I can't agree with you more. This is not the time to demand everything back, because we all know there is no way we will get it. But, padding our checks with some will definitely help and put us in a better position for the rest later.
TWU negotiations.........what?
- Thread starter Chuck Schalk
- Start date
Hopeful
Veteran
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2002
- Messages
- 5,998
- Reaction score
- 347
Let me remind all of you who think the company is EVER going to give us ANYTHING again..............
The six year contract, 1995-2001, was during some of the most profitable quarters and/or years in AMR's existence and all we got was 6% over 6 1/2 years. We even had to wait three years for the first 3%. The company sent departmental VP's around the system who proclaimed to "feel our pain" and "we'd love to give you a raise, but we have a contract'"..."blah blah blah....
This company will never restore ANYTHING back to to members unless it is in exchange for more concessions.
So keep dreaming!
Chuck Schalk
Veteran
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2006
- Messages
- 1,042
- Reaction score
- 1,149
I see how all that negotiation training has paid off for our presidents council and all the time spent in those company committees paid us back.
Our charismatic TWU union indicated to us that the main focus during the concessionary contract dispute was to save jobs.. We will “all†suffer the pain and “all†reap the gains. Boy, what a myth that developed into.
Well the underlying reality of saving jobs is save headcount of union paying individuals. This is to maintain the prosperous business model that the union itself is structured after..
It makes no sense to this type of structure to decrease headcount and maintain wage through efficiency. 100 guys paying $50 bucks a month (2 hours) equals $5000.. 60 guys paying $60 bucks a month equals $3600. That’s a 28% pay cut for your Union Organization. The math is evident, the apparent focal point of contractual issues that your union has in mind is not your compensation..
I say:
Improve efficiency, maintain or increase wage, layoff who you have to..
Then when your recalled, you’ll have an excellent compensation package to come back to.
Well the underlying reality of saving jobs is save headcount of union paying individuals. This is to maintain the prosperous business model that the union itself is structured after..
It makes no sense to this type of structure to decrease headcount and maintain wage through efficiency. 100 guys paying $50 bucks a month (2 hours) equals $5000.. 60 guys paying $60 bucks a month equals $3600. That’s a 28% pay cut for your Union Organization. The math is evident, the apparent focal point of contractual issues that your union has in mind is not your compensation..
I say:
Improve efficiency, maintain or increase wage, layoff who you have to..
Then when your recalled, you’ll have an excellent compensation package to come back to.
I agree with your theory on the Internationals motives but its not just dues. You have to remember the $3million that the company pays to union officials. Gless and Yingst both admitted they are paid by the company and that, more so than the dues is what they were trying to protect.
The threat was 25% or 2500 jobs, they ended up taking 40% and 4000 jobs. All Little seems to want to cite is the extra money brought in by contract work which pales when compared to the savings through concessions and job eliminations.
But the $3million still flows.
Wretched Wrench
Veteran
- Joined
- Apr 21, 2003
- Messages
- 1,626
- Reaction score
- 12
Hopeful
Veteran
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2002
- Messages
- 5,998
- Reaction score
- 347
I think this is the real reason the TWU rejected the 18 month contract proposal. It called for lump sump payments of 5% this year and 3.5% in 2009. Union dues are based on your hourly rate. Therefore a lump sum payment does nothing for union dues.
You said it! About time they started looking out for the members interests!
T
The Goose
Guest
As I recall, the negotiating committee trashed it. The International thought it should be brought back to the membership, probably having more to do with Little's ability to accept a contract on "our behalf" than anything else and knowing this, it didn't make it past the committee.
I hate like hell to give the International credit for anything, but ...
Runwaysticker
Advanced
- Joined
- Dec 24, 2007
- Messages
- 179
- Reaction score
- 17
It should have been brought to the guys on the floor and on the line, we dont here #### out here of the committee, I would like to see what type of (protection clauses and ect that is being talked about)............................. 😛h34r:
I think M&R should request NMB Mediation immediately: after all, "The One" is looking likely to become elected and he and the TWU tell us he is a friend of labor. Besides, in the majority of cases in the airlines, the first request for NMB Mediation is refused; we need to get that one off the table and into the archives.
NMB Mediation prevents the one size fits all shoe from being inserted in a painful manner because the delay in administration change:
1) allows the economy to stabilize during the protracted nature of the process;
2) allows more time to pass and attention to be focused on our stroy before we get forced into a saleable contract from the most company friendly union in the US;
2) allows the incoming administration to get up to speed on the issues their people will confront and their need to deliver wins to preserve power;
3) allows the company to become more nervous about both what the incoming administration will allow and what the union will be allowed to accept.
4) allows the new administration, the company and the union time to come up with a politically expedient explanation about why you must buy everyone else the loaf of bread they will then deny you.
Besides, you've never been allowed to see exactly what the international and the company proposed before: yet, the contract everyone b!+ches about, and never votes for, gets passed anyway.
The only job protection is profitabilty derived by honest transactions between those that manage the work and those that perform it: we are already handicapped by having the twu as an honest broker.
I stongly dissagree, here's why.
The membership has been conditioned by everyone-including the TWU to not expect much. This is no way to go into a contract vote. The arguements in favor of increases have been ignored such as the fact that we have seen huge reductions in manpower, resulting in hundreds of millions in savings along with productivity increases resulting in even more additions savings in the hundreds of millions.
Why would you want the members to vote on a contract right on the heels of the biggest increase in the price of oil ever?
Fuel costs are dropping by the day. As fuel prices plummett the companies costs plummett as well, why should we exclude ourselves from being able to profit from that by voting in another two year pay freeze that was loaded with other major concessions?
Instead of demanding the right to vote on a bad deal under the worst of conditions because the negotiating committee refuses to disclose information how about pressuring your representatives to give up the info?
T
The Goose
Guest
Remember back to 2003 - Little went to court and got a ruling he could accept a contract if it had been voted on, after we wanted a revote when Carty's little trick was exposed ($46 million for execs retirement fund).
Bringing anything back for a vote now carries the danger of being accepted by the International, even if voted down by the membership. Those on the committee seem to be wise enough not to bring anything back unless it's acceptable which is fine by me. I'd be very happy to vote no many times were it not for Little's court ruling.
Chuck Schalk
Veteran
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2006
- Messages
- 1,042
- Reaction score
- 1,149
The International can accept any contract without a vote as long as they feel it is in the best interest of the membership. The vote being turned down is irrelevant. They play it that if the contract passes it was the members fault for voting it in. The judge said the TWU international is the "party" to the contract not the presidents. To support that, if you look in your contract book all the presidents are listed as only witnesses and they do not sign the contract. So what is the role of the presidents? Scapegoats is the best word I can think of. Many of us are fooled into believing who controls the contract.
