Layoff Rumors At Sfo

[blueskies4ever]

When the unlicensed mechanics start bumping A&P’s on the line and docks, how many licensed mechanics do we legally have to keep, or will the supervisor just sign off the work?

Dont worry there wont be any unlicensed people coming to the line.

LOA 74-1M was written by UA and the IAM. This LOA undermines every union members seniority rights. It was intentionally designed to protect GQ,garage, and BM,plant maintenance personel, at AMT expense by the IAM. Under LOA 74-1M, if you have not worked in another skill within the last 5 years UA can deny you bumping rights regardless of your seniority or ability to perform the duties of the position. The IAM wrote this letter to save job descriptions they felt were loyal to the IAM agenda. Thats why we have GQ and BM people with less than 5 years seniority employed at many locations where an AMT can't hold any position or needs more than 20 years to keep off midnights. The loudest voices against the removal of LOA 74-1M are junior mechanics and anti-AMFA propagandists reaching for a cause. As LOA 74-1M is currently written UA will be able to displace,layoff, a significant number of mechanics without relocating them or worry about the 1/1/1990 seniority protection date. The IAM gave them the means to deny your seniority despite your skills. Thats why UA wants LOA 74-1M to stay intact. The Airline Reps would be negligent to allow this LOA to remain, especially now, if UA does not receive the ATSB loan, the layoffs are coming. Seniority first. TM I disagree with your position on putting this to a vote for the above reasons.

This is another mechanics opinion.

 

[The Ronin]

Station or Point Shakedown

In 75-2 (shakedown process,) a mechanic may exercise his/her seniority to bump into another classification, i.e. AMT to AET, A&P to GQ, PV to MM, etc. The problem lies in the inconsistent way UA has allowed mechanics to test for different classifications. Local 9 set up the Blue Ribbon Committee in November of 2003 with input from around the system to address this very issue. The committee was comprised of mechanics from BOSMM, SFOGQ, and SFORQ. This committee was dissolved by the Airline Reps from across the system in January of 2004. 75-2 and testing issues is the root of the problem for many people, but its procedure will remain in place regardless of the status of LOA 74-01M.

The testing process consists of an oral, written, and practical exam. These are the same exams used when a mechanic wishes to change skills for example from A&P to GQ. (Reference file Skill Inventory Mechanic)

There are also misperceptions about pre-qualification procedures in order to be allowed to even test to change skills. The “5 yearâ€￾ language in LOA 74-01M allows the mechanic being displaced to bump skills without testing if they previously worked the skill in the last 5 years. Additionally If the mechanic being laid off desires to test and has certain prequalifications they will be allowed to test, and if successful they can bump skills at their station.

Once you are qualified in a skill, you remain qualified, unless re-current training is mandatory. In other words, if there is a job classification that a mechanic could be recalled to fill after a long term layoff to the street, that skill can obviously be “bumpedâ€￾ into by a currently employed mechanic, if that mechanic was ever previously qualified in that skill.
I didn't make this up, just cut and paste

 

[UAL_TECH]

This is another mechanics opinion.

So... should I go the mechanic website to address this ‘other’ mechanic or do you have your own opinion?

The consensus is now 11 out of 4000+ (9 ARL’s, You?, and this ‘other’ mechanic).
Ok, I give up, let’s throw away our constitution and start over to whatever suits the 11.
:down:

Dont worry there wont be any unlicensed people coming to the line.

I am not going to explain it to you grasshopper, do your homework.

On a more serious note:

At least the company is doing the right thing:
United Reorganizes Senior Management

Thinking of starting a new poll:
How many ‘elite’ management personnel will we add before we exit BK?
Should we divide it by addition of VP’s or just ‘Officers’?

JMHO.
UT

BTW, Ronin

 

[The Ronin]

You've got to be Sh*tting Me!!! Oh well, like Charleton Heston said "Damn them...Damn them to hell!!"


AAARRRRRRGGGHHHHH.....Mother@#@#@##s :angry: :angry: :angry:

 

[blueskies4ever]

The consensus is now 11 out of 4000+ (9 ARL’s, You?, and this ‘other’ mechanic).
Ok, I give up, let’s throw away our constitution and start over to whatever suits the 11.


