JCBA Negotiations and updates for AA Fleet

[NYer]

Well I guess that will be determined at the negotiating table right?

Maybe the "greedy" people in the room will back off?

The equalization holdouts that is.

 
It's very interesting how those that don't agree with you are portrayed as being mentally inferior or have some kind of nefarious reasons for their point of view. 

 

[Tim Nelson]

And i was never laid off but hundreds of lus were and lost bidding time due to being laid off. I dont think it is fair to keep such a penalty on LUS if LAA never had their bidding date adjusted due to being laid off.

 

[NYer]

I wasn't looking for the room vote Brother. Just your personal opinion and thank you for that.

So NYer so far by AA employees it's 3 to 1.

Are you really so sure I'm going to be in the minority there Brother?

 
Dealing with thousands of grievances over the years, as compared to someone that doesn't even work OT, I'd say yes. 
 
Another difference between the IAM and the TWU, which would influence the equalization is the fact that on the TWU, if there is a bypass the Member receives the pay without having to work the hours. With a system like that, equalization is even more important. In a system of bypass where the Member that is bypassed is offered to work the hours ahead of someone else, then equalization has less of a need. 
 
Of course, those that see these issues as a matter of someone begin greedy and should be penalized for it, would see this issue in a manner that projects self interest. 

 

[Worldport]

Once all the changes are implemented and everything is said and done, I'm gonna be working for USAir with the AA logo.

We can go back and forth with that one I see the LUS side losing medical, scope going above one and here at LGA  F...in rotating days off

 

[AANOTOK]

 
Dealing with thousands of grievances over the years, as compared to someone that doesn't even work OT, I'd say yes. 
 
Another difference between the IAM and the TWU, which would influence the equalization is the fact that on the TWU, if there is a bypass the Member receives the pay without having to work the hours. With a system like that, equalization is even more important. In a system of bypass where the Member that is bypassed is offered to work the hours ahead of someone else, then equalization has less of a need. 
 
Of course, those that see these issues as a matter of someone begin greedy and should be penalized for it, would see this issue in a manner that projects self interest. 

Anyone working OT is doing it for self interest...Tell the members to refuse OT to show the company there are issues that need rectifying and watch the backlash.

 

[NYer]

Will you please focus? I believe the members already decided who they can trust more between you and NYer. As far as asking him to be honest, maybe since you work in the same station you can lose your anger and walk up to him and give him your personal counsel on his demeaner (sp?), from your perspective, instead of grandstanding and being a FB warrier.

 
He won't do it in person. He's walked past me several times and hasn't said a peep. On these pages and on FB, I'm a liar, cheat, incompetent, egocentric and a whole host of other things. 
 
On the other hand, he can't really make an argument with substance and usually has to resort to name calling and other types on condescending comments.

 

[NYer]

No confusion. If i represented and negotiated for an entire group, id think it would be more inequitable to privilege full timers with part time openings. So, if it was up to me alone, id have pt list so pt can be first to fill pt openings. But if thats not how the negotiators see it, and if they prefer nyer opinion, then thats how it will be and ill take full advantage of it as a full timer.

 
It's not a matter of trying to create an inequitable process. 
 
By trying to hold the PT flexibility the Company can possess the better we would be able to fight in favor of having more FT. We are in a station, the only station in our system where we have more FT and less PT than we did prior to 9/11. We believe that is directly as a result of keeping the PT position as restricted as it can be for the Company. However, we are also the station that helped to negotiate the current CS, which gives our commuters and PTers the ability to work more hours than a FTer that just cuts his 40 and goes home. 
 
If we allow the PT position to be filled with other PT, at usually a lower pay, they will have an incentive to keep PTers, rather than create more FT. 

 

[WeAAsles]

He won't do it in person. He's walked past me several times and hasn't said a peep. On these pages and on FB, I'm a liar, cheat, incompetent, egocentric and a whole host of other things. 
 
On the other hand, he can't really make an argument with substance and usually has to resort to name calling and other types on condescending comments.

D17 Monday through Friday 12:45 to 21:15. And we'll take a picture together to share. When we meet can I buy the coffee? Juan Valdez ok with you?

Never used the word incompetent BTW. "Liar (possible) cheater, no integrity or honor"

Maybe when we meet you can change my mind?

 

[NYer]

Anyone working OT is doing it for self interest...Tell the members to refuse OT to show the company there are issues that need rectifying and watch the backlash.

 
First, an OT boycott can be considered a job action, so in that frame it won't work. 
 
Second, there are people in need that won't give up their OT because it is essential to their survival. 

