EyeInTheSky
Veteran
PITbull, I amazed at management's stupidity to pull a stunt like this. I wonder how much money was wasted on trying to scare people and force many to quit.PITbull said:
Vf8
- Thread starter exusairways
- Start date
USAirBoyA330
Veteran
- Joined
- Aug 23, 2002
- Messages
- 724
- Reaction score
- 0
PITBull:
I also hear that the 200 F/A's this effects will have the 16-17th as OFF days? Also, your saying they will start at 35.5 hours of flight? I assumed they would start at 0.00 LTO but I guess that would not be fair. At least some resolution has come to this issue.
If oh say 20 people decide to remain out or are not heard from in the 7 day period...they will go to the SEPT 03 furloughs to fill the 20 postitions?
I also hear that the 200 F/A's this effects will have the 16-17th as OFF days? Also, your saying they will start at 35.5 hours of flight? I assumed they would start at 0.00 LTO but I guess that would not be fair. At least some resolution has come to this issue.
If oh say 20 people decide to remain out or are not heard from in the 7 day period...they will go to the SEPT 03 furloughs to fill the 20 postitions?
Colby
Senior
- Joined
- Sep 30, 2003
- Messages
- 487
- Reaction score
- 0
I hate to bring this up AGAIN...BUT, Any idea how this will affect those that accepted MAA but are due to be Recalled ?
The only reason Im asking is that the letters for MAA have stopped 2 classes ahead of me and Im going insane with being turned down by the airlines I've applied/interviewed with. I've got 4 new Interviews to go to next week and Im about to go INSANE !!! Im trying to Cover my ___ before my Unemployment runs out !!!!!!!!
The only reason Im asking is that the letters for MAA have stopped 2 classes ahead of me and Im going insane with being turned down by the airlines I've applied/interviewed with. I've got 4 new Interviews to go to next week and Im about to go INSANE !!! Im trying to Cover my ___ before my Unemployment runs out !!!!!!!!
PITbull
Veteran
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2002
- Messages
- 7,784
- Reaction score
- 456
Those f/as who do not respond have 30 days to respond, and then they will go on inactive status. I am not sure what remedy the company will take to fulfill those slots. I would assume they must go to the Sept list. However, those folks won't be able to collect unemployment. So if they should not respond, they will know soon enough when their unemployment is challenged.
Colby,
There is no "recall" of the 552. We have negotiated with managment to revert back to their status as of Jan. 14. We have taken the position that management mistakenly and incorrectly INVOL furloughed these 552 by not offering a VF first. SO, they must undo it, as I stated above.
As an aside, if you are two classses away, you will probably be called very soon for MAA. Try to hold on. There are many folks that are bypassing MAA permanently from the approx 1,000 they contacted to fill just 4 classes in round #1.
Colby,
There is no "recall" of the 552. We have negotiated with managment to revert back to their status as of Jan. 14. We have taken the position that management mistakenly and incorrectly INVOL furloughed these 552 by not offering a VF first. SO, they must undo it, as I stated above.
As an aside, if you are two classses away, you will probably be called very soon for MAA. Try to hold on. There are many folks that are bypassing MAA permanently from the approx 1,000 they contacted to fill just 4 classes in round #1.
Twicebaked
Veteran
- Joined
- May 22, 2003
- Messages
- 1,788
- Reaction score
- 18
Pitbull,
Are you then saying that all 200 that were active have no choice but to go back?
They have no choice but to spend even more money to go back to DCA? They have no choice but to go back and spend more money when they get displaced to LGA? They have no choice but to go back when in June it will probably happen to them again?
Is that what you are saying?
There are going to be some really p.o.'d people out there.
Why did the union change their stance?
Talk about sacrificing your young.
These people got the shitty end of that deal.
Our union should be ashamed of themselves for allowing this to happen to their members.
I know you are going to get mad that I said that, but that is WRONG!!!!
Are you then saying that all 200 that were active have no choice but to go back?
They have no choice but to spend even more money to go back to DCA? They have no choice but to go back and spend more money when they get displaced to LGA? They have no choice but to go back when in June it will probably happen to them again?
Is that what you are saying?
There are going to be some really p.o.'d people out there.
Why did the union change their stance?
Talk about sacrificing your young.
These people got the shitty end of that deal.
Our union should be ashamed of themselves for allowing this to happen to their members.
