What is next after failed ratification vote?

[Bob Owens]

Love or hate the TWU, but they're the ones holding the contract, and re-negotiations have to start somewhere.

If the negotiating committee is indeed as out of touch as y'all say they are, doing a top ten or a climate survey isn't a bad approach. Keeping it limited in scope to just ten is going to force people to really think about what's important.

• If the results show that there are only five or six issues which are ranked in everyone's top ten, they know where to focus the attention
  
• If the results show that some of the issues are geographic, or that line & overhaul are split on certain issues, that too allows them to focus their attention accordingly
  
• If they find out that there are 50 issues which are equally weighted systemwide, they've got a much bigger problem to address, and may indeed need to start over
  

I also suspect the survey you referred to was taken before the economy went in the crapper, and what was important 24 months ago isn't going to be the same today.

You're lucky it's a top ten list. When I do a process consulting workshop, I only let them list five (or fewer) issues that they think need to be fixed. Otherwise, they'll never decide what needs to be looked at, or what the priority is...

Top ten from what? The 2003 agreement, the 2001 agreement or this TA which is riddled with concessions? My position is in 2003 we only gave concessions, there was zero quid pro quo so I'm not amenable to any of this TA.

The entire TA must be scrapped. We can not work off that document at all.

We set out for Restore and more. We can not reward the company for their treacherous behavior by allowing them to profit by extending our agony. The fact is that people are probably more hardened now than they were 24 months ago. Our daily struggle has intensified because everything we have to pay for has gone up but our pay hasnt. We now rank near the bottom in the industry as far as compensation. That TA would have left the majority of workers at the bottom. At one time we made more than SWA, and you know what, they didnt have OH then either, now we make around $10/hour less than them, their Fleet Service clerks make more than our OSMs, its as if we chose a different profession instead of a different employer. Its unacceptable and the members have said as much.

Number two will not do.

 

[Mr Red]

I think the AMFA drive drove the company and TWU to bring us a pretty good contract in 2001.
Go AMP !!!

 

[The Foreigner]

"When I do a process consulting workshop, I only let them list five (or fewer) issues that they think need to be fixed. Otherwise, they'll never decide what needs to be looked at, or what the priority is.."Eolesen

Hi all, I've been a member for quite some time now, and as an AA AMT I am always interested in what is going on in the system. However there has always been one irritant, it seems in all conversations a former AA employee with no Maintenance knowledge whatsoever pokes his nose in. WHY don't you have another job that you can worry about?
It must be a sad life when playing devils advocate is all you can do.

Sorry Ralph this is not a personal attack on E, it just gets old when non maintenance, ex staff talk smack.

Bob Owens hope all goes well for you guys over the pond, we have a different union over here, but we also are trying to get a contract, seems there is no money LOL.

Oh well here goes........

 

[Deleted member 14439]

I too heard tulsa got a "top ten reasons" t/a survey. Bob you are correct in that the entire thing needs to be scrapped and start over. One thing the crew and I have discussed and we are all in agreement on. We want the negotiating team to get us some language in place regarding retroactive pay. This is important in future contracts to motivate the company to negotiate in good faith and get a deal done in a reasonable amount of time. Otherwise they will continue to drag out this process to their benefit.

 

[Bob Owens]

I too heard tulsa got a "top ten reasons" t/a survey. Bob you are correct in that the entire thing needs to be scrapped and start over. One thing the crew and I have discussed and we are all in agreement on. We want the negotiating team to get us some language in place regarding retroactive pay. This is important in future contracts to motivate the company to negotiate in good faith and get a deal done in a reasonable amount of time. Otherwise they will continue to drag out this process to their benefit.

I believe USAIR has a clause that if they do not come to a new agreement six months after the Amendable date they automatically get a 3% raise.

There are a lot of things out there that we dont have, such as limits to how long after an incident the company can take action against an employee, we are limited to 7 days, the company has no limit. Recently the company released a statement saying that they didnt calculate the benifit costs for some employees benifits correctly, now they are taking the difference out of workers pay. Contractual CS guidelines. etc but at this point I think we should go and restore 2001 language and get some money(especially retro). We can work on that other stuff next time on a quid pro quo basis.

