BigMac
Veteran
Correction..Retro back to 5/1/08
TWU negotiations.........what?
- Thread starter Chuck Schalk
- Start date
D
Deleted member 14439
Guest
Well now. That did not take long to get shot down. company response
OP
Chuck Schalk
Veteran
- Nov 17, 2006
- 1,042
- 1,149
- Thread Starter
- Thread starter
- #2,463
NO RETRO = NO DEAL
Hopeful
Veteran
- Dec 21, 2002
- 5,998
- 347
Did you expect anything less? They are going to counter with an even more unrealistic offer.
After all, they have to share a few hundred million for themselves...PUP time is here!
strikeforce
Veteran
- Jan 18, 2011
- 1,224
- 253
TWU sold us out!!!! would have been better off handing AA our 2001 agreement + adding 3% per year for 8 years.
VOTE NO!!!!!!
Hopeful
Veteran
- Dec 21, 2002
- 5,998
- 347
OOhhhhh, just wait! We haven't seen the company's counter proposal yet...
They simply cannot just reject the union's offer without coming back with their own fanstasy list!
I am sure the meidiator will be expecting a counter proposal..
In the mean time, boys and girls,,,,,,make sure you give em 100% at work!
Retro to 2003 was never on the table. It would be unrealistic to sign an agreement in 2003 to 2008 then claim that we deserve Retro afterwards unless we could prove that they got those concessions under false pretenses.
The company's response however is regrettable. They did not say that the offer was unrealistic to the committee. They asked us to hold off on releasing the offer untill they could inform their Board.
Some of their claims are gross distortions.
What they are really saying: We want to pay our executives the best, we want a committment from our mechanics to make us number one but we expect them to settle for 30% less than number one in pay.
Top pay in the industry so far for mechanics in 2012 will be over $50hr. Our offer would give AA a discount on labor of around $7/hr in 2012. If they cant compete with a $7/hr discount then we need new management.
The annual cost of the agreement is less than $200 Million, considering that we gave the company at least $320 million in annual concessions in 2003, in 2012 they will still be ahead of the game by $100 million a year, if you factor in inflation they are even further ahead. Here is were we see the company palying the numbers game, in 2003 they use the Annual numbers, in 2003 we gave the company well over $1.6BILLION in concessions, other efforts by the TWU pushed that number in excess of $2BILLION over the five years, thats not including the loss of over 5000 jobs from our contract group either. What the company leaves out is that our base rates in 2012 would only be a little more than20 cents higher than it was in 2003. Most of the other increases are from things that the company already offered in the failed TA and our real earnings will still be considerably less than it was in 2003.
The company has an additional $5 billion/yr coming in compared to 2002, in light of that windfall all we are asking for is less than $200 million of the at least $320 million we gave in 2003 back, less than 4% of that addtional revenue would cover our demands, so we can support our families.
Economic realities. Two new 737s a month, $5 billion increase in revenue, Executive Bonuses every year, need I say more?
We took the economic realities into consideration thats why we didnt go with $51/hr. The company is failing to take into account that each and every one of us has had to deal with the economic reality of a stagnant wage while our proprty taxes are increased, our commuting costs increased, our insurance costs increased, our food costs increased, electric and even water. They fail to take into account that they have raised the cost of our medical so high that they make a profit from many employees who pay in to AA more than they get out. The economic many members faced when they saw their supplimental medical simply cancelled and watched as the company pocketed millions. We do not have the richest medical nor the richest pension. Twice bankrupt Continental has a similar DB with a 401K that AA lacks. UPS, in addtion to the $50/hr pay has a much less expensive medical plan than we do. Southwests 401k match with their higher rates of pay will leave their retired mechanics with far more assetts than our plan will.
The company acts as if inflation and increased costs do not impact workers. While their revenue has increased by around $5 billion, or 23%, since 2002 our incomes remain far below what they were in 2002.
Our proposal was more than fair to the company. Mechanics at AA lag much of the industry, we lag all the major carriers that didnt file BK and some that did. Much of the industry is still in negotiations, so more than likely any "competive " disdavantage the company claims they may have would dissapear once those agreements are put in place. The fact is that if this contract did put the company at a competative disadvantage they can make that arguement in November when new negotiations would commence. The fact is that many non-union carriers have been increasing their pay rates. Delta nd Jet Blue have already increased their rates, Jet Blue currently offers over $38/hr. While not diminishing their sacrifices, we are not seeking industry leading wages like most of our coworkers.
What we are selling , primarily A&P mechanics labor, is becoming "scarcer than oil", and thats the economic reality that AA and the rest of the industry must face. The company should be grateful that we did not do what workers typically do to keep up with inflation during negotiations and leapfrog. We let them off easy and stayed behind UPS, FED-EX and SWA. My guess is that before this proposaed agreement becomes amendable several carriers will move ahead of us. Never before have the gaps in pay between mechanics at large carrier been so big, we can not allow them to remain that way either.