I know you are going to get mad that I said that, but that is WRONG!!!!
PITbull
Veteran
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2002
- Messages
- 7,784
- Reaction score
- 456
Twice,
The ramifications were just as bad or worse for the extra 352 that were captured from their leaves just to get to the 200 actives. Not only that, AFA would be breaking their contract come June when more furloughs including these 200 will take place. No Senior f/a can be Invol furloughed while someone junior to them is on a VF. That is just what happened to those 352. Some were on maternity and medical leaves as well. Those folks belonged to another VF, and that will happen come June again. AFA needed to fix it now, or pay the price in June. I am not sure you can conceptualize this. You know that I was a proponent to leave folks furloughed and have sec. 19.2 trigger. But that turned out to be a worse disaster for everyone concerned. Keep in the forefront of your mind, that we would have been fighting a lose/lose battle. Many of the folks who wanted to 'bypass recall" would not be permitted to collect unemployment (the main reason why they wanted to remain furloughed and look for other options while collecting). Not only that the 352 would not be allowed to continue to collect unemployment, that would cease, as well as medical for those folks who were part of the 552 that are on maternity and regular straight medical leaves. Keep in mind that we could not pull out those 352 from the 552, because AFA would be breaking their own contract language by allowing more senior f/as to be INVOL. furloughed while a junior f/a remained on VF or on some kind of leave other than INvol. NO GOOD! Then on top of that, it would have been a disaster come this JUne.
AFA hashed it out on Saturday for 3 hours by conference. They realized, that what must be done is to revert everyone back to Jan. 14 status. THIS WAS THE LEAST COLLATERAL DAMAGE TO ALL PARTIES. The only folks who would have been unaffected by enacting 19.2 would be those who were going to MAA. AND THE NUMBERS WERE SO FEW. Most of the folks who wanted to bypass, wanted the unemployment WHICH THEY WOULD NOT BE GETTING. AND EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THOSE 552 WOULD NO LONGER HAVE 3 YEARS PENSION CREDITS, SEVERANCE OR UNEMPLOYMENT, if AFA continued to do it the way you think would have been fair. We also couldn't arbitrate the unemployment or pension credits and severance because U was offering your job back, which is the purpose of the VF. Re read sec. 19.2. The only thing that language allows you to do is bypass recall and remain on furlough, but their are no benefits to it once management calls you back and you bypass. They are offering you your job back, no arbitrator will see it you're way to collect all the perks to remain out.
The whole purpose of the VF language and insistance on following our contract language was to save the 200 actives. By allowing f/as to remain on the furlough status that VP Hendry had put out in the letter and not to rescind the furlough, would have disenfranchised more f/as in the long run.
Sorry, AFA could just not take that road. AFA did the right thing at this juncture. NO doubt about it. Twice, you just have no idea of the ramifications that would have ensued...plus down the read AFA would have stepped in dog dodo breaking our own contract. Also, keep in mind, these f/as who go back to those bases will be reimbursed for their losses they incurred in their move and also going back up.
Nope! This is it. No young being sacrificed here, they've been saved from a much worse possible scenerio. Not sure you can follow this.
The ramifications were just as bad or worse for the extra 352 that were captured from their leaves just to get to the 200 actives. Not only that, AFA would be breaking their contract come June when more furloughs including these 200 will take place. No Senior f/a can be Invol furloughed while someone junior to them is on a VF. That is just what happened to those 352. Some were on maternity and medical leaves as well. Those folks belonged to another VF, and that will happen come June again. AFA needed to fix it now, or pay the price in June. I am not sure you can conceptualize this. You know that I was a proponent to leave folks furloughed and have sec. 19.2 trigger. But that turned out to be a worse disaster for everyone concerned. Keep in the forefront of your mind, that we would have been fighting a lose/lose battle. Many of the folks who wanted to 'bypass recall" would not be permitted to collect unemployment (the main reason why they wanted to remain furloughed and look for other options while collecting). Not only that the 352 would not be allowed to continue to collect unemployment, that would cease, as well as medical for those folks who were part of the 552 that are on maternity and regular straight medical leaves. Keep in mind that we could not pull out those 352 from the 552, because AFA would be breaking their own contract language by allowing more senior f/as to be INVOL. furloughed while a junior f/a remained on VF or on some kind of leave other than INvol. NO GOOD! Then on top of that, it would have been a disaster come this JUne.
