PIEDMONT784
Veteran
- Joined
- Feb 3, 2018
- Messages
- 681
- Reaction score
- 41
Weez this dude ran, and was elected twice as the 43rd president. He served from 01 to 09...
He is constitutionally prohibited from running again!
American Airlines and Labor Negotiations
- Thread starter Buck
- Start date
- Status
He is constitutionally prohibited from running again!
PIEDMONT784
Veteran
- Joined
- Feb 3, 2018
- Messages
- 681
- Reaction score
- 41
Weez... there is light at the end of the tunnel...
AA flys there frequently, and the beer is cold and cheap!
AANOTOK
Veteran
- Joined
- Oct 10, 2009
- Messages
- 4,627
- Reaction score
- 2,242
Am I in the AA negotiations forum or Water Cooler? If it's the latter, I apologize for this question comment.
Is the Association update due out today, or since it was the "wrapping up of minor things" with zero NC members present, it's not member worthy??
Is the Association update due out today, or since it was the "wrapping up of minor things" with zero NC members present, it's not member worthy??
Come on you know nothing is going to happen until Tim trounces Sito in the election
WeAAsles
Veteran
- Joined
- Oct 20, 2007
- Messages
- 26,578
- Reaction score
- 5,361
June 12, 2018
With regard to last week's AA informational sessions:
Last week, the Sky Harbor Lodge was pleased to host negotiators from both Fleet and Maintenance negotiating teams, including PHX-based negotiating committee members Pat Rezler and Mark Strength, as well as District 142 President and Directing General Chairman Dave Supplee, District 141 President and Directing General Chairman Michael Klemm, and Grand Lodge Representative and Chief Negotiator Tom Regan. The team was joined by District 142 General Chair Randy Griffith.
Headed by Brother Regan, the discussions, comprised of mostly question and answer, focused on the current status of the ongoing contract negotiations, and, for the most part, the five remaining issues under dispute: Scope, Insurance, Retirement, Profit Sharing, and Compensation, although, it should be noted, the last four, being primarily economic issues, are quite interrelated.
The scope discussions dealt with what work we do own, and how many cities we work in, and how many continuous jobs we will hold. A complexity of this issue comes with the potential of a buyout option, which, traditionally, companies have used to sell a less-than ideal contract. By way of example, according to the company’s “supposal” (proposal is the wrong word...the company has not made any proposals to the union in several weeks, so the details of the company’s ideas toward an agreement are nebulous at best. Hence, we “suppose” the company is offering this or that: supposal), were they to offer 300 buyouts, then, presumably, 300 people who are planning on retiring anyway, but are waiting around for the buyout, are an automatic “yes” for the contract, regardless of the consequences. And, as they say, the devil’s in the details: the company has no intention of filling those positions...they’re gone. With fewer positions, there come with it fewer opportunities for advancement from part-time to full-time, agent to crew chief, or even system transfers.
Another aspect of scope, affecting staffing, is cargo and mail. Our proposal protects cargo and mail, the company wants the ability to outsource mail. Were they to do that, it could potentially affect in-station staffing, in that while you may be protected in Phoenix in your “basic classification” (company’s words), you’re not necessarily protected in your status as a full-timer, if you happen to be full-time.
At the end of the day, the union proposal would maintain the ownership of all the work we have now in the cities we have now (including cargo and mail, as I mentioned, deicing, catering, RON cleaning, lavs, potable water), and expand our work into cities we don’t currently service. It’s a fight worth having, because nothing else means a hill of beans if we don’t have the work.
Insurance. Look, I don’t think there’s anybody, anywhere, that wants to spend more than they have to. The LUS insurance is the best there is, and the cost to bring the LAA members into it is $40m a year. Don’t be fooled: this LAA insurance wasn’t negotiated by any union, rather, it was bestowed through bankruptcy. Two bankruptcies. The pilots and flight attendants got it through binding arbitration. Pax service through a largely un-represented workgroup suddenly becoming unionized. We’re the only ones negotiating this insurance, and believe me, the rest of the company is watching. The LAA negotiators realize this too, and are 100% on board with fighting this fight. In the mean time, the company is going around with their road shows, talking about how wonderful their insurance is. Frankly, and this is a message you can take to them, they need to convince the negotiators: if it’s that good, then come back to the table and show us. The truth is, it just isn’t, and it will hurt far more than it helps.
