Letter to wroble

[ThirdSeatHero]

 
It's also not fair to bump someone in a station not affected by the furlough, which causes a ripple affect in the system.

 
If the individual doing the bumping is senior, how is it unfair?
 
BTW the ripple effect you mention is exactly what you want to happen, as it causes all sorts of badging/training/moving liabilities for the company which one would hope would cause them to seriously rethink any potential layoff.

 

[NYer]

 
If the individual doing the bumping is senior, how is it unfair? --It's unfair to those in other stations that would be affected by the ripple.
 
BTW the ripple effect you mention is exactly what you want to happen, as it causes all sorts of badging/training/moving liabilities for the company which one would hope would cause them to seriously rethink any potential layoff. --So you want to have a system that you believe might make them rethink a layoff? You want to affect a large number of people and their families as a ploy that may make them re-think a layoff? You can't think an issue like that is going to affect them.
 
On the other hand, say it does. Won't they then not want to hire as many mechanics as they may need in order to avoid having too many people around and not being willing to furlough. We can go around in circles with this.

 

[ThirdSeatHero]

 

 
If the individual doing the bumping is senior, how is it unfair? --It's unfair to those in other stations that would be affected by the ripple.
 
BTW the ripple effect you mention is exactly what you want to happen, as it causes all sorts of badging/training/moving liabilities for the company which one would hope would cause them to seriously rethink any potential layoff. --So you want to have a system that you believe might make them rethink a layoff? You want to affect a large number of people and their families as a ploy that may make them re-think a layoff? You can't think an issue like that is going to affect them.
 
On the other hand, say it does. Won't they then not want to hire as many mechanics as they may need in order to avoid having too many people around and not being willing to furlough. We can go around in circles with this.

 

 
Not in circles, it simply comes down to do you respect/honor seniority or don't you?
 
No one likes to get laid off, but if it was to happen, wouldn't you rather go were YOU wanted to go (seniority allowing) or simply get stuck where the company wants to put you?
 
Making the process cost prohibitive for the company will indeed make them rethink their position, and as far as affecting other families its no ploy, again, if you are senior why is it unfair for you to bump someone junior? 

 

[WeAAsles]

 
Not in circles, it simply comes down to do you respect/honor seniority or don't you?
 
No one likes to get laid off, but if it was to happen, wouldn't you rather go were YOU wanted to go (seniority allowing) or simply get stuck where the company wants to put you?
 
Making the process cost prohibitive for the company will indeed make them rethink their position, and as far as affecting other families its no ploy, again, if you are senior why is it unfair for you to bump someone junior? 

We had that a long time ago when members were "Station Protected" it eventually changed to "System Protection" and than even that was finally lost in the bankruptcy. Our only current protection is in SCOPE language and Station staffing methodologies.

I would be happy to at least see some type of "System Protection" restored even if it had a date attached to it. Say 5 years vested or even 10 years vested?

 

[NYer]

 
Not in circles, it simply comes down to do you respect/honor seniority or don't you?
 
No one likes to get laid off, but if it was to happen, wouldn't you rather go were YOU wanted to go (seniority allowing) or simply get stuck where the company wants to put you?
 
Making the process cost prohibitive for the company will indeed make them rethink their position, and as far as affecting other families its no ploy, again, if you are senior why is it unfair for you to bump someone junior? 

 
If I was in that position, I'd want to avoid putting someone else in that same position unnecessarily.
 
I'd take my changes with the choices afforded by the juniority. I personally wouldn't want to trigger a ripple in the system.
 
If others do, then that's their choice.

 

[ThirdSeatHero]

 
If I was in that position, I'd want to avoid putting someone else in that same position unnecessarily.
 
I'd take my changes with the choices afforded by the juniority. I personally wouldn't want to trigger a ripple in the system.
 
If others do, then that's their choice.

 
That's where you are wrong - if you were in that position, YOU wouldn't be putting someone else in the same position, the COMPANY is responsible.
 
While I haven't checked our juniority lists recently when last I did, IAD was a junior station. If UAL laid me off out of SFO, there is no way in hell I'm shouldering the responsibility for the reduction in force that they initiated and moving to the East Coast. I know I'm senior to several in both PDX & SEA and I wouldn't hesitate to exercise my seniority rights.
 
You should NEVER let the company put the onus of an RIF on the membership - its a company decision, THEY are responsible for the fall out.

 

[dfw gen]

 
That's where you are wrong - if you were in that position, YOU wouldn't be putting someone else in the same position, the COMPANY is responsible.
 
While I haven't checked our juniority lists recently when last I did, IAD was a junior station. If UAL laid me off out of SFO, there is no way in hell I'm shouldering the responsibility for the reduction in force that they initiated and moving to the East Coast. I know I'm senior to several in both PDX & SEA and I wouldn't hesitate to exercise my seniority rights.
 
