American Airlines and Labor Negotiations

[bob@las-AA]

he was put in the cornfield. I kind of miss him since he takes the devils advocate approach by advocating for the iam pension and Sito.

To be fair, I wasn’t so taken to cozying up to the IAM on any issue, namely the pension and your health care, but how can you say that taking the stance that the TWU and IAM now have, that this will not be resolved for years. Meanwhile denying the membership the full benefits of what the company is offering now, before entering mediation.

 

[CremaDiLimone]

--That a title would somehow restrict my voice. I'd rather not have a title if that were the case.

--Negotiations is bartering, always will be. An incorrect assumption would be to believe that we would get 100% of what we want. The difficulty in the current negotiations is having so many groups trying to recover several years of losses in one negotiation. It takes time to go up and it takes time to go down, although down is much quicker.

--There is no tip-off of what it would take to get a yes, at the same time it does us no good to set an expectation for the Members that can't be fulfilled. We need to open and honest with what we can and cannot do. If we don't know how something will turn out then we should present it that way.

- if you were on the negotiation committee and publicly posted that the lus insurance is gone, without it being 'officially' gone...then, you'd be a former negotiator (if there's a lever the other negotiators can pull to remove you) that i and others would happen to agree with. when i say 'agree', i mean as in your opinion about the insurance, not necessarily your removal.

- today's era is bartering, despite the record profits. bargaining gives the false impression that the law allows for the bargaining pendulum to be 50% labor-50% capital. it's not like that and i sympathize with our collective 'bargainers'.

- given that, i didn't make any incorrect assumptions that we'd get 100% of everything i or everyone else wants. it seems as though some of the rank & file are filled with defeatism.

- i would still believe it an error to publicly state that giving up the lus insurance to the company should mean an additional $1/hr or .50/hr & 1 additional week vc.

if the TA doesn't meet compensatory criteria, you look bad. maybe it would have meant an additional $1.50/hr to the company or an additional 2 weeks vc.

all in all, you're correct in that i thought this wouldn't take as long as it has and may take much longer. i took mr. parker at his word about an ILC.

 

[NYer]

(1)- if you were on the negotiation committee and publicly posted that the lus insurance is gone, without it being 'officially' gone...then, you'd be a former negotiator (if there's a lever the other negotiators can pull to remove you) that i and others would happen to agree with.

(2} today's era is bartering, despite the record profits. bargaining gives the false impression that the law allows for the bargaining pendulum to be 50% labor-50% capital. it's not like that and i sympathize with our collective 'bargainers'.

(3) given that, i didn't make any incorrect assumptions that we'd get 100% of everything i or everyone else wants. it seems as though some of the rank & file are filled with defeatism.

(4) i would still believe it an error to publicly state that giving up the lus insurance to the company should mean an additional $1/hr or .50/hr & 1 additional week vc.

if the TA doesn't meet compensatory criteria, you look bad. maybe it would have meant an additional $1.50/hr to the company or an additional 2 weeks vc.

(5) all in all, you're correct in that i thought this wouldn't take as long as it has and may take much longer. i took mr. parker at his word about an ILC.

1. And saying it'll survive is different how?

The TWU negotiators are also Presidents of their Local and have a responsibility to their Members. If they have information they believe is pertinent to their Members then they have a responsibility to share. If that costs them a position on the NC, then there is a problem, isn't there.

2. Negotiating under the RLA has the legal obligation of "good faith" bargaining, which means each side needs to move. The amount of movement is at the discretion of the Mediator. Can't just say no indefinitely.

3. Defeatist is a definition used by those that believe we should expect and receive everything we want. It just isn't so.

We ask for everything under the sun but we also should be aware when we are reaching a level where the pendulum turns and the current positives are outweighed by mounting negatives There is a fine line in maximizing returns and over playing our hand.

4. Can't really quantify a specific value for one item over another The goal in a negotiation is to maximize the positives and minimize the negatives. Any losses should be maximized in return for other things or other value and not necessarily item for item. It could be more of a cumulative gain.

