how is your local handlingthe rejected T/A

[paul1]

I was wondering if some of you can enlighting me on how your locals are handling the rejected T/A

I.E. are they sending out a survey, having a special membership meeting, or just keeping you in the dark

 

[Deleted member 14439]

I was wondering if some of you can enlighting me on how your locals are handling the rejected T/A

I.E. are they sending out a survey, having a special membership meeting, or just keeping you in the dark

Paul, here at AFW we just had a meeting yesterday. Our president was given a clear agenda as to what to go back to the table with. Now I have some faith in him as he has yet to show me otherwise. What happens when the international gets our demands is a different animal. The basics of what we gave him are the 2001 book. Retro to May 2008, retro language to prevent stalled negotiations in the future. Also system protection as of d.o.s. A cap on medical as ours has risen 500% and still going. Those are the basics of what transpired yesterday......OUT

 

[MCI transplant]

<_< ------- My question would be: What was their reaction to all those "suggestions"? 😉

 

[Duke787]

I was wondering if some of you can enlighting me on how your locals are handling the rejected T/A

I.E. are they sending out a survey, having a special membership meeting, or just keeping you in the dark

At ORD I asked a executive board member when we are getting the survey to find out why we didn't like about TA. He wasn't sure when they were coming to come out. Our VP said to send Gilboy an email with our thought's. Gilboy and the treasurer said they know what is wrong with the TA and don't need a membership meeting or a survey.

The international says there will be a survey, and the company says they're not giving anymore then what was already offered.

The biggest shocker is the fact that our own local executive board isn't on the same page. I asked the local what the numbers were on the vote count, and I was told that they don't want the company to know, but JFK and MIA both posted their results on their web sites, while our website doesn't even have an updated address for the union hall.

 

[eolesen]

Clarification... the company said they weren't sweetening the pot. That doesn't mean they're not interested in giving more than what was offered; it means that improving one area requires an offset in another area of equal value.

 

[Ken MacTiernan]

Eric,

You are correct. But "it means that improving one area requires an offset in another area of equal value." will garner the company and twu another NO vote system wide. I would like to add that if the twu by some chance is still at the table before AMP removes them to not insert another BS colored insert pressuring the membership to vote yes. If the twu so strongly believes in our passing a company POS t/a then let videtich, gless, little and linda dill and the other appointed reps. to come and walk the floor and spread their opinions.

If the company refuses to sweeten the pot then we have what we call a good old fashion Mexican Stand-off.

 

[Deleted member 14439]

<_< ------- My question would be: What was their reaction to all those "suggestions"? 😉

Our "local" leadership is on board. Of course AFW has always been a bit more "militant" than the international would like.

 

[Bob Owens]

Clarification... the company said they weren't sweetening the pot. That doesn't mean they're not interested in giving more than what was offered; it means that improving one area requires an offset in another area of equal value.

You are taliking in circles and contradicting yourself, if I have $10, five in my left pocket and five in my right and I move the five from my left into my right I still only have $10.

Not sweetening the pot means not adding anything.

The company has maintained that they want a zero cost contract despite the fact that they pay more for pretty much everything else, bring in around $4BILLION more per year on average and they want this zero cost contract on the heels of a 25% paycut and the elimination of 35% of the workforce.


In response to the Topic we have conducted membership meetings in all our Stations except SJU, the guys want 2001 "book" with adjustments to the payrates for inflation and system protection to DOS, The TA needs to be tossed in its entirety, it not only retains all of the concessions from 2003 but has scores of additional ones. It's beyond repair.The companys costs would still be over $300 million less than 2002.

 

[Bob Owens]

At ORD I asked a executive board member when we are getting the survey to find out why we didn't like about TA. He wasn't sure when they were coming to come out. Our VP said to send Gilboy an email with our thought's. Gilboy and the treasurer said they know what is wrong with the TA and don't need a membership meeting or a survey.