 

[Bandit6794]

So true. E needs to go and fail at his new job, and every one here at AA should be glad that he is gone.

 

[Birdman]

I don't always agree with E, but he brings an interesting perspective to these debates, which I welcome.

 

[TWU informer]

So true. E needs to go and fail at his new job, and every one here at AA should be glad that he is gone.

There is no need to demonize somone because they disagree. Go stand in the middle of Arlington National Cemetary and view the huge sacrifice made so that we can have differing views and opinions. I actually have found E to be a kind and a caring person, and iwsh him much success in his life and current job. To wish failure upon another usually leads to misery for one's self.

 

[1AA]

I think the AMFA drive drove the company and TWU to bring us a pretty good contract in 2001.
Go AMP !!!

You think?

 

[eolesen]

Yup, go ahead and make it all about me. That'll get you a contract.


Despite being a government agency, the NMB isn't dumb. They know there's a card drive underway, and the 2:1 rejection rate flies in the face of the union leading both the company and the mediator to believe the now-failed tentative agreement was something the membership could live with.

Come back with something that addresses the core of the last TA, and you're a lot more likely to get an impasse, especially if the company doesn't budge.

But come into the next session with "scrap it and start over" and you kiss your an impasse goodbye. Declaring an impasse commits the NMB to supermediation for the cooling off period, and they're not going to waste their time on a union who can't figure out what their membership will accept.

My guess is you'd essentially be committing yourselves to another year, maybe two at the 2003 book rates.

 

[ReadyNow]

That TA would have left the majority of workers at the bottom. At one time we made more than SWA, and you know what, they didnt have OH then either, now we make around $10/hour less than them, their Fleet Service clerks make more than our OSMs, its as if we chose a different profession instead of a different employer. Its unacceptable and the members have said as much.

Number two will not do.

Tell the company you will accept the SWA contract...lock stock and barrel.....that would be a good counterproposal. What part of SWA contract would be a bad deal for the union?

 

[Bob Owens]

Yup, go ahead and make it all about me. That'll get you a contract.


Despite being a government agency, the NMB isn't dumb. They know there's a card drive underway, and the 2:1 rejection rate flies in the face of the union leading both the company and the mediator to believe the now-failed tentative agreement was something the membership could live with.

Come back with something that addresses the core of the last TA, and you're a lot more likely to get an impasse, especially if the company doesn't budge.

But come into the next session with "scrap it and start over" and you kiss your an impasse goodbye. Declaring an impasse commits the NMB to supermediation for the cooling off period, and they're not going to waste their time on a union who can't figure out what their membership will accept.

My guess is you'd essentially be committing yourselves to another year, maybe two at the 2003 book rates.

The core of the TA is whats unacceptable, its full of additional concessions. The 2001 agreement has plenty of concessions in it as well, in fact that was the product of 20 years worth of work rule and benifit concessions. It was a more than fair agreement for the company. In 2003 the company gutted not only the wages but workrules as well, in this TA they picked the bones dry. The whole thing needs to be scrapped.

We arent asking for gains, just Restoration, we are expected to still produce but at less compensation. If they expect us to put forth the effort to make them number one they need to make us number one first. I'm more than willing to go for a short term contract, then they would have the opportunity to ask for concessions next time if we dont deliver or in exchange for something else, but I'm not wiling to give any more concessions at this point, like I said last time we got nothing and gave the company everything they wanted, they pocketed billions from us over the last seven years. As a result most of us have seen our debt load increase, our kids wont be able to go to the college of their choice even though they have the grades, we wont be able to retire, some of us werent even able to keep our homes, some went BK and others simply threw in the towel and left the industry. The company made their demands under the threat of BK, the people who run the company did not make the same sacrifice despite the fact that they were responsible for putting the company in that position. 7 years is long enough.

If you dont believe me I challenge you to list all the gains we have made vs concessions we have granted over the last 30 years and see who comes out ahead.

