Why I Voted Yes

[Beancounter]

I'm not an American employee and I was just wondering something. I know if the pilots vote down the companies offer they stand to loose their voice as creditors in the bankruptcy. Is that the case with you guys as well?

Bean

 

[SkyBus]

NO

 

[chris perry]

Why on earth would anyone with no seniority vote yes for this is beyond me? No job protection in the language,they gave it to the pilots? The simple reason they didn't give it to maintenance is because they have other plans.Wake up Tulsa,I have been in your shoes in 1990's at American they promised,threatened and lied to all of us.Just ask MCI.

 

[Bob Owens]

Why on earth would anyone with no seniority vote yes for this is beyond me? No job protection in the language,they gave it to the pilots? The simple reason they didn't give it to maintenance is because they have other plans.Wake up Tulsa,I have been in your shoes in 1990's at American they promised,threatened and lied to all of us.Just ask MCI.

I was told that Evie Rodriguez told guys at JFK that the line needs to vote for this so the company can outsource enough OH to make the line the majority and in Tulsa they are telling them they have to vote for this to keep Tulsa the majority. Jim Ream told the guys at LGA they need to vote for it so they can outsource more OH work that they can get done cheaper and then told the guys at JFK that the company would like to pay their line mechanics what competitors pay their line mechanics but pay OH what competitors pay for overhaul but "unfortunately" the 6500 people in OH control the discussion. (The fact is that our competitors pay their OH mechanics nearly or exactly the same as their line guys, they just have less of them-the guys did not bite and had no interest in Tulsa bashing and instead hit upon the deficiencies of the offer and their treatement of mechanics. ) In other words he was saying to the line guys that if AA didnt have the base that the line guys would get what their peers get and thats why they need to vote YES, because the LBO-2 would allow the company to outsource that work and eventually(in three years) bring the line guys up to the average of the bottom three.
Look at the language, neither is completely true, headcount will go down, possibly by 4000 by 2017 whether we vote this in or not, but I doubt they will decrease the Bases to the point where the line outnumbers the base. AFW may close in a year or so but DWH will expand, Tulsa will probably shrink but so will the line. The question before us is not about saving jobs, its whether or not we explicetly put in langauge allowing them to outsource in addition to the lowest compensation and worst work rules in the industry (wage adjustment included) for at least 6 more years.

Right now there are around 6500 in the bases, 3000 in the line and 2000 in Title II. So thats 11500 total, 35% of 11500 is 4025, The language allows 35% outsourcing, now thats maintenance spend, because its "spend", including parts and materials, it would allow more than 35% of the jobs to be outsourced, not less.

So Tulsa is running around telling their guys that if they vote YES they are saving their jobs, that instead of losing 4000 jobs they would only cut 2000 jobs, but in the language it says that they can outsource 35% of the "maintenence spend", and 35% of the jobs would be 4000. So how does voting yes save jobs when a YES vote explicitly allows them to outsource at the very least 4000 jobs?

If you want to save jobs dont work OT. Why take a paycut to save jobs? Paycuts dont save jobs because jobs are primarily driven by demand for labor, not primarily the cost of labor,so if you work fewer hours and demand stays the same you help create more jobs. If you make fewer hours available then more people will need to be hired to accomplish the same amount of work. If two people agree to work 60 hours a week they are doing three persons work and eliminating one job. If wages go down to where you need to work more hours then what you are doing is eliminating more jobs. great for the company, not so good for the workers, the ones who keep working or the ones who no longer have a job.

AA's business plan is built around us being willing to work double digit percentages in OT, in other words several hundred hours per year.So if everyone refused OT they probably could not lay off anyone right now or in the near future. Attrition would absorb the fall in demand.

 

[Hopeful]

I was told that Evie Rodriguez told guys at JFK that the line needs to vote for this so the company can outsource enough OH to make the line the majority and in Tulsa they are telling them they have to vote for this to keep Tulsa the majority. Jim Ream told the guys at LGA they need to vote for it so they can outsource more OH work that they can get done cheaper and then told the guys at JFK that the company would like to pay their line mechanics what competitors pay their line mechanics but pay OH what competitors pay for overhaul but "unfortunately" the 6500 people in OH control the discussion. (The fact is that our competitors pay their OH mechanics nearly or exactly the same as their line guys, they just have less of them-the guys did not bite and had no interest in Tulsa bashing and instead hit upon the deficiencies of the offer and their treatement of mechanics. ) In other words he was saying to the line guys that if AA didnt have the base that the line guys would get what their peers get and thats why they need to vote YES, because the LBO-2 would allow the company to outsource that work and eventually(in three years) bring the line guys up to the average of the bottom three.