The consensus at work seems unless you fit into one of the groups not recognized
by contract B+M GQ,PV R+E etc the are pretty damn happy to see it go but you
and Ronin .Also like I said if you dont have an A+P license you will never see
the line.I guess you couldnt come up with any reason why my statement is wrong
about that issue so youre giving me the grasshopper crap.Smart move.Unlicensed people wont be bumping anyone from the line stations when you dont have the seniority to hold your unlicensed job you will hit the bricks.

 

[The Ronin]

Lead Mechanics and Mechanics assigned to Line Service Stations
and Maintenance Operations Centers Airframe Maintenance Ramp
crews must possess valid F.A.A. Airframe and Powerplant (A&P)
Licenses and a restricted Radio Telephone Operator's Permit, or if
assigned to a Radio Shop or group, a valid F.C.C. General Radio
Telephone Operator's License.

Seniority plus the ability to satisfactorily perform the work required for the job in
question shall govern all employees covered by this Agreement in preference of
shifts, in case of lay off, re-employment after lay off, and in all promotions,
demotions, or transfers within or between classifications covered by this
Agreement. Preference of fixed days off schedules within a shift in work groups,
which have more than one work schedule, and, for employees entering a work
group, preference of rotating days off schedule vacancies within a shift shall be
similarly governed.

Your honor, I submit to you…â€￾the contractâ€￾.
Ah yes my friend, isn’t their just tons of garbled but legal gook everywhere. Lets see if they actually put it in front of the judge. I love that Article X print, just as plain as the nose on your face. MMMMMM…..now how did that happen

 

[The Ronin]

Now the reality....job cuts and pay and benefit givebacks. I'll lose my real techs, while gaining a bunch of slugs who don't even know how to change a light bulb. Great company vision, great union product.....puke.....

 

[blueskies4ever]

It is sad that Local 9 having had their arguements refuted within the internal structure of our union has chosen to debate union politics in the open forum and I would advise everyone that this weakens our union! However, that is spilt milk and at this point the issues raised need to be addressed!

The LOA 74-1M, contrary to the rhetoric and spin put on by the LEC of Local 9, made it easier to lay-off mechanics... ANY and ALL mechanics because this LOA let the company surgically pick off individual groups of mechanics and make cuts while completely ignoring seniority (This even clearly violates the Federally mandated "Consent Decree"). This issue has little to do with testing! The testing process has serious problems but that is an entirely separate issue.

Forcing the company to adhere to strict seniority (Article X J ) does make it harder to layoff personnel regardless of what department you happen to work in currently. The LOA is what gave credence to a company policy from Series 75-2 and when the LOA is gone, the company policy is no longer provided the status of contract requirement! With no 74-1M there is no "station shake down process" other than the specific language detailed in Article X.

The "station" process in 74-1M on the other hand is an actual company policy document that is in no way limited or restricted from change, at any time. This company policy changed mid-furlough last round and union’s hands were tied because of 74-1M allowed it. We grieve company Policy letters all the time. Layoff come first then realignments... however, under 74-1M the company was allowed to do both simultaneously and violate seniority in the process.

This company has sliced off our members in every department to the bone and leaving 74-1M in place would have allowed them to come back and very neatly pick individual members off and target them for layoff. Removal of the letter makes any layoff a much more troubling process of having to removing the JUNIOR people regardless of which department, per Article X J and this is NOT what the company wants to do. Stand together we stand protected... segregate and we are all easy pickings... STANDING together is what being a union is all about!

There are many conflicting things to consider when making any decision! I personally stand-by my decision with regard to this issue or any issue. In fact, I was one of the ALRs that pushed to mandate we keep a voting record and make it available to our members. The ONLY thing lost in this LOA was seniority preferencing on station bumps and at the cost of making any layoff easier is much too high of a price for those people forced to the street.

The exit clause of the LOA was put in place with a thirty-day notice for a reason and that reason was to prevent UAL from initiating layoffs under the LOA before it was considered void. We analyzed this issue collectively and individually in detail for some time prior to acting. The manner in which we pursued this issue was in line with how we were elected to act: in a proactive and aggressive manner to defend member rights when the very real possibility of more layoff loomed bright in the future. Anyone who tells you that 74-1M is your friend, no matter what function you perform, is a fool or a liar or worse!

