Tim…
Am I getting the vibe that you are extending the proverbial olive branch, or… are you leading me into a “box canyon”?
Anyway… in your post you used the term sacredity did you mean “sacrality”? You used this term in describing M&A language using the TWU as an example. I’m going to guess that you meant that seniority is sacred and must be protected at all costs! I have reviewed the existing language in the latest proposal provided by JFK. I see NO magic “sacrality” language that would benefit any particular fleet group over another.
Perhaps, you have exceeded my verbal prowess here but… has the N/D not conveyed the same concerns? Your approach to getting a fast T/A prior to any merger is preferable, but is it realistic when you consider the legal proceedings, and ramifications regarding this transaction? Not to even speak of all of the hoops we have to jump through under the RLA just to progress negotiations to mediation? How do you propose that we leverage the company into immediately accepting our terms... and inserting the magic ‘sacredity’ language into the existing CBA… or in a T/A? Should we stomp our feet… or glare at them until they blink?
I’ve said this before… and you know I mean it… the Company has… and WILL… use ALL Federal Laws to their advantage to prolong negotiations within a hair of an impasse!
In addition... why would the TWU oppose the FAA re-authorization bill if it is Federal Law... and not open for negotiation? Further... H.R.658 could only be challenged through complex, financial, and time consuming legal proceedings... all at he Memberships expense!
So… let’s drop the interwoven subliminal political rhetoric!
Roabily,
Thankfully, you are not representing the US AIRWAYS fleet service. The problem is that even those who you support who are representing fleet service have come back and told our members not to pay any attention to the TWU contract and that the law will protect work groups fairly under the McCaskill Bond Act [MBA].
There could not be any greater deception or ignorance than having yourself or our current representatives to say such things.
The TWU contract that you and our representatives are missing or withholding is article 1e(1), that deals exclusively with the integration of seniority list. Although I used the word 'sacredity' to capture the sacredness of it, the explicit language is that none of the TWU members can be adversely affected under the integration. This is a huge problem for any US AIRWAYS member and it's a shame that I have to educate folks on this forum about the things presumably coming their way instead of the reps who are keeping the truth from them.
Moreover, our reps are telling our members that things have changed since the TWA/AMR merger and that the law does not allow the TWU to screw the US AIRWAYS members over. That simply is not true, the MBA does not determine seniority, it simply establishes a process to determine what is fair and equitable between two unions, then if there is no deal it goes to arbitration. And what is the arbitrator going to rule on? Contract language.
The audience should consider the case involving Southwest/Airtran. Southwest ramp is TWU with sacredity clauses. Airtran ramp is IAM. TWU went into discussions with the IAM for 6 months and offered up 4-1 to airtran rampers. IAM DL142 rejected and argued the case to an arbitrator a couple weeks ago. The arbitrator said a decision will be made at or around June 4. At this time, nobody knows what the decision will be but I seriously doubt it will be date of hire.
Therefore, every US AIRWAYS member ought to be uncomfortable if the MBA is triggered. The way to prevent that is to get a card signup at AMR and try to gain about 3,500 signed cards. If there is enough support to trigger a representational dispute then the MBA does not apply and the seniority will be determined as unions see fit like the UA/CO merger [as opposed to the Southwest/Airtran merger]. Remember, the MBA did not apply to any group at UA/CO because of representational disputes. The reason is because of the exception clause in the MBA. Thus, the focus of the IAM ought to be on the obtainment of cards at AMR and not to horse trade the cards for $$$ like the TWU did with America West members.
At any rate, the primary focus should be on the attainment of a contract before engaging in any transition agreements. We simply have to take care of our own people first and get a contract for our members with pay raises and enhancements before we should consider dabbling with transition talks which could take years and years to complete.
Roabily, you talk about the RLA like our representatives do. They are going into breakrooms telling folks that it could take years and that the company can drag things out. Such talk is not fully informative. Once again, consider current case studies in the same exact context as any US/AMR representational predicament.
Airtran/Southwest: The Airtran unions refused to engage in transition talks UNTIL Southwest finished Airtran contracts that were ammendable. Then and only then did the airtran unions decide to enter transition talks.
United/Continental: The AFA and IBT refused to engage in transition talks UNTIL management finished a contract for the United employees. The AFA got a contract worth $40 million JUST TO ENTER TRANSITION TALKS. The IBT got $59 million.
THe problem is that the New Direction got nothing and decided to enter transition talks and scrap the previous 3 years of United only talks. This is the exact thing that the New Direction will do again and we can't afford this nonsense. How many of our US AIRWAYS members would raise their hand in support of scrapping 2 or 3 years of talks to go into transition talks? Our United members voted IAM over the IBT because we told the UA members that we would not enter transition talks without first gaining considerations. After the vote, the New Direction changed directions and lied and plunged into transition talks where they now have less leverage.
The case studies don't lie and are separate from opinion, but the New Direction has been right with management every step of the way since the Hawaiian airline contract to not opposing the US AIRWAYS merger. And, to be sure, a merger is interesting but NOT at the expense of our members. And we have enough knowledge today to be adamantly opposed to management's flirtations with AMR unions. We have had 400 of our members laid off, no pay raises, and the company is cutting deals with other unions. We ought to be opposed to any flirtations with others until we square away and focus on finishing contract talks with our members and we better damn straight get the exact same seniority sacredity clause as the TWU has. No compromise!
Onward!
