Insurance premiums

[Doc]

As all you CWAers know we are getting another small raise of 56 cents and we are due another in Jan. of 09.
The company is raising your premiums for your insurance which will surely wipe out any raise.
Our contract for our premiums only goes to 09. I have heard that the company may be toying with the idea about jacking up our premiums up to 3 times. Please send an email to you union heads. It is time our union stood up.

 

[philly rocks]

Doc, situation totally in contol. Grievance filed , company put on notice and in writing. The 3 CWA bargaining teamreps awaiting go ahead to sit down with Labor. IBT bargaining reps ditto. Insurance premiums are protected at status quo 2008 rates and our members are fully protected next year.

We just need the Company to acknowledge our Insurance protection under our CBA and the RLA and make the move to sit down and bargain, which they refuse to do at the moment.

CWA is ready to hit the table, it is US that isn't.

 

[insp89]

Doc, situation totally in contol. Grievance filed , company put on notice and in writing. The 3 CWA bargaining teamreps awaiting go ahead to sit down with Labor. IBT bargaining reps ditto. Insurance premiums are protected at status quo 2008 rates and our members are fully protected next year.

We just need the Company to acknowledge our Insurance protection under our CBA and the RLA and make the move to sit down and bargain, which they refuse to do at the moment.

CWA is ready to hit the table, it is US that isn't.

If premiums are protected @ 08 status quo rates, what is there to bargain ?

 

[philly rocks]

Bargaining 2010 and 2011 rates so they don't quadruple.

 

[tadjr]

Email received on the issue:
Hello Everyone:

Please take the time to read the attachments, as this is going to directly affect you. The company will soon be sending out a letter regarding our health insurance premiums, stating that our union is not supporting us and that is completely untrue. The company would like you to believe that but they are not giving you the whole picture. Our union and its representatives are concerned with the big picture and what will happen to our insurance premiums in years '10 and 11. Although we would all like to receive a 8% cut in our insurance rates now, we surely do not want to experience our insurance rates being doubled or possibly more in the coming years. This is of major concern to our representatives that are trying to protect us from experiencing that. As you read the attachments, you will see why we are filing a grievance in regards to our insurance rates.

If I have missed anyone in this e-mail that you know should also have this information, please pass it on. The more informed we are, the better prepared we will be to stand together to fight for our rights.

Attachments:

September 24, 2008

Dear Brothers and Sisters:

The purpose of this letter is to address E. Allen Hemenway’s recently posted letter concerning your monthly contribution premiums for healthcare in 2009. Make no mistake about it; Mr. Hemenway lied to you in his letter in an underhanded attempt to turn you against your Union. He outrageously mischaracterizes the position of your Union regarding employee contribution premiums for 2009 and intentionally left out critical details of the Company’s position that could result in employees paying exorbitant premiums in years to come. In light of the sacrifices you have made over the last decade to keep this Company in business, he should be ashamed of what he has done.

The dispute over 2009 contributions is simple. Instead of approaching the IBT/CWA Association to bargain over 2009 contributions, US Airways informed the Association and other Unions on the property that it had unilaterally decided what employees’ contribution rates for 2009 would be. In doing so, US Airways ignored its legal obligation to bargain over this change to employee health insurance premiums. Indeed, Mr. Hemenway’s letter makes it clear US Airways has no intention of bargaining now or in the future years with the Association over employee insurance rates.

In response to this edict from the Company, the Association clearly stated its demand for bargaining. In fact, it did so in writing on September 8, 2008 to Mr. Hemenway. The Association’s position is that US Airways does not have the right to unilaterally change insurance rates, now or in the future. Bargaining with the Association on this matter is mandatory, not optional. Although the Association has demanded bargaining, the Company has refused. Instead, it chose to issue Mr. Hemenway’s letter in attempt to undermine the Association by dealing directly with the employees.

What Mr. Hemenway conveniently left out of his letter is that if the Association simply accepted the Company’s position without bargaining, it would give your Union no say whatsoever in employee contribution rates through 2011. Although the Company’s unilaterally-determined contribution rates for 2009 may be less than the 2008 rates, the Association was not given the opportunity to negotiate a potentially even lower rate for you. Furthermore, the Company’s position would leave it free to raise contribution rates for 2010 and 2011 to whatever amount they wished. It could potentially double or triple rates or even raise them higher. This is unacceptable to the Association. Rest assured the Association is working to protect your interests now and in future situations involving your healthcare and its cost to you.

