American Airlines and Labor Negotiations

[NYer]

That begs the question NYer, the language the TWU would have wanted no part of, and I’m assuming for a very good reason, did we end up with T/A’s on some of that language we would have desperately fought to keep out since we are an Association? If so, where do did we benefit?

Sure. There was compromise with the CS language, the OT language and just about everything else since it's the melding of two CBA's.

Imagine if the Association wasnt involved and the TWU, by themselves, accepted the CS language that was TA'd or any language that would be different than what we have.

Let's say we didn't accept that language because of the backlash and insisted on our current language. We don't get it then the airline just imposes the LUS language anyway.

 

[NYer]

"...If so, where do did we benefit?

We don't necessarily benefit but if we don't compromise between our language and IAM language then we don't progress.

Without the IAM, we still have to agree with the Company and where it is advantageous, they'd prefer IAM language.

How would TWU Members view that compromise with the Company on foreign language. Not well, right? That being the case, I don't see how this would have been any faster.

We were in negotiations from 2008 to 2011 by ourselves arguing about a fraction of the articles under consideration with the current negotiations.

 

[WeAAsles]

Sure. There was compromise with the CS language, the OT language and just about everything else since it's the melding of two CBA's.

Imagine if the Association wasnt involved and the TWU, by themselves, accepted the CS language that was TA'd or any language that would be different than what we have.

Let's say we didn't accept that language because of the backlash and insisted on our current language. We don't get it then the airline just imposes the LUS language anyway.

The TWU Contract has no language in regards to CS or as American Airlines chose to call it “Change Shift” No TWU Negotiating team ever had the foresight to secure it into language therefore that piece of the puzzle was never a compromise.

In the future as I understand it we can begin to call it “Swap Shift Language” and not American Airlines “Policy”

Just feel the need to continue to try to acclimate you to the change.

 

[WeAAsles]

We don't necessarily benefit but if we don't compromise between our language and IAM language then we don't progress.

Without the IAM, we still have to agree with the Company and where it is advantageous, they'd prefer IAM language.

How would TWU Members view that compromise with the Company on foreign language. Not well, right? That being the case, I don't see how this would have been any faster.

We were in negotiations from 2008 to 2011 by ourselves arguing about a fraction of the articles under consideration with the current negotiations.

You were in Concessionary Negotiations with a carrier that was under economic pressure one step away from the need to declare Bankruptcy.

Not to say that the LUS Management team would want to lose much of what they gained through multiple Bankruptcies between two separate airlines but you can still shave off those 18 Months I mentioned earlier.

 

[AANOTOK]

We don't necessarily benefit but if we don't compromise between our language and IAM language then we don't progress.

Without the IAM, we still have to agree with the Company and where it is advantageous, they'd prefer IAM language.

How would TWU Members view that compromise with the Company on foreign language. Not well, right? That being the case, I don't see how this would have been any faster.

We were in negotiations from 2008 to 2011 by ourselves arguing about a fraction of the articles under consideration with the current negotiations.

I guess this where you keep referring to some folks will be shocked at some language change and have a tough time adjusting.
As for the CS, I agree with W, that was a given since it went from policy to contractual. From what I have heard of it, it being contractual is a benefit and overrides any minor negative language if indeed there is some.

 

[NYer]

I guess this where you keep referring to some folks will be shocked at some language change and have a tough time adjusting.
As for the CS, I agree with W, that was a given since it went from policy to contractual. From what I have heard of it, it being contractual is a benefit and overrides any minor negative language if indeed there is some.

The point is, if the Association wasn't involved any change to the current CS Policy would be seen as concessionary because it isn't as liberal as our current process.

The question would be why change it or agree to the inferior language. As it is, many already see that as a negative but it would be worse if the language was agreed to without the IAM being involved.

That's just an example to show how any change that's different than our current language would be seen as a concession rather than a compromise. The expectation would be for our language to survive and be enhanced.

To try and do that while the airline is looking for change would make the negotiations a long process.

 

[Racer X]

I guess this where you keep referring to some folks will be shocked at some language change and have a tough time adjusting.
As for the CS, I agree with W, that was a given since it went from policy to contractual. From what I have heard of it, it being contractual is a benefit and overrides any minor negative language if indeed there is some.

