TWU negotiations.........what?

[Birdman]

Both sides know that if we are busy sitting at the computer venting we are not taking any real detrimental action.

Which includes a screwup or union official in this non-accountability environment that happens to be at work spending their time reading, posting, or even sleeping. Their wages seem to be an acceptable loss by not allowing them to destroy expensive parts or disrupt the hitters from actually working.

 

[Bob Owens]

But every now and then they acknowledge slight fear or concern regarding postings here to keep us occupied and content. Both sides know that if we are busy sitting at the computer venting we are not taking any real detrimental action.

I can tell you that what is posted is read and considered, by the company (as you informed me years ago) and the NMB.

The Update I put out just before Christmas created a stir, nothing was said to me directly but the Chairmen were given an earful. The company must have looked at it as a threat, and obviously complained about it. Our intentions that week were to bring forth economic articles that were minor and pretty much standard across the industry, such as Shift Differentials. I was told that the mediator basically said that we would not touch Economic articles that session and we had to clear away all the non-economic articles first, sure we could have went ahead and thrown them out there anyway, but then we would most likely have been “put on ice”.

I previously stated that when Labor goes to the NMB for mediation it would be like going to ones In-laws for mediation for problems in their marrage. They want a settlement but they inherently are more aligned with the other side. We have already seen how long the NMB will let things drag out when the company wants them to drag out, AMTRACK. Eight years, sure they got some retro but you can bet that it it was only a fraction of what they lost. So, what does that mean for us? Well we have to look at the history of the RLA and see why it was put into law. What conditions precipitated the law? What were/are the objectives of the Law?

In the period preceding the RLA there were sporadic but very disruptive job actions across the country. If the switchmen walked off the job in Ohio service between NY and Chicago came to a halt, even if the switchmen in New York, Pennsylvania and Illinois workers showed up. Service interruptions became more frequent, usually unsanctioned acts because in many cases the workers were non-union because the carriers refused to recognize them, or would only recognize "company unions". So the Government decided to restrict by law workers ability to withhold their labor from private "for profit" enterprises, this wasn’t new because the Government and its corporate handlers considered Unions to be conspiracies against the rich. It was OK for the rich to pool their Capital in corporations for maximum leverage against the working class but it was not OK for the working class to pool their labor in order to bring some balance to the table. Obviously if the true intent of the law was exposed it would have caused outright rejection by the working class. You have to remember that the law was put in place in 1926 only six years after labor unions in Europe helped force an end to the war of Intervention when they threatened General Strikes which would have shut down the factories and ports needed to conduct the war, and only eight years after Communists took over the largest country in the world. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allied_intervention_in_the_Russian_Civil_War). Once transport workers realized the power they had they became more emboldened. So what the authors of the law did was invite labor to the table to get them to believe they were getting something out of the deal. They fluffed up the law with certain protections, unions would be recognized and barriers to decertification were put in place and some worker concerns were addressed, mainly "Status quo" which would prevent employers from unilaterally reducing workers pay, however the government has since given carriers a loophole around that, limited bankruptcy. To sum it all up the RLA was put in place to ensure carriers have access to the labor they need to provide the service and to make Unions accept the fact that they could not use the their only true weapon-the labor that their members provide.

