AFA labor discussion (Work related)

[flybynite]

There is a lot of value in experience. And Mike and Carol deserve thanks for their service (and, truth be told, are probably not going anywhere). But, if your argument is "let the devil that we know bring us crap so that we can vote it down" ... we should all be afraid.

I can't help being concerned that the majority of F/A's that take the time to vote on a sub-par T/A will to too scared to reject it ... then where will we be? Especially if the MEC is cowed into sending a sub-par T/A out with a YES recommendation, and puts on road shows to spin the good and down-play the bad ....

I doubt that a perfect contract would ever be presented to us. The likely hood of that ever happening is zero to none. And we'll have to weigh the plus and minuses. As usual.

It's always a concern that a sub-par contract will be voted in. However, we've all been living with a sub-par contract and I don't think anyone will stand for it anymore. We've all paid in spades to keep this company alive and we're long overdue to get back on track with the industry standard in wages and benefits.

I don't think changing our negotiating team will change the company's way or means of negotiating. Rejecting a lousy contract will. And if that doesn't work a strike most certainly will. And I'm not talking about CHAOS. I'm talking full blown strike.

I'm ready for it.

 

[Career Reserve]

And this my reasoning....they're knee deep in it & they know the players.

Just my opinion.

We know the players too and that's why the majority of f/a's want the "players" replaced.
Five yrs of negotiations and at best they came up w/ more concessions.


I doubt that a perfect contract would ever be presented to us. The likely hood of that ever happening is zero to none. And we'll have to weigh the plus and minuses. As usual.

Well now there's a defeatest attitude if I ever heard one.

 

[SparrowHawk]

Ladies and Gentleman of the AFA,

I have fought US Airways over customer issues since the original "Cockroaches" were organized in 2002. Part of my personal mantra was that it's impossible to have true customer satisfaction without employee satisfaction. Prior to my involvement with FFOCUS I was part of a citizens group called Del-A-Ware which was formed to fight the building of a pumping station designed to draw 95 million gallons per day from the Delaware River ay my hometown of Point Pleasant. As a group we raised $64,000 vs 1.3 million raised by corporate interests over a vote to fund "The Pump". When the votes were counted we had garnered 62% of the vote against a deck so rigged you had to vote "Yes" to votes against the water project. Despite our victory at the ballot box we were faced with several negative court decisions resulting in our "Hiring" the late Abbie Hoffman as a consultant. The protests were seen on national news and hundreds of citizens were arrested in my hometown of 250. It was on the national news for several nights. People in wheelchairs rolled themselves across the picket line to be arrested. I was really something. In the end we lost but for ten years we raised hell and had the entire county government voted out. We started as 6 people around a dining room table and made history.

As you embark on your struggle please keep in mind the court of public opinion and the Guerrilla theater of the '60's & 70's. While decorum and professionalism will go a long way at the negotiating table, never lose sight of doing outrageous things to send a message to the company that this time is different and the rank and file is fully prepared to do whatever it takes to gain a contract. I will guarantee that Doug thinks Mike Flores and the negotiating committee can be bullied and to date he's been correct.

Guerrilla theater and an activist approach of pranks, publicity stunts will go a long way to creating the perception that CHAOS will occur. IMO you have to create a perception that you are ready, willing and able to shut the company down, permanently if need be. If I was running the AFA here are somethings I'd do:

Every Friday Doug Parker would have a case of Budweiser delivered to CHQ, complete with a note from the AFA that includes copies of the paperwork surrounding his DUI arrest. screw him if you piss him off enough and he might make a mistake you can exploit.

Additionally I would send every member of the US Labor Relations department brand spanking new bright green CHAOS t-shirts

AFA members living in and around PHX would be encouraged to wear CHAOS shirts while off duty and shopping in order to raise awareness.

Have AFA members buy 1 to 10 shares of US stock in order to gain access to the Annual Shareholders meeting.

Attend that meeting wearing the green CHAOS shirts. Make sure you're out in front of the meeting place with hundreds of green shirts and plenty of Picket Signs. Get you fellow union brethren to join in. Be respectful, obey the law and be very very LOUD.

