JCBA Negotiations and updates for AA Fleet

[bob@las-AA]

my seniority was barely adjusted as I only lost 3 months. Has nothing to do with me. I'm not reading in between the lines, I'm reading the lines, maybe too literal but it does need clarifying. If they posted a Letter of agreement then that will solve it and that's what we are missing. Why can't they disclose that agreement? They should be willing to. It will matter to those who will be disappointed in this process and have challenges presented to Javits.

That has been accomplished. I think it was signed in 2013, what else pains you.

 

[bob@las-AA]

my seniority was barely adjusted as I only lost 3 months. Has nothing to do with me. I'm not reading in between the lines, I'm reading the lines, maybe too literal but it does need clarifying. If they posted a Letter of agreement then that will solve it and that's what we are missing. Why can't they disclose that agreement? They should be willing to. It will matter to those who will be disappointed in this process and have challenges presented to Javits.

In the agreement, it is all clarified.

Next in line!

 

[robbedagain]

Tim. There are things that cannot be said til it's ok for it to be said

 

[Tim Nelson]

That has been accomplished. I think it was signed in 2013, what else pains you.

No, not everything has been decided. Javits is doing this because there are clearly some things that the seniority committee couldn't determine. Not sure why but maybe the TWU hedged a certain way on Chief Leads or maybe the IAM hedged a certain way on something else, all within the scope of the seniority letter. I dunno but Javits is here because the seniority committee yielded its sole determination authority as the contract demands. But, I think you are wrong that there don't remain disputes on the 'how's to incorporate the seniority. And, I will also repeat that we should be privy to the letter of agreement between the company, Association, and Javits.

 

[bob@las-AA]

No, not everything has been decided. Javits is doing this because there are clearly some things that the seniority committee couldn't determine. Not sure why but maybe the TWU hedged a certain way on Chief Leads or maybe the IAM hedged a certain way on something else, all within the scope of the seniority letter. I dunno but Javits is here because the seniority committee yielded its sole determination authority as the contract demands. But, I think you are wrong that there don't remain disputes on the 'how's to incorporate the seniority. And, I will also repeat that we should be privy to the letter of agreement between the company, Association, and Javits.

Nothing to see here.

Next in line!

 

[AANOTOK]

Nothing to see here.

Next in line!

Bob, I know your feelings toward the Association pretty much mirror mine. But I'm not sure why you are comfortable with the seniority agreement that fleet has between the two. I'm also not sure why you think any agreement is worth any more than the paper it's written on. Any LOA or MOU is worthless. I don't agree with everything Tim say's, and I'm not here to defend him, but you didn't vote on the Association (MOU) so  I think it's best to pay close attention. If you were a mechanic and the rumor is true that the LUS is pushing for their way of doing things, you would have issues (I would think). You also make it sound as though the Arbitrator has no power, just an opinion. Not sure if that's true, but be very careful of that opinion. It should be decided by members, PERIOD. I'm sure there are those here who disagree with Tim just because it's Tim, but I would guess just like 700, he knows a bit more than most.

 

[AANOTOK]

Tim. There are things that cannot be said til it's ok for it to be said

I would think since the Association was quick to throw the Seniority agreement out there way back when, the issues that have changed should be thrown out there as well. This game is getting old very quickly!

 

[bob@las-AA]

Tim,
 
Read the agreement yourself.
 
https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B7qadFaPIn_uOVNwbXRHZ3hOcVE

 

[Tim Nelson]

Bob, I know your feelings toward the Association pretty much mirror mine. But I'm not sure why you are comfortable with the seniority agreement that fleet has between the two. I'm also not sure why you think any agreement is worth any more than the paper it's written on. Any LOA or MOU is worthless. I don't agree with everything Tim say's, and I'm not here to defend him, but you didn't vote on the Association (MOU) so  I think it's best to pay close attention. If you were a mechanic and the rumor is true that the LUS is pushing for their way of doing things, you would have issues (I would think). You also make it sound as though the Arbitrator has no power, just an opinion. Not sure if that's true, but be very careful of that opinion. It should be decided by members, PERIOD. I'm sure there are those here who disagree with Tim just because it's Tim, but I would guess just like 700, he knows a bit more than most.

+1
Im not sure anyone has ever seen a 3rd party make a great seniority determination, and it just adds insult that these very important decisions wont be made by us or our reps (whether we agree or not).
As far as Javits authority, im just going by his letter and his singular terminology explicitly confirms that he himself has full authority to determine any challenges. I hate that.
Admittedly, its possibly a technical point on my part but id say the perspective on this issue, and its importance, is based on the level of doh adjustment that a particular person has had. I may be wrong, but id say Bob prolly doesnt have much doh adjustment.

Whatever the case, the greater problem is that you are correct, mou, loa, none of it ever matters.

 

[Tim Nelson]

Tim,
 
Read the agreement yourself.
 
https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B7qadFaPIn_uOVNwbXRHZ3hOcVE

What's your point?