So that covers why it was put in place and what the objectives are. For many years the law functioned fairly enough for workers so the inequities were never really an issue. The NMB truly acted impartial in the Airline Industry, nowhere near as biased as they are today because the industry was more of a luxury than a necessity. If an airline went on strike there was usually enough surplus capacity to get everybody and everything where they needed to be within a day or so. In the rail industry it was a different story, the NMB frequently delayed talks or sent the parties to a PEB, however other benefits were put in place such as a generous pension plan to cover rail workers. However now the airline industry is vital, more concentrated and very little surplus capacity exists, and the NMBs treatment of airline workers has been much harsher, harsher even than in the rails, when a carrier feels they are a good position to bust the union, the NMB gives a swift release to self help, when a union is in a position to make gains they drag talks out, in some cases telling unions that if they don’t lower their demands they would “put them on ice forever”. I’ve never seen where the NMB told a carrier that their demands were too extreme. I don’t know the particulars on AMTRAK and the eight year negotiations that took place there but one thing that’s obvious is that the workers of AMTRAK adhered to the rules put forth by the RLA and they got screwed. Why? Because as far as the NMB is concerned eternal negotiations are fine so long as the workers don’t get frustrated and start to rebel on their own. In my opinion if they had started to spontaneously engage in sick outs, against the leadership of their union, and "worked to rule" their negotiations would not have dragged out as long. One of the key ingredients to the RLA has always been Union “buy in” and the expectation that the Union would control the workers (while worker protections have all but disappeared union stability and organizing has been enhanced by the NMB). The Union is prohibited by law from telling workers to do what the RLA is permitting the company to do-delay, delay, delay and we have seen where the Government tries to financially destroy Unions whose members engage in disruptive actions, (http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Allied+Pilots+Association+to+pay+USD45.5m+fine+to+American+Airlines.-a065464859).
Actions that can be traced to the union will be acted upon, harshly, however actions that are spontaneous are much more difficult to deal with, back in 2000 frustrated workers at UAL showed their displeasure in what the media termed “the Summer of Hell’ ( http://www.chicagotribune.com/topic/economy-business-finance/transportation-industry/air-transportation/united-air-lines-ORCRP017350.topic). Disruptions were not limited to UAL, sporadic disturbances were occurring all over the industry, most went unreported, some were completely misrepresented such as one that occurred at American’s JFK. There the company told the media that they were experiencing “weather related” delays, every other carrier at JFK was experiencing the same weather but the press never bothered to question that and made the announcement that passengers for AA should call the airline before going to the airport, because of "the weather". That round of negotiations turned out to be one of the most successful rounds that I’ve seen in my 30 years. The success was short lived. The industry with the full force of the government struck back, using the fallout of the tragedy 9-11 for cover.

So in summation Unionized workers, whether they at UAL, USAIR, AA, Amtrak or any other large carrier under the RLA, are pretty much screwed if they continue to “act professionally” during extended negotiations. “Status Quo” and extended negotiations only apply when its in the carriers interests, if workers make gains and a carrier feels they can get the same work out of them for less they can always count on a quick release from the NMB if in negotiations or just take a trip to BK court and have a Judge write them a dream contract that does not consider the workers needs one iota if they are “locked” into a contract. By continuing to “act professionally” workers are doing what the carriers and the NMB are counting on, so of course they encourage such behavior (“Thank you sir may I have another”-Animal House http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qdFLPn30dvQ ). They are getting what they want, and as long as they are confident that they will continue to get what they want while we suffer they will continue to delay, delay, delay, hoping that our desperation drives us towards submission instead of rebellion, because every day that they do they get to keep millions of dollars for themselves and from us and our families, if we submitt they win, if we rebel its a draw. As long as the NMB sees workers willing to “act professionally” they will continue to place a heavy hand on the carriers side of the scale. Demonstrations are nice but easily ignored, (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EO3Df_IGvdg ) however if nobody showed up for work one holiday, at UAL, USAIR, Continental, AA and every other carrier that’s going through extended negotiations, in other words if they did what the members of the NMB and top management of the carriers were doing, spending the Holiday home with their family instead of working, that couldn’t be ignored. It sucks but that’s how I see it, if Rosa Parks had changed her seat because it was the law it would still be the law. If workers under the RLA continue to “act professionally” as their rights are suppressed, benefits disappear and real wages wane then they will continue to be suppressed, they will continue to lose benefits, and their wages will continue to decline. Thats true whether you pay dues to the TWU, IAM, IBT, AMFA, APA, ALPA, AFA, CWA, USAPA, AMP or IWW.

 

[787nightmare]

I found the video amusing but with a max base rate of over $168/hr, not including premiums etc, I find their "failures" at negotiations enviable. Yes the pilots have given up a lot, but they did manage to negotiate the best deal of all the unions on the property. Unlike us, they got back 9% of their 25% the first year after the concessions, (vs our 1.5%) this was in return for efficiencies gained and the heads reduced due to those efficiencies. We on the other hand got nothing for that. Over $500 million and we gor ZILCH, instead we were told "You still have a job".The pilots, for all they have lost remain near the top, not saying thats acceptable, because the "top" has deteriorated substantially, but we on the other hand lag the top by around 30%. We took a double dip, our standing deteriorated within a deteriorated market.

That's because AAs fear of a strike per labor group rank as follows:
1. far and away, pilots
.
.
2. f/as
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

3.distant 3rd, twu M&R
No, make that...
.
.
.
.
.
.
maybe down here. AA hasn't one ounce of fear the twu members will walk.