Establish what were called "Roving Pickets". Plan to show up at and picket anyplace US main line flies to. Always making sure to alert the media. The goal is to get media attention in places where US isn't the dominate carrier.

the point in all of this is if you can manage to generate publicity and not just in the hubs you can send a strong message that gives the negotiating team a spine and sends chills down the spine of US Management. What's wrong with burning Doug in effigy if you win a good contract?

Keep the faith folks, you can and will prevail. But you have to keep on their asses one and all.

 

[Travelpro72]

It all comes to the issue of being recessed. The federal mediator could recess the group for not months but YEARS. It's a true possibility and highly likely. The mediator is there to ensure the process of negotiating proceeds both quickly and fairly. The flight attendant group as a whole is fed up with the process and the federal mediator heard the group and agreed to step in. He will NOT stand by and watch the group further delay the process WILLINGLY. That is the point. I think we'd ALL be hard pressed to find a large group who is going to vote for the tentative agreement regardless of their desperation. I personally don't see it happening. I also believe that Mike and Carol's fan base is small if at all existent. The company has enjoyed the concessionary contracts on the east while reveling in the fact that the west is paid so horribly. Allowing the sections to close THEN voting it down gives the group the ability to open ALL sections and start over. Preferably with new negotiators. That is something that will not happen as quickly if recessed due to changing drivers of the JNC at this critical juncture.

 

[Onestep2flt]

Every problem has a solution. There is usually always a workaround for everything. It can take time but when smart minds come together it is amazing what can be accomplished. Look at what you have accomplished so far. If you give in to the "process" now you will have waisted all that time and energy.

I agree with flyguy that though the process is important the players are not. (Especially the ones you have.) While your explanation of the process sounds accurate there must be some provisions for changes in staff and negotiators. As pointed out people quit, get promoted, or pass on and it would seem the process would have a mechanism in place to deal with that. The mediator is suppose to be a neutral party to garner better cooperation of the parties. Yes, they are trying to keep on a schedule and keep the peace. As with any professional group though I am pretty certain they operate under a code of ethics. I would think there would be some implications to move forward negotiations that were being spearheaded by someone that is not representing the interests of the people they are representing. I think the union has an obligation to discuss this with the mediator. I suppose they could put you in recess but I believe if you had a plan in place to minimize any delay the parties could move forward. I am certain if the new leaders follow through with promise of change they will find a way. They for now, have the support of how many fight attendants? Seems if you can have a collective voice against your company proposal you should also be able to have a collective voice against the negotiators that mis-represent you. Yes your company might be laughing now. Who cares as long as you get the last laugh to have a negotiating committee that actually represents you as a whole. Seems funny that your beloved leader is still trying to convince you to rally around him and if you don't the company might not see that you are unified. It seems quite the opposite should be true at this point. IT IS NO SECRET to the company that the masses are against Mr. Flores at this point. If anything, the company is most likely worried that you are unified against their pals and PARTNERS in negotiations!

My question with no disrespect would be: Did the new leaders just have a sudden epiphany about mediation, or was this information garnered in a conference call with Mr. Flores? Is Mr. Flores the one feeding the info or was it discussed with the mediator? I know nothing about mediation and the rules so I am just curious. If you were recessed is there anything stopping the parties from returning to the table without the assistance of the mediator? Can you then petition the mediator then to reconsider their position? I always thought that it is a voluntary process. Is it the case that once you agree to mediation you can't meet outside of the process? Again, just asking.

One problem I see is the process leading up to all of this. From my understanding, part of the recall issue before the general elections was because of the failure to recall the negotiating committee. Is it not correct that several of the folks running in the general election were directly or indirectly involved with the petitions and the call to arms against Mr. Flores? Months and months of battle cries. Finally, the flight attendants would get representation they deserve. Now all of the sudden these leaders are saying that the best you can hope for is to pin your hopes on the 33% of the folks that actually vote to vote no. If nothing else at this point I would think at the very least that pressure put on the committee from the leaders to resign might be a good play. Start a system wide letter writing campaign just like you do to congressional members. That way there is no argument that it is just one trouble maker. Make sure that there is no doubt that you are representing the will of the flight attendant.

