2006 Greg Bertolini Paper On Furloughs and Call Backs

Skymess

Veteran
Aug 6, 2004
1,123
6
NY
This is a paper from 2006 written by Greg Bertolini.

What I find pertinent in it is the mention that Jeff Bott was mentioned as having gone behind John Ward's back while he was the president to try to forge any agreement necessary to get the furloughs back on the property.

I have nothing against trying to extend call back rights but I strongly object to changing contract items for it. I was very disturbed to see that they were agreeing to VIRTUALLY ANYTHING in order to secure those rights. It is my opinion that if you start changing one thing you become party to changing everything and anything in order to suit a few people.

Here it is. I apologize to those of you who have already read it.


STATE OF AFFAIRS -

Greg Bertolini* - Sep 11, 2006 Categories: APFA, Recall Rights??????

This message is a difficult one for me to write and as such is why even though I returned from negotiations with AA in DFW on Thursday night September 7th I have yet to post this. This is going to be lengthy. If you are waiting for or expecting an announcement of an extension to the 5 year recall rights or if you really expect to be recalled to AA you may wish to stop reading this now because the information I will share with you is not hopeful. You have been forewarned.
__________________________________________________________
Before I get into that let me just say that those who organized and participated in the APFA picket are to be admired and commended. You represented us well and increased (if only for a moment in time) public awareness to this issue and for that I thank you. When Roger and I spoke about his plans in July I informed him that I was scheduled to be in STL that day and would not be able to attend. He understood, but at that point his plans were set and could not be changed and neither could I. To those of you who feel that my absence let you down I am sorry you feel that way. But this effort was not about your Base Chair of VC and did not require our presence to substantiate it. This was a grassroots PR campaign and was successful because it was a rank and file effort and not a viewed as a political statement to AA or APFA by your elected chairs. In other words it actually had more legitimacy and impact BECAUSE we were not there IMO. Recall right extension and some background on the topic: The issue of an extension to recall rights is one that Sherry and I have been working on as far back as 2004 in conjunction with Jeff Bott (former APFA VP) and his SBA group. We had to keep it ultra quiet (then) because John Ward was still in office and if he had any idea we were in discussions with the company he would have brought them to a halt. Our idea (then) was to present the IAM cases (all 8) to an arbitrator (Richard Bloch) for an "advisory opinion" to demonstrate to the company the validity of the cases and to speed up the process because APFA already had a full docket for the year and 8 more cases of that size is more than they would normally do in one year alone anyway. We (AA and APFA) did this exercise in February 2004 in DCA, far enough away from DFW to stay under the political radar. We presented 4 cases on each of two days and in the end the arbitrator's opinion was that the union may prevail in 5 cases and that the company may prevail in 3 cases. The remaining case (Class 9 passes) was and still is the subject of a lawsuit and for that reason he was unwilling to render an opinion one way or the other. This approach was a first for AA and APFA and was an attempt by us to expedite 8 cases in exchange for something of value (recall extension and passes). After the advisory opinions were issued we began discussing the recall extension and passes with AA based on the value of the cases we were prepared to surrender. Those discussions continued into 2005 with various departments and members of management from Finance, HR, ER, and Flight Service. Some of those involved in the talks from management (who we felt were more willing to consider crafting a deal) were promoted to other positions or transferred to other departments. So when new people came into those positions we had to sort of start all over with them. Some suspect that AA planned and orchestrated the musical chairs and others don't think so. In any case it was very slow going. In any event the company ultimately shut the door on the concept claiming that the cases were not worth what the extension and passes would cost. We disagreed but its takes two willing parties to make a deal. At that point we had no choice but to begin to set the cases for full scale arbitration. In hopes that winning them would bring AA back to the table for the "global settlement" we really wanted which was a recall extension and hopefully passes too. It has not turned out that way and has been a painfully slow process for a myriad of reasons. Since that time APFA has had various talks with AA and attempted to gain recall extensions. At various points of those attempts (i.e. 737 staffing settlement) it seemed as though we had a solution only to have AA legal nix the deal. On Thursday 9/7/2006 (at my request) the APFA and AA met again. The parties present were myself, the 4 APFA National Officers (you know their names) Clint Breen LAXI Chair, Becky Kroll, Kelli Gambello SBA asst., HR, ER, Flight Service, Finance (AA's comptroller). We met for 4-5 hours at APFA headquarters. The company had no ideas or proposals to offer us on how to resolve this joint problem. They were there to hear what we had to say.