Retirement: company wants your pension, but doesn’t want to supplement it satisfactorily with an automatic contribution to a 401k, or even with a particularly great match. By way of example, the pilots get a 16% automatic contribution, which means a 777 captain stands to bring in $48,000 a year in retirement savings without having to add a dime of his own money. In contrast, the company is offering us 5% automatic, and a 4% match. If the company can come back with something more competitive than that, then we’ll consider it, but again, they need to come back to the table and negotiate.
Profit sharing: the company’s structure doesn’t come close to its competitors. Until it does, we don’t have a bargain.
Compensation: We’ve been assured time and time again that we will have an industry-leading contract with an industry-leading pay scale. The company’s “supposal” starts out at the top, but we’d fall behind within a few years. This is simply not acceptable.
This got a little long, but here you go. So here’s what we need to do: solidify. Unify. In a few weeks, we expect the company to come around with their insurance road show. When they do, I’d like you not to attend. Only a full boycott will be effective. Instead, we’ll send our representative to the show, and kindly remind them that the negotiating committee is the only group empowered to strike a deal, and they should be selling it to them. This was very effectively done in DCA, CLT will do it next week, and we can do it here, too. Full boycott.
Also, don’t engage in a debate with the company with regard to these negotiations. What I said earlier is true: only the negotiating committee can bargain with the company. Rather than engaging in a debate, the message is simple. Negotiate with the negotiators.
But here’s the most important thing we can do: do your job. Do it to the best of your ability. Do it like the company tells you to do it. But, a caveat: we’re our own worst enemy when it comes to solidarity, so when I say do your job, I mean it literally...do your job. Don’t do someone else’s job. That someone needs to do their job. If you do their job, then the company really doesn’t need them, do they? So, simply, if someone else is assigned to a task, please let them do it.
Sorry this was so long, but it’s important we have the right information. If you have any questions about this, Mr. Rezler is your best resource for the correct information.
In Solidarity,
Jason
IAM President of PHX Local 2559 Jason Kammer
With regard to last week's AA informational sessions:
Last week, the Sky Harbor Lodge was pleased to host negotiators from both Fleet and Maintenance negotiating teams, including PHX-based negotiating committee members Pat Rezler and Mark Strength, as well as District 142 President and Directing General Chairman Dave Supplee, District 141 President and Directing General Chairman Michael Klemm, and Grand Lodge Representative and Chief Negotiator Tom Regan. The team was joined by District 142 General Chair Randy Griffith.
Headed by Brother Regan, the discussions, comprised of mostly question and answer, focused on the current status of the ongoing contract negotiations, and, for the most part, the five remaining issues under dispute: Scope, Insurance, Retirement, Profit Sharing, and Compensation, although, it should be noted, the last four, being primarily economic issues, are quite interrelated.
The scope discussions dealt with what work we do own, and how many cities we work in, and how many continuous jobs we will hold. A complexity of this issue comes with the potential of a buyout option, which, traditionally, companies have used to sell a less-than ideal contract. By way of example, according to the company’s “supposal” (proposal is the wrong word...the company has not made any proposals to the union in several weeks, so the details of the company’s ideas toward an agreement are nebulous at best. Hence, we “suppose” the company is offering this or that: supposal), were they to offer 300 buyouts, then, presumably, 300 people who are planning on retiring anyway, but are waiting around for the buyout, are an automatic “yes” for the contract, regardless of the consequences. And, as they say, the devil’s in the details: the company has no intention of filling those positions...they’re gone. With fewer positions, there come with it fewer opportunities for advancement from part-time to full-time, agent to crew chief, or even system transfers.
Another aspect of scope, affecting staffing, is cargo and mail. Our proposal protects cargo and mail, the company wants the ability to outsource mail. Were they to do that, it could potentially affect in-station staffing, in that while you may be protected in Phoenix in your “basic classification” (company’s words), you’re not necessarily protected in your status as a full-timer, if you happen to be full-time.
At the end of the day, the union proposal would maintain the ownership of all the work we have now in the cities we have now (including cargo and mail, as I mentioned, deicing, catering, RON cleaning, lavs, potable water), and expand our work into cities we don’t currently service. It’s a fight worth having, because nothing else means a hill of beans if we don’t have the work.