You should NEVER let the company put the onus of an RIF on the membership - its a company decision, THEY are responsible for the fall out.

you are right. the only thing is that the layoffs at american have always been done like that. right or wrong its the system we have had. if it changes in the next cba so be it. the only wild card is when deals get cut and they do, especially out of local 514. thats one of the reasons we want to do away with the twu the special deals like the "virtual" bumping. now the biggest #### out of afw is that they had to follow the system. i was at afw for 15 years and i remember the lecture from matt lorenzi that we didnt want a one station agreement with dfw because they had seniority and would take our jobs. now the shoe is on the other foot.

 

[bigjets]

 
That's where you are wrong - if you were in that position, YOU wouldn't be putting someone else in the same position, the COMPANY is responsible.
 
While I haven't checked our juniority lists recently when last I did, IAD was a junior station. If UAL laid me off out of SFO, there is no way in hell I'm shouldering the responsibility for the reduction in force that they initiated and moving to the East Coast. I know I'm senior to several in both PDX & SEA and I wouldn't hesitate to exercise my seniority rights.
 
You should NEVER let the company put the onus of an RIF on the membership - its a company decision, THEY are responsible for the fall out.

 
 
How did the layoff work when UAL closed IND main base?

 

[ThirdSeatHero]

 
 
How did the layoff work when UAL closed IND main base?

 
Similar to the way it sounds AA does it now - our CBA language has changed since that layoff, in major part due to what happened when both IND and OAK closed.

 

[700UW]

IMO is the system we had/have in place, bump where you want to go and hold, not where the company tells you.

 

[Glenn Quagmire]

The new CBA provides for a virtual RIF process where bumping is done in the background. Members then don't bump in successive waves just once physically. The last RIF I was involved in they laid off 400 in TUL. The union identified the bottom 400 in the system and those were the choices the TUL got to choose from. In those days base AMTs could bump without taking a test if it was BC station. I think now you have to be qualified before bumping.

That sucks.

You should be able to bump the junior person in your classification at any station of your choosing so long as you have the seniority. That is the language we had at NWA under the IAM and the AMFA, and it worked very well. The company thought long and hard prior to layoff.

With the system you describe, I could get laid off at SAN and not be able to bump LAX. If the junior person in the system was at LGA or JFK that would be your only choice? I cannot believe anyone would ever agree to that. That takes away a key function of seniority.

 

[comatose]

The new CBA provides for a virtual RIF process where bumping is done in the background. Members then don't bump in successive waves just once physically. The last RIF I was involved in they laid off 400 in TUL. The union identified the bottom 400 in the system and those were the choices the TUL got to choose from. In those days base AMTs could bump without taking a test if it was BC station. I think now you have to be qualified before bumping.

 
 
Careful there were really only two  TWU SA's screwing that up. You're anonymity is shrinking.
 
Keep telling yourself your a D term mechanic. "Involved" tells me all I need to know.

 

[Vortilon]

 
 
Careful there were really only two  TWU SA's screwing that up. You're anonymity is shrinking.
 
Keep telling yourself your a D term mechanic. "Involved" tells me all I need to know.

Bingo

 

[Overspeed]

Two? There was three in the early 90s. Then after 9/11 there was a big one in Oct 2001 systemwide. Since the latest CBA there is only the one I can remember with the BK CBA. In the last twenty years there has been many more than two TUL RIFs.

 

[Bob Owens]

 
It's also not fair to bump someone in a station not affected by the furlough, which causes a ripple affect in the system.

Yes it is fair because we are all in the same union under the same contract.
 
So if they cut day shift should those guys be put on the street because they didn't cut afternoons or nights, because their shift wasn't affected? The fact is we are supposed to be one body, and just like a body of water the ripple effect should affect us all. 
 
Your perception of "fair" is once again conveniently aligned with the company's interests. 
 
If you haven't forgotten we are in a Union, so isn't "an injury to one an injury to all"? What you are saying is fair is closer to what Delta does than what Union shops do.  
 
How many times has management over the years threatened RIFs if the workers didn't improve productivity? You favor a process which makes that threat more viable. 
 
Once agin we see Union impostors, ones that once held office, sometimes people who may have been caught in criminal acts that resulted in terminations for others but somehow got back, repeat management excuses, the fact is the Juniority system makes layoffs much easier and less expensive for management, thats why you support it. A true disciple of Little. 
 
If you are laid off you should be able to bump wherever your seniority will carry you, its the company's decision to cut heads and its the company's fault for any subsequent dislocations and we should not compromise our seniority to accommodate the company.