5. Everyone has a different interpretation to what ILC means depending on what you're priorities happen to be. The danger of mediation is that it includes the participation of a third party that may not have the same interpretation we may have. They tend to see things in comparison with Corporate America rather than just DL and UA and having a larger pool of comparisons to pull from may not be to our advantage.

 

[Real tired]

for first time ever, iam pension is underfunded by $1 billion. In 2014 the iam cut our benefits in half to artificially boost the funding over 100%. over 3 years, it has sunk $1 billion+.
Maybe prez and mr baskett will have the grand lodge pension they enjoy at 120% funding to be used to help lil ole us out.

If they don't write the pension into the upcoming JCBA, just like they did in '08 to the Maintenance and Related, they will cut the benefits to Maintenance and Related, just like they did to your group in '08.

Guaranteed.

The IAM Pension is no longer viable to the detriment of ME this time.

 

[robbedagain]

If they mgmt dont want to keep putting in to the IAM pension then would they want to offer a 401K with a match and if so how much...4. 5 .6 etc would they be willing?

 

[PIEDMONT784]

If they mgmt dont want to keep putting in to the IAM pension then would they want to offer a 401K with a match and if so how much...4. 5 .6 etc would they be willing?

Simple... with the 401k there is not going to be a match for 100% of the group, simply because the full 100% will never conribute to begin with.
With the pension, the Company HAS to contribute for every single member regardless...

Now, if you were the company, which would you prefer?

 

[Tim Nelson]

To be fair, I wasn’t so taken to cozying up to the IAM on any issue, namely the pension and your health care, but how can you say that taking the stance that the TWU and IAM now have, that this will not be resolved for years. Meanwhile denying the membership the full benefits of what the company is offering now, before entering mediation.

Because LUS health care is said to be a deal breaker by the company. The company has no interest in negotiating or scheduling negotiations without movement along those lines. Therefore, it is very likely to be section 6 since the TWU stuck up for our insurance, then said LAA should get it as well. Thus, the company and Association are on two different wavelengths. If it goes section 6, then we can be almost certain that things will start new. I seriously doubt the company will want to attach all the previously signed TA's since it will want to show some sorta progress to wait out the union, over years.

The only thing, imo, that will speed up talks is if the company tosses down the TWU card, i.e., whacks 5 stations and conditions it on a deal. And/or throws down the IAM card and whacks 1,000 unprotected IAM members who are doing the 70s work due only to the graces of the company. The thought being that United Airlines threw down the IAM card and whacked stations and 'rooted out' Sito who flipped like a pancake overnight after dropping F bombs saying he would never agree to such a crappy contract....oh but he did after they went after his dues money of whacking people.

 

[gulfcoast1]

Voicing the frustrations and telling the Association they need to be more transparent and share more information is trying to change things.

You have other suggestions?

Mike Mayes gave us this today.

http://www.twulocal513.org/docs/Air Division Office 4-30-18.pdf

Relieved to know he can still send out memos. Now if he is too busy to send out one about the millions of dollars owed to his members, then the international should find someone else who is not too busy. Why is the international letting this happen? Is there nobody in that office who cares?

 

[gulfcoast1]

Absolutely, for the most part. That ball was dropped when it was released from the court proceedings, and the TWU wasn't ready to move ahead. They've acknowledged that.

That was another process that wasn't explained as well as it should have been, but that was also mired in internal politics.

I agree and we have not heard anything for months, again. Any way you can pass on that it is now May and information on the next step in the process is overdue?

 

[Kev3188]

Simple... with the 401k there is not going to be a match for 100% of the group, simply because the full 100% will never conribute to begin with.
With the pension, the Company HAS to contribute for every single member regardless...

Now, if you were the company, which would you prefer?

That's not what he asked.

A negotiated company match percentage, and whether or not an employee participates are two very separate things. Even you should know that.

 

[CremaDiLimone]

1. And saying it'll survive is different how?

The TWU negotiators are also Presidents of their Local and have a responsibility to their Members. If they have information they believe is pertinent to their Members then they have a responsibility to share. If that costs them a position on the NC, then there is a problem, isn't there.