First Proposal:

This concept was mine originally but was jointly tweaked by other APFA 'participants' before we proposed it to AA. It included a "pass out" option for any F/A (active or furloughed) that was at least 40 years of age. We were flexible on the number of "years of service qualifier" i.e. minimum of 10 or 15 years of service or no qualifier at all depending on the company's position. The passes would have been 10 RT D-2's per year. It would have included a two year extension to the recall rights and we would have tossed in the remaining IAM cases (our valuation on those is $ 3 -
3 ½ million). The company requested privacy to discuss it and the parties separated to caucus. Throughout the afternoon there were multiple times they requested privacy. We were cautiously optimistic. When we returned they advised us that they felt that the pass deal would have to be offered to every other department for the employees who were furloughed from them and doing that would negate any financial savings from the F/A workforce. Opening up passes to other work groups would dilute the savings. They went on to explain that in recalling a former TWA F/A at top pay the average cost per head is $52,000.00 each. Hiring a new F/A on July 3rd 2008 would cost about (currently) $23,000.00 per head a saving of $29,000.00 on each head. Plus the unsaid issue of our ages and the medical expenses an older demographic workforce can represent. NO deal.

Amended proposal:

All of the above (Pass out with 10 RT D-2's, 2 year extension) but in this iteration any recalled F/A would re-enter at 5th year salary
(currently $27.15 per hour) instead of the top pay we should get. This would sync up our pay seniority with the staple date essentially. It would also be a substantial savings for AA if at least 500 active F/A's "passed out" in the current 10-15 year pay categories. The very same age and seniority group that is currently the most dissatisfied working at AA. Their higher salaries coupled with our lowered salaries upon return should have been more than enough to offset recalling us. Conservatively figured, allowing 500 active F/As to "pass out" would save about $19 million per year. Recalling 500 furloughees at 5th year pay would cost about $12.5 million and thus saving $6.5 million just on a working number of
500. Plus when you add the $3 million they would not have to pay for the IAM cases you are now looking at $9.5 million. There are certainly some furloughees who would "pass out" instead of coming back and some other furloughees who can fully retire may have chosen to do so rather than accept the lower wages per hour thereby increasing the savings beyond my example. There is no doubt there are unknowns but it would have worked. The real upside potential of this idea though is that depending on how many active F/As choose to "pass out" the company may be able to offer recall to everyone and potentially need to hire new even less costly (per hour) F/As which would maximize the savings. The parties separated again to caucus. When we rejoined the company they explained that while they appreciated the creative approach in our attempt to mitigate what they have described as an "economic problem" they felt that bringing back seasoned veterans who expect to be compensated at the pay rates we were given was not going to work and would create "angry employees". And that "culturally" that was unacceptable. They did not think that many active F/As would elect to "pass out" but even if they did bringing back all of the furloughees would expose AA to 600-650 F/A's who now would again qualify for Article
30. This contractual provision includes $25,000.00 in cash, a $20,000.00 life time medical policy and a $5,000.00 life insurance policy. If all 650 took article 30 the financial liability is potentially $
16.2 million. The only way to prevent a recalled F/A from electing article 30 is to remove it from the contract and that would entail a membership ratification, something that we felt would not pass however it was fully discussed by the APFA privately. Bottom line - NO deal.