I only know what happened in Local 4: My LEC was informed; the Local Grievance Committee was informed after if happened, I briefed it at the business meeting, and when the L9 pot stirring of misinformation raised serious concerns in some departments I immediately went into these areas and addressed their concerns. There was no secrecy minus informing the company of our intent and providing more than the 30-day notice mandated by our CBA. I also want to make it perfectly clear it was a very tough choice not to put it to a member re-vote, and had we had a process in place like electronic voting on a system wide basis (something we have been pushing for), every member of the ALR Committee would have preferred to go that route. The problem is we do not have that tool in our hands and time is against us on this issue. The error to which I will take full responsibility is in the lack of communication, I did communicate, but if it was not fully realized by the members then I did fail in that regard! This will not happen again.

I would also like to address a wild claim put recklessly forth by the Local 9 LEC that AMFA Legal was not involved in the decision. I assume this is an attempt to make our actions look reckless, however, THEY are wrong again and legal was consulted at every turn and the issues was in fact raised in a less formal way several months earlier. The advice from AMFA Legal, who may know slightly more than the source of information the Local 9 LEC used, was that the letter was a detriment to the membership and this concurred with the unanimous decision of the Airline Reps.

Another issue raised in the Local 9 diatribe to cast mud on our group is that the ALR’s disbanded the Blue-Ribbon testing committee. In 1983 LOA 84-9M was drafted stating the company had problems with testing and 20 some years later little has been accomplished to remedy the situation. The Local 9 LEC, specifically the President, took it upon himself (beyond the scope of his authority) to appoint the Blue-Ribbon Testing Committee in November 2003. Over three months later with nothing, not a single thing having been accomplished they were disbanded by the ALR group.

If the goal of the Local 9 web site diatribe was to be dupes of the company then they have accomplished this agenda in spades. One can only hope that the majority of the Local 9 LEC was acting on poor information. On reading the web site about 74-1M the ignorance of the contract is blatantly obvious and sinks to a level the IAM never even entered. Whoever wrote this has no clue what they are talking about and further more uses company policy letters (not a joint document and something we grieve constantly) to support their weak case.


NOTE to UAL: The use of Company Policy Letters on the Local 9 web site in NO way ENDORSES or VALIDATES these Letters. The Local 9 LEC has NO authority with regard to Contractual interpretation or enforcement!



It is very ironic that the loudest voices criticizing the removal of 74-1M originated in SFO. These are the same people promising UAL management that they will get 74-1M reinstated! The irony is that the great document they tout does NOT even apply to Local 9. Remember, the Local 9 LEC is the same stalwart Democracy advocates that plotted planned, and pushed all the way to protesting to the NEC to have our work sent to Air Canada by utilizing Article IIG (F in the latest contract). Article IIF was clearly designed to prevent outsource of our work beyond the borders of the US and the intent of this Article is clearly echoed in LOA 94-12M. The entire ALR body fought this with the exception of Local 9 reps acting under the direction of their LEC. Then again, the Air Canada deal only helped Local 9. How about when mechanics from across the system where upset over violations of the contract with regard to bidding of OSV inspection positions, well no big web site or even a squeak from Local 9 because they already had all the access to those positions. The same goes for strict adherence to Article X J... it only benefits Local 9 now.

Dave Quinn
Airline Representative
The AMFA Local 4

 

[UAL_TECH]

Blueskies4ever,

We, as a union, must abide by our constitution. The actions of the ALR’s are in violation of the AMFA constitution in both implementation and methodology. For your edification I have outlined some important excerpts of the constitution that applies to this situation:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AMFA Constitution

Article I - SECTION 9
No amendment to this Constitution or to any Local Bylaws shall be proposed or adopted that would affect any members in good standing by:
-Taking away their right to approve and ratify all contracts and letters of agreement

Article X – SECTION 3 (D) (Airline Representative)
He will be a coordinator for the Area Representatives and Shop Representatives to the Local Executive Council and provide the Area Representatives and Shop Representatives with accurate, up-to-date information on all contract interpretation and grievance matters.

Article X - SECTION 4 (C )
Area Representatives will be utilized for the purpose of handling grievances from their respective areas and, in coordination with the Airline Representative of their Local, shall be utilized for contractual interpretations.

Article X - SECTION 4 (E)
The Airline Representative will communicate as necessary to keep the Area Representatives updated regarding grievances, negotiations, and contractual interpretations. Prior to ratification of an amended collective bargaining agreement, the Airline Representative will call a meeting to familiarize the Area Representatives and the Shop Representatives with the amended agreement so that these representatives may assist in addressing questions from the membership.

Article XV - SECTION 6 (B )
Any proposed changes and/or Letters of Agreement will be presented to the affected membership to evaluate and ratify by a majority vote in a secret ballot.

