American Airlines and Labor Negotiations

[WeAAsles]

I will have to wait on the propoed CS policy to see what it is. Evidently a lot of people know but nobody wants to say. I am generally supportive of fewer restrictions for that kind of stuff. If there is no mid contract wage adjustment that might be a no vote from me also. I know the clerks in our local have been vocal about wanting to make sure that is included. Something tells me the company will not be as generous with us as they have been with pilots and FA's. We need something in place to adjust our raises if DL or UA get increases during our contract. I don't want to be stuck behind them for a year or more.

It’s going to be called “Swap Shifts” from now on. Check out Section P and you pretty much got it right there.

http://unionhall.cwalocals.org/system/files/article_5_hours_of_service.pdf

 

[Tim Nelson]

I will have to wait on the propoed CS policy to see what it is. Evidently a lot of people know but nobody wants to say. I am generally supportive of fewer restrictions for that kind of stuff. If there is no mid contract wage adjustment that might be a no vote from me also. I know the clerks in our local have been vocal about wanting to make sure that is included. Something tells me the company will not be as generous with us as they have been with pilots and FA's. We need something in place to adjust our raises if DL or UA get increases during our contract. I don't want to be stuck behind them for a year or more.

The company wants the same thing that Prez and CB voted unanimously on in the United TA when the DL141 eboard all voted to recommend UATA2. Each had a vote.

Parker, realizing that Sito and his followers approved the United deal, is asking for the same TA. Prez and CB voted for unlimited part time and 400% health care raises so you can see why Parker is wanting some from those 2 as well.

 

[Racer X]

I will have to wait on the propoed CS policy to see what it is. Evidently a lot of people know but nobody wants to say. I am generally supportive of fewer restrictions for that kind of stuff. If there is no mid contract wage adjustment that might be a no vote from me also. I know the clerks in our local have been vocal about wanting to make sure that is included. Something tells me the company will not be as generous with us as they have been with pilots and FA's. We need something in place to adjust our raises if DL or UA get increases during our contract. I don't want to be stuck behind them for a year or more.

An update from assoc said that the union proposal provided to get us TOS at DOS. And provide for us to stay there.
Comp proposed TOS at signing no protection to stay TOS

 

[gulfcoast1]

An update from assoc said that the union proposal provided to get us TOS at DOS. And provide for us to stay there.
Comp proposed TOS at signing no protection to stay TOS

I don't expect to get a raise every single time UA DL or also WN does. I do expect our unions to negotiate some sort of mid-contract adjustments to catch up if we fall behind.

Now that we are talking about pay, it would be nice to have something in place to continue annual raises if a contract stalls in the future. I know that is not usually how it works or if that is doable in airline contracts after they have become amendable.

 

[gulfcoast1]

It’s going to be called “Swap Shifts” from now on. Check out Section P and you pretty much got it right there.

http://unionhall.cwalocals.org/system/files/article_5_hours_of_service.pdf

I see major problems there. I disagree with those who say it is not that big of a deal. The way I read it

1. You cannot do 2 consecutive full doubles as LAA can now. That is a major problem for a lot of LAA.
2. 4pm the day before? That is going to cause some anger with LAA.
3. I don't like the overlaps having to be subject to approval. The unions better get some specific language on what is and is not approved. If the company decides to stop approving any overlaps that would end the LAA CS policy as we know it in the hubs. It probably would not be as big of a deal in smaller stations, but it is a huge deal in hubs with waves of people getting off and waves starting with 15 or 20 minutes overlaps. I repeat this is a huge deal in hubs and the overlap policy needs to be spelled out in writing.
4. The no overtime as a result of a CS wording is rearing its head again. Obviously a CS or Trade will not be overtime but there is a system grievance now about the company not paying OT for short turns when a pm employee has picked up an AM CS the next day and is held late due to IRROPS. That needs to be resolved in advance also. This language appears just as vague on that as what we have now.

I don't think the 32 days a quarter is that big of a deal but items 1-4 are. The only positive change I see is that you can give away a trade to one person directly as opposed to having to cancel it and redo it.

Overall I am not a fan and I think I would have to see some major improvements elsewhere to go for this. I saw that someone posted how much shift trades cost in administrative money but I don't think items 1-3 above make a big difference money wise and should be changed. If they are not, then I don't think our negotiators are trying very hard for some low or no cost improvements.

