Why we need good written Languge

[Bob Owens]

https://youtu.be/kaiu0Hjx1x4
 
Listen to what this senior member of management tells us about Prefunding when they were trying to sell the contract. at 2.42.
 
The company has refused to give us the company half as Ream clearly stated. Instead they said "arbitrate it". In fact this new management team does whatever it wants, blatantly violating our contract and says "Arbitrate it". Not only have they held the Prefunding funds , but they have reneged on the Gain Sharing plan and taken back the Profit Sharing (although Jim Little agreed to give up profit sharing) . More recently we see where the company refused to pay guys when the authorities closed not only the Airport but the roads going to the Airport, The company in a recorded message told the people to stay home, and the people were told they would be paid just as they were before, even when the company was in Bankruptcy. Why did the company pay us TE in Bankruptcy, because they agreed that the language of our contract compelled them to do so. Now that they are making Seven Billion a year in Profits they changed their minds, what is wrong with these people? 
 
This is a management team that acts like immature children in that they lie and do whatever they feel they can get away with. Violating long standing contractual agreements and practices because the know that the RLA prohibits an immediate response from the Union. Sometimes I wonder if they are just playing with fire and trying to see how much they can abuse their employees before things ignite, then when they do come back and say "Aw c'mon fellas, we were just kidding". Whatever the reason, its immature, antagonistic, unprofessional and unwarranted. The RLA as written (if not enforced) expects better behavior on the part of the employer as well. Its no wonder that Delta fired many of these people. 

 

[700UW]

Actually Bob,

The RLA does permit a response if you take the company to court and get the the issue declared a major dispute and you can seek self-help.

You do know the major vs minor dispute language of the RLA?

When US filed a grievance against the IAM and sent an Airbus to ST MAE at BFM for its S-check, we took them to court, got a TRO and was found to be a major dispute.
 
 

“Major”and “Minor”Disputes
Major Disputes–matters affecting rates of pay, rules and working conditions; and, making or modification of the collective bargaining agreement between the parties.

• Almost total reliance upon collective bargaining for dispute settlement.
• Self-help permitted after negotiation and mediation procedures are exhausted.

Minor Disputes–grievances growing out of the interpretation or application of collective bargaining agreements.

• National Railroad Adjustment Board (NRAB) or alternative boards of adjustment have exclusive jurisdiction over grievance disputes.
• Self-help not allowed.

 

 

[Herenthesouth]

If there's never a repercussion for the companies actions. Why would they stop! They do what and when they want. They know that all that happens is the Union will grieve it and the company in turn just ties it up in the grievance process. Until something changes the company has free wheeling.

 

[WeAAsles]

In May the majority of TWU represented groups will hit 4 years since those Bankruptcy agreements were signed. So to me that will be 4 years that we haven't yet seen this "Mutually agreed on" Revenue Gain Sharing program that was supposed to be developed. The assumption was when the agreement was written the Company (Mr Reem) would sit down with the TWU and put together an acceptable formula? Obviously after so much time now the "Intent" of the Company was to never follow through on the extremely ambiguous language.

Returning our Prefunding Match to us who are not currently receiving retiree benefits as we know was a lark. Our negotiators who accepted the language to trigger that agreement were flimflammed (bamboozled) Tricked into believing the company was going to go forward with the 1114 section of the BK code. "It had never been done before" is the garbage those still lingering out there are trying to sell since obviously they were too stupid to research if the company was required to go into that process. The company gave that language on purpose to try to squirm their way out of having to give it back to us. 

Language has to be clear and finished with no wiggle room or questions needed to be asked to try and understand it's intent.

I'd love to know how many thousands of dollars have been lost to us so far because we didn't have finished language for that revenue gain sharing scam? Will we eventually get a 4 year retro check? LMFAO. 

The company executives wonder why we hate them and why labor just won't trust them? Give me a break.

 

[eolesen]

Bob, I've been telling you for years that all bets on getting the company share of prefunding were off the moment you allowed your contract to be abrogated vs. coming to a consensual agreement.

http://www.airlineforums.com/topic/52382-twu-chapter-11-aa-1113-filing/?view=findpost&p=858877

I'm sure by now the company will have lots of evidence on how those company contributions went to pay off the pre-2012 retiree medical expenses.

Had you pushed for a negotiated settlement in 2011, you probably wouldn't be talking about this almost five years later.


Weasles, you're right to be angry about the lack of trust, but it comes down to one thing:

Your union has been repeatedly outclassed at the negotiating table because you insist on having lay-people like Bob at the table instead of professional negotiators.

I'd suggest that you stop getting angry at management for being better at negotiating. It's not their fault your negotiators are ill-equipped for the job. It's yours.

Ten years ago, you needed some MBA's and lawyers on your side of the table. By the time you get into bankruptcy court, it's too late.

 

[700UW]

AA didnt have the TWU CBAs abrogated in bankruptcy.