Gilboy should know, he helped craft it and voted to bring it back. The TA was just a rewrite of the June 2009 Union "Supposal" ("we have to show the 6th floor that we are serious about filling those white spaces") which was a rewrite of the August 2008 Union proposal (oil at $150 BBL)which was a rewrite of the companys intitial offer, a zero cost contract, small pay adjustments along with concessions that pay for it. Our increases are eaten up by inflation and increased payments for Medical coverage while our concessions continue to increase in value for the company.

The biggest shocker is the fact that our own local executive board isn't on the same page. I asked the local what the numbers were on the vote count, and I was told that they don't want the company to know, but JFK and MIA both posted their results on their web sites, while our website doesn't even have an updated address for the union hall.

They dont want us to know.

I'm confident that the company knows. Why do you think that Brundage came out with that statement? To try and set the line guys in a panic that they are going to take from the line and give it to OH. Are you prepared to stay at the bottom? If that happens are you prepared to vote No next time?

By the way the CAL TA has retro back to the amendable date and a higher base rate increase in 2 less years.

AA/TWU TA 0%-0%-3%-1.5%-1.5%
6% over 5 years for an average of 1.2%/year

CAL/IBT TA 2.5%-2.5%-2.5%
7.5% over 3 years or 2.5%/year
their average is more than double ours.

 

[Duke787]

Gilboy should know, he helped craft it and voted to bring it back. The TA was just a rewrite of the June 2009 Union "Supposal" ("we have to show the 6th floor that we are serious about filling those white spaces") which was a rewrite of the August 2008 Union proposal (oil at $150 BBL)which was a rewrite of the companys intitial offer, a zero cost contract, small pay adjustments along with concessions that pay for it. Our increases are eaten up by inflation and increased payments for Medical coverage while our concessions continue to increase in value for the company.



They dont want us to know.

I'm confident that the company knows. Why do you think that Brundage came out with that statement? To try and set the line guys in a panic that they are going to take from the line and give it to OH. Are you prepared to stay at the bottom? If that happens are you prepared to vote No next time?

By the way the CAL TA has retro back to the amendable date and a higher base rate increase in 2 less years.

AA/TWU TA 0%-0%-3%-1.5%-1.5%
6% over 5 years for an average of 1.2%/year

CAL/IBT TA 2.5%-2.5%-2.5%
7.5% over 3 years or 2.5%/year
their average is more than double ours.

Thanks for info,

Do you know what CAL/IBT mechs get for pay, vacation, pension, sick time?

 

[Bob Owens]

Gilboy should know, he helped craft it and voted to bring it back. The TA was just a rewrite of the June 2009 Union "Supposal" ("we have to show the 6th floor that we are serious about filling those white spaces") which was a rewrite of the August 2008 Union proposal (oil at $150 BBL)which was a rewrite of the companys intitial offer, a zero cost contract, small pay adjustments along with concessions that pay for it. Our increases are eaten up by inflation and increased payments for Medical coverage while our concessions continue to increase in value for the company.



They dont want us to know.

I'm confident that the company knows. Why do you think that Brundage came out with that statement? To try and set the line guys in a panic that they are going to take from the line and give it to OH. Are you prepared to stay at the bottom? If that happens are you prepared to vote No next time?

By the way the CAL TA has retro back to the amendable date and a higher base rate increase in 2 less years.

AA/TWU TA 0%-0%-3%-1.5%-1.5%
6% over 5 years for an average of 1.2%/year

CAL/IBT TA 2.5%-2.5%-2.5%
7.5% over 3 years or 2.5%/year
their average is more than double ours.