Article III - SECTION 10 - Refer to the organization chart on page 15 (17 of the pdf)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If you take the time to read the AMFA constitution (as our ALR’s should have), it outlines the duties and responsibilities of the AMFA organization.

I commend Dave for discussing this action with his LEC, but neither he and or the LEC of Local 4 should be allowed to circumvent/disregard the AMFA constitution. I am sure if the ALR’s had followed the guidelines as is outlined by the AMFA constitution that this situation would not have arisen.

I do take offense with a few of Dave’s comments regard the actions of the LEC of Local 9, for the ALR’s and ACA of Local 9 did not discuss this issue within the framework of the AMFA constitution and acted in secrecy of not only the Local but of the membership at large. Furthermore, Dave’s comment’s regarding the actions of Local 9 for taking union politics in the open forum is a ‘bad thing’, then I would surmise that when Dave submitted this document that his ‘opinion’ is of it is a ‘bad thing’ when it exposes and outlines the fallacies of the situation that he and his fellow ALR’s has created. Is he so naive that he would produce this document and it not be publicly posted? (I think not) I assure you that his long winded self justification for the actions of the ALR’s fall on deaf ears and his addition of attacks on Local 9 for being disconcerted with the fact that the ALR’s have exceeded their authority as is stipulated in the AMFA constitution only shows the arrogance of the ALR’s.

So, grasshopper, after you postings of hate and discontent regarding your AMFA brothers, what have you learned?


B) UT

 

[UAL_TECH]

So, grasshopper, after you postings of hate and discontent regarding your AMFA brothers, what have you learned?

My apologies, it should have said:
So, grasshopper, after you postings of hate and discontent regarding your AMFA Brothers and Sisters, what have you learned?

B) UT

 

[UAL_TECH]

Dave,

Is there an updated version of this letter?

 

[UAL_TECH]

Blueskies4ever/GOOOOOOOOOO AMFA,

I see the letter you posted is different than the letter posted by Dave on the amf4.org website.

Dave Quinn - LOA74-1M

Did you add something or did Dave retract something?
It is also interesting to observe that not only did the ALR’s violate the AMFA Constitution, they also violated their own code of conduct:
(Is this a legal document?)

UAL-ALR Code of Conduct.pdf

Thank you gentlemen, you have made it that much harder for us to defend your actions and promote ourselves as a ‘Democratic Class and Craft Union’.

UT

 

[blueskies4ever]

Blueskies4ever/GOOOOOOOOOO AMFA,

I see the letter you posted is different than the letter posted by Dave on the amf4.org website.

Dave Quinn - LOA74-1M

Did you add something or did Dave retract something?
It is also interesting to observe that not only did the ALR’s violate the AMFA Constitution, they also violated their own code of conduct:
(Is this a legal document?)

UAL-ALR Code of Conduct.pdf

Thank you gentlemen, you have made it that much harder for us to defend your actions and promote ourselves as a ‘Democratic Class and Craft Union’.

Give up already the letter is gone.

 

[UAL_TECH]

Give up already the letter is gone.

You really don’t get it do you?


It isn’t about the letter.

Pull your head out of... 'the sand' and look into the ‘not too distant’ future.
If we do not have faith in our Union now, how do you think this will impact
the already fragile solidarity that we do not have but will need ‘soon’?

Do you believe that these actions promote trust, respect and solidarity
for our Union and it’s representatives?

Give up?

When pigs fly!!!


:angry: UT

 

[blueskies4ever]

Mr. Tom Mannion July 1, 2004
Airline Contract Administration Coordinator
AMFA Local 9
1250 Bayhill Dr. Suite 201
San Bruno Ca. 94066
Dear Tom,
The purpose of this letter is to confirm that, pursuant to your correspondence of
June 1, 2004, AMFA has cancelled Letter of Agreement 74-1 of the Mechanics’
Agreement, as is permitted by Paragraph 9 of that Letter, effective July 1, 2004.
Article X, Paragraph J will govern any future lay off and, as stated in Article X,
Paragraph B, “Seniority plus the ability to satisfactorily perform the work required
for the job in question…â€￾ will continue to apply.
Sincerely,
Alan R. Koehler
Director Labor Relations- UAL Services
Cc: Pete Kain- WHQLR
Alan Butterfield-SFOLM
Bill Norman-SFOMB
Irene Gaughan- WHQLR
Micaela Gibson - WHQPE

Good riddance.