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

[paul1]

thanks for selling out are line premium to get back shift differential. a bunch of morons

plus bases still get w/e premium. Why did we not get rid of that since there is no 7 day coverage. Lower the cc pay to current levels in the proposals

 

[Hopeful]

plus bases still get w/e premium. Why did we not get rid of that since there is no 7 day coverage. Lower the cc pay to current levels in the proposals

HOW DOES EVERYONE WHO WORKS THE LINE FEEL ABOUT LOSING THE $2.55 LINE PREMIUM ACCORDING TO THE UNION PROPOSAL?

TELL ME...HOW DO YOU FEEL?

 

[OldGuy@AA]

plus bases still get w/e premium. Why did we not get rid of that since there is no 7 day coverage. Lower the cc pay to current levels in the proposals

This is what is wrong with our membership. "Take from someone else and give it to me." The company and international love this attitude. It makes it easier to screw all of us.

 

[Bob Owens]

what kind of deals were being cut between lower level managers and the Union? or individuals? or the mangers favorite amt? Deal making is away of getting around what, policy, union contract provisions, or just what? Deal making has always been a NY trait going back long before you hired on and has been perfected to an art form.

How do you think they managed to get airplanes out all these years on a Tulsa based wage?

 

[Bob Owens]

Word on the rock is that we have a TA.

Any comments Bob??

We have two, Article 5 and Article 12.
These are all still open;
•Article 1-Scope
•Article 4-Compensation
•Article 6-Overtime
•Article 7-Holidays
•Article 8-Vacations
•Article 34-Sick Leave
•Article 40-Pension
•Article 41-Benefits
•Article 42-Job Security
•Article 47-Duration of Agreement

 

[Bob Owens]

plus bases still get w/e premium. Why did we not get rid of that since there is no 7 day coverage. Lower the cc pay to current levels in the proposals

Look again, the 1/7 rule only limits the percentage who work weekends, they do and always have to my knowledge had 7 day coverage.

 

[Bob Owens]

thanks for selling out areour line premium to get back shift differential. a bunch of morons

Article 4(Compensation-where Line Premiums are) was rejected by the company. Article 5 (Shift Differentials) was passed.

 

[Tex-Mech]

Article 4(Compensation-where Line Premiums are) was rejected by the company. Article 5 (Shift Differentials) was passed.

I think the question is that the company had offered $2.55 for line premium, and are now offering $1.80 for line premium, and the union is only asking for .55 cents an hour for line premium. Why is the union asking for less than the company is offering?

 

[Buck]

There was no bluff. They didn't want to be released. This way Little Jimmy can work his magic and get us his idea of an "Industry leading contract"

Being Released? That might embarrass the current administration....

 

[Buck]

plus bases still get w/e premium. Why did we not get rid of that since there is no 7 day coverage. Lower the cc pay to current levels in the proposals

If there is no 7- Day Coverage then how can there be a weekend differential?

 

[Buck]

Look again, the 1/7 rule only limits the percentage who work weekends, they do and always have to my knowledge had 7 day coverage.

Yes that is true... mostly in AO

 

[Bob Owens]

I think the question is that the company had offered $2.55 for line premium, and are now offering $1.80 for line premium, and the union is only asking for .55 cents an hour for line premium. Why is the union asking for less than the company is offering?

We put more into structural raises, if you build up a bunch of premiums what happens is your percentage increases end up being less than advertised.

All these premiums started out as a way of slipping the mechanics more money at a time when we all negotiated in joint. But over the long term what happens is a the chart rate increases portray our raises as being more than they actually are. The company would say that "We pay our guys $35 and hour and offered them a 3% raise just like our competitors offered their workers" but when $5 is licence premium, $2.55 is Line Premium, and $1.50 is MRT you have $9 of your hourly pay that is not increased by that three percent increase. So if you are making $35/hr and got a 3% inrease you would be expecting to see a $1.05/hr raise but instead you would only get a 78 cent raise. Your actual raise is 30% smaller than advertised. Then comes the question of pensionable and compounded in OT.

