Ok another spin on the situation. I did not think of it that way. I in no way would want to be apart of AA's union, as we know what they did to the TWA f/a;s I hope you are wrong...! But anything could happen.
Thanks
AFA labor discussion (Work related)
- Thread starter Edward
- Start date
Ok another spin on the situation. I did not think of it that way. I in no way would want to be apart of AA's union, as we know what they did to the TWA f/a;s I hope you are wrong...! But anything could happen.
Thanks
Okay but--and I am asking here, what about scope? I thought that protected jobs and date of hire, but frankly, I do not know.
You're right, this is scary stuff.
On the upside, with the inevitable lawsuit anything but date of hire would yield, AFA Usairways has no rotten skeletons rattling around. The fact that we have dealt ethically in every merger with each situation hopefully will mean something. Especially when confronted by AA's abysmal record.
Finally, scope is supposed to protect jobs, if we get stapled, who gets laid off? Seems like a conflict to me.
At any rate, this is still wishful thinking on a lot of people's parts. Why, I have no idea, because this last merger has worked out SOOOOOOOO well. Other than still existing, and admittedly that's a big one, I can't think of much good about it.
flybynite
Veteran
As Travel stated, if there were a merger or buyout, we would still have to have a representational vote to determine who would be our bargaining agent. AFA or APFA.
It's not unlikely that AFA would be voted out with our DOH, as APFA is the much larger of the two unions.
What APFA did to the TWA f/a's was criminal and I wouldn't trust them as far I as I can spit.
It's not unlikely that AFA would be voted out with our DOH, as APFA is the much larger of the two unions.
What APFA did to the TWA f/a's was criminal and I wouldn't trust them as far I as I can spit.
The number one thing that would protect us is the SCOPE clause in our afa contract. It is my understanding, since I attend
our union meetings, that this current MGT is trying desperately to gut this clause from our contracts. As I have stated before,
I would not vote for 100.00 per hour more, without our scope clause. So everyone must spread the word.... No SCOPE...
NO contract!
signals
Veteran
A wise person stated:
As the plot thickens, many still refuse to understand that AA was within its rights regarding the TWA f/as.So when U merge with AA
So anyway, will US and TWA destroy APFA? I assume TWA was AFA, or did their bi-polar airline have an inhouse union like USUCKA?
Anywho someone said that because AA's APFA out numbers AFA at US, they would be the majority thus the top dogs on the totem pole.
Do you see it that way, or will US become Feuding Airlines? Hey I got to put that on another board
I'm not stirring the pot. I'm stirring the Kettles
And what you fail to understand is that just because you CAN do something, doesn't mean you should.
AFA Usair has dealt ethically with every merger.
It is a GOOD thing that people are outraged at what some airlines have done, there were real people involved in the carnage of TWA.
APFA SHOULD be ashamed of themselves. That they aren't speaks volumes.
Once again, no one should be excited about a merger with this type of mindset.
Travelpro72
Veteran
- Jan 30, 2005
- 4,964
- 455
Even if AFA was tossed and APFA was the new bargaining agent the MCCaskill Bond Amendment forbids anyone from being STAPLED! Scope language that is found in the current east base contract is in full force and will remain through a possible new agreement. That is one thing that EVERY f/a would risk going into recess to protect rather than give it up for money. The SCOPE language is non-negotiable and a non-starter. Once a merger happened and if APFA came on property THEN and only THEN could loss of jobs be experienced on the US side. That seems to be the way I understand it. Anyone?
That could very well be true if there is a merger. It is my understanding that if there is an acquisition, then the acquirer would have more leeway in how they dispose the employees of the acquired company. As we know anything can happen during a BK filing that would be beyond the control of AA, thereby changing their hoped for end result. If AA's fortunes worsen in BK they could find their assets being acquired by somebody else. And if that happens seniority and union issues may become a moot point.
signals
Veteran
You still continue to assume a merger
Ethics are not going to count when it comes to jobs, furloughs, or layoffs. Ethics become a cut throat and backstabbing situation when it involves U!
Travelpro72
Veteran
- Jan 30, 2005
- 4,964
- 455
The bottom line here is US f/a's have STRONG scope protection and it isn't going anywhere. No airline can staple anymore due to what AA did to the TWA f/a's regardless of how anyone from AA or other try to justify their actions and right to do it. AA is in BK and the leverage that some believe their employees, namely their f/a's have is GONE! Repeat after me G-O-N-E! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! If a merger happened US employees wouldn't be going anywhere until the current language was lost or disolved through AFA being gone. The merged company would most likely have charted it's course well before that ever happened. Couple all of this with APFA and their union that has basically NO power not in BK and the fact that their very own union is on the brink of disaster. Again, why was their union president Up Veda's skirt in vegas? The AA f/a's union better try getting under CWA or something. They don't have a pot to piss in or a window to throw it out of.
Similar threads