2. Negotiating under the RLA has the legal obligation of "good faith" bargaining, which means each side needs to move. The amount of movement is at the discretion of the Mediator. Can't just say no indefinitely.

3. Defeatist is a definition used by those that believe we should expect and receive everything we want. It just isn't so.

We ask for everything under the sun but we also should be aware when we are reaching a level where the pendulum turns and the current positives are outweighed by mounting negatives There is a fine line in maximizing returns and over playing our hand.

4. Can't really quantify a specific value for one item over another The goal in a negotiation is to maximize the positives and minimize the negatives. Any losses should be maximized in return for other things or other value and not necessarily item for item. It could be more of a cumulative gain.

5. Everyone has a different interpretation to what ILC means depending on what you're priorities happen to be. The danger of mediation is that it includes the participation of a third party that may not have the same interpretation we may have. They tend to see things in comparison with Corporate America rather than just DL and UA and having a larger pool of comparisons to pull from may not be to our advantage.

- a twu negotiator saying what you have said about lus insurance would be undermining every single iam negotiator. i have not read any guarantees from any iam negotiator here that lus insurance will survive...they are doing their job for their rank & file members saying they are fighting for it. those iam negotiators and twu negotiators have alerted the combined rank & file that lus insurance is under severe threat.

given that, my opinion is that the wisest thing they can do, is put a price tag on it and sell it to the company. those machinations should not be put out for rank & file knowledge for a few reasons, including the inevitable political suicide of iam negotiators for 'selling out'.

- what the mediator determines as movement from the company is subjective. the fact that there is no legislation allowing for retro-pay and the law is very sensitive to any perceived job action...tells us that a 2018 union is not the 1949 uaw. these are not objective realities faced by the capital, but, by labor.

- the defeatism i talk about is various rank & file with the traditional 'the next offer will be worse', 'we're lucky to be making $31/hr'...etc. etc. whatever the assoc. is fighting for, means nothing to them...they believe the assoc. is fighting against them. that has been exhibited here.

- i believe the assoc. put a figure on lus insurance; wasn't it $39 million per year? obviously, the company is aware the assoc., especially the iam part, can't just give this away without claiming victory somewhere else. i believe the company will accept this and is aware that this is a huge glitch for the assoc to get rid of lus insurance. how much and where is an easy sell for twu members, not so for iam.

do i believe the company will match $39 million per year elsewhere? no. do we need to know this? no. if i'm the assoc., if eliminating the lus insurance will save aa $39 million/per year, i want to see $150 million/over 5 years elsewhere, atop a more generous wage on DOS.

 

[1AA]

Let's say we go into section 6 openers.
If the company decides to reset negotiations or review and revise every article already agreed upon will this end up taking another 2 years to move forward? The economy always swings up and down so if negotiations keep dragging on and on at what point should we say enough is enough?
The dues keep flowing, the company makes money and we as union members wonder if we will ever get that promised ILC. As a group how much longer should we wait? Oil prices rising. Who's to blame for that? It's always labors fault. Wake up folks. We've been played by everyone. NMB, AA, TWU, IAM and the AFL-CIO.
Unfortunately we are locked in a position that our hope for change results in the same outcome. Another summer is closing in and we are no closer than we were in 2015 when the birth of the Association came into our lives. Time for a change of union leadership. New ideas, new approaches and a negotiating body that represents one skilled group versus what we have now. One Union, One Voice.
What's so difficult with this concept?
Something to think about as negotiations drag into another summer. Have a great Summer folks. Stay safe and be happy.