AFA hashed it out on Saturday for 3 hours by conference. They realized, that what must be done is to revert everyone back to Jan. 14 status. THIS WAS THE LEAST COLLATERAL DAMAGE TO ALL PARTIES. The only folks who would have been unaffected by enacting 19.2 would be those who were going to MAA. AND THE NUMBERS WERE SO FEW. Most of the folks who wanted to bypass, wanted the unemployment WHICH THEY WOULD NOT BE GETTING. AND EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THOSE 552 WOULD NO LONGER HAVE 3 YEARS PENSION CREDITS, SEVERANCE OR UNEMPLOYMENT, if AFA continued to do it the way you think would have been fair. We also couldn't arbitrate the unemployment or pension credits and severance because U was offering your job back, which is the purpose of the VF. Re read sec. 19.2. The only thing that language allows you to do is bypass recall and remain on furlough, but their are no benefits to it once management calls you back and you bypass. They are offering you your job back, no arbitrator will see it you're way to collect all the perks to remain out.
The whole purpose of the VF language and insistance on following our contract language was to save the 200 actives. By allowing f/as to remain on the furlough status that VP Hendry had put out in the letter and not to rescind the furlough, would have disenfranchised more f/as in the long run.
Sorry, AFA could just not take that road. AFA did the right thing at this juncture. NO doubt about it. Twice, you just have no idea of the ramifications that would have ensued...plus down the read AFA would have stepped in dog dodo breaking our own contract. Also, keep in mind, these f/as who go back to those bases will be reimbursed for their losses they incurred in their move and also going back up.
Nope! This is it. No young being sacrificed here, they've been saved from a much worse possible scenerio. Not sure you can follow this.
Twicebaked
Veteran
- Joined
- May 22, 2003
- Messages
- 1,788
- Reaction score
- 18
You are right..I cannot understand this. Then what is the section 19 for?
It may seem OKAY on paper, but you have NO IDEA how this is effecting people's lives. Actually, I know you do, but.....
I for one feel sooooooo bad for these folks. Are they going to be reimbursed for what they spend this time and then get cut in June? I didn't think so.
As Sherry Groff would say......" getting your job back should more than compensate......." THAT IS TOTAL BS. Thanks for the Christmas Candy Cane Sherry!!!
It may seem OKAY on paper, but you have NO IDEA how this is effecting people's lives. Actually, I know you do, but.....
I for one feel sooooooo bad for these folks. Are they going to be reimbursed for what they spend this time and then get cut in June? I didn't think so.
As Sherry Groff would say......" getting your job back should more than compensate......." THAT IS TOTAL BS. Thanks for the Christmas Candy Cane Sherry!!!
PITbull
Veteran
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2002
- Messages
- 7,784
- Reaction score
- 456
TWice,
Sec. 19.2 is for folks who are on a furlough list who get recalled by the company. There are provisions in their to allow someone to bypass recall, but not give up their rights for FUTURE recall.
This is not the position AFA took. The best way we could handle this for the majority of these folks is to rescind the furlough as if it never happened. In other words, these f/as were incorrectly furloughed, therefore 19.2 will not apply. The company agreed to put them back to their original status of Jan. 14, pay protected and expenses will be reimbursed.
The AFA MEC thought long and hard on this issue. We hashed it out and came up with this process as the BEST way to "right" a "wrong.
The negative ramifications if we did it your way, was too great, and we would be violating our own language come June.
Sec. 19.2 is for folks who are on a furlough list who get recalled by the company. There are provisions in their to allow someone to bypass recall, but not give up their rights for FUTURE recall.
This is not the position AFA took. The best way we could handle this for the majority of these folks is to rescind the furlough as if it never happened. In other words, these f/as were incorrectly furloughed, therefore 19.2 will not apply. The company agreed to put them back to their original status of Jan. 14, pay protected and expenses will be reimbursed.
The AFA MEC thought long and hard on this issue. We hashed it out and came up with this process as the BEST way to "right" a "wrong.
The negative ramifications if we did it your way, was too great, and we would be violating our own language come June.
Beef or Chicken
Newbie
- Joined
- Jan 9, 2004
- Messages
- 9
- Reaction score
- 0
Hi Pitbull -
Question: Will the company be obligated to offer another VF in June?
Question: Will the company be obligated to offer another VF in June?
