APFA plans pretend strikes on Nov. 18

[L1011Ret]

Once and for all.....
Big brother AA, created all the layoffs and APFA had little control over it.... Stop blaming APFA...
Didn't AA just announce big mechanic layoffs.... Most will be TWA....
This all comes from the company and all the senority intergration permitts AA to lay off TWA employees first. Thats what the company wanted and that's what they got. Funny how they made it look like the unions did the bad deed.....
Wake up ... AA was behind all this...

Wake up back to you. AA wanted integration of some lists in some form. AA wanted some form of similar benefits as far as the TWA f/As were concerned. APFA promised there would be no stapling then changed their minds to total staple. It was totally, and I mean totally, APFA's doing to staple. APFA wrote the SIA not AA. The APFA lawyer has publically acknowledged it was a bad deed.

 

[Itestwell]

APFA shows passengers and management what a selective strike might look like:

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dw...on1.ac39aa.html

Hmm. Selective Strike. Is not that similar to CHAOS?

 

[FWAAA]

Hmm. Selective Strike. Is not that similar to CHAOS?

I didn't want to infringe on the AFA trademark - you wanna get sued?

 

[Itestwell]

I didn't want to infringe on the AFA trademark - you wanna get sued?

So, if the APFA does get released into a cooling off period in 2010, and are then free to strike, are they considering "selective" strikes as a form of self help?

 

[FWAAA]

I don't know whether APFA is considering CHAOS-style self-help in the future (as I'm not a flight attendant or an employee of AA) but from all public reports, yesterday's exercise that included informational picketing at some airports plus turning around a uniform pin backing disc from yellow to red on select flights was intended to simulate a potential job action affecting only selected flights.

So my guess is Yes, it's probably being considered. Along with the full arsenal of self-help tools.

 

[FA Mikey]

It would more likely mimic the strike in 93.

 

[Bob Owens]

FAs took painful concessions along with everyone else, but their paycut was nowhere near 33%. List everything you want - it won't add up to a 33% reduction.

I understand that some FAs may not care if passengers are sympathetic to their plight, but if the FAs desire any public support, they really should reconsider sticking to the facts.

All union workers took at least an immediate 25% cut in pay in 2003 and had contracts put in place that would increase that number over the 5 years of the contract, some took more than the initial 25% such as pilots who were knocked down to FO and mechanics who were knocked down to OSMs. Then factor in the increases that lagged inflation and the increased health care costs we were forced to pay and 33% is extremely conservative, its closer to 40% and climbing.

When you consider that the average inflation rate over the last 30 years is in excess of 3% its obvious that 1.5% annual increases are paycuts in real terms.

 

[eolesen]

Well, it's not contractual, but the company is using seniority in the layoff of agents at STL. Don't know about other stations. They can use any method they choose, of course, but using seniority means they don't have to actually think about it--i.e., evaluate job performance/attendance or other factors like one would normally do in a non-union staff cut in most companies.

It might not be contractual, but I'm 95% certain that reduction if force by reverse seniority is written company policy for all Grade 55 and 42 (hourly support staff and agents). Likewise for in-class transfers. You can probably look it up in Employee Policy Guide on Jetnet.

 

[nbmcg01]

All union workers took at least an immediate 25% cut in pay in 2003 and had contracts put in place that would increase that number over the 5 years of the contract, some took more than the initial 25% such as pilots who were knocked down to FO and mechanics who were knocked down to OSMs. Then factor in the increases that lagged inflation and the increased health care costs we were forced to pay and 33% is extremely conservative, its closer to 40% and climbing.

When you consider that the average inflation rate over the last 30 years is in excess of 3% its obvious that 1.5% annual increases are paycuts in real terms.

6000 of us took a 100% cut in pay and benefits. Average it in....

 

[BigBangTheory]

6000 of us took a 100% cut in pay and benefits. Average it in....

Post deleted by Moderator: Profanity and personal attack on another member.

 

[nbmcg01]

Edited to remove quoted post that has been deleted.

Excuse me! I was an AA f/a when I was furloughed. I was taking up for the f/as who were being challenged on their % of concessions. As I said average it in..Read before you write. And also you are very fast to forget there were nAAtives in that number. the former TWA only counted for 4200. How quickly you forget when it isn't your job. This was simply about concessions. *******.

 

[jimntx]

I walked in Boston, there were about 30-40 people plus a couple from United. Sad to say, the travaelling public doesn't care. I was handing out leaflets and only 2 people took them. We were only allowed to either be upstairs or downstairs, not in both locations, and only 9 at a time outside. Upstairs where the limo/shuttle drop off pax, we got people who had money to pay for a private limo/shuttle or came from hotels. Downstairs was where we should have been, where the majority of the traveling public were, getting off the subway bus.

Byron, it still would not have mattered or gotten you anymore interest from the public. As long as they can afford the fares, they don't care if you are paid a living wage or not. If anything, they are afraid that paying f/as a living wage would make the fares unaffordable to most of them.

The days are gone when people cared about the plight of union members in negotiations or their working conditions. The years of the railroad unions forcing the railroads to keep people on the payroll who no longer had a job to do (known as featherbedding), and such things as the air controllers strike back in the 70's (early 80's? Sad when they get old and can't remember), convinced the public that union members wanted to be paid for not working. The ATCs were striking because they felt they were being overworked and underpaid. When the public found out that the starting annual pay for an air traffic controller was $35,000 (a princely sum at the time) and that by law they didn't work more than 30 hours/week (IIRC), public support evaporated. (They were on duty 40 hours/week, but got a required 15-30 minute break every 2 hours, plus a paid lunch hour.)

Such things, the corruption of some unions--like the Teamsters under Hoffa--and certain politicians have convinced the public that unions as a rule are bad for the economy and bad for business.

 

[eolesen]

Don't forget little things like stories about the flight attendant and pilot couple from either Highland Park or Southlake who lamented on TV how they were forced to put their kids in public school after the 2003 paycuts...