 

[gulfcoast1]

And I doubt I would vote yes on anything with 40% of total employees as PT. Unlimited PT moves my vote back to a definite, don't even have to think about it, no. But I doubt we will see anything like that come in the form of a TA.

 

[wings396]

I see major problems there. I disagree with those who say it is not that big of a deal. The way I read it

1. You cannot do 2 consecutive full doubles as LAA can now. That is a major problem for a lot of LAA.
2. 4pm the day before? That is going to cause some anger with LAA.
3. I don't like the overlaps having to be subject to approval. The unions better get some specific language on what is and is not approved. If the company decides to stop approving any overlaps that would end the LAA CS policy as we know it in the hubs. It probably would not be as big of a deal in smaller stations, but it is a huge deal in hubs with waves of people getting off and waves starting with 15 or 20 minutes overlaps. I repeat this is a huge deal in hubs and the overlap policy needs to be spelled out in writing.
4. The no overtime as a result of a CS wording is rearing its head again. Obviously a CS or Trade will not be overtime but there is a system grievance now about the company not paying OT for short turns when a pm employee has picked up an AM CS the next day and is held late due to IRROPS. That needs to be resolved in advance also. This language appears just as vague on that as what we have now.

I don't think the 32 days a quarter is that big of a deal but items 1-4 are. The only positive change I see is that you can give away a trade to one person directly as opposed to having to cancel it and redo it.

Overall I am not a fan and I think I would have to see some major improvements elsewhere to go for this. I saw that someone posted how much shift trades cost in administrative money but I don't think items 1-3 above make a big difference money wise and should be changed. If they are not, then I don't think our negotiators are trying very hard for some low or no cost improvements.

Not sure if they're looking to change it, but on the LUS side you can do a full back to back double. I believe that the CS group can't.

 

[Jester]

I see major problems there. I disagree with those who say it is not that big of a deal. The way I read it

1. You cannot do 2 consecutive full doubles as LAA can now. That is a major problem for a lot of LAA.
2. 4pm the day before? That is going to cause some anger with LAA.
3. I don't like the overlaps having to be subject to approval. The unions better get some specific language on what is and is not approved. If the company decides to stop approving any overlaps that would end the LAA CS policy as we know it in the hubs. It probably would not be as big of a deal in smaller stations, but it is a huge deal in hubs with waves of people getting off and waves starting with 15 or 20 minutes overlaps. I repeat this is a huge deal in hubs and the overlap policy needs to be spelled out in writing.
4. The no overtime as a result of a CS wording is rearing its head again. Obviously a CS or Trade will not be overtime but there is a system grievance now about the company not paying OT for short turns when a pm employee has picked up an AM CS the next day and is held late due to IRROPS. That needs to be resolved in advance also. This language appears just as vague on that as what we have now.

I don't think the 32 days a quarter is that big of a deal but items 1-4 are. The only positive change I see is that you can give away a trade to one person directly as opposed to having to cancel it and redo it.

Overall I am not a fan and I think I would have to see some major improvements elsewhere to go for this. I saw that someone posted how much shift trades cost in administrative money but I don't think items 1-3 above make a big difference money wise and should be changed. If they are not, then I don't think our negotiators are trying very hard for some low or no cost improvements.

The LUS trade policies are fairly reasonable (I think) insofar that it still permits people to take extended leaves while providing some flexibility on those people with other commitments. Presently there are unlimited swaps with another co-worker within the same pay period such that the people who actually enjoy doubling-up can work 5 and be off 9 without touching the 28(?) quarterly drops. The policy does cut down the number of phantom employees who are gone for a few months at a time.

Something I am hearing that I hope the JCBA incorporates would be 40-hour qualifier for overtime pay, which would be particularly important for part-timers (especially if the higher part-time vs. full-time ratios becomes reality). For example, a LUS part-timer scheduled 30 hours weekly must obtain an additional 10 hours by means of overtime or Company requested coverage to qualify for overtime pay, as picking-up hours from another will not allow one to qualify. As I understand the TWU contract, a part-time employee could qualify with the 40 hours simply by picking-up additional hours. Difficult enough to get overtime at times without having to find hours just to get to 40 hours to be qualified.

