Just curious as to how $21.19 was figured as the hourly wage? I mean we were at $21.68 pre-bk. As it states in our original 1999 cba, parity won't go backwards. So how did we go from $21.68 to $21.19? Anyone from the I AM MANAGEMENT care to elaborate? If not, Tim can you figure this one out?. I will find the language in the CBA.
pjirish,
I find your post very interesting. The $21.19 is actually very close to the IAM's number. At any rate, you raise an interesting point in that the 2003 pay adjustment would have stayed at $21.43 since it can't be lowered. I say $21.43 because I believe that was the last pay increase so I'm not sure where the $21.68 came from.
The basic agreement said, "The determination of Pay Parity scales shall not result in a reduction in the then existing pay rates for Lead Agents and Fleet Service Agents." pg 105 of the basic agreement.
Further, after you brought up the 'prohibition of reduction', I made a phone call to an "IAM Guy" and he said that the IAM isn't even arguing that point and he believes both districts missed it. He proceeded to tell me that he didn't like what was happening and that the IAM stands ready to negotiate the grievance away and for some reason the Directing Chair is quite insistent on this. IMO, I think his interest are squarly on United Airlines as well they should be since he's a board of director there.
Here's what everyone should be doing right now.
1. Next time your AGC comes in your breakroom, ask him the following:
a. What is the wage scale according to the COC?
b. Are you entitled to back pay, and if not, then why?
You'll get a chuckle over the answers, if any, and you will swear you are talking to Parker himself. The IAM 141 is VERY NEGATIVE on this grievance, even though any grievance award represents freedom of the oppressed.
IMO, the IAM will refuse to put any numbers out on the change of control grievance because they fully plan on conceeding it's high wage scales in return for the dues, positive space travel, etc. Why the discreetness????
BTW, each AGC knows the true answers to the questions above so if they say they don't, then count that Bull ****. The answers to the questions are that you are damn right you will be entitled to back pay, all the way to when the violation initiated. The wage scale is also objective and so is penalties and fines if your company doesn't abide by binding arbitration. And Binding is Binding under the RLA, this is undisputable. The only way the company can get out of an award would be through Bankruptcy but they are close to record profits and have 3.5 billion in the bank. A better bet would be that they would only delay an award to allow the IAM time to manufacture enough fear to 'compromise the award' and throw all back pay, fines, and even top out wage scale, under the bus...in return for more dues and other IAM thingys.
regards,