 

[eolesen]

You miss the point (no shock there):

The lack of adequate and informed counsel on the TWU's side of the table while negotiating for the five years prior to the filing is why the TWU is in the situation they're in. It's not management's fault the union negotiating team was outclassed and incompetent.

All of the leverage in the "let's avoid S1113" post-filing consensual agreement was on the side of the company.

 

[700UW]

Nice ad hominem attack.

Gee what did you use to say?

Guess you didn't read Condor's pinned post.

 

[WeAAsles]

Weasles, you're right to be angry about the lack of trust, but it comes down to one thing:

Your union has been repeatedly outclassed at the negotiating table because you insist on having lay-people like Bob at the table instead of professional negotiators.

I'd suggest that you stop getting angry at management for being better at negotiating. It's not their fault your negotiators are ill-equipped for the job. It's yours.

Ten years ago, you needed some MBA's and lawyers on your side of the table. By the time you get into bankruptcy court, it's too late.

E those lay people you're talking about know our contract better than any lawyers out there because they live and breath it. But yes they do need to have professionals look over the language that's agreed to before accepting it from the company. One little word can change the whole dynamic of what they thought was the "intent"

Were those guys rushed in the Bankruptcy into accepting dumb language? That's a question their ego's will never answer.

We almost got punked even more if we had gotten the chance to vote and accept the TA we got just before the company filed. A bunch of morons who never again did the research were saying that the Judge would look more favorably on us if we had agreed to the TA. NO!!!! We would have lost immediate value that wouldn't have mattered at all to the court law. I say morons because obviously they had retained a BK Lawyer (Levine) but never asked her what would happen if the company went BK after we had accepted? Sometimes it is hard to argue if those leaders in office at the time really did have our best interests in mind and not the company's?

They should have been extremely suspicious when the company threw that proposal on the table and said "Here that's the last thing we're going to offer you" Obviously they weren't suspicious.

 

[WeAAsles]

Nice ad hominem attack.

Gee what did you use to say?

Guess you didn't read Condor's pinned post.

I have to agree with E on his last comment. Not the (No shock there) but the rest.

 

[Overspeed]

E,
The TWU did have economists, lawyers, and other professionals to advise the TWU presidents. They rejected their advice, made YouTube videos of how voting no and asking for release was the best way to get a deal. The membership took their advice and voted no on the 2010 TA that would have provided language that kept prefunding in place. The 2010 TA only changed the funding method. The MCTs and SimTechs took the advice of the professionals and got their prefunding money, raises back in 2010 that they kept and added to in 1113, and other work rule improvements.
 
So the issue is not whether or not the TWU hired advisors, if the local presidents don't like it they have the right to go out to the membership and lobby for them to vote it down. That is what happened and now instead of making $38 an hour back in 2010 they waited until after a merger to get that in 2015. Just on pay alone the voting down of the 2010 TA cost members ~$10K annually.
 
That is in the past now. The question is going forward how will the Association listen to the professionals hired to advise them? The situation has changed from 2010 to now. AAL is making big money so now is the time to push back and get something more than an incremental recovery of 2003 concessions.

 

[DallasConehead]

Its everyone else s fault except Bobs.

 

[WeAAsles]

E,
The TWU did have economists, lawyers, and other professionals to advise the TWU presidents. They rejected their advice, made YouTube videos of how voting no and asking for release was the best way to get a deal. The membership took their advice and voted no on the 2010 TA that would have provided language that kept prefunding in place. The 2010 TA only changed the funding method. The MCTs and SimTechs took the advice of the professionals and got their prefunding money, raises back in 2010 that they kept and added to in 1113, and other work rule improvements.
 
So the issue is not whether or not the TWU hired advisors, if the local presidents don't like it they have the right to go out to the membership and lobby for them to vote it down. That is what happened and now instead of making $38 an hour back in 2010 they waited until after a merger to get that in 2015. Just on pay alone the voting down of the 2010 TA cost members ~$10K annually.
 
That is in the past now. The question is going forward how will the Association listen to the professionals hired to advise them? The situation has changed from 2010 to now. AAL is making big money so now is the time to push back and get something more than an incremental recovery of 2003 concessions.

Let's make this simple. The TWU and IAM again have Lawyers and Economists advising them. My suggestion is to shut up and listen to them this time, especially for those who didn't the last time.

They ARE smarter than we are.
 

 

[eolesen]

Let's make this simple. The TWU and IAM again have Lawyers and Economists advising them. My suggestion is to shut up and listen to them this time, especially for those who didn't the last time.

They ARE smarter than we are.

Truth.

You guys are experts at diagnosing and maintaining complex systems.

They're experts at navigating complex contracts & financials.

We can't all be experts at everything, and knowing when to trust someone else in their area can mean the difference between success and failure.

 

[WeAAsles]

Truth.You guys are experts at diagnosing and maintaining complex systems.They're experts at navigating complex contracts & financials.We can't all be experts at everything, and knowing when to trust someone else in their area can mean the difference between success and failure.

Agree again 100%. Our biggest enemy has always been our own egos most of the time.

Hopefully those egos are a little less inflated this go around?