I just think there is more that can be done than wait for a flawed tentative agreement to come forth and hope that either your MEC votes not to put it to the membership. Or even worse, pinning the hopes on people that don't bother voting because they already know they can't make a difference!

 

[Be Careful What You Wish For.]

Or even worse, pinning the hopes on people that don't bother voting because they already know they can't make a difference!

Are you referring to the membership?

So who would you suggest take charge? Maybe non-members from outside the company? The peanut gallery is already full!

The fastest way to show displeasure w/ this contract and the people negotiating our contract AND the company is to discredit the agreement that they have reached. No one likes anything about this contract as it stands.

How do you get rid of this contract proposal as quickly as possible? You vote it resoundingly down which would send a statement to both the company and the people who structured it, that they are both inadequate.

You can either have internal self inflicted wounds or you can include the company in the blame and change people at the same time.

If you want to keep all the blame to AFA then continue to ignore the new leadership. If you would like to include the company in blame for a sub-standard contract show them (like we just did in PHL) that that we are engaged and willing to do what is necessary to change what we do not like. The only way closed sections get reopened is by voting the contract down (if anyone would like to contradict this, I'm all ears). Would you like a contract to you're liking sooner or later.

We should have confidence in ourselves, regardless of what some (see above) will say.
PHL was a mandate for change. Now we must deal with the nuts and bolts of orchestrating that change. How you achieve your goals in a practical manner are what should be under consideration now.

The naysayers, from outside the company with their losing candidates, didn't take long to show up.

 

[galley princess]

Shoulda, woulda, coulda are all very unuseful.

I prefer pragmatism.

Travelpro outlined the pragmatic actions required.

This mess has to be voted on. There is work to be done regarding voting, so fine, we do the work and educate those we fly with. Be useful on that jumpseat. Tell them how easy it is to vote, how a non vote just benefits the company that has the collective view of flight attendants as intellectually vacant. F/As are not vacant. They're tired, busy and commuting, and unless it's right in front of them and on fire, they'll put off what they don't have to deal with immediately.

Educate your crew about this tentative. The thing that gets me is the day to day, and that tentative is going to wreck my day to day.

There are a lot of things that we can do while this grinds on, at least we can make it constructive.

 

[Career Reserve]

I say we get rid of JNC because the West is so underpaid that most, if not all will vote 'yes' . Where will that put the east f/a's? Now senior folks won't care that nautical miles means more cleaning nor that the reserve section is worse mainly because it doesn't affect them. Wages only up to what will be anyway. This folks is after 5 yrs at negotiating table. Believe me when I say West is overdue for raise, this will be a divide and conquer tentative if put out for vote. Sadly it could ratify

 

[Onestep2flt]

Are you referring to the membership?

So who would you suggest take charge? Maybe non-members from outside the company? The peanut gallery is already full!

The fastest way to show displeasure w/ this contract and the people negotiating our contract AND the company is to discredit the agreement that they have reached. No one likes anything about this contract as it stands.

How do you get rid of this contract proposal as quickly as possible? You vote it resoundingly down which would send a statement to both the company and the people who structured it, that they are both inadequate.

You can either have internal self inflicted wounds or you can include the company in the blame and change people at the same time.

If you want to keep all the blame to AFA then continue to ignore the new leadership. If you would like to include the company in blame for a sub-standard contract show them (like we just did in PHL) that that we are engaged and willing to do what is necessary to change what we do not like. The only way closed sections get reopened is by voting the contract down (if anyone would like to contradict this, I'm all ears). Would you like a contract to you're liking sooner or later.

We should have confidence in ourselves, regardless of what some (see above) will say.
PHL was a mandate for change. Now we must deal with the nuts and bolts of orchestrating that change. How you achieve your goals in a practical manner are what should be under consideration now.

The naysayers, from outside the company with their losing candidates, didn't take long to show up.

