What's new

WN Mechanics seek mediation

Look Jerk you are the one screaming about scope no one said anything about giving anything away the two LOA's have everything to do with scope. It seems like the only think you are concerned with is getting your full retro pay! The union will not get everything they want in scope, Since we can not have observers in there; get the scope language done without being conditional on what the company wants in economics When I am talking scope tell the company we want this scope locked and we don't want it based on what you want in economics! Then once that is secured then you can entertain the med/ arb process! I am tired of everyone that has a sugestion is some company spy! If AMFA really wants a contract and not just throw impossible pay rates out there, and you guys scream about scope then get the scope done! If that takes a little longer to get the scope done then so be it !
It's a full package when it gets to this section of bargains. Many articles are closed out depending on economics and scope. You can argue- say you don't agree but that is how the negotiations works. The contract and cba is not article by article but on final close out the full package. That is why it is imperative on presentation the full cba is understood. Not just the compensation. You make your money in the language not your pay rate. Hard to explain but think about it.
 
It's a full package when it gets to this section of bargains. Many articles are closed out depending on economics and scope. You can argue- say you don't agree but that is how the negotiations works. The contract and cba is not article by article but on final close out the full package. That is why it is imperative on presentation the full cba is understood. Not just the compensation. You make your money in the language not your pay rate. Hard to explain but think about it.
Yes I understand that , I don't have a problem with that, it sounds like AMFA was bending on the scope based on economics from the meetings and our last update, so then they throw some impossible pay scale in exchange for scope changes and the company balked! That's like having a case rather it is a court case or and arbitration case and you have had this same process to achieve what you want in an outcome, and right before you get to the finish line flip 180°and wonder why you lost!
 
Look Jerk you are the one screaming about scope no one said anything about giving anything away the two LOA's have everything to do with scope. It seems like the only think you are concerned with is getting your full retro pay! The union will not get everything they want in scope, Since we can not have observers in there; get the scope language done without being conditional on what the company wants in economics When I am talking scope tell the company we want this scope locked and we don't want it based on what you want in economics! Then once that is secured then you can entertain the med/ arb process! I am tired of everyone that has a sugestion is some company spy! If AMFA really wants a contract and not just throw impossible pay rates out there, and you guys scream about scope then get the scope done! If that takes a little longer to get the scope done then so be it !

Yeah, right.
Every suggestion you make is the same as the company wants and weakens our hand. The ONLY REAL thing the company wants from us is to get the scope language changes. You clearly want to give it to them for nothing.
Just look at all the open items left open other than scope.
If you really want to prove you aren't a plant, stop trying to give away the best bargaining chip we have before THEY even start bargaining.
 
Yes I understand that , I don't have a problem with that, it sounds like AMFA was bending on the scope based on economics from the meetings and our last update, so then they throw some impossible pay scale in exchange for scope changes and the company balked! That's like having a case rather it is a court case or and arbitration case and you have had this same process to achieve what you want in an outcome, and right before you get to the finish line flip 180°and wonder why you lost!
Our first proposal was with pay rates with no scope changes.
The latest one was new pay and benefit rates while giving them relief on our current contractual scope protections. Everything has a pricetag.

If you haven't been keeping up, they offered us a plan A and a plan B.
So we did too.
 
That number is roving number depending on what side negotiates off what number. That is why actuaries and economists are involved in section 6 RLA negotiations. Giving a perspective from being there. Don't attack - trying to help. Would like to see SWA group come to industry leading CBA. Got many friends there and wish the best.

The company quoted a $174M gap in their current and AMFA's previous proposal but one year after that offer refused to add one penny reasoning on June 23rd "that our offer was industry-leading when proposed in 2016 and, despite new agreements at other airline, remains industry-leading today." Their statement (industry leading) and numbers are probably accurate but to claim "those were numbers both sides were working from" is a BLATANT LIE. I'll admit I don't agree with AMFA's proposal to increase the gap but you can see why our NC is frustrated. This is just one of many examples our guys are facing and a major reason the majority of us support them.
 
