How would we be party to the TWU's MOU? I thought that even if TWU were the surviving union they'd continue to enforce the IAM contract we have currently until there's a new JCBA with the unified work group...
The quote you pulled was in response to a statemnt by Freedom that it was good that the company was talking to the TWU. The context was in regards to the company spending time talking to the TWU instead of negotiating with the inhouse unions. If the merger happens, no one, not us, not Delaney, not Parker, knows what will happen. Your second point is correct; if we merge and have the TWU as our representative they will do so with the IAM CBA. Wat happens after that, well, the phrase "it's as clear as mud" is dead on.
I think that many of you are extremely negative concerning this upcoming merger which can do nothing but increase our wages and strengthen our job security.
Freedom, do you live in a dream world or just ignore what everyone says that doens't compute with your delerium? The first half of this sentance I'll give you. You're right that many, if not most of us, are not in support of this merger. The second half, however, is full of ignorance to the realities and potential outcomes. While I've given you your chance and feel you havent improved (and in fact have gotten dumber) I'll be generous and explain it to you so you can hang out at the adult table. If there is a meger, there are a few possible outcomes in regards to Fleet Service and our representation. The simplest is that we lose union rpresentation. If that happens all CBAs go away. The surviving company will be able to pay us whatever they want; maybe they'll pay us well, like CO did, or maybe they'll pay us DGS wages and benefits. An optimist will say they'll be good, but I have seen little in the employee-employer relationship to indicate this is logical. The second option is that we stay union (TWU, IAM, or another union). If that happens there will be a mess about what happens based on each unions contracts. Each current CBA may or may not affect things, and then we get what we get. The company can drag things out for a LONG time (think on the scale of close to a decade), leaving everyone on the CBA they have right now. They can pay off whatever union represents us for a deal that favors themselves. The surviving union leadership can throw us under the bus like Canale did. Or they could be generous. I think anyone that expects the company to be generous is an idiot, but no one can honestly say they KNOW what will happen. In any event, your suggestion that only good things can come is, at best, a serious flaw in your intelligence. I'd suggest that the next time you have a towbr get hung up after pushback that you ue your head to knock it loose; you might knock some intelligence and common sense around to a part of your brain that might use it.
While I understand that some of you are incensed that our current management has been having talks with our future partners, it is vital that you remember that this merger needs to be a success across all spectrums and all workgroups, as has already been discussed here , it is nothing more than common sense that they would talk to their future employees. The company's discussions with the TWU in no way preclude our own discussions which have been, and continue to be ongoing according to the information posted on the union board at my workstation.
I agree, it is wise to have discussions and plan with future partners. I've two issues with your view however. The first is that NO AA UNION IS A FUTUTRE PARTNER AT THIS TIME! IF the merger happens then they are future partners. Until then, however, they are POTENTIAL future partners. The second issue is your suggestion that these discussions with AA workgroups "in no way preclude our own discussions". ALL the US contracts became amendable at the end of 2011 (with a few exceptions, mostly West CBAs). US is currently negotiating wit hthe FAs, MX, FS, and the CSRs. Occasionally they talk to the pilots too (when the pilots act their age). Each of the four activly negotiating groups gets one week with Labor Relations out of every five weeks. That leave one week for LR, a department of four people BTW, to deal with EVERYTHING else. All those grievances that get filed, all the letters of agreement that are proposed to the various unions, all policy and manual changes, and a host of other things must be delt with during that fifth week. Now, EVERY union has asked for more frequent meetings. The company has said they don't have the time, as I have outlined. So you tell me, how doe sthe company taking time to negotiate with unions that it doesnt' even deal with take away from out negotiations? Every spare minute is wanted by all the US unions. We want to get our contracts resolved. If LR spends one travel day (call it the second half of Tuesday and Wednesday) to meet with the TWU on Wednesday morning, that's a day and a half that every union would like to have. I'd be willing to bet that the US unions would happily share that time too, using it to maybe discuss a minor provision or section.
Phew. I'm done. That was WAY more then intended.
