Airbus Hearing In Phl
- Thread starter delldude
- Start date
The Following was written by a current NWA AMFA AMT:
SUBCONTRACTING
When the Aircraft Mechanics Fraternal Association (AMFA) and Northwest Airlines (NWA) reached a tentative agreement, one of the prouder points of the AMFA negotiating committee was the 38% subcontracting limit where we would finally have a grip on subcontracting. If NWA exceeded the subcontracting limit, there would be a penalty of 100% of the dollar amount of the excedent. AMFA leadership also stated many times that the previous International Association of Machinist and Aerospace Workers (IAM) agreement did nothing to stop the subcontracting of our work.
The subcontracting language in the previous IAM agreement is simple, all negotiated work as describe in article 2 (Scope of agreement) is our work to be performed by IAM Mechanics and related personnel, period. Nothing in the agreement allowed the Company to subcontract our work. Article 2(F) created a committee to review current subcontracted work. Its goal was to return work back to its IAM members without relinquishing, any right(s) of the Union to file a grievance. Article 2(F)a states:
“… to provide advice to management as to what work could be returned to Company premises to be performed by the Company’s IAM represented employees. …â€
NWA violated the IAM agreement on subcontracting issues. The IAM filed grievances when our work was subcontracted. There were arbitrations over the issue. The IAM won some and lost some, this did not deter the IAM in filing other subcontracting grievances.
When presenting an issue to an arbitrator, the many variables considered by the arbitrator in deciding the grievance include: profitability, overtime, laid off employees, cost of doing the work in-house, is it good business, and so on. One of the biggest factors is the arbitrator himself. Is he pro-labor or pro-business? It has been my experience that most arbitrators are self-employed, pro-business, and believe that the Company has the right to run their business as they see fit.
In the new AMFA agreement, article 2 is basically the same as the previous IAM agreement except for two major changes. Article 2 (F) created a committee to review current subcontracted work. The new language does not include the goal that would return work back to its AMFA members.
The other major change to article 2 is the addition of paragraph (F)3, which defines the allowable subcontracting limits for four separate categories: Airframe and Engine Component, Plant Maintenance, Facilities Maintenance and Ground Operations Cleaners.. Although each category has it’s own limits, I will address the Airframe and Engine Component category. Article 2(F)3,a,1,a states the following:
“Airframe, Engine and Component Subcontracting Outside Vendor Labor dollars (less labor from insourced work, not including insourced LMO labor) shall not exceed thirty-eight (38) percent of total labor dollars spent on Outside Vendor Labor plus in-house Labor.â€
Taking this language literally, you could assume that NWA could not subcontract more than 38% of our work, however, contractual language always intertwines with other parts of an agreement, as it does in this case. When you examine the language closely, article 2(F)3,b, defines “Outside Vendor Labor†and “In-house Labor†Our current subcontracting language is completely based on “total labor dollarsâ€. Labor costs at Repair Stations are generally lower than NWA. In fact Repair Stations like the new EADS Aeroframe Services’ facility in Lake Charles, LA, now performs maintenance on Airbus aircraft. Sonny Stern, sales director for EADS Aeroframe Services’ is quoted in the November, 2001 issue of Overhaul & Maintenance magazine that “the facility is earmarked to work on airplanes from the Americas†and blatantly states that it costs major U.S. airlines “roughly double what it costs us†for touch labor. “That’s the lureâ€. NWA generally subcontracts our work because they believe it can be done cheaper. If this is true, than theoretically, compared to the labor costs at NWA, the 38% Subcontracting limit may be more than just 38% of our work.
For example:
Assuming the total labor dollars spent by NWA on Outside Vendor Labor plus in-house Labor totaled one hundred dollars ($100.00), NWA would be allowed to subcontract $38.00 (38% of $100.00). Assume that the total labor cost per hour for one NWA technician is one dollar ($1.00). As stated by Sonny Stern, EADS Aeroframe Services’ (paraphrasing), the labor costs at the Lake Charles facility is half of what it is at major U.S. airlines. Using the above assumption, this would indicate that their total labor cost per hour is fifty-cents ($0.50). Therefore, for every dollar ($1.00) that NWA spends for a technician to perform one (1) hour of maintenance, a subcontractor, like EADS Aeroframe Services’, would be able to perform two (2) hours of the same work.
