Cwa And Ibt Yo Jointly Represent

barbeetantrums said:
Don't forget the fact that one group will be at a pay disparity with the other, and even though they may vote for such a dual agreement, there will always be whining from AWA CSRs about how much less they make than their counterparts at US. "We get paid less and we're doing the same job!"
[post="299918"][/post]​
That will be taken care of right after the merger is finalized......Mgmt is just giving everyone a little breathing room before the next act ........Big Daddy Al is just taking a vacation before he and Jerry get on the stage for a repeat performance.
 
Sadly, it appears the unions are looking to their dues structures as opposed to the interests of the membership.

This will pave the way for more division among the employees that management can exploit.

It would be better to resolve this now. It may be ugly, but if you wait, it WILL BE UGLIER.

FWIW, it is EXACTLY this kind of scenario the folks from the Palace moving to Tempe excel at exploiting - they are quite good at it.

The more things change, the more they stay the same.
 
CWA’ers resolve most Bankruptcy issues with management prior to Thursday's court hearing on the Plan of Reorganization...

CWA’ers met several times during the last two weeks with management in an attempt to resolve our objections to the Bankruptcy Plan of Reorganization prior to the court hearing on Thursday, September 15.

As we reported previously, we had filed objections stating that management had changed the terms of the profit sharing plan, had refused to allow us to swap our profit sharing for stock, and did not fulfill their obligation to attempt to secure a board seat for CWA and other unions during their negotiations with investors.
We also filed objections to the Executive contracts which contain, in our opinion, excessive retention compensation and golden parachute compensation for those executives leaving the company.

We have now reached an agreement that covers all our claims, except for our objections to the Executive Compensation, which we will continue to oppose in court.

Here are the terms of the settlement:

In exchange for a board seat, we agreed to four executive meetings annually with the three top officers of the company (including Chairman and Vice Chairman) prior to each quarterly board meeting. We will use those meetings to raise the issues of concern to passenger service employees. And, following each quarterly board meeting, those executives will brief us on the issues and content of that board meeting. In addition, the CEO will meet with us following each quarter’s earnings report to discuss company issues.
We will accept the new profit sharing plan, and will not claim the right to exchange it for stock;
The Winston-Salem Res center hiring freeze will end; the company will resume hiring at that center;
There will be a phase out by attrition of queue and kiosk duties assigned to the CAR classification at all but the six focus cities;
Full-timers who have been displaced to part-time may accept an open full-time EO vacancy at their location at their regular rate of pay. The company will, in turn, have an alternate EO vacancy to fill.
Our pre-bankruptcy pending arbitration cases will not be wiped out by the bankruptcy court, and they will resume immediately following exit from bankruptcy.
Our entire CWA Passenger Service Agreement (our contract) will be officially “assumedâ€￾ by the new corporation upon exit from bankruptcy.
 
I see where it states CWA will accept the new profit sharing arrangement - was this put to the membership for a vote or did I miss it....? I think if this is something on the table ..the CWA needs to ask for a few concessions back in exchange...like shift premiums, sick days at full pay...etc....maybe a 4-10hr day - work week..not big issues..but a few small ones...CWA should at least make an effort to ask on behalf of its membership. I realize the seat on the board is important but...the above are not big items.
 
Res said:
I realize the seat on the board is important but...the above are not big items.
[post="300034"][/post]​

Personally, I think it's over-rated. Look at all the good it did for ALPA, IAM, and AFA....

Jim
 
Concur, Jim.

I don't see how a union leader can give fair duty of representation to the membership while simultaneously meeting fiduciary obligations to the stockholders.

So far, the union membership at UA and US have come out on the short end of that equation.

"No man can serve two masters."
 
:angry: In my opinion the agreement for CWA/IBT to split the pot is a big "Loser" for everyone except the two unions. The CWA knows it has failed the employees of US and I am sure they are very nervous about having a vote to select the surviving union. By splitting the pot with the IBT the dues keep coming in. Just look at the reality of the whole CWA situation and ask yourself. What have they accompolished for the employees as a whole? Look at the CWA update posted above, it does not even state who the so called "CWAers" were who made this latest agreement with the company. So now you will have two unions, basically US East and US West. Way to go CWA, play right into the hands of management. The merger has barely begun to take place and the management team at US has already started the "Divide and Conquer" game and it appears the company has easily won round one. Good job, CWA and IBT, you have just made yourselves even more ineffective than you were yesterday. I believe union representation is needed but this type thing just weakens that representation.
God help the membership, the members are on board and the ship is falling apart.
Shame on you CWA!! :down:
 

Latest posts