That lack of information is what allows the airline to fill the gaps and their version of the story gets more credibility from the Members that just want some information or an update.
Now that you’re actually a part of and involved with the process have you given any particular advice to exactly how your Union Brothers should transmit the information you feel is lacking?
Aside from the official Association updates I’ve seen Gary Peterson videos, Dale Danker written and video updates, Mark Baskett E- Mail blasts that are shared with TWU Members and just yesterday an update from the IAM Phoenix Local President.
What I admit I find extremely frustrating is trying to get you to inform precisely what you need that has been missing regarding information? (Explaining the difficulties shtick again?)
“”””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.
In Solidarity,
Jason””””