Assuming it is true that subcontracting facilities can perform maintenance at half the cost of U.S. major airlines, the example above indicates, that NWA would be allowed to subcontract 76% of our work and stay within the contractual limit of 38%, of the total labor dollars spent on Outside Vendor Labor plus in-house Labor. In addition, article 2(F)3,c, gives NWA numerous exceptions to the 38% subcontracting limit that “…shall not apply…â€.
If NWA subcontracted more than 38% of the total labor dollars, not including the exceptions, there would be a violation of article 2(F)3,d and I believe that AMFA would file a grievance.
“If the Company exceeds subcontracting limits, the Company will compensate the Association 100 percent of the dollar amount of the excedent.â€
In my opinion, NWA would exercise their right to present the facts to an arbitrator before paying a penalty. NWA would argue that the listed exceptions are not all-inclusive and therefore, would have the right to add additional exceptions. The statement “includes the following†located in Paragraph (F)3,c,1 will be at the center of attention. An arbitrator will decide if “includes the following†is an all-inclusive list of exceptions or not.
If AMFA is successful and the arbitrator rules in our favor, who wins? The monetary settlement does not go to our members that are laid off, it does not return our members back to work. The monetary settlement goes to the AMFA National (per national policy) and is distributed to the locals. So, who really wins? According to our national policy, the only real winners are the AMFA National and Locals.
The bottom line, like it or not, there is no limit on how much NWA can subcontract, there is only a penalty for anything subcontracted over the 38%. It would have been in our best interest if the negotiators had listened to some of the former representatives and negotiated language on a man-hour-to-man-hour scenario rather than dollar-to-dollar. A man-hour-to-man-hour scenario would have truly limited subcontracting and protected all of our jobs.
In the end, the new AMFA negotiated language hurts all of us. It allows NWA to subcontract our negotiated work, while our members are being laid off. On the other hand, the IAM subcontracting language, though not bullet proof, protected the membership and did not give any rights to NWA to subcontract our negotiated work.
Did the IAM win all the subcontracting grievances? No, but they did win when IAM members were laid off. Those members, not the union, received any monetary settlement. The injured party is the laid off member, not the Union! Think about it! Why should AMFA be entitled to a monetary settlement, if they represent us?
In closing, these are my personal opinions based on my experiences as a representative of more than 15 years. Be informed, read the agreements and then decide for yourself what language protects you and the membership.
SUBCONTRACTING
When the Aircraft Mechanics Fraternal Association (AMFA) and Northwest Airlines (NWA) reached a tentative agreement, one of the prouder points of the AMFA negotiating committee was the 38% subcontracting limit where we would finally have a grip on subcontracting. If NWA exceeded the subcontracting limit, there would be a penalty of 100% of the dollar amount of the excedent. AMFA leadership also stated many times that the previous International Association of Machinist and Aerospace Workers (IAM) agreement did nothing to stop the subcontracting of our work.
The subcontracting language in the previous IAM agreement is simple, all negotiated work as describe in article 2 (Scope of agreement) is our work to be performed by IAM Mechanics and related personnel, period. Nothing in the agreement allowed the Company to subcontract our work. Article 2(F) created a committee to review current subcontracted work. Its goal was to return work back to its IAM members without relinquishing, any right(s) of the Union to file a grievance. Article 2(F)a states:
“… to provide advice to management as to what work could be returned to Company premises to be performed by the Company’s IAM represented employees. …â€
NWA violated the IAM agreement on subcontracting issues. The IAM filed grievances when our work was subcontracted. There were arbitrations over the issue. The IAM won some and lost some, this did not deter the IAM in filing other subcontracting grievances.
When presenting an issue to an arbitrator, the many variables considered by the arbitrator in deciding the grievance include: profitability, overtime, laid off employees, cost of doing the work in-house, is it good business, and so on. One of the biggest factors is the arbitrator himself. Is he pro-labor or pro-business? It has been my experience that most arbitrators are self-employed, pro-business, and believe that the Company has the right to run their business as they see fit.
In the new AMFA agreement, article 2 is basically the same as the previous IAM agreement except for two major changes. Article 2 (F) created a committee to review current subcontracted work. The new language does not include the goal that would return work back to its AMFA members.