Please don't misunderstand what I said. My statement was that I hope that the NEW leadership game plan is to not just sit back and let a new tentative agreement come along and expect the membership vote no. There a several reasons this is a mistake. First of all you guys have a very low voting population. There are a lot of reasons for that but it has been that way for quite some time from what I understand. That is why I said don't pin your hopes on the 33% that vote. The ones that don't vote have there reasons and I certainly can respect that considering some of the choices they have to work with. Don't forget the lovely Charlotte debacle as an example. Their other choice was to vote not to send it out for a vote. Sounds great but might be even more problematic than you think. Remember, you are voting on a tentative agreement not only with the company but a joint contract with your coworkers in Phoenix. There just seem like there are a whole host of issues that could come up there. I am not sure you guys would all be on the same page when it came to either scenario that was proposed.

As far as who should take charge that should be left up to the flight attendants. I don't think you would have a lack of quality people ready to serve. That was my point. A lot of folks including those who ran for your local officers in Philly were all on board to oust the leader. Not a week after they are in office they change their tune considerably. I don't think it unfair to ask how they came to this conclusion. Was it after their briefing with Mr. Flores and he told them all sorts of scary things that might happen? Did they have a direct conversation with with the mediator to determine their course of action? I understand they are trying to communicate with their constituency. I commend them on that. However, I think it is far too soon to be retreating on the top issue these folks were put into office for. Also, they gave their game plan away so now Flores and company can work on a defensive strategy. Mostly by intimidating you with the fact that you could be recessed from mediation. That is why I asked the questions that I did and would still like to hear the answers to them. They should be legitimate concerns to all.

Also, an outsider might not be bad either as a consultant. Think contract lawyer! I don't think your present "staff attorney" is doing much these days except maybe taking an occasional note or two.

I am sorry if I have struck a nerve about the new leadership. Nobody here is ignoring them. If that were the case we would not be having this conversation. I do see good here. I am glad to see the flight attendants trying to take back their union. It was nice to see your grassroots efforts. I am not sure if the naysayer remark was intended for me. If it was I am not sure why. I wish only the best for you in achieving a fair and livable contract for ALL flight attendants. I never once endorsed any candidates here. Even if I did I am not sure what it would do for them anyway. I have questioned some peoples motives here. I have definitely been critical of your negotiating committee. In the end it is your choice whom you vote for. That is what this board is about. Sharing of info and listening to others concerns. Just because our opinions differ does not mean we can't discuss the issues. We could learn something from each other.

I agree with you that voting down any tentative agreement would show your displeasure. It would discredit not only the company but your negotiating committee. The risk you take in that approach I believe is greater than playing Russian Roulette with a gun with five of six chambers loaded.

As I mentioned before. You must give the new officers a chance. The new Philly president said to give her 30 days. Fair enough! The problem is they just did not come out of the gate running like everyone was expecting. I just hope they catch up before the race is over.

Any way you look at it you are sure in a mess. Glad to see signs of straitening up. Would have been nice to see it not have come this far.

 

[Onestep2flt]

I say we get rid of JNC because the West is so underpaid that most, if not all will vote 'yes' .

This is a very good point!

This is one of the reasons I think the game plan of the MEC not sending a tentative out for a vote could be problematic. I guess we need to know the process when you have two MEC's. How does it work if the US MEC votes no and the AW MEC votes yes. Is it majority rules? Pretty sure your coworkers in Phoenix are swayed toward sending anything out because it is an improvement for what they have. Plus, if I have this right the vice president of their MEC who was negotiating is now their LEC president? Did I get that right? I just don't see them not wanting to send it out to their membership. They would have no reason not to if it is an improvement to going to the food pantry at the union office! Now, if it goes out for a vote and the voting comes in for US like it has historically you might have enough deficit for it to pass. You will have yes voters on both sides the determining factor will be if enough people vote on the US side of the fence. Wonder what the historical voting numbers are in Phoenix? This is exactly why I question the game plan. Maybe they have the AW side already on board. One can only hope for your sake.

 

[Toothy Grin]

There are many good reasons to send out the TA - the best reason is that it is basically the fulfillment of an obligation by the Union wether actual and/or perceived. The Union will create more problems by not sending it out.

