I don’t have a problem with anything you have to say, I just prefer a negotiation page focus on negotiations and an amfa page focus on amfa.
AA and Labor Negotiations-2020
- Thread starter Eagle
- Start date
I don’t have a problem with anything you have to say, I just prefer a negotiation page focus on negotiations and an amfa page focus on amfa.
Talos
Senior
- Nov 23, 2013
- 442
- 95
I've seen first hand at DFW what an epic fail that is. The total disaster implemented last summer by mgmt was mind boggling. Today we learned that this Cedric fellow that was brought in as VP DFW, has suddenly retired from the company. I was told he was in his 40's. LMFAO. From what I've seen, anytime this mgmt team tries to change things to " their way" it's like the circus has come to town. I really wonder if they do it because of their adversarial attitude towards employees, or if they are just that out of touch with how to run a good large operation?
NYer
Veteran
- Jun 4, 2010
- 4,169
- 923
Im sure there will. As you posted earlier the reaction to the ta language should be interesting. Thats when we truly find out how nuetered the twu acually was.
Look for more negotiators driving by defending the ta. Again in my OPINION just reading the highlights and not the language we will find its not industry leading, its not bad, its not good. Its the iam current contract with a few modifications, basically whats been on the table for two years.
This ta passing is very important to the association if it doesnt that court case looms large in the rear view mirror.
This ta passing is very important to the association if it doesnt that court case looms large in the rear view mirror.
When we first kind of merged my manager decided moving towards TWU work rules so we hired a bunch of people and upgraded a lot to leads.SInce there is station protection it would make no sense to ho back to US rules but who knows.Thats one leadbfor 2 or 3 gates
NYer
Veteran
- Jun 4, 2010
- 4,169
- 923
AANOTOK
Veteran
- Oct 10, 2009
- 4,627
- 2,395
Question for LAA members from a LUS member regarding healthcare proposal.
First, agreeing it is ridiculous and kind of crazy that we are being offered different healthcare policies. But knowing this is a non-concessionary contract and anything that is given up will never be able to be regained in future contract negotiations. Would you rather have had both LAA/LUS members been given the current LAA healthcare? Or can it be understood allowing LUS members to keep their current policy was the only way to keep it on the table for both sides in the future?
First, agreeing it is ridiculous and kind of crazy that we are being offered different healthcare policies. But knowing this is a non-concessionary contract and anything that is given up will never be able to be regained in future contract negotiations. Would you rather have had both LAA/LUS members been given the current LAA healthcare? Or can it be understood allowing LUS members to keep their current policy was the only way to keep it on the table for both sides in the future?
NYer
Veteran
- Jun 4, 2010
- 4,169
- 923
That's one of many. The TWU needed to keep Members to to date with the potential changes that could come up.
All that talk of no concessions has conditioned many to believe what we had would be enhanced, strengthened. When they see the changes, they'll be against them just because they're different.
They did no prep work and now have to ingest an incredible amount of information. The IAM will be more familiar with where we ended up.
All this talk about the $3K will be a forgotten nuisance when the language comes out.
NYer
Veteran
- Jun 4, 2010
- 4,169
- 923
Here's the thing, and most on this thread don't remember, but until the bankruptcy most groups at AA has different negotiated health plan
Ironically, at that time the argument was, why do we all to have the same medical?
Seems that adding the sunset was a means to get enough votes to give this agreement a better chance to be ratified.
Similar threads