The fact is our total package for the four years it covers is not only less than what we gave up in 2003 but less than the "Goodwill" losses they wrote off for 2002.
The company's response however is regrettable. They did not say that the offer was unrealistic to the committee. They asked us to hold off on releasing the offer untill they could inform their Board.
Some of their claims are gross distortions.
What they are really saying: We want to pay our executives the best, we want a committment from our mechanics to make us number one but we expect them to settle for 30% less than number one in pay.
Top pay in the industry so far for mechanics in 2012 will be over $50hr. Our offer would give AA a discount on labor of around $7/hr in 2012. If they cant compete with a $7/hr discount then we need new management.
The annual cost of the agreement is less than $200 Million, considering that we gave the company at least $320 million in annual concessions in 2003, in 2012 they will still be ahead of the game by $100 million a year, if you factor in inflation they are even further ahead. Here is were we see the company palying the numbers game, in 2003 they use the Annual numbers, in 2003 we gave the company well over $1.6BILLION in concessions, other efforts by the TWU pushed that number in excess of $2BILLION over the five years, thats not including the loss of over 5000 jobs from our contract group either. What the company leaves out is that our base rates in 2012 would only be a little more than20 cents higher than it was in 2003. Most of the other increases are from things that the company already offered in the failed TA and our real earnings will still be considerably less than it was in 2003.
The company has an additional $5 billion/yr coming in compared to 2002, in light of that windfall all we are asking for is less than $200 million of the at least $320 million we gave in 2003 back, less than 4% of that addtional revenue would cover our demands, so we can support our families.
Economic realities. Two new 737s a month, $5 billion increase in revenue, Executive Bonuses every year, need I say more?
We took the economic realities into consideration thats why we didnt go with $51/hr. The company is failing to take into account that each and every one of us has had to deal with the economic reality of a stagnant wage while our proprty taxes are increased, our commuting costs increased, our insurance costs increased, our food costs increased, electric and even water. They fail to take into account that they have raised the cost of our medical so high that they make a profit from many employees who pay in to AA more than they get out. The economic many members faced when they saw their supplimental medical simply cancelled and watched as the company pocketed millions. We do not have the richest medical nor the richest pension. Twice bankrupt Continental has a similar DB with a 401K that AA lacks. UPS, in addtion to the $50/hr pay has a much less expensive medical plan than we do. Southwests 401k match with their higher rates of pay will leave their retired mechanics with far more assetts than our plan will.
The company acts as if inflation and increased costs do not impact workers. While their revenue has increased by around $5 billion, or 23%, since 2002 our incomes remain far below what they were in 2002.
Our proposal was more than fair to the company. Mechanics at AA lag much of the industry, we lag all the major carriers that didnt file BK and some that did. Much of the industry is still in negotiations, so more than likely any "competive " disdavantage the company claims they may have would dissapear once those agreements are put in place. The fact is that if this contract did put the company at a competative disadvantage they can make that arguement in November when new negotiations would commence. The fact is that many non-union carriers have been increasing their pay rates. Delta nd Jet Blue have already increased their rates, Jet Blue currently offers over $38/hr. While not diminishing their sacrifices, we are not seeking industry leading wages like most of our coworkers.
What we are selling , primarily A&P mechanics labor, is becoming "scarcer than oil", and thats the economic reality that AA and the rest of the industry must face. The company should be grateful that we did not do what workers typically do to keep up with inflation during negotiations and leapfrog. We let them off easy and stayed behind UPS, FED-EX and SWA. My guess is that before this proposaed agreement becomes amendable several carriers will move ahead of us. Never before have the gaps in pay between mechanics at large carrier been so big, we can not allow them to remain that way either.
The fact is our total package for the four years it covers is not only less than what we gave up in 2003 but less than the "Goodwill" losses they wrote off for 2002.
Retro to 5/1/08 although the first chart rate increase isnt until 5/1/2009. The reasoning for that is we recieved our last increase from the 2003 deal on 5/1/08 and it would be a bigger challenge when we get in front of the PEB to sell two chart rate increases the same day.
Here are the top chart rates from 2001 agreement effective 3/1/03
AMT=30.61
OSM=24.76
PW=21.50
AC-20.93
PM Mech=30.61
utility=19.93
In 2001 the concession was that the steps were increased from 6 months to either 18 or 12. The longer period at lower rates costs those members hired after DOS thousands of dollars.
strikeforce
Veteran
- Jan 18, 2011
- 1,224
- 253
Bob,
I would consider it false pretense when AA executives unilaterally steal workers wages & benefits under a bankruptcy threat and then enrich themselves with bonuses. That's why we're entitled to retro back to 2003, along with getting paid back what they stole. I don't know about you but I LOANED AA the money in 2003 and I EXPECT to be paid back, and I would expect that my agent (twu), who the membership pays to represent us, believes the same. Especially when the membership gave the TWU a mandate to get us everything back, and then some. Otherwise, I want a new agent!
