What stations the company would announce they have openings in when outsourcing a station would remain to be seen at AA (sUS). My guess would be hub stations currently relying on overtime coverage to keep the operation running. Another way outsourcing will affect hubs and larger stations. Displace outline employees into stations relying too heavily on overtime. This process creates the "synergies" they are after with merging. The strategy of pitting employees in large stations against members' jobs in outline stations for a few dollars is nothing new in this industry. It has worked well for them in the past. They will continue to use it until the membership puts a stop to it. The members at UA are the latest who took the bait.T5towbar said:
F that. Stick around, and post when/where you want.Harry Callahan said:
+1robbedagain said:
Also +1ograc said:
That's a pretty big "Fish On" in that pic. Any TA that comes back without enhancing scope [not talking phantom Cinderealla Dates that drop dead] is a no go for me, as far as my personal vote. I do think that the negotiation committee should show the membership the proposals or allow us to vote on a T/A after the negotiation team recommends an acceptance or rejection. I'm disappointed that I did hear scope was now off the table, and imo, that makes absolutely no sense to put 'days off' and other increases ahead of things prior to scope being enhanced. Nonetheless, I'm just one vote but I would do my best to campaign against such a TA, regardless of how much money or days off is tossed around. We need to be aware of the techniques that Delaney used at United, insomuch that he avoided talking about protecting work and instead brought forth a new "No layoff for those employees hired before x day". Remember, we already have that in our contract regarding members hired prior to 1999 and it hasn't saved any work. The primary reason why anyone should want a union is to solve the question, "Whose work is it?". As we have seen at United, agreeing to waive scope but claiming "Job Security" by allowing a path for a vendor to do the work and our members to move 3,000 miles isn't the answer. This will be the first and last time when we have SO MUCH LEVERAGE in section 6. Negotiating against a company making Billions [not millions but BILLIONS] in an industry that is fat as a pig is great. The health of this industry may not be so good in the future, and I have never seen this industry and this company kicking so much butt. Leaving the table by only agreeing to AMR wages and not enhancing scope is a crime. Even AMR wages is low when compared to the industry but I think many of our members would look beyond that if scope was enhanced.psa8979 said:
If true it's more than likely that he was replaced because of the strong feelings your members have towards him? You may want to look at this as a sign that DP is signaling that he is trying to be sincere in his comments about trying to put the past behind us and try to begin to move forward? He's made many very public statements regarding wanting labor peace for the new joint enterprise.UnitedWeStand said:
...Or that he may be trying to lull people into a false sense of relief?WeAAsles said:
