UA AFA Code-A-Phone Update - October 4

[Bear96]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 10/7/2002 5:44:46 PM 767jetz wrote:

Addressing your last post, (and this is not a shot across the bow either) the disparity of percentages in pay raises during the last negotiation were due to the end of the ESOP investment period, and the disparity of the amount of contribution made during that period. In other words, as was agreed upon going into the ESOP, those that contributed most (pilots) received the largest % increase, those that contributed a bit less (mechanics) received a slightly smaller % increase, and those that contributed nothing (F/A's) received industry average as per the rules of their contract.

----------------
[/blockquote]

Hi jetz,

Just a small correction:

...and those that contributed nothing (F/A's) received industry average as per the rules of their contract.

Going into the negotiations in 1996 there was nothing in our agreement that said F/A wages had to remain at industry average because we did not participate in the ESOP.

The entire industry average concept was not even introduced until the 1997 negotiations (after the 1996 TA filed to be ratified by the membership and the negotiations started all over).

 

[ualdriver]

******But I am curious-- where was this zeal for equal percentages in pay rate changes for all work groups during the most recent contract negotiations that led to pay raises?

I know that didn't make much sense-- I am trying to phrase it without starting a war-- but what I am getting at is this. When looking at the most recent contracts ratified by AFA, ALPA, and IAM (which were completed in that order, in 1997, 2000, and 2002, repsectively), certain groups got much (MUCH) higher percentage pay raises than others. Those that got the higher percentage raises didn't seem to mind the discrepancy then************


Bear96-

The ALPA membership, in my opinion, are the most informed and proactive employees on the property, and our contracts tend to reflect that. The AFA and the IAM can negotiate their own contracts and hold out for what ALPA gets if they want to. That's their perrogative, and feel free to direct your respective unions' leaders to do so when your next contract comes up if you feel there is some wage discrepancy compared to your co-workers in different professions. But on the flip side, since we're all on this sinking ship, there is no reason why we can't all contribute relatively equally, percentage wise, in order to meet whatever total cuts are necessary to meet ATSB or bank requirements to obtain a loan and avoid bankruptcy.


*********But now that we are talking pay cuts instead, some of those same people are saying we should all accept the same percentage cuts.**********

Actually, I don't really think it would be fair for everyone to take the same percentage pay cut necessarily. If the IAM gives up all the backpay they have coming to them, they obviously are going to be giving up a lesser percentage in pay in order to contribute what I would perceive to be their fair share. Furthermore, if the AFA really is as far behind as it implies it is with those often quoted industry average wages (an analysis would have to be done for ALPA, the IAM, and management as well), it would probably be reasonable for them to not give up as much either. But after that is all said and done, equal cuts across the board! I can't think of a way to make it much more fair than that, but I'm willing to hear something better....