Look at the language, neither is completely true, headcount will go down, possibly by 4000 by 2017 whether we vote this in or not, but I doubt they will decrease the Bases to the point where the line outnumbers the base. AFW may close in a year or so but DWH will expand, Tulsa will probably shrink but so will the line. The question before us is not about saving jobs, its whether or not we explicetly put in langauge allowing them to outsource in addition to the lowest compensation for at least 6 more years.

Right now there are around 6500 in the bases, 3000 in the line and 2000 in Title II. So thats 11500 total, 35% of 11500 is 4025, now thats maintenance spend, but that would allow more than 35% of the jobs to be outsourced, not less.

So Tulsa is running around telling their guys that if they vote YES they are saving jobs, that instead of losing 4000 jobs they would only cut 2000 jobs, but in the language is says that they can outsource 35% of the "maintenence spend", and 35% of the jobs would be 4000. So how does voting yes save jobs when a YES vote explicitly allows them to outsource at the very least 4000 jobs?

Sadly, the large number of job losses are going to be defended by the TWU as "THEY CAN DO THAT BROTHERS AND SISTERS! IT'S IN THE CONTRACT!

How soon before Cirri gets and international slot if this passes?

 

[Hopeful]

Will the old farts leave the air conditioning for $5.00 / hr

Not only that, but around the system where mechanics fix ground equipment...OUTSOURCED and back to line for them....How about many an old timer now finding that he has to do more avionics work because avionics will be more ATA restricted.

What many people are going to be shocked with is the work rule changes.
Many a comfort zone is going to vanish.

 

[High Speed Steel]

I was told that Evie Rodriguez told guys at JFK that the line needs to vote for this so the company can outsource enough OH to make the line the majority and in Tulsa they are telling them they have to vote for this to keep Tulsa the majority. Jim Ream told the guys at LGA they need to vote for it so they can outsource more OH work that they can get done cheaper and then told the guys at JFK that the company would like to pay their line mechanics what competitors pay their line mechanics but pay OH what competitors pay for overhaul but "unfortunately" the 6500 people in OH control the discussion. (The fact is that our competitors pay their OH mechanics nearly or exactly the same as their line guys, they just have less of them-the guys did not bite and had no interest in Tulsa bashing and instead hit upon the deficiencies of the offer and their treatement of mechanics. ) In other words he was saying to the line guys that if AA didnt have the base that the line guys would get what their peers get and thats why they need to vote YES, because the LBO-2 would allow the company to outsource that work and eventually(in three years) bring the line guys up to the average of the bottom three.
Look at the language, neither is completely true, headcount will go down, possibly by 4000 by 2017 whether we vote this in or not, but I doubt they will decrease the Bases to the point where the line outnumbers the base. AFW may close in a year or so but DWH will expand, Tulsa will probably shrink but so will the line. The question before us is not about saving jobs, its whether or not we explicetly put in langauge allowing them to outsource in addition to the lowest compensation and worst work rules in the industry (wage adjustment included) for at least 6 more years.

Right now there are around 6500 in the bases, 3000 in the line and 2000 in Title II. So thats 11500 total, 35% of 11500 is 4025, The language allows 35% outsourcing, now thats maintenance spend, because its "spend", including parts and materials, it would allow more than 35% of the jobs to be outsourced, not less.

So Tulsa is running around telling their guys that if they vote YES they are saving their jobs, that instead of losing 4000 jobs they would only cut 2000 jobs, but in the language it says that they can outsource 35% of the "maintenence spend", and 35% of the jobs would be 4000. So how does voting yes save jobs when a YES vote explicitly allows them to outsource at the very least 4000 jobs?

If you want to save jobs dont work OT. Why take a paycut to save jobs? Paycuts dont save jobs because jobs are primarily driven by demand for labor, not primarily the cost of labor,so if you work fewer hours and demand stays the same you help create more jobs. If you make fewer hours available then more people will need to be hired to accomplish the same amount of work. If two people agree to work 60 hours a week they are doing three persons work and eliminating one job. If wages go down to where you need to work more hours then what you are doing is eliminating more jobs. great for the company, not so good for the workers, the ones who keep working or the ones who no longer have a job.

AA's business plan is built around us being willing to work double digit percentages in OT, in other words several hundred hours per year.So if everyone refused OT they probably could not lay off anyone right now or in the near future. Attrition would absorb the fall in demand.