As for the quick yes vote for the contract by PHX members, I would be surprised. Yes, it is true that many would more than appreciate the pay increase, but not at the expense of adding a lame PBS system or gutting our health insurance. There are many that still want to revisit the rotating reserve system that apparently Mike Flores said nobody would want...really?? Senior fa's sit 3 days of rsv... who knows. I think by voting down the TA the Union may have to actually REALLY ask the US the membership what we really want and don't want instead of guessing or overlooking items that may be deemed to time consuming to deal with by the JNC.

Overall, despite of the mediator being "right there" most in PHX still feel that nothing will happen!!!! What I do expect from PHX is a high voter turnout.

 

[Be Careful What You Wish For.]

I say we get rid of JNC...

Can someone, maybe w/ past MEC negotiating experience, explain what practical effect this will have on getting closed sections reopened by the company? To reopen closed section it would be at company discretion. What leverage does a new JNC wield over the old JNC or even a thrice replaced JNC? What tactical advantage does replacing the JNC first and then voting the contract down bring?
Can anyone please tell me how they would reopen sections by removing the JNC first?
Does anyone have a practical answer short of dumping a truck load of manure on Tempe's doorstep?
I would really like to hear how removing the JNC first is an advantage over voting the whole mess down. Anyone?
I would wager that the West is more fearful of us. To use them as a scapegoat is really pretty lame. Keep the infighting going and you only benefit the company.

 

[Be Careful What You Wish For.]

The risk you take in that approach I believe is greater than playing Russian Roulette with a gun with five of six chambers loaded.

Why, specifically, do you believe this? What alternative do you suggest other than metaphors? How does the union get out of sections that have already been agreed to? Believe me, I'm all ears. Help me understand. What, specifically, should we be doing different to get out of closed sections? Pitbull should be offering up an experienced opinion right about now.

What is the tactical advantage that your position offers?

 

[Onestep2flt]

Why, specifically, do you believe this? What alternative do you suggest other than metaphors? How does the union get out of sections that have already been agreed to? Believe me, I'm all ears. Help me understand what specifically we should be doing different to get out of closed sections? Pitbull should be offering up an experienced opinion right about now. What is the tactical advantage that your position offers?

I am afraid I don't have an answer for you. This is where I am no help. I can only offer an opinion. I have more questions than anything. As I stated before, the two scenario's presented might indeed be the only options you have left to try and fix all the wrongs that you have endured to this point. They come at great risk however, in that you may suffer even further concessions than just the sections that have been closed as of now. I do see the logic and the benefit in this path but there would have to be some serious star alignment for it to succeed. Not impossible though. I just worry about past precedent.

A concern of mine is the fact that the new leadership has already backed down due to a perception that this will almost certainly cause a recess in the talks. And that then absolutely nothing can be done at that point. That is why asked how they come to this abrupt change in their thinking. Has someone actually spoken to the mediator to discuss this issue? Are they making this change based on their briefing with Mr. Flores? What are the actual rules governing changes in negotiators while they are in talks while in mediation?

I truly do understand the benefit of voting down any tentative agreement. It just seems as this is all taking place by the design of Mr. Flores himself. How in the world his group has managed to stick around for five years is just plain nuts. Guess you have a couple more weeks to wait to see how this plays out. I think the one thing that I would do is talk to outside counsel on the matter. Someone that knows labor law not tied to AFA.

 

[Career Reserve]

A concern of mine is the fact that the new leadership has already backed down due to a perception that this will almost certainly cause a recess in the talks. And that then absolutely nothing can be done at that point. That is why asked how they come to this abrupt change in their thinking. Has someone actually spoken to the mediator to discuss this issue? What are the actual rules governing changes in negotiators while they are in talks while in mediation?

There was a presentation made at AFA BOD meeting concerning this very matter. This may be a reason why there's a change. It would be a good idea to see if copies of this presentation can be made available to local offices for viewing at next local meetings so f/a's have better understanding of why this sudden change.

I think the one thing that I would do is talk to outside counsel on the matter. Someone that knows labor law not tied to AFA.
Good Idea.