WN Mechanics seek mediation

[swamt]

Breaking news; The company settled the pilots lawsuit for 19 million. Sometimes you gotta just file the suit. This is the type of company we are dealing with now days, sad.

As we just past the final hour of voting, we will soon hear the results. Although I don't think they will release the final numbers.

 

[swamt]

More breaking news; Vote tally is official now. Click below to see the results.
Great turn out, over 96% very impressed...

Read the referendum results here.

 

[Birdman]

My take,
*We LUV you but don't get in a hurry, it's out of our hands
*It's a tough business, Herb was wrong as customers (and stockholders) come first, record profits might not be enough to raise our industry leading offer
*ETOPS, no problem

 

[B737 driver]

My take,
*We LUV you but don't get in a hurry, it's out of our hands
*It's a tough business, Herb was wrong as customers (and stockholders) come first, record profits might not be enough to raise our industry leading offer
*ETOPS, no problem

Just doing what they said they would do.

 

[swamt]

Here's more. I know most have seen the release of the vote, but, here's more about what will take place now moving forward. Wait for the survey guys. BTW: did anyone read the McCrady memo? I am still laughing from that one. He has no clue at all...

LATEST NEWS
AMFA-SWA AMT Rejected Tentative Agreement Survey Notice
September 18, 2018 -- The AMFA-SWA Negotiating Committee has called for a survey of the membership regarding the recent rejection of the AMFA-SWA AMT Tentative Agreement. Your feedback will help guide your Negotiating Committee to pursue an agreement worthy of the membership's approval.
Read More

Press Release: AMFA AMTs Overwhelmingly Reject Tentative Agreement With Southwest Airlines
September 18, 2018 -- Today, Southwest Airlines (SWA) Aircraft Maintenance Technicians (AMTs) rejected a tentative agreement put forward for a referendum vote. According to the union’s National Executive Council, the group rejected the contract because the economic package overall falls short. In the next week, AMFA will survey the AMT group to confirm the reason for rejection.
Read More

AMFA - SWA Tentative Agreement Ratification Referendum Results
September 18, 2018 -- The votes for the AMFA – Southwest Airlines (SWA) Aircraft Maintenance Technician (AMT) Tentative Agreement (TA) Ratification Referendum were tallied on September 18, 2018. Votes for this referendum were counted and certified by TrueBallot, Inc. and the results are as follows...
Read More

 

[blue collar]

Swamt- I saw you mention the ‘23 raise in an AA a thread, wanted to reply here since it’s about us. My take on it is the raise for ‘23 isn’t there because it becomes amendable in ‘23. The ‘23 raise would be negotiated on the next cba. If they were to give a raise in ‘23, it would be used against us like the ‘12 raise was. For me, that didn’t factor in at all for why I voted no. It would be good for the union to try to incorporate language stating we would get 3%/year past amendable in the case that there is no TA to vote on. That would protect us from what we’re currently going through.

 

[737MAX7]

https://www.bizjournals.com/chicago...t-airlines-mechanics-battle-for-contract.html
I hate to say I told you so.............

 

[B737 driver]

Swamt- I saw you mention the ‘23 raise in an AA a thread, wanted to reply here since it’s about us. My take on it is the raise for ‘23 isn’t there because it becomes amendable in ‘23. The ‘23 raise would be negotiated on the next cba. If they were to give a raise in ‘23, it would be used against us like the ‘12 raise was. For me, that didn’t factor in at all for why I voted no. It would be good for the union to try to incorporate language stating we would get 3%/year past amendable in the case that there is no TA to vote on. That would protect us from what we’re currently going through.

Wishful thinking SWA will never agree to that, because all the other groups would want that.

 

[swamt]

Swamt- I saw you mention the ‘23 raise in an AA a thread, wanted to reply here since it’s about us. My take on it is the raise for ‘23 isn’t there because it becomes amendable in ‘23. The ‘23 raise would be negotiated on the next cba. If they were to give a raise in ‘23, it would be used against us like the ‘12 raise was. For me, that didn’t factor in at all for why I voted no. It would be good for the union to try to incorporate language stating we would get 3%/year past amendable in the case that there is no TA to vote on. That would protect us from what we’re currently going through.