Hey Bob, I don't belong to a charitable organization for the benefit of AA, called the TWU. I belong to a union....a band of brothers looking out for the best interests of our craft and class. Two entirely different animals. Maybe AMP's the answer, I don't know, but it's definitely not the TWU! NO RETRO TO 2003= NO VOTE!!!!!!
Tex-Mech
Veteran
You serious, have you looked around at the deal cutting of so-called members of this union. Band of brothers, not in Texas. :wacko:
How do you expect the negotiators to get the retro to 2003 deal you deamnd when your fellow mechanics will sell you out for an hour of overtime? Don't get me wrong, I would love to see a true band of brothers regardless of the name of the union, and who understood that sticking together makes us stronger. But even on this forum we have some vocal AMP guys calling for a spilt of overhaul and line contracts, some calling out people who are not A&P's as non-AMT's like they are inferior, and even others mocking and cheering on the demise of public unions in the north. When you can figure out the fix for that, you will have your band of brothers. Until then you will have a bunch of "I got mine", spending above my means, fox news loving, blame everything thats wrong with my life on the union, who will never stand for anything, especially with there feet on a picket line.
Rant over... :angry2:
Ken MacTiernan
Veteran
If the twu thinks for ONE second that ANYTHING less than FULL retro back to 5/1/08 is acceptable they are bigger fools than we know them for.
FULL RETRO!
Man of the People
Advanced
- Jul 14, 2004
- 160
- 11
Strikeforce:
There was a member vote for the concessions in 2003. The members had an opportunity to make a stand. Unfortunately, the concessions passed, despite the fact there were legitimate issues surrounding the phone in vote. If we can go back in time, then let's go for retro back to the first agreement negotiated: 1940s? Hopefully, this membership is not all bark and no bite, just like 2003.
strikeforce
Veteran
- Jan 18, 2011
- 1,224
- 253
Who created the "It's about me" mentality?
In my opinion....the union! It's called leadership! It's about educating the masses to put peer pressure on the idiots that believe their getting a better deal from local management. It's about leaders that educate the members that HR is not your friend when resolving internal issues. It's about union officials looking out for YOU & ME instead of themselves. It's about leaders that place a value on the craft & class, and what WE offer to the operation. It's about leaders that aren't afraid to pull a member aside and educate them about acting more professional. It's about having internal controls. Too bad WE haven't had leadership like that for many, many years, if any at all. That's the TWU. No leadership....never had and never will my friend. When was the last time Your leader did the things I just mentioned above?
Tex-Mech
Veteran
Outside of some presidents who had international jobs on their mind when they ran, the local leadership at the few locals that I've worked out has been very good. The membership on the other hand has taken advantage of rule 32 to weaken the leadership. I've seen this on several occasions where the member goes to management because they got there feelings hurt by a stewart or eboard guy.
Your argument, which I don't totally disagree with is like the argument I hear about how it is school teachers responsibility to raise and educate better children and not the parents. The members have a responsibility to act like a union member, especially while in front of management, regardless of there differences with there leadership. That simply does not happen. In fact we had an eboard guy here who would do exactly what you say, and the members voted him out for sounding like a company guy when he pushed for professionalism on the job.
If you have leadership that is scamming, recall them. We have done that several times here at 567. I'm not sure what local your out of, but if they are out for themselves, prove it and recall them.
Now if you are talking about the international, disregard everything I just wrote, that is a different story that can't be fixed.
MCI transplant
Veteran
- Jun 4, 2003
- 5,311
- 584
- Banned
- #2,475
<_< ------ "Can't be fixed."??? ------ Oh yes it can!!! Vote out the TWU, and AMP in!!!Outside of some presidents who had international jobs on their mind when they ran, the local leadership at the few locals that I've worked out has been very good. The membership on the other hand has taken advantage of rule 32 to weaken the leadership. I've seen this on several occasions where the member goes to management because they got there feelings hurt by a stewart or eboard guy.
Your argument, which I don't totally disagree with is like the argument I hear about how it is school teachers responsibility to raise and educate better children and not the parents. The members have a responsibility to act like a union member, especially while in front of management, regardless of there differences with there leadership. That simply does not happen. In fact we had an eboard guy here who would do exactly what you say, and the members voted him out for sounding like a company guy when he pushed for professionalism on the job.
If you have leadership that is scamming, recall them. We have done that several times here at 567. I'm not sure what local your out of, but if they are out for themselves, prove it and recall them.
Now if you are talking about the international, disregard everything I just wrote, that is a different story that can't be fixed.