 

[Worldport]

Actually had a conversation once with a guy who when we were talking about medical that told me I should pay more to subsidize him because I don't have a family and he does and I could afford to pay more. Since we're talking about greed this is the same way the "equalization" people think.

That's not greed its stupidity

 

[Tim Nelson]

He won't do it in person. He's walked past me several times and hasn't said a peep. On these pages and on FB, I'm a liar, cheat, incompetent, egocentric and a whole host of other things. 
 
On the other hand, he can't really make an argument with substance and usually has to resort to name calling and other types on condescending comments.

I hear ya NYer. I think he is a solid union brother and hopefully things are reconciled.

As far as your suggestion on ft having prefererence in part time ot, i can definately see your perspective, from your contract. In the LUS contract, our pt get screwed enuf already. If they got the same 5.5%+ as a FT and didnt pay double for health insurance then id prolly side with you on the matter. Our pt situation is so inequitable now at lus that, given the question from a current contract, its tuff for me to build a case for more ft privilege.

 

[Tim Nelson]

It's not a matter of trying to create an inequitable process. 
 
By trying to hold the PT flexibility the Company can possess the better we would be able to fight in favor of having more FT. We are in a station, the only station in our system where we have more FT and less PT than we did prior to 9/11. We believe that is directly as a result of keeping the PT position as restricted as it can be for the Company. However, we are also the station that helped to negotiate the current CS, which gives our commuters and PTers the ability to work more hours than a FTer that just cuts his 40 and goes home. 
 
If we allow the PT position to be filled with other PT, at usually a lower pay, they will have an incentive to keep PTers, rather than create more FT.

Makes sense.

 

[NYer]

I hear ya NYer. I think he is a solid union brother and hopefully things are reconciled.

As far as your suggestion on ft having prefererence in part time ot, i can definately see your perspective, from your contract. In the LUS contract, our pt get screwed enuf already. If they got the same 5.5%+ as a FT and didnt pay double for health insurance then id prolly side with you on the matter. Our pt situation is so inequitable now at lus that, given the question from a current contract, its tuff for me to build a case for more ft privilege.

 
It goes to the same argument. With the medical, we were able to keep the PTer with the same premiums and medical plans as the FTer. Again, it goes back to take the incentive away from the Company to keep a PTer a PTer forever. 
 
To me, it is similar to the Delta use of the Ready Reserve. They have a segment of the workforce that benefits them and they do everything they can to avoid having those workers move into a regular Delta employee coverage. We have several ex-Delta employees that reached their maximum annual hours and were sent home to wait for the next year and have their hours reset to 0. 
 
As an individual, the PTer might feel they're being singled out, but those decisions were made for the good of the whole and even the future of that PTer. 

 

[AANOTOK]

 
First, an OT boycott can be considered a job action, so in that frame it won't work. 
 
Second, there are people in need that won't give up their OT because it is essential to their survival. 

Mr. NYer, that explanation excuse is loud. First, to say the boycott of OT a is job action sounds as though that's coming from managements mouth. When unions were strong that was a tool and was used effectively. Yes, IT IS a job action. Secondly, you speak unionism, people gave their lives for unions and the progress they gained. Now, you talk OT and survival. Dude, I'm starting to think this argument has more to do with what's best for you and the every day OT workers, not the ones who truly need it there when needed.

 

[NYer]

Mr. NYer, that explanation is loud. First, to say the boycott of OT a is job action sounds as though that coming from managements mouth. When unions were strong that was a tool and was used effectively. Yes, IT IS a job action. Secondly, you speak unionism, people gave their lives for unions and the progress they gained. Now, you talk OT and survival. Dude, I'm starting to think this argument has more to do with whats best for you and the every day OT workers..

 
It doesn't come from a management mouth, it comes from an arbitrators mouth. 
 
In a situation like that, the company has made the argument that they usually hold x number of OT hours on a daily basis and can take that back 12 months. They would argue, and arbitrators have agreed, that the lack of people signing and working OT has a result of intentionally restricting output.
 
we had that very exact issue a few years ago, when Members decided to do their own OT boycott. The Company notified the union of their intention of filing an injunction to bring the Members on notice. The opinion of it being a job action is not ours, it comes from arbitrators that have ruled in favor of the Company over and over.
 
The latest example was the Southwest issue, when dozens of Members used a contractual provision to avoid going to work. Those Members were suspended without pay and the union is in the midst of negotiating a settlement. 
 
When unions were strong, we had the laws in our favor. Today, the laws are not in our favor and issues like work stoppages, job action and strikes are regulated by the government and not the Company. As unions fought and won their battles, corporations adapted, unions didn't so we are here thinking about decades ago when unions and union members held a tighter grip to their destiny.