The company quoted a $174M gap in their current and AMFA's previous proposal but one year after that offer refused to add one penny reasoning on June 23rd "that our offer was industry-leading when proposed in 2016 and, despite new agreements at other airline, remains industry-leading today." Their statement (industry leading) and numbers are probably accurate but to claim "those were numbers both sides were working from" is a BLATANT LIE. I'll admit I don't agree with AMFA's proposal to increase the gap but you can see why our NC is frustrated. This is just one of many examples our guys are facing and a major reason the majority of us support them.
Never said I didn't support them, all I said they just seems like they are out gunned, we are in this process for however long it takes, the longer it goes on the less support they will have because you will have each other at people's throats , just like they do at American, we have a lot of older senior guys that want to retire and will take the money! What weakens our position is not trying to secure our scope language, what waekens our position is time, you can win the battle and lose the war!
 
Never said I didn't support them,

Who said you didn't support them, I was responding to Go Figure?

said they just seems like they are out gunned, we are in this process for however long it takes, the longer it goes on the less support they will have because you will have each other at people's throats , just like they do at American, we have a lot of older senior guys that want to retire and will take the money! What weakens our position is not trying to secure our scope language, what waekens our position is time, you can win the battle and lose the war!


I'm not sure what this "outgunned" is all about. Our NC represents us and negotiates in our best interests and we, in exchange for pay and benefits, provide labor to maintain WN's fleet of aircraft. That's the only ammunition our negotiators have and if we're not providing that service better than those they outsource to they will choose to increase outsourcing and reduce our ranks through attrition. Sound familiar? As far as "legal" advice we should certainly seek the best available. As far as "time weakening our position" I'm in no hurry. Those of us formerly from
AA were forced to be patient, now it just comes naturally.

 
Who said you didn't support them, I was responding to Go Figure?




I'm not sure what this "outgunned" is all about. Our NC represents us and negotiates in our best interests and we, in exchange for pay and benefits, provide labor to maintain WN's fleet of aircraft. That's the only ammunition our negotiators have and if we're not providing that service better than those they outsource to they will choose to increase outsourcing and reduce our ranks through attrition. Sound familiar? As far as "legal" advice we should certainly seek the best available. As far as "time weakening our position" I'm in no hurry. Those of us formerly from
AA were forced to be patient, now it just comes naturally.
Sorry I read it wrong, when I say outgunned is because the company has their agenda for whatever they want their cost to be, so it depends on how long they want to wait, you coming from American Airlines , you know what I am talking about the infighting! I can wait too, but there are people who want to beat the strike drums, which would be a total disaster! Then you have the old guys that want money to leave, then you are getting guys that just do not care! So it is a tightrope !
 
Yeah, right.
Every suggestion you make is the same as the company wants and weakens our hand. The ONLY REAL thing the company wants from us is to get the scope language changes. You clearly want to give it to them for nothing.
Just look at all the open items left open other than scope.
If you really want to prove you aren't a plant, stop trying to give away the best bargaining chip we have before THEY even start bargaining.
What bargaining chip, we are basically where we were in 2014, the company doesn't seem to concerned about our so called bargaining chip, they will just keep sending more emails out, so they don't seem to concerned about going around the committee either !
 
It doesn't sound reasonable to me.
Full retro upon DOR no matter when that comes or I vote NO.
I don't care how long it takes, I wont vote to enrich the company for their stall tactics with OUR already earned wages.
They can start there, then can negotiate the rest.
If the company can have must haves, so can we.

My bad. I thought you already knew my stance on the retro. I too will not vote for anything that does not include "full retro" also. I assumed that was automatically known for me as I have announced it numerous times. Sorry bout that WN. I should have clarified that first and foremost.
It has already been shown that the company is willing to move on the scope so I believe there can be movement at the next meeting but it will be entirely up to the company. At this point I too don't think we should not go down that "Med-Arb" route voluntarily. I am comfy leaving that decision up to the NC 100% at this point I think they know best. If the company can get full retro for the Pilots as well as past and dead Pilots and their families then my Lord they can handle our very small piece of the retro due to us, after all, employees are employees of Southwest Airlines. A reply that they are Pilots has nothing to do with it. It's just another "EXCUSE" they will try to get out of it just like when they used the "we can't legally give you retro due to tax laws, rules and regs." NOT. Complete lies. We had retor before and they just proved they can with the Pilots retro. I stand with you on the retro issue 100%...
 