We are better off getting the increase built into the base chart rates, besides the fact is OH is the majority, while they have been supportive of the reasonable objective for Geographically based premiums to account for the cost of living, do you think that they would support a deal that puts them down $80/week from guys in the same city, with the same cost of living, working for the same hours for the same company but just across the Ramp? Would you? Should we split and fight over this or try and get something good for all of us? Remember that $2 more for the line premium came at the expense of two years of zero increase, elimination of retiree medical, line maintenance outsouricing of anything under a B check to foreign countries, raising the ASM cap and displacment of workers at class II and III cities, those were just line concessions, the bases would have been hit even harder with SMAs etc..

 

[Hopeful]

We put more into structural raises, if you build up a bunch of premiums what happens is your percentage increases end up being less than advertised.

All these premiums started out as a way of slipping the mechanics more money at a time when we all negotiated in joint. But over the long term what happens is a the chart rate increases portray our raises as being more than they actually are. The company would say that "We pay our guys $35 and hour and offered them a 3% raise just like our competitors offered their workers" but when $5 is licence premium, $2.55 is Line Premium, and $1.50 is MRT you have $9 of your hourly pay that is not increased by that three percent increase. So if you are making $35/hr and got a 3% inrease you would be expecting to see a $1.05/hr raise but instead you would only get a 78 cent raise. Your actual raise is 30% smaller than advertised. Then comes the question of pensionable and compounded in OT.

We are better off getting the increase built into the base chart rates, besides the fact is OH is the majority, while they have been supportive of the reasonable objective for Geographically based premiums to account for the cost of living, do you think that they would support a deal that puts them down $80/week from guys in the same city, with the same cost of living, working for the same hours for the same company but just across the Ramp? Would you? Should we split and fight over this or try and get something good for all of us? Remember that $2 more for the line premium came at the expense of two years of zero increase, elimination of retiree medical, line maintenance outsouricing of anything under a B check to foreign countries, raising the ASM cap and displacment of workers at class II and III cities, those were just line concessions, the bases would have been hit even harder with SMAs etc..

Bob, it seems to me that once again the line got sold out in favor of OH....They got to keep their weekends off and we lost the line premium.
What this does is keeps OH and line mechanics in parity but they get weekends off and when they work weekends they get OT rates.
Same old story.
I think we should all write Arpey and the BOD encouraging them to file Chapter 11.

 

[Buck]

Bob, it seems to me that once again the line got sold out in favor of OH....They got to keep their weekends off and we lost the line premium.
What this does is keeps OH and line mechanics in parity but they get weekends off and when they work weekends they get OT rates.
Same old story.
I think we should all write Arpey and the BOD encouraging them to file Chapter 11.

Industrial Unionism?

 

[Tex-Mech]

We put more into structural raises, if you build up a bunch of premiums what happens is your percentage increases end up being less than advertised.

All these premiums started out as a way of slipping the mechanics more money at a time when we all negotiated in joint. But over the long term what happens is a the chart rate increases portray our raises as being more than they actually are. The company would say that "We pay our guys $35 and hour and offered them a 3% raise just like our competitors offered their workers" but when $5 is licence premium, $2.55 is Line Premium, and $1.50 is MRT you have $9 of your hourly pay that is not increased by that three percent increase. So if you are making $35/hr and got a 3% inrease you would be expecting to see a $1.05/hr raise but instead you would only get a 78 cent raise. Your actual raise is 30% smaller than advertised. Then comes the question of pensionable and compounded in OT.

We are better off getting the increase built into the base chart rates, besides the fact is OH is the majority, while they have been supportive of the reasonable objective for Geographically based premiums to account for the cost of living, do you think that they would support a deal that puts them down $80/week from guys in the same city, with the same cost of living, working for the same hours for the same company but just across the Ramp? Would you? Should we split and fight over this or try and get something good for all of us? Remember that $2 more for the line premium came at the expense of two years of zero increase, elimination of retiree medical, line maintenance outsouricing of anything under a B check to foreign countries, raising the ASM cap and displacment of workers at class II and III cities, those were just line concessions, the bases would have been hit even harder with SMAs etc..

Fair enough---thanks for the detailed explanation.