Second Proposal:

With the knowledge that AA was uninterested in just the savings from the IAM cases, and uninterested in those savings plus lower wages for recalled F/As in a "pass out" deal we new we had to go lower economically speaking. As sickening as it is for me to tell you this we proposed that any F/A recalled within the 2 year extension would return at the lowest pay rate currently $19.65 per hour. They would also be ineligible for Article 30 or any other look back to their former company seniority based on the fact that they would have returned beyond the current CBA's prescribed 5 year period. Despite the clear "economic advantage" of this disgusting proposal the company repeated their previous concerns at returning once higher paid F/As to the lowest rate of pay and what "angry employees" they would be. "Why would they do that" they asked. We barked that we have met your "economic" threshold and how much more could they expect. Shortly thereafter they dropped the bomb. We pointed out that many may choose not to return under these conditions but for some people that would be better than never being recalled and that those who can fully retire would probably choose to do so under these extremely onerous circumstances. There response was again NO deal - unless (bomb) the APFA is willing to go into full scale early contract negotiations now. In that event the company "may consider" an extension to the recall rights as part of an overall new (concessionary) contract. After a lot of shouting and accusations in both directions the APFA unwaveringly reiterated that they have no intention of doing that. And that if AA went so far as to exercise its right to the early opener option (part of the 2003 RPA) that APFA was prepared to go to court to block it.

Final Proposal:

After the reality of the situation sunk in and knowing that no amount of salary savings was acceptable to AA we proposed that AA hire former F/As from the recall list (in current seniority order) on a preferential basis when they begin to hire again. And that at the very least they should agree to do this for all the moral and ethical reasons that we described as you can imagine. After much discussion that I am personally ashamed to say bordered on begging the answer was - NO deal. The ultimate bottom line here is they DO NOT want to (and barring a miracle) will not be recalling any of us no matter how little we are willing to work for. We could work for free and they still would not recall us.
________________________________________________________________
Reality: The early opener "carrot" is an empty bag for us. First of all APFA will not do it. They have not yet elected a negotiating team, something that is constitutionally mandated. Secondly, EVEN IF APFA would agree to early negotiations and throw a team together there are no guarantees that the coming train wreck of concessions they will be forced to accept could mean we may never be recalled anyway despite the hollow reference by the company to an extension possibility, or worse could result in additional furloughs
(i.e. combining INTL & DOM). The fact that NW and DL have yet to establish the "new low" for F/A rates of pay is an ominous sign for APFA. AA will want to be at or below those carrier's rates what ever they may be. Achieving what UAL has now will not be good enough for AA the next time around. They are already in early negotiations with APA (pilots) and the Dispatchers on the property. Everyone at AA will accept less its just a matter of when. The company has every intention of honoring the current contract and the 5 year recall rights it contains. If they need to recall anyone they will do so and at the rates of pay you expect to receive. However they very clearly stated their growth models and projections indicate that they do not anticipate the need to recall ANY F/As until after 2008. There can always be hope but not dealing with reality is not hope it is denial. It would be unfair of me to not give you the reality of the situation despite how ugly that reality is. You need to be aware of how hard and how long lots of people have worked to solve this difficult problem and what kind of obstacles I and they have been up against. It is extremely frustrating for me to not be able to convince AA that we are worth it. In many ways our fate was cast 5 years ago (9/11/2001) and despite that sad fact along the way we just have not been able to catch a break (i.e. hurricanes, oil prices). The acquisition of TWA by AA has turned out (I believe) to be a case of us being in the wrong place at the wrong time not only in the aviation industry but in history itself. There is no way to unravel that now. I have discussed with Tommie Huto-Blake and Brett Durkin the nature of the brief meeting between the picketing spokespersons an AA management. And while they had no written or formal proposal they did have some ideas. Those ideas are to come out publicly against AA's route application from Dallas to Beijing and or to attempt to have legislation drafted to extend or to guarantee recall rights that are traditionally gained or altered in collective bargaining process with the individual employer. While on the surface they seem like "doable" items if you drill down into the logistics of accomplishing either of these ideas they are next to impossible to achieve and certainly not by 10/01/2006 if ever. It would be incorrect and unfair of them to suggest to you that there is a "new day at APFA and AA" or that there is some "new spirit of cooperation" that will achieve what has been unattainable thus far based on their novel ideas. There will be no extension to recall rights and understanding and accepting that now is imperative to dealing with this in a realistic way. As to the issue of the 7 year recall rights under the IAM CBA with TWA-LLC which was in effect at the time those first furloughs happened in 2001. When I was publicly asked my opinion of the situation I explained that simple basic contract interpretation is that those contractual rights ceased to exist on 01/01/2002. It does not matter that some of us were already on the street under different recall right periods from that prior contract. The IAM's representation of us and its CBA for the TWA-LLC F/As had been extinguished. Clear logical thinking should lead you to the same conclusion. How you could arrive at any other answer is not for me to guess and for the record this has nothing to do with me personally or my position on the seniority list. You should know that I will be filling a base grievance on
10/01/2006. Brett and I have already discussed it but you also need to realize that I did not make the rules here. I am only giving you my opinion. If some of our other astute former union reps would care to hazard an opinion (if the truth be told) would give you the same answer. Again that answer is (I believe) those 7 year rights ended on
01/01/2002 along with the rest of that contract. We shall see. The resolution of a dispute is what grievances procedures are for. Other alternatives: Continued public, private, congressional, and shareholder pressure
(in the form of letters, emails more picketing Steve's blog ect.) will at least allow us to go down fighting. Any efforts in those areas can only highlight the wrongs that have been done to us. It probably won't solve them but it's a noble effort anyway. Frankly it's high time some of those critics with the loudest mouths and ever present keyboards got off their asses and did something to help. We've all heard how they could have done it better or why aren't Sherry and I doing this, that or the other but until last Friday thanks to Roger's idea and a lot of help from many other people they finally came to the party instead of the same old rhetoric we've heard for the last 2 years. All that time not doing a damn thing except running their mouths and blowing their own horns. What good did that do? I say welcome to the fight (finally) better late than never I guess.