Insurance. Look, I don’t think there’s anybody, anywhere, that wants to spend more than they have to. The LUS insurance is the best there is, and the cost to bring the LAA members into it is $40m a year. Don’t be fooled: this LAA insurance wasn’t negotiated by any union, rather, it was bestowed through bankruptcy. Two bankruptcies. The pilots and flight attendants got it through binding arbitration. Pax service through a largely un-represented workgroup suddenly becoming unionized. We’re the only ones negotiating this insurance, and believe me, the rest of the company is watching. The LAA negotiators realize this too, and are 100% on board with fighting this fight. In the mean time, the company is going around with their road shows, talking about how wonderful their insurance is. Frankly, and this is a message you can take to them, they need to convince the negotiators: if it’s that good, then come back to the table and show us. The truth is, it just isn’t, and it will hurt far more than it helps.
Retirement: company wants your pension, but doesn’t want to supplement it satisfactorily with an automatic contribution to a 401k, or even with a particularly great match. By way of example, the pilots get a 16% automatic contribution, which means a 777 captain stands to bring in $48,000 a year in retirement savings without having to add a dime of his own money. In contrast, the company is offering us 5% automatic, and a 4% match. If the company can come back with something more competitive than that, then we’ll consider it, but again, they need to come back to the table and negotiate.
Profit sharing: the company’s structure doesn’t come close to its competitors. Until it does, we don’t have a bargain.
Compensation: We’ve been assured time and time again that we will have an industry-leading contract with an industry-leading pay scale. The company’s “supposal” starts out at the top, but we’d fall behind within a few years. This is simply not acceptable.
This got a little long, but here you go. So here’s what we need to do: solidify. Unify. In a few weeks, we expect the company to come around with their insurance road show. When they do, I’d like you not to attend. Only a full boycott will be effective. Instead, we’ll send our representative to the show, and kindly remind them that the negotiating committee is the only group empowered to strike a deal, and they should be selling it to them. This was very effectively done in DCA, CLT will do it next week, and we can do it here, too. Full boycott.
Also, don’t engage in a debate with the company with regard to these negotiations. What I said earlier is true: only the negotiating committee can bargain with the company. Rather than engaging in a debate, the message is simple. Negotiate with the negotiators.
But here’s the most important thing we can do: do your job. Do it to the best of your ability. Do it like the company tells you to do it. But, a caveat: we’re our own worst enemy when it comes to solidarity, so when I say do your job, I mean it literally...do your job. Don’t do someone else’s job. That someone needs to do their job. If you do their job, then the company really doesn’t need them, do they? So, simply, if someone else is assigned to a task, please let them do it.
Sorry this was so long, but it’s important we have the right information. If you have any questions about this, Mr. Rezler is your best resource for the correct information.
In Solidarity,
Jason
IAM President of PHX Local 2559 Jason Kammer
What's with the company wanting to cut so many jobs and then turn around and hire an insane amount of managers do they realize how F@@king stupid they look
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2002
- Messages
- 7,319
- Reaction score
- 1,555
I know I am falling into a subject that has been discussed for some time, but Sito on the board of UAL isn't that a conflict of interest?
It reminds me of Bob Crandall getting his hand spank for discussing airline business with Braniff.
It reminds me of Bob Crandall getting his hand spank for discussing airline business with Braniff.
WeAAsles
Veteran
- Joined
- Oct 20, 2007
- Messages
- 26,578
- Reaction score
- 5,361
No it’s not a conflict of interest. Having a seat on the Board gives you a voice in the overall general direction of the Company. And besides the ALPA Pilots Union also has a seat on the Board. Should they also be accused of having a conflict of interest against their Membership.
I wish the TWU/ IAM Association had a seat on AA’s BOD.
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/b/boardofdirectors.asp
If it's not a conflict of interest maybe Sito is spreading himself to thin.But listen to Buck a member of UAL board negptiating a contract for AA what else would you call it.Dave you can stop.kissing Sitos butt Tim will be your boss and you will worship and adore him
Weez from now on when Tim posts something I want you to salute his picture
Informative?? I didn't read anything I didn't know
AANOTOK
Veteran
- Joined
- Oct 10, 2009
- Messages
- 4,627
- Reaction score
- 2,242
And where did you learn all that you know...from the IAM...I'm TWU and had no clue they were fighting to hold on to mail. Didn't know the 777 captian would earn $48,000 for doing nothing, did you?? I knew the 16% was given, did not know the prize total.
Company makes billions I hope the union is fighting for all jobs and wanting to add more
AANOTOK
Veteran
- Joined
- Oct 10, 2009
- Messages
- 4,627
- Reaction score
- 2,242
Who doesn't?
- Status