 

[Tim Nelson]

Let's say we go into section 6 openers.
If the company decides to reset negotiations or review and revise every article already agreed upon will this end up taking another 2 years to move forward? The economy always swings up and down so if negotiations keep dragging on and on at what point should we say enough is enough?
The dues keep flowing, the company makes money and we as union members wonder if we will ever get that promised ILC. As a group how much longer should we wait? Oil prices rising. Who's to blame for that? It's always labors fault. Wake up folks. We've been played by everyone. NMB, AA, TWU, IAM and the AFL-CIO.
Unfortunately we are locked in a position that our hope for change results in the same outcome. Another summer is closing in and we are no closer than we were in 2015 when the birth of the Association came into our lives. Time for a change of union leadership. New ideas, new approaches and a negotiating body that represents one skilled group versus what we have now. One Union, One Voice.
What's so difficult with this concept?
Something to think about as negotiations drag into another summer. Have a great Summer folks. Stay safe and be happy.

as things drag on, the mx may spike interest in what you are referring to.
but no way in hell does the company recognize all the ta's from previous negotiations since it will most likely want snail pace progression so mediation isnt as engaged. Thats why openers are openers. All new unless the company agrees to expedite. But even if it agrees to expedite and to include mediation, NO MEDIATOR will get involved for years in any sorta authoritative recommendation way. Believe me. See United.

 

[NYer]

I agree and we have not heard anything for months, again. Any way you can pass on that it is now May and information on the next step in the process is overdue?

The last update said, late May or early June, so we're still on course with that as the airline has reported their Project Spring is coming along better than expected. We could hear something this week.

 

[NYer]

(1)- a twu negotiator saying what you have said about lus insurance would be undermining every single iam negotiator. i have not read any guarantees from any iam negotiator here that lus insurance will survive...they are doing their job for their rank & file members saying they are fighting for it. those iam negotiators and twu negotiators have alerted the combined rank & file that lus insurance is under severe threat.

(2) given that, my opinion is that the wisest thing they can do, is put a price tag on it and sell it to the company. those machinations should not be put out for rank & file knowledge for a few reasons, including the inevitable political suicide of iam negotiators for 'selling out'.

- what the mediator determines as movement from the company is subjective. the fact that there is no legislation allowing for retro-pay and the law is very sensitive to any perceived job action...tells us that a 2018 union is not the 1949 uaw. these are not objective realities faced by the capital, but, by labor.

(3) - the defeatism i talk about is various rank & file with the traditional 'the next offer will be worse', 'we're lucky to be making $31/hr'...etc. etc. whatever the assoc. is fighting for, means nothing to them...they believe the assoc. is fighting against them. that has been exhibited here.

(4) - i believe the assoc. put a figure on lus insurance; wasn't it $39 million per year? obviously, the company is aware the assoc., especially the iam part, can't just give this away without claiming victory somewhere else. i believe the company will accept this and is aware that this is a huge glitch for the assoc to get rid of lus insurance. how much and where is an easy sell for twu members, not so for iam.

(5) do i believe the company will match $39 million per year elsewhere? no. do we need to know this? no. if i'm the assoc., if eliminating the lus insurance will save aa $39 million/per year, i want to see $150 million/over 5 years elsewhere, atop a more generous wage on DOS.

1- Undermining? It isn't a secret the airline would go after the IAM medical to get everyone else in the LAA Plans. The airline has been working for 10 years to get everyone into the same plans. It may be news to the IAM, but it is open knowledge on the TWU side. I was one of the first to point out the fact that the IAM medical will become the central issue for the Fleet group. That declaration was scoffed because of the survival of that plan to this point.

During the protests last summer most everyone was bashing the IAM because they didn't participate, while I was explaining their side of the story and their point of view of these very same negotiations. Was my sharing undermining at that point? If we talk honestly about what we face then we can better prepare gain as much as lose as little as possible.

2- That's a decision for the Association to make but before they make it they would need to acknowledge, internally, there is no other recourse. That may or may not happen, but if it does it starts with a conversation about the realities of the situation and an honest discussion on the alternatives.

3- And that feeling is only fueled by poor communication on the process.

4- Wouldn't be an easy sell to anyone wearing those shoes.

5- There would be no way to quantify any value for any lost pieces within the gains in CBA. They are usually the addition of multiple pieces. We see the medical number as $39M, but the airline seems a much higher number because if they allow one group to have a different insurance all other groups will want the same and that will cause their medical expenses to go up more than the reported $39M just for our group. The APA and the APFA start negotiations on their next CBA in 2019.