 

[Bob Owens]

That's because AAs fear of a strike per labor group rank as follows:
1. far and away, pilots
.
.
2. f/as
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

3.distant 3rd, twu M&R
No, make that...
.
.
.
.
.
.
maybe down here. AA hasn't one ounce of fear the twu members will walk.

I think you are wrong. I think that management was shocked by the high rate of recall declines, they've pretty much exhausted the recall list at all the line stations, (good news for you) and expect to add around 900 heads this year.

On another note.

I was recently notified by the International that the company wants to make a presentation to all the Local Presidents next week but they want us to sign a confidentiality clause saying that if we repeat what we hear they can terminate us and sue us, that if we get subpoenaed by the Government that we will notify the company before we testify and various other restrictions. The only thing the agreement gives us is the priviledge of listening to whatever they want to say. I've refused to sign them in the past and I see no reason to sign it now.

To me its a set up. How likely is it that the company will give us news we can use at this stage of negotiations? Why would they? Does anyone think that the company will tell us that things are looking very well for the company? How revenues are way up and how they are getting all these new airplanes? Basically tell us that we should demand more than restore?To me its more likely they they will try to fill us with a lot of doom and gloom in order to get us to bring back another bad contract.

Lets say its all lies, what could we do about it afterwards? Nothing, we couldnt even say that we recomended the bad deal because the company said XYZ. The Condfidentiality clause not only prevents us from saying anything about whats said but also prevents us from verifying the information. So if its info we cant use why sign such an agreement when it can only be used against us? There is no quid pro quo, no guaranties as to the veracity of the information, they could show projections, which can vary between extremes, like the one the company showed us in June of 2009 that projected a fall off in work, white spaces and the loss of 1200 jobs by 2012, well nearly two years later it seems the company will be adding 900 jobs before 2012 and not many white spaces out there.

The Confidentiality Agreement has nothing in it that can benifit our members.

Isn't the next Financial Disclosure due out soon? My guess, AMR brought in excess of $22 billion for FY 2010. Around $5 billion more than 2003 with at least 30,000 less employees and 200 less airplanes. Thats a windfall of at least $7 billion dollars. But they have no money for us. Probably enough to paint every subway car and bus in NYC though! Maybe put their name on a few more sports arenas as well!

 

[High Speed Steel]

I think you are wrong. I think that management was shocked by the high rate of recall declines, they've pretty much exhausted the recall list at all the line stations, (good news for you) and expect to add around 900 heads this year.

On another note.

I was recently notified by the International that the company wants to make a presentation to all the Local Presidents next week but they want us to sign a confidentiality clause saying that if we repeat what we hear they can terminate us and sue us, that if we get subpoenaed by the Government that we will notify the company before we testify and various other restrictions. The only thing the agreement gives us is the priviledge of listening to whatever they want to say. I've refused to sign them in the past and I see no reason to sign it now.

To me its a set up. How likely is it that the company will give us news we can use at this stage of negotiations? Why would they? Does anyone think that the company will tell us that things are looking very well for the company? How revenues are way up and how they are getting all these new airplanes? Basically tell us that we should demand more than restore?To me its more likely they they will try to fill us with a lot of doom and gloom in order to get us to bring back another bad contract.

Lets say its all lies, what could we do about it afterwards? Nothing, we couldnt even say that we recomended the bad deal because the company said XYZ. The Condfidentiality clause not only prevents us from saying anything about whats said but also prevents us from verifying the information. So if its info we cant use why sign such an agreement when it can only be used against us? There is no quid pro quo, no guaranties as to the veracity of the information, they could show projections, which can vary between extremes, like the one the company showed us in June of 2009 that projected a fall off in work, white spaces and the loss of 1200 jobs by 2012, well nearly two years later it seems the company will be adding 900 jobs before 2012 and not many white spaces out there.

The Confidentiality Agreement has nothing in it that can benifit our members.

Isn't the next Financial Disclosure due out soon? My guess, AMR brought in excess of $22 billion for FY 2010. Around $5 billion more than 2003 with at least 30,000 less employees and 200 less airplanes. Thats a windfall of at least $7 billion dollars. But they have no money for us. Probably enough to paint every subway car and bus in NYC though! Maybe put their name on a few more sports arenas as well!