The other major change to article 2 is the addition of paragraph (F)3, which defines the allowable subcontracting limits for four separate categories: Airframe and Engine Component, Plant Maintenance, Facilities Maintenance and Ground Operations Cleaners.. Although each category has it’s own limits, I will address the Airframe and Engine Component category. Article 2(F)3,a,1,a states the following:
“Airframe, Engine and Component Subcontracting Outside Vendor Labor dollars (less labor from insourced work, not including insourced LMO labor) shall not exceed thirty-eight (38) percent of total labor dollars spent on Outside Vendor Labor plus in-house Labor.â€
Taking this language literally, you could assume that NWA could not subcontract more than 38% of our work, however, contractual language always intertwines with other parts of an agreement, as it does in this case. When you examine the language closely, article 2(F)3,b, defines “Outside Vendor Labor†and “In-house Labor†Our current subcontracting language is completely based on “total labor dollarsâ€. Labor costs at Repair Stations are generally lower than NWA. In fact Repair Stations like the new EADS Aeroframe Services’ facility in Lake Charles, LA, now performs maintenance on Airbus aircraft. Sonny Stern, sales director for EADS Aeroframe Services’ is quoted in the November, 2001 issue of Overhaul & Maintenance magazine that “the facility is earmarked to work on airplanes from the Americas†and blatantly states that it costs major U.S. airlines “roughly double what it costs us†for touch labor. “That’s the lureâ€. NWA generally subcontracts our work because they believe it can be done cheaper. If this is true, than theoretically, compared to the labor costs at NWA, the 38% Subcontracting limit may be more than just 38% of our work.
For example:
Assuming the total labor dollars spent by NWA on Outside Vendor Labor plus in-house Labor totaled one hundred dollars ($100.00), NWA would be allowed to subcontract $38.00 (38% of $100.00). Assume that the total labor cost per hour for one NWA technician is one dollar ($1.00). As stated by Sonny Stern, EADS Aeroframe Services’ (paraphrasing), the labor costs at the Lake Charles facility is half of what it is at major U.S. airlines. Using the above assumption, this would indicate that their total labor cost per hour is fifty-cents ($0.50). Therefore, for every dollar ($1.00) that NWA spends for a technician to perform one (1) hour of maintenance, a subcontractor, like EADS Aeroframe Services’, would be able to perform two (2) hours of the same work.
Assuming it is true that subcontracting facilities can perform maintenance at half the cost of U.S. major airlines, the example above indicates, that NWA would be allowed to subcontract 76% of our work and stay within the contractual limit of 38%, of the total labor dollars spent on Outside Vendor Labor plus in-house Labor. In addition, article 2(F)3,c, gives NWA numerous exceptions to the 38% subcontracting limit that “…shall not apply…â€.
If NWA subcontracted more than 38% of the total labor dollars, not including the exceptions, there would be a violation of article 2(F)3,d and I believe that AMFA would file a grievance.
“If the Company exceeds subcontracting limits, the Company will compensate the Association 100 percent of the dollar amount of the excedent.â€
In my opinion, NWA would exercise their right to present the facts to an arbitrator before paying a penalty. NWA would argue that the listed exceptions are not all-inclusive and therefore, would have the right to add additional exceptions. The statement “includes the following†located in Paragraph (F)3,c,1 will be at the center of attention. An arbitrator will decide if “includes the following†is an all-inclusive list of exceptions or not.
If AMFA is successful and the arbitrator rules in our favor, who wins? The monetary settlement does not go to our members that are laid off, it does not return our members back to work. The monetary settlement goes to the AMFA National (per national policy) and is distributed to the locals. So, who really wins? According to our national policy, the only real winners are the AMFA National and Locals.
The bottom line, like it or not, there is no limit on how much NWA can subcontract, there is only a penalty for anything subcontracted over the 38%. It would have been in our best interest if the negotiators had listened to some of the former representatives and negotiated language on a man-hour-to-man-hour scenario rather than dollar-to-dollar. A man-hour-to-man-hour scenario would have truly limited subcontracting and protected all of our jobs.
In the end, the new AMFA negotiated language hurts all of us. It allows NWA to subcontract our negotiated work, while our members are being laid off. On the other hand, the IAM subcontracting language, though not bullet proof, protected the membership and did not give any rights to NWA to subcontract our negotiated work.