Correction. CALTA includes 4 raises over the 4 year term of the contract,

CAL TA
1/1/09 2.5% (retro)
7/1/10 2.5% (retro)
7/1/11 2.5%
7/1/12 2.5%
Contract became amendable 12/31/2008 would become amendable again in 12/21/2012

AA TA
4/30/08 0%
4/30/09 0%
5/5/10 3% (retro)
5/5/11 1.5%
5/5/12 1.5%
Contract became amendable 4/30/2008 would become amendable again on 5/5/2013

Prior to 2003 our contracts became amendable in March 1 of the year, they pushed it back to April 30, nearly 2 months in 2003 and now moved it back to May 5. By moving the dates back they are extending the contract and effectively lowering any increases we see. By having the dates set back further in the year it gives an erroneous rate for the year. For instance lets say that for 2010 both AA and CAL go from $30/hr to $35/hr, the CAL employee gets his raise effective 1/1/10 so his pay for the year would be $72,800, the AA employee would not see his increase until May 5 so for the year he would be getting $69,200 even though the company would claim that we are earning the same as them.So over a four year term of a contract even if we had the exact same increases they get we would earn much less, in this fictional example we would earn over $14000 less.

 

[Hopeful]

Clarification... the company said they weren't sweetening the pot. That doesn't mean they're not interested in giving more than what was offered; it means that improving one area requires an offset in another area of equal value.

The concern at JFK is that they will look to pacify TULSA at the expense of the line stations. I truly hope this is not the case.

 

[Bob Owens]

Thanks for info,

Do you know what CAL/IBT mechs get for pay, vacation, pension, sick time?

Heres are the TAs Side by side for line mech working days for 7/1/12 when both would be topped out;
AATA CALTA
Base 28.86 31.17
Line 2.55 .50
License 5.00 4.25
Long 0 1.00
Taxi 0 1.00
Total $36.41 $37.92

As you can see CAL would be getting $1.50/hr more however this would not trigger the Wage Opener provision because our MRT, (which would only be on paper since we shortened the window) would put our pay for comparasion purposes at $37.93 and the formula does not recognize Longeivity and Taxi premiums. So the company would claim we are making $37.93 while they are making $35.92.

The premiums that they would most likely be getting would not be counted while the premiums we most likely would not be getting would be counted.

So much for maintaining industry standard at number 2.

The CAL A&P doing OH would be earning around $2.50/hr more than the AA OH A&P. The CAL A&P in OH would be earning around $8/hr more than a topped out SMA doing the same work.

Vacation-
- after 5 years CAL gets 5 more days per year on all steps.


Pension-
CAL =DB, everything including OT is pensionable.
AA=DB only regular earnings pensionable, first year excluded from formula.

Sick sime
CAL 12 days per year
AA 8 days per year

IOD Time
CAL accrue up to 700 hours
AA 80 hours

 

[whoop whoop]

Heres are the TAs Side by side for line mech working days for 7/1/12 when both would be topped out;
AATA CALTA
Base 28.86 31.17
Line 2.55 .50
License 5.00 4.25
Long 0 1.00
Taxi 0 1.00
Total $36.41 $37.92

As you can see CAL would be getting $1.50/hr more however this would not trigger the Wage Opener provision because our MRT, (which would only be on paper since we shortened the window) would put our pay for comparasion purposes at $37.93 and the formula does not recognize Longeivity and Taxi premiums. So the company would claim we are making $37.93 while they are making $35.92.

The premiums that they would most likely be getting would not be counted while the premiums we most likely would not be getting would be counted.

So much for maintaining industry standard at number 2.

The CAL A&P doing OH would be earning around $2.50/hr more than the AA OH A&P. The CAL A&P in OH would be earning around $8/hr more than a topped out SMA doing the same work.

Vacation-
- after 5 years CAL gets 5 more days per year on all steps.


Pension-
CAL =DB, everything including OT is pensionable.
AA=DB only regular earnings pensionable, first year excluded from formula.

Sick sime
CAL 12 days per year
AA 8 days per year

IOD Time
CAL accrue up to 700 hours
AA 80 hours

Bob, everything is about right except taxi. The $1 is only for the shift you taxied on. If you were on day shift which is an 8 hour shift, you would only receive the extra dollar on that shift. You would be $8 ahead for the week. So, it cannot be computed as regular pay. I think you have to subtract $1 from your calculations.

 

[whoop whoop]

Thanks for info,

Do you know what CAL/IBT mechs get for pay, vacation, pension, sick time?

www.cal-ualmechanics.com has a link to the T/A.