Perhaps you should demand a conference call with the Local Presidents as well as the International to discuss the pros and cons of the company presentation before you personally decide to blow it off. I think you should at least make the attempt if what you post is true....

 

[paul1]

I think you are wrong. I think that management was shocked by the high rate of recall declines, they've pretty much exhausted the recall list at all the line stations, (good news for you) and expect to add around 900 heads this year.

On another note.

I was recently notified by the International that the company wants to make a presentation to all the Local Presidents next week but they want us to sign a confidentiality clause saying that if we repeat what we hear they can terminate us and sue us, that if we get subpoenaed by the Government that we will notify the company before we testify and various other restrictions. The only thing the agreement gives us is the priviledge of listening to whatever they want to say. I've refused to sign them in the past and I see no reason to sign it now.

To me its a set up. How likely is it that the company will give us news we can use at this stage of negotiations? Why would they? Does anyone think that the company will tell us that things are looking very well for the company? How revenues are way up and how they are getting all these new airplanes? Basically tell us that we should demand more than restore?To me its more likely they they will try to fill us with a lot of doom and gloom in order to get us to bring back another bad contract.

Lets say its all lies, what could we do about it afterwards? Nothing, we couldnt even say that we recomended the bad deal because the company said XYZ. The Condfidentiality clause not only prevents us from saying anything about whats said but also prevents us from verifying the information. So if its info we cant use why sign such an agreement when it can only be used against us? There is no quid pro quo, no guaranties as to the veracity of the information, they could show projections, which can vary between extremes, like the one the company showed us in June of 2009 that projected a fall off in work, white spaces and the loss of 1200 jobs by 2012, well nearly two years later it seems the company will be adding 900 jobs before 2012 and not many white spaces out there.

The Confidentiality Agreement has nothing in it that can benifit our members.

Isn't the next Financial Disclosure due out soon? My guess, AMR brought in excess of $22 billion for FY 2010. Around $5 billion more than 2003 with at least 30,000 less employees and 200 less airplanes. Thats a windfall of at least $7 billion dollars. But they have no money for us. Probably enough to paint every subway car and bus in NYC though! Maybe put their name on a few more sports arenas as well!

Hello American Airlines (we know your out there)


Perhaps the company AA could share the infromaton with all of us , then maybe will understand there stall tatic's for the past several years, offer us a industrrial leading contract and get all this B.S. behind us.
Start having your managers dump the dead weight and don't forget to dump some of your own dead weight. and on and on I could go.

 

[toroshark]

I commend Bob for his stance on the super secret meeting being proposed by the company. In theory the TWU represents us. Let me repeat that for you High Speed. The TWU REPRESENTS US! If information is being put out by the company that potentially affects the TWU membership then said info should be shared with the represented parties (US). It takes elected individuals at the local level to look out for their members. Let us face facts. The TWU Intl. is nothing more than a dues collecting corporation. The Intl. cares immensely more about how much dues that they collect than the people that they collect the dues from. Where it all seems to go wrong is when people run for local offices with the intentions of looking out for themselves instead of the membership. Next thing you know WALAA PRESTO BAM , Phat Don is in the Intl. The latest Tulsa bbq bologna eater is in. Zimmerman is in. If the company wants to share the info with the masses then so be it. If not , then let em pack sand.

 

[odie01]

It's a little to late for top secret company presentations, I think the idea is to bring more confusion into these already stalled negotiations. Think about it, more people involved, more debate, more uncertainty, more confusion, all this will equal more time without a contract, and more money in the company bank. Let's not deviate from the original plan. JMO

 

[TWU informer]

Since this information no doubt has something to do with negotations, it should be mandated by the Union that the Mediator be present.

Could be nothinig more than facts regarding rumors that are about...such as

A Contract with JAL for Thrust Reverser work
A Contract with BOEING for Airframe Work
Luftansa taking over the Overhaul Maintenace

And

American Eagle has a buyer of some sorts.

Or simply tell them everyone will sign right after the Labor Agreements get ratified and use that as tool to get a deal done NOW.

This is the statement that raises my curiousity

that if we get subpoenaed by the Government that we will notify the company before we testify and various other restrictions

That is a significant statement within the request.