Did the IAM win all the subcontracting grievances? No, but they did win when IAM members were laid off. Those members, not the union, received any monetary settlement. The injured party is the laid off member, not the Union! Think about it! Why should AMFA be entitled to a monetary settlement, if they represent us?
In closing, these are my personal opinions based on my experiences as a representative of more than 15 years. Be informed, read the agreements and then decide for yourself what language protects you and the membership.
OP
Bottom line in my opinion is this is the last chance for the IAM to save face and ever have any chance of representing mechanics at any carrier. And for those who believe the statement by the company that no layoffs will result in the airbus farm out work, drug testing is in order!!! But then again that may be one of those famous interpretation things.........no jobs will be lost because of the airbus farmout but 70% of the mechanics will be furloughed due to the fact that the Boeings are being replaced by Airbus A/C :down:
700UW, in other parts of the world people would say you listen to "sweet words". You need to take Knobby's website with a grain of salt. After all, he had a promising career with the IAM machine cut short. That's got to generate some angst against AMFA. If th Marriot/Eastern boys have their dreams come true, he and I will both be somewhere else when NWA goes to SWA staffing levels. It's the wave (or rave) of the future.
AOG, keep up the good work. Eventually I'll talk with you on the phone during "business hours". I'm kinda liking the 330, even though Airbus likes to keep a lot of info secret from those of us who have to troubleshoot it. I'm tempted to debrief the local Airbus rep in my basement.
AOG, keep up the good work. Eventually I'll talk with you on the phone during "business hours". I'm kinda liking the 330, even though Airbus likes to keep a lot of info secret from those of us who have to troubleshoot it. I'm tempted to debrief the local Airbus rep in my basement.
Anyone on the property that's not recalled due to a boldface lie should be outraged.sentrido said:
The latest lie being that nobody will be affected if the outsourcing battle is lost?.
The brutality of this lie may not be seen in a week , a month or even a year or more ?...but rest assured it will have fallout on an epic scale at somepoint ...and that holds true for NON-IAM members within the maintenance and supporting ranks as well. On this statement...you can hang your hat , or any other item that needs sturdy load bearing qualities.
Pineybob,
Labor's negotiating position at this point is to simply crouch behind Federal Labor Law. Without it's strength, our careers would have been washed out to sea years ago. I'm afraid you'll have to excuse us if we keep that water tight door locked!
E-TRONS and Delldude,
As a ten year 141 Club member, former Shop Steward, and a Placid Harbor Leadership 1 graduate, let me assure you both of this:
My, and others, loyalty to the IAM is just as strong and unbreachable as the lock on the Consession Stand door. If the IAM leadership were foolish enough to unlock that door, the unions problem wouldn't be the company coming in and stealing the store. The unions problem would be it's membership streaming out that door and into the arms of AMFA.
There's more than just an air carriers fate at risk here.
So, let's all stand firm. If we pay IAM dues, then let us raise our voice to the IAM battle Cry:
Labor's negotiating position at this point is to simply crouch behind Federal Labor Law. Without it's strength, our careers would have been washed out to sea years ago. I'm afraid you'll have to excuse us if we keep that water tight door locked!
E-TRONS and Delldude,
As a ten year 141 Club member, former Shop Steward, and a Placid Harbor Leadership 1 graduate, let me assure you both of this:
My, and others, loyalty to the IAM is just as strong and unbreachable as the lock on the Consession Stand door. If the IAM leadership were foolish enough to unlock that door, the unions problem wouldn't be the company coming in and stealing the store. The unions problem would be it's membership streaming out that door and into the arms of AMFA.
There's more than just an air carriers fate at risk here.
So, let's all stand firm. If we pay IAM dues, then let us raise our voice to the IAM battle Cry:
Actually, most of us have come to the realization that, that's exactly where our boat is.
We know that the buoyancy of our compartment isn't enough to raise the boat. But if some outside force does decide to salvage her, it's our resolve to be helpful to the task, not a burden.
So he's the one that sent the thousands of emails to dave,roach and varsel saying how CONFUSED he was, causing the iam to cave in for the revote that will NEVER be forgiven!! :down:delldude said:
Similar threads
