strikeforce
Veteran
- Jan 18, 2011
- 1,224
- 253
Bob I commend your efforts in speaking for the minority, Line. I agree we need to stop the arguement between line and oh, and work for the benefit of all the members. Although the union proposal starts to chip away at the disparity between AA Line and SWA, UPS & Fed Ex, the ao question regarding the breaking point hourly cost factor for AA will come into play either in this proposal or in future proposals. The union just can't ignore the going rate for line mechanics, such as SWA, while negotiating for ao. I understand it's difficult because the union has to be mindful of the majority, but the further disparity between AA line and other competitors will only increase animosity between line and oh, and ultimately will result in mechanics looking for other agents to represent them. similar to what's happening today.I agree that signing ones name carries the same risk, you carry that risk even if you dont get license pay.
I agree that we have to put the Line vs AO BS behind us but some of the issues coming up here should have come up a long time ago. People working weekends and shifts have never been properly compensated, and the reason was pretty clear, the majority of the people in AO and those who made it to Days on the line, which greatly outnumbered those forced to work undesirable shifts would not push for it. It was pure "I got mine" and the leadership (most of whom had the seniority to avoid those shifts as well) never made any attempt to correct that.
While majority rules in a union if you ever want unity the wishes , needs and desires of the minority must be given attention as well. Thats where leadership comes in. Leadership has to speak to the majority to insure that the majority doesnt trample over the minority and cause divisions. Might doesnt make right, it only makes winners and losers. The majority has to realize that compromise is the price that must be paid if they desire unity. Its unrealistic to expect the minority to support the majority if their needs are not addressed, especially if those needs are economic. This is a concept that for many years the leadership that came out of Tulsa (Yingst, Burchette, Wilson) simply could not grasp, their legacy was a deeply divided membership. At one point in 2009 in an Article 12 Subcommittee meeting Luis said right in front of the company basically that since I was from a "little local" my opinion didnt matter. Not exactly an attitude that fosters unity. The leadership we see out of Tulsa now seems to have a much better grasp of this concept. The fact is they inherited and still carry the big hammer but they dont swing it around and are willing to consider the little guys perspective.
If you work undesirable hours there should be a meaningful benifit to compensate for the negative impact of working those hours. People who work such hours tend to suffer a long list of ailments, psycological and physical.
With the company now demanding that ao go to the same type of scheduling as the line ao now looks at having to work weekends differently. many people in ao relocated specifically for the normality that having weekends off and not working midnights provide. We've always had to deal with those schedules, outside in all types of weather (another consideration) and do so with a premium of between less than 2% for a guy on days working Sat/Sun to around 5% for a guy on nights. At one point, back in 2003, the President of Tulsa was pushing to trade the line premium for an extra holiday, another example of poor leadership attempting to exploit majority rule and divide the membership even further.
I have enough seniority where I dont have to work nights but I think night shift premium should at the very least be 10% as it is in many industries, except Aviation.
The offer on the table does start to address these things.