letters.
I couldn't find any other changes from the T/A
odie01
Veteran
- May 11, 2010
- 1,321
- 473
Right, neither could he.
Frank Szabo
Veteran
Methinks we're supposed to start shaking or pacing the floor.
Just settle in for a long wait, more lies, and much stonewalling by both the company and their
Frank Szabo
Veteran
Deleted - duplicate post somehow.
Tex-Mech
Veteran
So they spent a whole week agreeing on what they already agreed upon. I will give them credit for adding the word "illegal" because the previous language allowed it to be open for interpetation. To me that entire langauge and the old letter of agreement should have been deleted. Why do we want language in our contract that gives the company the ability to give us lifetime discipline. I know it has been in the contract forever, but an improvement in the langauge, as HSS is to quick to say it was would be to remove the langauge completely.
High Speed Steel
Veteran
- Feb 14, 2004
- 1,375
- 136
The changes in articles 30 and 31 were within the attachment letters 30.1 and 31.1 covering time limits.....The old language favored the company and had potential to harm the members rights to appeal...The AMP crowd missed it, go figure...LOL
Tex-Mech
Veteran
But they are still the same letters that were in the T/A and signed 3 years ago.
http://aa.twu.org/Uploads/mrta070610.PDF
Ken MacTiernan
Veteran
twu international officers are still appointed NOT elected by the membership.
twu international officers do NOT take cuts in pay and benefits when the membership does.
the twu crowd CONTINUES to ignore this fact... go figure!
GO AMP!
Positive compared to the concessionary TA that is, basically, at best, its maintaining what we always had.
The insertion of the word "Illegal" to Article 28 was added because some time ago, probably before I got there, it was decided to incorporate into the language the letter on illegal job actions that came out as a result of an illegal job action that occured in support of organizing the agents in 1980, but they left out the word "illegal". This had been an attachment for nearly 30 years but for some reason they decided to incorporate it this time around, I guess there wasnt enough to address, I think the omission of "illegal" was deliberate. This would have been another huge concession over the status quo, bringing us even further from "restore". Under the RLA we can legally support another legal job action, even though it would be a contractual violation, thus possibly subjecting us to discilpine per the contract, currently a two year letter(or permanent CR1). Under the TA if we walked out or honored the picket lines in suport of FSC, or the FAs or the Pilots we would get permanent letters of discipline in our files. As it is our language is still inferior, at some other carriers "all" letters etc that are negative (discipline or not) are removed after 1 year, at AA they stay in for two and CR1s stay in forever and are frequently cited in support of discipline. Most of our peers do not have have any sort of provision for "permanent letters" like we have had since 1980 and also allow with the loophole on CR-1s. My guess is that of all the majors only Delta has "permanent letters", and we know why that is.
The changes to 30 and 31 are the same, not really a positive change or move towards "restore" but blocking a new concession that was put in the TA. As Gary Yingst was falling over himself giving the company everything they wanted, back in 2002, he signed off on a letter allowing the company to use the postmark date to not only stop the clock as far as them responding but start the clock as far as us appealing, meaning that our clock was ticking while the letter was in the post office box. I was unaware of this letter (luckily so was most of management) until 2009 when I was reviewing TAs while waiting for the company to respond to one of our proposals during negotiations in STL. We have the original letters along with the rest of the letters on our website. http://twu562.org/ on the Contracts link under LOMs. The changes allow the company to stop the clock with a postmark but ours doesnt start until we recieve it, thats how its always been at many stations and ought to be.
The changes to Article 16 and 27 were concessionary. Members on layoff response time was shortened and additional restrictions for stolen toolbox reimbursement, jury duty pay and lost or stolen badges were put in, the balance would be that there is no longer a cutoff date for recall (which in reality helps the union fend off representational challenges more than it helps the members), and the reimbursement was raised for stolen tools. The question is which changes will more frequently impact the members? The shortened response time or the elimination of the 10 year limit? My bet the shortened response time but is it really worth holding up getting to the money issues over?
Article 17 had an improvement in the chart for leaves but the company tightened up on language and insisted on a 180 day notice instead of the 270 that we wanted in there.
While we blocked a few additional concessions that were lumped into the TA I would not say that the company has moved towards restore or given back any of what was taken in 2003. Of course most of that lies within the articles that are still open.