 

[High Speed Steel]

I commend Bob for his stance on the super secret meeting being proposed by the company. In theory the TWU represents us. Let me repeat that for you High Speed. The TWU REPRESENTS US! If information is being put out by the company that potentially affects the TWU membership then said info should be shared with the represented parties (US). It takes elected individuals at the local level to look out for their members. Let us face facts. The TWU Intl. is nothing more than a dues collecting corporation. The Intl. cares immensely more about how much dues that they collect than the people that they collect the dues from. Where it all seems to go wrong is when people run for local offices with the intentions of looking out for themselves instead of the membership. Next thing you know WALAA PRESTO BAM , Phat Don is in the Intl. The latest Tulsa bbq bologna eater is in. Zimmerman is in. If the company wants to share the info with the masses then so be it. If not , then let em pack sand.

I respectively disagree with you about Bob's position on the company's presentation and the position that he is not interested in what the company has to say. With him disclosing this proposition from the company here within the TWU negotiations thread its of my opinion he suggests the company's presentation has content that may be directly related to contract negotiations.

I believe it is his duty to consider this invitation from the company based off of the position of the membership with it's rejection of the TA.

It sounds like Bob (a member of the negotiating team) seems to think, he alone, knows what is best for the membership and he as a negotiator has forgotten the direction given him by the membership ( or that he is a member of the negotiating team)....See below


Ballots will be mailed to TWU members July 26; results will be tabulated and announced by the American Arbitration Association on the afternoon of Aug. 24.

Ballot language to be considered by members of the three bargaining units reads simply:

• I VOTE TO ACCEPT

• I VOTE TO REJECT AND AUTHORIZE THE NEGOTIATING TEAM TO TAKE WHATEVER ACTION NECESSARY UP TO AND INCLUDING A STRIKE

 

[odie01]

It sounds like Bob (a member of the negotiating team) seems to think, he alone, knows what is best for the membership and he as a negotiator has forgotten the direction given him by the membership....See below


Ballots will be mailed to TWU members July 26; results will be tabulated and announced by the American Arbitration Association on the afternoon of Aug. 24.

Ballot language to be considered by members of the three bargaining units reads simply:

• I VOTE TO ACCEPT

• I VOTE TO REJECT AND AUTHORIZE THE NEGOTIATING TEAM TO TAKE WHATEVER ACTION NECESSARY UP TO AND INCLUDING A STRIKE

What am I missing here? The membership chose option "B", NO, and according to the language on the unconventional secret ballot, Bob and the negotiating team have every right to refuse the companies confidentiality agreement for their double secret presentation. I agree with Informer, we can possibly have this meeting after we resolve our contract, till then, pack sand.

 

[High Speed Steel]

What am I missing here? The membership chose option "B", NO, and according to the language on the unconventional secret ballot, Bob and the negotiating team have every right to refuse the companies confidentiality agreement for their double secret presentation. I agree with Informer, we can possibly have this meeting after we resolve our contract, till then, pack sand.

odie, My point is Bob is not utilizing the members of his negotiation team. Stating his position here as if he works alone....

 

[Birdman]

Perhaps they have a creative AAcountant that has jaw dropping proof of how overpaid, by $600,000,000, AA's labor is and the data is so precisely detailed that it would give away priceless compAAny secrets that it's competitors would use to gain leverage. And imagine if the government, IRS, SEC, etc., found out through an informant that the data presented doesn't exactly match the reports that AA has been submitting. It's a lose/lose proposition. I'm with Bob and I wish he was the only negotiator.

 

[FWAAA]

This is the statement that raises my curiousity

that if we get subpoenaed by the Government that we will notify the company before we testify and various other restrictions

That is a significant statement within the request.

This is standard boilerplate for a confidentiality agreement. Providing notice to the company gives the company a chance to attempt to quash any subpeona and try to prevent the disclosure of the confidential info. Probably in every confidentiality agreement I've ever seen.

 

[High Speed Steel]

Perhaps they have a creative AAcountant that has jaw dropping proof of how overpaid, by $600,000,000, AA's labor is and the data is so precisely detailed that it would give away priceless compAAny secrets that it's competitors would use to gain leverage. And imagine if the government, IRS, SEC, etc., found out through an informant that the data presented doesn't exactly match the reports that AA has been submitting. It's a lose/lose proposition. I'm with Bob and I wish he was the only negotiator.

So we take your position and don't send Bob and the negotiating team to the presentation only so we can continue to waste our time here and speculate, "what if"......