It is a framework and drywall. Same thing happened at United. I was explaining to peeps that the seniority letter was a method agreed to when integrating, however, integrating seniority list also meant interpretations and determinations within integration. Knowing that, it seems to me that there may be issues that neither the twu or iam can agree to, or at least dont want the result on its hands. It isnt as simple as "boots on the ground". Both, the twu and iam realize this and apparently signed a loa ammending #4 with an attempt towards due dilligence as to avoid possible lawsuits. It may not be as technical or literal as i may suggest, Bob, but I dont think it is as simple as what you appear to suggest.

 

[bob@las-AA]

Bob, I know your feelings toward the Association pretty much mirror mine. But I'm not sure why you are comfortable with the seniority agreement that fleet has between the two. I'm also not sure why you think any agreement is worth any more than the paper it's written on. Any LOA or MOU is worthless. I don't agree with everything Tim say's, and I'm not here to defend him, but you didn't vote on the Association (MOU) so  I think it's best to pay close attention. If you were a mechanic and the rumor is true that the LUS is pushing for their way of doing things, you would have issues (I would think). You also make it sound as though the Arbitrator has no power, just an opinion. Not sure if that's true, but be very careful of that opinion. It should be decided by members, PERIOD. I'm sure there are those here who disagree with Tim just because it's Tim, but I would guess just like 700, he knows a bit more than most.

 
If you're one of those "conspiracy theory nut cases", then got ahead, the truth will for now on be only what YOU say it is. I have already explained, in my thoughts on why we didn't get to vote on the a$$. And as far as what Tim is thinking, again another  "conspiracy theory nut case" the big bad union busters are out to get us. I ask, and will only do this once, what harm will this consultant do. Just give some examples, because none of you on here have anything of any true substance as to why this consultant would not follow the instructions of its clients, the TWU/IAM. Now I saved the best for last.
The seniority committee will ask the consultant, "has the Association integrated the members on this list in accordance to this document?" 
https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B7qadFaPIn_uOVNwbXRHZ3hOcVE
The consultant will the offer his opinion and or changes, and then a$$ will then except or dismiss the recommendations.
And as far as the members having control of this, have you completely lost your mind? If we do it your way, well then I would like MY seniority adjusted to be better in line with my age. That would give me a 1981 hire date.   

 

[bob@las-AA]

What's your point?

It is a framework and drywall. Same thing happened at United. I was explaining to peeps that the seniority letter was a method agreed to when integrating, however, integrating seniority list also meant interpretations and determinations within integration. Knowing that, it seems to me that there may be issues that neither the twu or iam can agree to, or at least dont want the result on its hands. It isnt as simple as "boots on the ground". Both, the twu and iam realize this and apparently signed a loa ammending #4 with an attempt towards due dilligence as to avoid possible lawsuits. It may not be as technical or literal as i may suggest, Bob, but I dont think it is as simple as what you appear to suggest.

You still haven't given a VALID reason for your concern.  I don't care what went on at UA.
The LAA way is just that simple. Explain to me, just what would you say to invoke a question on the opinion of the consultant?  

 

[Worldport]

What's your point?

It is a framework and drywall. Same thing happened at United. I was explaining to peeps that the seniority letter was a method agreed to when integrating, however, integrating seniority list also meant interpretations and determinations within integration. Knowing that, it seems to me that there may be issues that neither the twu or iam can agree to, or at least dont want the result on its hands. It isnt as simple as "boots on the ground". Both, the twu and iam realize this and apparently signed a loa ammending #4 with an attempt towards due dilligence as to avoid possible lawsuits. It may not be as technical or literal as i may suggest, Bob, but I dont think it is as simple as what you appear to suggest.

Tim may I suggest a "seniority video" featuring a tray of Jello shots

 

[WeAAsles]

If you're one of those "conspiracy theory nut cases", then got ahead, the truth will for now on be only what YOU say it is. I have already explained, in my thoughts on why we didn't get to vote on the a$$. And as far as what Tim is thinking, again another  "conspiracy theory nut case" the big bad union busters are out to get us. I ask, and will only do this once, what harm will this consultant do. Just give some examples, because none of you on here have anything of any true substance as to why this consultant would not follow the instructions of its clients, the TWU/IAM. Now I saved the best for last.
The seniority committee will ask the consultant, "has the Association integrated the members on this list in accordance to this document?" 
https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B7qadFaPIn_uOVNwbXRHZ3hOcVE
The consultant will the offer his opinion and or changes, and then a$$ will then except or dismiss the recommendations.
And as far as the members having control of this, have you completely lost your mind? If we do it your way, well then I would like MY seniority adjusted to be better in line with my age. That would give me a 1981 hire date.

I got my working papers and first job at 16. I want my seniority adjusted to 1981 also. Or maybe back to when I was 12 in 1977? I was raking leaves and shoveling snow not to mention my Paper Route.

If I don't get adjusted I'm sending in my formal protest letter.

 

[WeAAsles]

Tim may I suggest a "seniority video" featuring a tray of Jello shots

Jell-O shots need to be licked off a girls navel. Tim will have to head back to Houston to get some of them.