I agree with what you say. The 23 raise I brought up was in fact from the 12 raise we did get on last contract. That 12 raise was not supposed to be 1%. It was in fact supposed to be the 3% as you said, and continue until new agreement reached. However, that 3% in 12 was reduced to 1% (why I do not know) and agreed to bring that contract out for a vote and it passed. I simply mentioned the 23 raise missing because we had it in our last contract on amendable date. The reason behind the raise on amendable date was for not to starve the members waiting for the next contract offer from the company. You are correct Blue, I would have rather seen 3% continue on each year out as nego's were continuing, but for some reason that was reduced to 1% in 12 and I have no clue how or why.
Now on a side note; when the company says they are offering 3% for each outgoing years, they were in fact missing 2018 as we all know and was proven to the company by our economist, but it was also missing year 2023 as they presented it as each outgoing year, year 2023 is the final year of the outgoing years.
As you stated, and as we did receive only the 1% in 12, we should be offered another 2% for the year 12, where is that in the co's offer? It's not there, so there's another 2% we are missing from the snap up % offer. They can make us whole now or they can follow up with the making us whole in the next offer for the last year, but either way they are missing the final years of 12 and 23 in their offer. Therefor we are missing about 5-8% depending on when we receive it, now or later. minimum 5% max 8%. Most folks are fine with not receiving a raise on that final year of the contract, I am not. It's only a way to starve the membership in long nego's to jump on the first offer from the company as they are really wanting a year already in the waiting plus any more years added for long nego's as we are now. I hope this answers your question. But some never get it...

 

[swamt]

https://www.bizjournals.com/chicago...t-airlines-mechanics-battle-for-contract.html
I hate to say I told you so.............

What part are you saying I told you so about?

 

[Birdman]

Wishful thinking SWA will never agree to that, because all the other groups would want that.

I agree, it would be dicey to give a $1.50 raise to a group without knowing the future status of the industry, prime example being 9/11/2001.

That 12 raise was not supposed to be 1%. It was in fact supposed to be the 3% as you said, and continue until new agreement reached. However, that 3% in 12 was reduced to 1% (why I do not know) and agreed to bring that contract out for a vote and it passed.
Now on a side note; when the company says they are offering 3% for each outgoing years, they were in fact missing 2018 as we all know and was proven to the company by our economist, but it was also missing year 2023 as they presented it as each outgoing year, year 2023 is the final year of the outgoing years.
As you stated, and as we did receive only the 1% in 12, we should be offered another 2% for the year 12, where is that in the co's offer? It's not there, so there's another 2% we are missing from the snap up % offer. They can make us whole now or they can follow up with the making us whole in the next offer for the last year, but either way they are missing the final years of 12 and 23 in their offer. Therefor we are missing about 5-8% depending on when we receive it, now or later. minimum 5% max 8%. Most folks are fine with not receiving a raise on that final year of the contract, I am not. It's only a way to starve the membership in long nego's to jump on the first offer from the company as they are really wanting a year already in the waiting plus any more years added for long nego's as we are now.

The 1% raise in 2012 is in black and white so I'm not sure why there would be any question about its legitimacy. I wasn't at WN in 2012 so I can't contribute to the confusion but it seems to be a gesture of good will to even offer 1% at the end of a contract. Now, considering the profit explosion since that time it's not unreasonable to expect a 2% makeup contribution of .76 cents compounded. That's my problem with the company offer, no compounding like the pilots. I'm not all about matching pilots tit for tat since I'm not forced into retirement at age 65 but compounding is another matter.