I took a quick look at the seniority list for the mechanics at JFK and noticed about 35 with 26yrs of service or more on the list. At my local we have began a poll to see how many may be interested in the Early Out or Stand Instead and was wondering if 562 was doing the same. We are doing this to try to get a rough idea on how this may mitigate layoffs. I polled my department and out of 22 of us 6 said they are considering it seriously. I don't know what the total will be from my station but was wondering if you were polling your station and how many from your station have said "Yes", they would like to take the funds and go...

 

[TWU informer]

 

[Tulsamechanic9]

I took a quick look at the seniority list for the mechanics at JFK and noticed about 35 with 26yrs of service or more on the list. At my local we have began a poll to see how many may be interested in the Early Out or Stand Instead and was wondering if 562 was doing the same. We are doing this to try to get a rough idea on how this may mitigate layoffs. I polled my department and out of 22 of us 6 said they are considering it seriously. I don't know what the total will be from my station but was wondering if you were polling your station and how many from your station have said "Yes", they would like to take the funds and go...

6 in my area

 

[Tex-Mech]

I took a quick look at the seniority list for the mechanics at JFK and noticed about 35 with 26yrs of service or more on the list. At my local we have began a poll to see how many may be interested in the Early Out or Stand Instead and was wondering if 562 was doing the same. We are doing this to try to get a rough idea on how this may mitigate layoffs. I polled my department and out of 22 of us 6 said they are considering it seriously. I don't know what the total will be from my station but was wondering if you were polling your station and how many from your station have said "Yes", they would like to take the funds and go...

There is nothing union about voting yes to take the money and selling out those who are left.

 

[Bob Owens]

There is nothing union about voting yes to take the money and selling out those who are left.

Thats why its not suprising that HSS is pushing this.

 

[Buck]

Not only that, but around the system where mechanics fix ground equipment...OUTSOURCED and back to line for them....How about many an old timer now finding that he has to do more avionics work because avionics will be more ATA restricted.

What many people are going to be shocked with is the work rule changes.
Many a comfort zone is going to vanish.

So you have, A&P mechanics working on ground equipment?

Why are they not working the aircraft?

 

[Strake]

"The theory that there will be either expeditious negotiations or a quick release in the wake of the rejection of our contract by the Bankruptcy Court is, at best, pure speculation. What is not speculation is that, while this process is playing out over the course of years the membership will be unneccessarily fuloughed or downgraded. The bottom line is that no work group has ever fared better after having its contract rejected in bankruptcy and those advocating such strategy will be unable to point to a single instance in which it worked."

So.... Can any of the speculators "point" to a single instance where a work group has fared better after having its contract rejected in bankruptcy?

What is there to gain by letting our contract be rejected in bankruptcy?

ABSOLUTLEY NOTHING

 

[TWU informer]

"The theory that there will be either expeditious negotiations or a quick release in the wake of the rejection of our contract by the Bankruptcy Court is, at best, pure speculation. What is not speculation is that, while this process is playing out over the course of years the membership will be unneccessarily fuloughed or downgraded. The bottom line is that no work group has ever fared better after having its contract rejected in bankruptcy and those advocating such strategy will be unable to point to a single instance in which it worked."

So.... Can any of the speculators "point" to a single instance where a work group has fared better after having its contract rejected in bankruptcy?

What is there to gain by letting our contract be rejected in bankruptcy?

ABSOLUTLEY NOTHING

I refuse to volunteer to give up 35% Outsourcing, My Job Security, My Defined Pension, My Retirement Medical, My week of Vacation, My ability to use PV Days, Unkown overtime and field trip rules, and an unknown one-time restructuring RIF procedure.

Im voting NO and not a damn thing will change my mind.

 

[comatose]

"The theory that there will be either expeditious negotiations or a quick release in the wake of the rejection of our contract by the Bankruptcy Court is, at best, pure speculation. What is not speculation is that, while this process is playing out over the course of years the membership will be unneccessarily fuloughed or downgraded. The bottom line is that no work group has ever fared better after having its contract rejected in bankruptcy and those advocating such strategy will be unable to point to a single instance in which it worked."

So.... Can any of the speculators "point" to a single instance where a work group has fared better after having its contract rejected in bankruptcy?

What is there to gain by letting our contract be rejected in bankruptcy?

ABSOLUTLEY NOTHING

All what informer inputed and how about not paying dues to the worthless TWU.