PLEASE POST AND DISTRIBUTE TO YOUR CO-WORKERS
Additional stories are on www.CWA.net
CWA Update - 08/26/2005
CWA'ers met with US Airways and America West management Thursday, August 25, to discuss transition issues...
Present for management were US Airways VP Al Hemenway, US Airways VP Kerry Carstairs, and senior HP and US management including Camille Soto, HP Customer Service, Susan Graham HP Res, Steve Raeder US Customer Service, Ron Harbinson US Labor Relations, Dave Rickard US Finance.
Present for CWA were local presidents Jose Gomez (3641), Pam Terry (2000), Frank Spencer (2000 Sec Treas.), John Hanson (1171), Betty Grove (4404), Jim Drummond (13302 EVP), and Todd Vallin (3140 Exec. Board), Nick Manicone (CWA attorney), and CWA staff Velvet Hawthorne and Rick Braswell.
The subject under discussion is how to provide "seamless service" to customers of the merged airline at stations where both airlines provide service, during the transition period (which, management impied, will run from early October until May of next year). How can both customer service staffs assist one another, avoid confusion on the part of the customer, and avoid a situation where a customer waits in line only to find out that the agent only does America West, or the agent only does US Airways?
The other consideration, of course, is how to be sure agents from both airlines are treated fairly during this process and that their jobs, shifts, pay, etc. are protected.
In a nutshell: Management proposed a fairly complicated dual system in which both airline staffs would be trained to do each other's work, and could be assigned by management to do any of that work, but they would maintain separately monitored shifts, seniority, bidding, pay, and furlough rules.
Management's proposal is that if downsizing occurs (and it will), they would furlough the agents of the airline which cut the flights. Example: if US and HP each had 6 flights a day, and all agents were eligible to work on any of those flights, and US Airways cut one flight, management would furlough US Airways agents regardless of the relative seniority of the America West agents at the station. Management also would have discretion to make assignments between the two groups (including lines of work) without regard to seniority. Our view is that this system is subject to manipulation.
We pointed out that this system would allow:
the furlough of senior, higher-paid employees while keeping low seniority, lower-paid employees, and;
the assignment shifts, days off, duty assignments, etc. on the basis of favoritism instead of seniority, and;
the establishment a very complicated dual bureaucracy to oversee the new dual system.
We suggested a different way to do it. If the goal is to provide seamless customer service (and we hope that's the goal, not just getting rid of agents with seniority) there is a much easier way to do it.
Yes, cross-train and cross-utilize the employees of HP and US;
Duty assignments, shift bids, etc. go by passenger service seniority, just like now;
HP passenger service seniority would count just the same as US passenger service seniority, and vice versa.
Furloughs would go strictly by passenger service seniority, regardless of which airline an employee worked for, regardless of which aircraft or flight was eliminated that caused the downsizing.
We offered those ideas for discussion, expecting management to welcome a more streamlined, efficient way to solve the problem without establishing a dual system. But we were surprised that management immediately balked at our simplified idea and attempted to sidetrack the discussion by raising all sorts of far-fetched objections.
Management's responses were not very encouraging, to say the least, but two points they made were pretty ominous from an employee's point of view:
They refused to agree that furloughs should go by seniority;
They refused to say they would be willing to accept a seniority agreement that would be jointly worked out by CWA and the Teamsters union (who represent HP agents).
Again, management made the discussion unproductive by raising far-fetched objections (see below) to having CWA and the Teamsters work out the seniority issues, even though America West executives had said in our last meeting they would welcome that approach.
Example of a far-fetched objection: At one point management stated they were concerned that CWA and IBT might attempt to "Flush the System." What? We said we don't even know what that term means. Management said it means giving everybody in the combined system, active and furloughed, the right to bid their seniority on any job in the system at any location, and then everybody would relocate to those jobs and the losers would go out to the street. We said we have never proposed, or even heard of, such a nutty system, that the agents would not ever want that to happen, that it would violate every procedure in our CWA contract, and that management was just trying to avoid discussion of our proposal.
To be honest, when management raises wacky ideas like the threat of "flushing the system," it reinforces the view that somebody, somewhere, is trying to stir up and politicize the seniority issue.
What's going on? Why did management balk at discussing our offer of a simpler system for cross-utilization? It could just be that they were unprepared for the discussion; or it could be that they weren't comfortable discussing it without guidance from higher-ups; or it could be that they really want a system that dumps higher paid employees and our simpler system doesn't do that for them.
What next? We are going to write up a very clear and simple proposal for US/HP cross-utilization and seamless customer service based on seniority - including furloughs based on seniority - and present it to management. That discussion will allow us to see if the agenda is really about seamless customer service, or whether management's agenda also includes getting rid of higher salaried employees and replacing them with lower salaried employees.
Bottom Line: We already have a contract that protects our seniority and our scope of work. We are willing to discuss arrangements for better, seamless customer service, but we are not going to make agreements that expose agents to unfair attempts to undermine their job security.
We'll keep you informed of these discussions as they happen.
CWA Local Officers and Staff
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
www.CWA.net
Tell-a-friend!