 

[sendmeupacrowsfoot]

Let me take a guess at swamt's question:


"While the FAA may not have a specific rule that would deny a carrier ETOPS authorization due to contract issues with an airline work group, sources with knowledge of the FAA’s workings say the government agency would likely hold off on granting Southwest the necessary authorization until any contract matters are resolved".

“A disgruntled group isn’t the best recipe for safety,” noted one source.

 

[sendmeupacrowsfoot]

Think what you want. I believe the exact words were: No contract for over 5 years is a human factor in the feds eyes. Ask around. The info is there if you seek it.

The mechanics clearly aren't standing in the way of ETOPS certification. Is our protracted contract negotiations? Maybe, maybe not.

 

[swamt]

I agree, it would be dicey to give a $1.50 raise to a group without knowing the future status of the industry, prime example being 9/11/2001.
This is where some would disagree with me, but sometimes you have to agree to re-openers in order to get a benefit. As far as something happening again in the future beyond all of our controls, I do think there should be some sort of an agreement that both side would revisit nego's if an act of God has taken place. Pretty sure all of our work groups would do something to always help out the company. Remember the employee donations for fuel back in the day? Probably one of the biggest reasons they never asked for any give backs.

The 1% raise in 2012 is in black and white so I'm not sure why there would be any question about its legitimacy. I wasn't at WN in 2012 so I can't contribute to the confusion but it seems to be a gesture of good will to even offer 1% at the end of a contract. Now, considering the profit explosion since that time it's not unreasonable to expect a 2% makeup contribution of .76 cents compounded. That's my problem with the company offer, no compounding like the pilots. I'm not all about matching pilots tit for tat since I'm not forced into retirement at age 65 but compounding is another matter.

I also agree with you here about the compounding factor. This is also why we need to reasonably be asking for the 2% difference for the 12 year back pay, not the 3-5% that some are demanding. That 2% compounded thru the past years as well as our future years will make a difference.
I am not being greedy nor unreasonable. My beliefs are for an average wage offer like they have done in the past even though we are in record profit years, I still don't expect anything more than the average of the past. I believe our average's are around 2.7-2.8%. With the great record several years it would not kill the co. to offer us a rounded 3% for every past year and a 3% for each and every outgoing year. Not asking for the world here. This past Aug 16, 2018 was our 6th year. With the 2% in 12, 3% year up to 2018 would round up to 18% snap up now as we have passed yet another year mark.
Another thing that the final year 3% raise will do is stop (if a contract is nego within the first year) retro pay. Otherwise we will have to fight tooth and nail to always get our retro, which we all know the company hates and fights extremely hard to get out of as they are trying to do now. We shouldn't have to fight for what is do to us each and every single time we nego a new contract. The Pilots and F/A's don't, why should we???

 

[swamt]

Let me take a guess at swamt's question:


"While the FAA may not have a specific rule that would deny a carrier ETOPS authorization due to contract issues with an airline work group, sources with knowledge of the FAA’s workings say the government agency would likely hold off on granting Southwest the necessary authorization until any contract matters are resolved".

“A disgruntled group isn’t the best recipe for safety,” noted one source.

Pretty much dead on Crow. In other words, as other sources with knowledge have stated, it would just go so much easier and faster is all, I don't think anyone never would be able to stop it from happening.
Good guess.
Since you are level headed, I ask you; Are my explanations of what I would expect sounding greedy or over the top to you? I ask because sometimes the way I explain stuff, I sometimes offend and I am taken the wrong way. Since I am getting some questions I wanted to ask flat out. Be honest with me. I think I am being reasonable since the co is refusing to increase our 401K match and refusing to contribute to it like they do the Pilots (not saying we should get exactly what the pilots get) just an increased benefit would be nice. Not to mention the medical stuff they also refused to cap for us as well. These things will cost us in the future years and will also slightly erode away parts of those 3% raises we get now. Especially since we have to contribute to 401K in order to get our match in the 401K, so at least throw us decent raises so we can adjust our own contributions to increase our 401K's on our own since the co. doesn't want help us out with our retirements like they did the Pilots.