 

[Filter]

Worse???? You know what the TA says?
Whether they have done it or not....does not mean it can never happen.... you want to trust them....go right ahead....I would rather have language that protects it.

Yes, I have read the TA...it was a couple of years ago though...and it is worse...I was actually arguing against part of the language with the gentleman that shared it with me...if it was the exact language we wanted of course it would be better within the contract...unfortunately it isn’t...

 

[Filter]

The LUS trade policies are fairly reasonable (I think) insofar that it still permits people to take extended leaves while providing some flexibility on those people with other commitments. Presently there are unlimited swaps with another co-worker within the same pay period such that the people who actually enjoy doubling-up can work 5 and be off 9 without touching the 28(?) quarterly drops. The policy does cut down the number of phantom employees who are gone for a few months at a time.

Something I am hearing that I hope the JCBA incorporates would be 40-hour qualifier for overtime pay, which would be particularly important for part-timers (especially if the higher part-time vs. full-time ratios becomes reality). For example, a LUS part-timer scheduled 30 hours weekly must obtain an additional 10 hours by means of overtime or Company requested coverage to qualify for overtime pay, as picking-up hours from another will not allow one to qualify. As I understand the TWU contract, a part-time employee could qualify with the 40 hours simply by picking-up additional hours. Difficult enough to get overtime at times without having to find hours just to get to 40 hours to be qualified.

A couple of things....the LAA policy allows unlimited shift trades whether working or taking off...you have to work 50% of your hours in a half year...but you don’t have to work your shift hours...I know at least 2 PTs that literally haven’t worked their bid shift in years...also VC don’t count against your 50%...

On the PT OT...can’t remember a PTer getting day off OT during my career at AA...even when they have exhausted the FT list, PT aren’t proffered even if they are on the list...they also are rarely if ever extended past 8 hours, because they have to exhaust the FT list first...now if this 40% PT cap that the company wants comes to fruition all bets are off...

 

[737823]

The company wants the same thing that Prez and CB voted unanimously on in the United TA when the DL141 eboard all voted to recommend UATA2. Each had a vote.

Parker, realizing that Sito and his followers approved the United deal, is asking for the same TA. Prez and CB voted for unlimited part time and 400% health care raises so you can see why Parker is wanting some from those 2 as well.

Tim has P. Rez ever worked under any IAM 141 or TWU 580 CBA? Seems PRez has a solid career as a union official from a low paid HP at-will employee. The TWU 580 agreement sounds like it was downright pitiful.

Josh

 

[2ndGENAMT]

The only reason people (TWU side) really hate the Association is because without it they feel they could have taken any issues that the now former IAM Members had and squashed them like little Bugs.

They hate the fact that the so called minority get to have their voices both heard and counted in this process and it drives the Big Bullies just flat out nuts.

A few here in Tulsa felt like squashed bugs yesterday when our IAM Association brothers/sisters had yesterday off!

 

[Bin Stretcher]

A few here in Tulsa felt like squashed bugs yesterday when our IAM Association brothers/sisters had yesterday off!

Perhaps when you attain enough seniority to hold Mon/Tue off you'll be able to enjoy those holidays

 

[PIEDMONT784]

I see that the forum is now shifting to the old "The Association (Union) is Broken -- Only Tim Can Fix It" narrative... Tim's digital allies are working overtime attempting to sell everyone on this agenda. All the while, Tim pretends he doesn't want a vote.

Meantime, the Company has attempted to circumvent the NC team(s), and sway Membership sentiment toward a ratification vote on their last proposal.

Really doesn't take a Rocket Scientist to see through this strategy...

>SPIT<

 

[Tim Nelson]

An update from assoc said that the union proposal provided to get us TOS at DOS. And provide for us to stay there.
Comp proposed TOS at signing no protection to stay TOS

fake news. Sorry but you have no credibility and have never done anything for your members. The members need to see the language because the company says one thing, and your handlers, which are pretty dumb, say something else. It could be that your handlers arent reading properly (where have we seen this before?), so tell them to get the language to smart people like NYer.
Thats a problem with this union, mostly stupid people waiting in line to cash in. The smart ones simply cant be married to stupid.