American Airlines and Labor Negotiations

[CremaDiLimone]

It's not a yes or no question.

If I was in charge of the communication, then yes.

If I had access to the information, then yes.

Unfortunately, we have neither, but we have and continue to advocate for the Association to share more information and in greater detail

if you were mike mayes, what more would you, and/or, could you share, about negotiations?

giving out info on the TAed cs policy or OT procedure prior to a vote on a TA? might you be considered 'a leak in the boat', and possibly get removed?

telling the rank the file that it will be a difficult and complicated process, and that a high percentage of the rank and file will be disappointed...well, you have already told us that as a non-negotiator. most likely you'd be correct...but wouldn't that violate the spirit of negotiations as an actual negotiator?

the company claims that the assoc. bad-mouthed it's proposals and had no other choice but to release facts and figures and produce videos. the finger-pointing starts, but the company certainly did violate the spirit of negotiations. i'd say that before i would say the company wants to keep me informed about it's 'ILC' proposals.

if you were a negotiator, there is no way you'd be telling us that there is a 'loophole' chance that fleet and AMT could separate and vote separate of the other on a TA. we've been told that we are tied at the hip and no TA for one, means no TA for the other.

i do applaud you on sharing your opinion about LUS insurance. at the same time, you can't expect IAM negotiators to tell us they might be willing to bend on it in exchange for this or that. that is absolute political suicide...despite the writing on that wall. in fact, parker was referring to it in the PAST TENSE in the q1 video.

if you're talking about the equity situation, yes...that has been a shipwreck wrapped into a train wreck.

as far as negotiations, what more could/would you reveal/share?

 

[bob@las-AA]

Prez or CB. If the talks end up in section 6 .How much leverage is there for the Assoc vs the company even with dp stating AA will never lose money again. Then fast fwd to 1st qtr earn they made a profit albeit not as high as it cld have

This has been my sole focus from the beginning. I truly believe that all of this negotiating, if that's what you can call it, has been done as a courtesy. The company knows what they want to spend on labor long in advance, and shouldn't come to surprise anyone of their intent. If anyone has been following the town halls and the state of the airline should know by now that the company is not and will not move from their comprehensive proposal, grant you, our so called union, association or negotiators, never revealed to the membership any details to the nature of the company offer. The association has no leverage or power what so ever. Anyone thinking differently should be considered a fool. It is my opinion that the association will dupe the membership in thinking that the loss of catering, and deicing will lead to a loss of head count. This is not true. The current road we are traveling down right now bears a striking resemblance to how the SWA FSC got a deal in the end after 4 years, and that 4 years from now to get what we have now. Letting this drag on, and possibly for years, non of us will ever get what the company wants to give us TODAY, and finally I held the best for last, the association knows that this deal is not the best, and the probability of a better one is remote, and has to give a good performance to maintain the support of the membership, taking a militant stance on not giving in, only brings us to years of nothing and in the end, after mediation has failed, and arbitration will strip all the good out of what we could have had, the association can shift the blame away from them selves.

Start putting pressure on your locals, and tell them to put what we have now to a vote. As I said in a past post, that the company is offering now is a $11565.60 overall earnings increase per year, verses nothing for years because of the association.

 

[NYer]

if you were mike mayes, what more would you, and/or, could you share, about negotiations?

giving out info on the TAed cs policy or OT procedure prior to a vote on a TA? might you be considered 'a leak in the boat', and possibly get removed?

Mike doesn't control the flow of information, that is an organizational decision and under their control.

That being said, I never advocated for details of the proposals or the TA's be disclosed. What could have and should have been done, in my opinion, is to have more information as to the differences in the two CBA's and the process by which those differences would be reconciled. There is a difference in culture and each union has a different perspective of the negotiations based on the content of their CBA's.

To me, the proper expectations were not set and many believed we were close to a TA when in fact we were not. That false expectation has created a mound of frustrations that may ultimately work against us.

 

[AANOTOK]

cross utilization = no leverage

Fighting = holding current position

LUS insurance= no leverage.

 

[NYer]

(1.)-if you were a negotiator, there is no way you'd be telling us that there is a 'loophole' chance that fleet and AMT could separate and vote separate of the other on a TA. we've been told that we are tied at the hip and no TA for one, means no TA for the other.

(2.) i do applaud you on sharing your opinion about LUS insurance. at the same time, you can't expect IAM negotiators to tell us they might be willing to bend on it in exchange for this or that. that is absolute political suicide...despite the writing on that wall. in fact, parker was referring to it in the PAST TENSE in the q1 video.

if you're talking about the equity situation, yes...that has been a shipwreck wrapped into a train wreck.