Yeah, right.
Every suggestion you make is the same as the company wants and weakens our hand. The ONLY REAL thing the company wants from us is to get the scope language changes. You clearly want to give it to them for nothing.
Just look at all the open items left open other than scope.
If you really want to prove you aren't a plant, stop trying to give away the best bargaining chip we have before THEY even start bargaining.
Driver does not seem to understand what you meant by the "bargaining chip" with scope. And you are correct it really is all we have, they need the scope language in order to start some future maint. in the future. Too much language currently restricts them from doing their planned new maint. program they are so diligently trying to move to.
 
Our first proposal was with pay rates with no scope changes.
The latest one was new pay and benefit rates while giving them relief on our current contractual scope protections. Everything has a pricetag.

If you haven't been keeping up, they offered us a plan A and a plan B.
So we did too.

Exactly.

Never said I didn't support them, all I said they just seems like they are out gunned, we are in this process for however long it takes, the longer it goes on the less support they will have because you will have each other at people's throats , just like they do at American, we have a lot of older senior guys that want to retire and will take the money! What weakens our position is not trying to secure our scope language, what waekens our position is time, you can win the battle and lose the war!

I have no clue where you get this outgunned statement. It's really is easy to understand. The company wants scope, the membership does not want to give up scope. Pilots had this very same issue with the up coming Max coming on board, and how did they end up settling theirs? The company moved that's how. In our case they have not moved one iota in 3-4 years on both scope and economics. The company WILL NOT get the scope changes until they are willing to move on both just like they did with the Pilots and they even dramatically enhanced their 401K's which is why our NC increased our economics. We would be stupid if we did not. Just like the Pilots did the very same. The company only moved much much faster with the Pilots because they get a lot more respect than we do from the company, but, they are fast learning how united we are in the mechanics ranks. If they want any changes within our scope language then they need to negotiate it not demand it like they have been. And yes this IS our biggest chip we got that they need. See how simple that is to understand?
BTW, NOTHING, I repeat, NOTHING weekends our position more than divided membership. As long as we all stand together in unity on what we want it will eventually come around, how long that takes? Do not know. But there will come a time where the company must move to get a little scope to continue this new maint program on the new models coming in. Let our NC do what we elected them to do. Show FULL SUPPORT for our NC and full unity on the contract issues, it will be for the better in the long run...
 
Sorry I read it wrong, when I say outgunned is because the company has their agenda for whatever they want their cost to be, so it depends on how long they want to wait, you coming from American Airlines , you know what I am talking about the infighting! I can wait too, but there are people who want to beat the strike drums, which would be a total disaster! Then you have the old guys that want money to leave, then you are getting guys that just do not care! So it is a tightrope !
The more you post, the more you prove you are not a current AMFA member.
Nobody, and I mean absolutely NOBODY, is beating any strike drums.
Stay in your cubicle and off the forums.
 
The more you post, the more you prove you are not a current AMFA member.
Nobody, and I mean absolutely NOBODY, is beating any strike drums.
Stay in your cubicle and off the forums.
If the company does not want to negotiate in good faith, it's called union busting. After almost six years since section 6 started, a strike authorization vote is in order.
 
Driver does not seem to understand what you meant by the "bargaining chip" with scope. And you are correct it really is all we have, they need the scope language in order to start some future maint. in the future. Too much language currently restricts them from doing their planned new maint. program they are so diligently trying to move to.
I never suggested selling scope for money, I just didn't want the scope being tied to a pay rate , I wanted to get the scope secured with the best we can get without being tied to a pay rate!
 
Back
Top