I have every intention of doing every thing I can to continue to try to help our group even if it should turn out that only one (1) of us ever returns to AA.

That is all that I can do because unfortunately this is the state of affairs.
 
Is it any wonder that Bertolini got only about 10% of the votes when he ran for reelection as base chair.

No wonder at all and 4 years of lost opportunities. But the APFA "loved" him..lol Not alot of "bang" for their bucks. He won't be the first and he certainly won't be the last.

Chris, I'm curious. What is the point of this post ( written in 2006) by a defunct, past union rep? Obviously, his position was not taken seriously by the APFA, AA, and the STL base (both active and furloughed).
 
No wonder at all and 4 years of lost opportunities. But the APFA "loved" him..lol Not alot of "bang" for their bucks. He won't be the first and he certainly won't be the last.

Chris, I'm curious. What is the point of this post ( written in 2006) by a defunct, past union rep? Obviously, his position was not taken seriously by the APFA, AA, and the STL base (both active and furloughed).


Nancy it was just to show what kind of things came up on the table and to show Jeff Bott as the sleazy turncoat he is. That whole fiasco with him turning his back on john because he couldn't get him to agree with all of his scheming and then writing the big essay on what he found wrong with John was enough to turn many people's stomach. Then you see him on constant trip removals for life by the BOTRT crowd because of his "heroic" move.
I, for one, found it fascinating just what type of stuff Bertolini and Bott would have agreed to. I thought others, who hadn't seen this, would too.
 
Nancy it was just to show what kind of things came up on the table and to show Jeff Bott as the sleazy turncoat he is. That whole fiasco with him turning his back on john because he couldn't get him to agree with all of his scheming and then writing the big essay on what he found wrong with John was enough to turn many people's stomach. Then you see him on constant trip removals for life by the BOTRT crowd because of his "heroic" move.
I, for one, found it fascinating just what type of stuff Bertolini and Bott would have agreed to. I thought others, who hadn't seen this, would too.


wait a minute.......

Jeffs letter pretty much confirmed what everybody already knew, John was loosing it at that point and was not at the top of his game.
Everybody was questioning the actions of the NO, BOD, and the Union. The letter didn't come out of left field, Jeff had a right to defend/explain himself of as did John...
however.......
after charges were filed/heard, who was left holding the stick.....?
JW.