(3.) as far as negotiations, what more could/would you reveal/share?

1- It isn't a "loophole" it is the manner in which the Association applied for and received their certification for the Associations. There are 3 separate Association agreements and Constitutions (Fleet, Maintenance, Stores). Being told we're tied to hip was not being deceitful about the process because during the current negotiations that's exactly what has happened and everyone may have the complete intention to continue that way, but the NMB and the assigned Mediators may decide to separate the groups because the certifications of the Association allows it.

2- If I was an IAM negotiator I'd be doing and fighting that change as vigorously as they are. I've been one of the few that didn't criticize the IAM during the protests last summer because I understood their position and I agreed that if the situation was reversed we'd be doing that same exact thing. That's part of the explanation that needed to be shared so that there would not be an animosity build up between the groups that can now work against keeping the IAM medical. No one should ever give up a fight but that doesn't mean that the fight can't be lost.

3- Mediation is not in our favor and saying no continously can buy time but it doesn't change an outcome. If we go into that process and there is no vote, I'd hope there would be a realistic timeframe of what that process usually entails.

 

[CremaDiLimone]

@NYer

fair enough. i brought up mayes because he is the head of the airline division. if he wanted to implement a strategy of 'leaking' company low-ball proposals to keep the rank file aware...

he only reports to samuelson?

my hypothetical is if you were in mayes' position, what would you share?

 

[CremaDiLimone]

LUS insurance= no leverage.

well, to the anger of lus..

i'd look at it as leverage, since the company is hot to get rid of it. what 'more' will you give us to make this go away?

 

[bob@las-AA]

135 day till 9/12/2018

 

[bob@las-AA]

I'm guessing the weez is in the cornfield.

 

[AANOTOK]

LUS insurance= no leverage.

Mike Mayes gave us this today.

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

 

[NYer]

@NYer

fair enough. i brought up mayes because he is the head of the airline division. if he wanted to implement a strategy of 'leaking' company low-ball proposals to keep the rank file aware...

1... he only reports to samuelson?

2... my hypothetical is if you were in mayes' position, what would you share?

1. On the TWU side, he would report to the International Executive Committee, the top 5 Officers. As far as the Association, that has an entirely separate governing body and hierarchy which make decisions on the negotiations process and communications. Most of the information on the TWU side has come from "Presidents" and not necessarily the Association, although they've said anything other than their updates may be considered unofficial.

2. Regardless of what position I'd be in, I'd share what I have been sharing which I don't believe is in violation of anything because it is about the process and not necessarily about the specific contents on any of the TA's.

 

[Tim Nelson]

LUS insurance= no leverage.

it is in the sense that the company really has no reason to negotiate since they got it made with the TWU in an awful contract, but it does want lus health to go away.

 

[PIEDMONT784]

I'm guessing the weez is in the cornfield.

Nope...

He (like a lot of us) just decided to let the regular forum naysayers have at it back and fourth with each other in their own little semi-private universe...
This entire forum is the same negative hype, over and over again, day in day, out...
To make things easier, why don't you guys just copy and past the following at least 50 times a day per person...

Union = Corrupt + Officers = Corrupt -- Company Bankruptcies = Union's Fault + Association= No leverage + Negotiators = Stupid.

This would save thousands of words, and countless hours spent attempting to clandestinely transmit the same message subliminally!

>SPIT<

 

[bob@las-AA]

Yep <Snort> <Spit> he is in the cornfield.

 

[CremaDiLimone]

2. Regardless of what position I'd be in, I'd share what I have been sharing which I don't believe is in violation of anything because it is about the process and not necessarily about the specific contents on any of the TA's.

i don't know about this...

i don't believe you'd be sharing with the rank & file your personal opinion(s) that; lus insurance is a goner or palatable wage tables or the potential of one work group voting on a TA, while the other group has stalled in negotiations.

if you were a negotiator/head of airline division, sure, you could share your opinions with others of the same stature and try to formulate a negotiating strategy. maybe you would have objected to tieing the groups together; it seemed to have worked for vc, it may fall flat with scope.

i'm not trying to be argumentative, i was trying to understand what meat & potatoes the assoc. can share.

nonetheless, it's good to get others' opinions about the issues mentioned above. to me, the meat & potatoes are compensation & scope. you have talked about the cs policy and ot. you're entitled to give them importance...but, i don't rate those issues as being high on my list.