In Solidarity,

Second attachment:

September 24, 2008

Mr. Ron Harbinson
Director, Labor Relations-Ground
US Airways, Inc.
111 W. Rio Salado Parkway
Tempe, AZ 85281


On August 26, 2008, US Airways informed the IBT-CWA Association of its intention to unilaterally change an employee working condition. US Airways announced it had chosen a method for calculating insurance rates and the company would be altering employees’ 2009 insurance rates. The company maintains it has the right to decide how insurance rates will be determined and to alter the Class or Craft’s insurance rates without negotiating with the Association for 2009 and beyond. US Airways unwillingness to bargain on these issues is ongoing.

As remedy, the Association requests US Airways negotiate both the way in which employee insurance rates are determined and the rate which will apply to employees represented by the Association and any other relief found to be appropriate.

Sincerely,

***** For those who dont understand, look at the arbitrators ruling regarding the retirees and you can see where this one was headed. :down: :down: :down:

 

[dexter]

Tadjr failed to continue with the grievance(s) filed by both IBT/CWA and IAM regarding protection under RLA for insurance. Also missing was the letter from AH to all members of both groups, union busting.

So tadjr, is it your spouse covers you for medical and you just don't give a hoot as it doesn't directly hit your paycheck?

This issue was addressed legally as it was supposed to be. What is your point in above thread. Non revenue retiree arbitration has nothing to do with "lost wages and medical benefits" , I believe with the number of employees possibly affected in the next two years it will be BARGAINED into remaining two years before contract is up. From what chatter I am hearing in the airports even lower management is counting on closure with protected medical rates as it does have the same affect on them.

 

[john john]

What is your point in above thread. Non revenue retiree arbitration has nothing to do with "lost wages and medical benefits" ,

It has everything to do with it the arbitrator ruling on retiree boarding the arbitrator ruled in the companies favor.CWA did not have maintenance of standards or past practice provisions in there contract, which would have required the continuation of all practices. Since the Company had made several changes in the past, such as charging for taxes, segment fees and changing the seniority year for SA3 travel to 20 years or more, CWA never grieved those issues because CWA felt the charges were to help sustain the Company due to the bankruptcies and uncertainties of their financial status.

 

[john john]

Tadjr failed to continue with the grievance(s) filed by both IBT/CWA and IAM regarding protection under RLA for insurance. Also missing was the letter from AH to all members of both groups, union busting.

Could you post the IAM grievance and the AH letter

 

[tadjr]

Tadjr failed to continue with the grievance(s) filed by both IBT/CWA and IAM regarding protection under RLA for insurance. Also missing was the letter from AH to all members of both groups, union busting.

I believe the second attachment is the grievance filed by the IBT/CWA. I did not receive a copy of the IAM letter nor the actual letter AH issued to employees. I could not find it on the CWA site either. I was merely posting what I had been sent by someone.

So tadjr, is it your spouse covers you for medical and you just don't give a hoot as it doesn't directly hit your paycheck?

Not exactly sure where you got this idea. I never said it didnt affect me directly (it does and I also pay for Domestic Partner benefits from my check so its a double whammy for me.) Just because I posted the info I had received and didnt add anything else you can deduce that I dont pay for my insurance?

This issue was addressed legally as it was supposed to be. What is your point in above thread. Non revenue retiree arbitration has nothing to do with "lost wages and medical benefits" , I believe with the number of employees possibly affected in the next two years it will be BARGAINED into remaining two years before contract is up. From what chatter I am hearing in the airports even lower management is counting on closure with protected medical rates as it does have the same affect on them.

I was trying to pass on the info I received regarding the issue asked in the initial post. I'm sorry if I didnt have ALL the info (do you have it to post for us?) that you wanted, but I can only post what I've received. In reference to the retiree arbitration, I was making a point that if the union accepts the company's generosity in accepting lower premiums this year without saying anything (original retiree issue), then when its changed again, the union will have no leg to stand on per the arbitrators ruling on the recent retiree issue. There are many agents that arent even aware of this ruling or that by not accepting the companys offer this time, the union IS looking out for our best interest in the future by not getting socked with 2 or 3 times the premiums if the company feels like doing that in 2010 or 2011. The original poster was making it sound like the union wasnt doing anything in regards to the medical issue and they are. Any other questions you'd like answered?

 

[philly rocks]

All employees should be pushing for labor groups to bargain our future health benefits. THIS IS a big chunk of where our pay goes.