The overwhelming rejection shows that the TA is a no go. Its unworkable in its entirety. We will not set up the bases to be spun off, we will not sell out the new hires, we will not give up our retiree health benifits, we will not allow the company to put our Crew Chiefs on permanent probation, we will not agree to the vauge definition of a maintenance base we will not agree to permanent letters of discipline should we avail ourselves to our rights under the RLA, or any of the scores of additional concessions included in the TA in exchange for an inferior and disproportionate wage increase, inferior Holiday accrual, inferior sick benifits, inferior IOD coverage, inferior vacation accrual or inferior medical benifits than the pilots.

 

[Bob Owens]

Tell the company you will accept the SWA contract...lock stock and barrel.....that would be a good counterproposal. What part of SWA contract would be a bad deal for the union?

One of the problems with the SWA contract is the Retiree medical. Our plan isnt really superior but we are tied to it because we have twenty years invested in it, we have had an inferior sick time accrual rate for twenty years, if we switch to using accued sick time as the base to pay for retiree medical we would be at a severe disadvantage, also our inferior IOD bak has wiped out many of our members sick banks, they would be at a extreme disadvantage. SWA workers have been getting 12 days a year of sick time plus up to 600 hours of IOD time for the last twenty years. So most workers at SWA have plenty of sick time to pay for their coverage. They also got more vacation and holidays than we do so that statistically lowers the likelyhood of lost time as well. We only accrued up to 10 days of sick time up until 2001, when we briefly went up to 12 days like SWA but then by 2003 we were reduced to 5.

Heres an example of two workers with 20 years and how much sick time they could accrue with 20 years of perfect attendance.

AA 1990-2001=110 days
2002=12 days
2003-2010=35 days
AA employee after 20 years =157days

SWA 1990-2010=240 days

The company says that on Average a mechanic has 5.1 days per year of lost time (keep in mind that we only get 80 hours of IOD while SWA gets 600).

So the average mechanic at AA would have 55 days in the bank after 20 years while the Average mechanic at SWA would have 138. We would not be able to accumulate enough time to pay for the benifit. Even if we went to 12 sick days per year like SWA we would not have enough years at that rate to pay for the coverage.

So lock stock and barrel would not be workable, the company would want to keep OSMs at the bases and we would need to keep System Protection and have some sort of adjustment to make up for our historically inferior Sick time accrual and IOD time. However it would certainly be a better starting point towards a workable agreement than the TA which is a gutted version of the 2003 agreement which in turn was a gutted out version of the 2001 agreement which was the product of 20 years of concessions in itself.

 

[1AA]

What is next after the failed ratification vote?

That is the title of this topic but more important is that the TWU has very little experience in this situation with American Airlines. Our negotiators have no experience this far into negotiations. We are at a sensitive and critical part of negotiations. It is obvious by the 2 to 1 results of the vote that our negotiators are out of touch with the membership and reality. Our negotiators need professional guidance and help if they are to address this situation in a more serious manner. I personally feel that the International still thinks that they are the elite and in control. Until this attitude changes we will have a difficult time continuing on with negotiations.

 

[chris perry]

Walmart. They are continuously profitable, expanding, and there's no shortage of people willing to work there.


Bob, I'm not disagreeing that you guys deserve more money. Just the premise that you can roll back the clock ten years and expect anyone to take you seriously.

You've already got airline like fees in your pay structure -- license premiums, shift differentials, and a couple others that escape me at the moment. Geo pay would be another one. It might not be the dumbest thing in the world to consider taking down the hourly rate and building it up with premiums or fees. IIRC, most if not all of the MRO's and FBO's charge by the task, not the hour. If it's good enough to charge customers that way, it might not be the worst way to pay people.

E,
I just happen to be a Walmart contractor. After the massive concessions,divorce and numerous other life challenges I decided to become a business owner.I personally withnessed Walmart defy all laws,labor and non labor. {Example not paying for overtime when still working}.{ Example clocked out but still made to work or performance review ie raise would be affected}. Its truly an evil empire! I ceased operations at walmart last year because of the illgeal practices,they continue on.
They pushed to lower cost well past break even point.I was told to hire cheaper labor not asked!!! and reduce cost by 40%
Wamart my be the perfect business model on paper,but as far as there people they have no loyal people.{Except for Managers}.