When you have contractual language, it’s better than a company policy that can be changed or taken away in a blink

 

[NYer]

I guess this where you keep referring to some folks will be shocked at some language change and have a tough time adjusting.

Yes.

 

[NYer]

When you have contractual language, it’s better than a company policy that can be changed or taken away in a blink

That's not the point.

 

[WeAAsles]

The point is, if the Association wasn't involved any change to the current CS Policy would be seen as concessionary because it isn't as liberal as our current process.

The question would be why change it or agree to the inferior language. As it is, many already see that as a negative but it would be worse if the language was agreed to without the IAM being involved.

That's just an example to show how any change that's different than our current language would be seen as a concession rather than a compromise. The expectation would be for our language to survive and be enhanced.

To try and do that while the airline is looking for change would make the negotiations a long process.

But you would still have the 9 Months of waiting for the IAM to get their standalone agreement shaved off and you would have had the Gary Peterson Association protest waiting for the NMB to certify 9 month process shaved off as well.

And the Union Bulletin Boards language still would have taken no longer than the 20 Minutes it took with or without any Association existing.

 

[WeAAsles]

Yes.

 

[Racer X]

The point is, if the Association wasn't involved any change to the current CS Policy would be seen as concessionary because it isn't as liberal as our current process.

The question would be why change it or agree to the inferior language. As it is, many already see that as a negative but it would be worse if the language was agreed to without the IAM being involved.

That's just an example to show how any change that's different than our current language would be seen as a concession rather than a compromise. The expectation would be for our language to survive and be enhanced.

To try and do that while the airline is looking for change would make the negotiations a long process.

That's not the point.

I believe It is the point. To have contractual language that the company can’t eliminate is better than a policy. So just by virtue of having CBA language, it’s better.

 

[WeAAsles]

The point is, if the Association wasn't involved any change to the current CS Policy would be seen as concessionary because it isn't as liberal as our current process.

The question would be why change it or agree to the inferior language. As it is, many already see that as a negative but it would be worse if the language was agreed to without the IAM being involved.

That's just an example to show how any change that's different than our current language would be seen as a concession rather than a compromise. The expectation would be for our language to survive and be enhanced.

To try and do that while the airline is looking for change would make the negotiations a long process.

And had the Company not relieved the pressure on the Negotiators by granting the raises outside a full agreement due to the length of time this was taking and they took to their Jetnet/Workbrain to inform the Members that there was a 24% $6.00 per hour wage increase (WOWZA) just waiting in the woods but you horrible TWU Negotiators won’t give it to us/ could you even begin to imagine the mutiny you would have on your hands?

I myself might just have to stand as a bulwark at that next Union meeting from preventing them trying to place your head on a pike.

In many ways IMO then it could be viewed that the formation of the Association and all the wasted time through BS put us in a better position long term than had it not existed at all?

I’m still really not seeing the frustration to snatch this deal on other Social Media outlets and on the ramp that you claim I guess I’m missing?

 

[CremaDiLimone]

Actually had there been no Association and the TWU filed with the NMB for sole representation Negotiations would have probably went straight into JCBA talks. That would have meant no 2014 standalone agreement for the LUS Members.

could be, the technicalities and dates are fuzzy for me..but wasn't it the company itself that took the initiative with the stand alone in 2014?

the government gave the company the single operating certificate in 2015, so..how could the twu have represented the still considered iam/us air employees prior to the april 2015 certificate? the stand alone occurred in 2014.

my point is, if wages and major benefits were equal by 2016, and either the twu or iam was the sole bargaining representative of all; we'd all be pulling the same end of the wage & benefits rope.

correct me if i'm wrong.

 

[CremaDiLimone]

Crema, realize this comes from someone that proclaimed these talks would have ended on several different occasions only for it to fly by all those targets.

yes, i know that and this time last year, i agreed. i took parker and co. at their word. i also took into consideration that the ticket agents (didn't they have their election, union or no union, after april of 2015?) got a TA when it looked like their negotiations had stalled.

if passenger service had the vote of cwa or no union prior to april of 2015, i guess the twu could have swooped in earlier to try and represent all and maybe there would have been no stand-alone contract for lus in 2014?