Management Interference

[737823]

With management interference being a timely topic for organized labor in the airline industry, could APA/APFA/TWU pursue the NMB over management interference and intimidation throughout contract negotiation and in the 2003 RPA? I remember APFA alleged AA negotiators walked away from the NMB during a scheduled session back in March

APFA story: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5GRR50rVg6E;

THEY CAN’T HANDLE THE TRUTH!
The Association of Professional Flight Attendants
The Greek philosopher Diogenes was famously noted for carrying a lamp in broad daylight, searching for an honest man. He may need something stronger than a mere lamp at AMR Headquarters in Centreport. Witness the latest fiction on AA’s own negotiations website, wherein Vice Prez of Employee Relations Mark Burdette whines that we at APFA got it all wrong when we exposed their bad-faith tactics at the NMB last week. According to Burdette, their skedaddling home early from talks is just a big misunderstanding and that they are really, really trying to get a deal. In other words: “Did not! Did not!” For the true story, which has drawn such an allergic reaction from management, read the APFA News Release from March 3 and watch Chief Negotiator Anne Loew’s update video about the events (or read the transcript .) And never forget who represents your interest in these talks. ␣
␣
Burdette’s speciousness is topped only by his boss’s. AMR CEO Gerard Arpey, in an impressive ignorance of the elephant in the room, stated recently at an FAA Aviation Forecast Conference in reference to the airline industry: “We're connecting more people to more places, more safely, more dependably, more affordably, and more cleanly than we ever have ...” ␣
␣
Gerard left out a few superlatives applicable to the very airline he runs: more employees laid off, more concessions demanded, more unions in stalled talks, more money in executive bonuses ... ␣
␣
␣
␣
␣
␣
As APFA’s legal counsel has candidly noted: “Their allegiance to the truth is so shallow ...”

http://www.apfa.org/index2.php?option=com_content&do_pdf=1&id=1871

Company story: http://aanegotiations.com/forTheRecord031010.asp


Does APFA leadership know (in their hearts) that management hasn't interfered with the process and are afraid to pursue the NMB because it will further stall their negotiations?

It seems to me if AFA and IAM after being strongly defeated (70% voted no and IAM still claims interference) have the audacity to file interferences charges, then claim they have the workers best interests in mind why don't their "brothers and sisters" at AA jump on the bandwagon?

Josh

 

[jersey777]

What are you talking about? My goodness, some of the unfounded ideas people come up with. Plain and simple.....this is how AA has operated, does operate, and will operate in the future. There really is nothing unique as far as these negotiations are concerned...at least as far as the APFA is concerned. American Airlines tactic has always been to drag out negotiations and kick and scream every time they have to negotiate contracts that cost more money. To be honest, this is nothing like the awful negotiations of 1993 when the membership was bombarded with "Negotiations News" and threats galore if we went out on strike. Heck, even when we were out on strike they kept up this facade of everything working fine.

There has been no accusations by the APFA of any interference. Only complaints about the slowness of the process that works in the companies favor.

 

[TWU informer]

Pursuit of a complaint regarding something that happened 7 (seven) plus years ago is laughable.

Not only would such an act be an embarrassment to us all, the NMB would probabaly document as the most outrageous act ever attempted within the last Century.

I don't feel intimidated or interfered with. I feel lied to and mis-managed. I don't believe that is against the RLA or any other Law for that matter.

 

[odie01]

Pursuit of a complaint regarding something that happened 7 (seven) plus years ago is laughable.

Not only would such an act be an embarrassment to us all, the NMB would probabaly document as the most outrageous act ever attempted within the last Century.

I don't feel intimidated or interfered with. I feel lied to and mis-managed. I don't believe that is against the RLA or any other Law for that matter.

Koom-by-ya, the whole wold is beautiful....... for you F/A's out there, don't think this silver toungued Napolean speakes for maintenance. The F/As have balls of steel, even the the male FA's. Informer has "ovaries of brass".
Good Luck, guys and girls, we're with ya!

 

[jimntx]

I don't think the OP understands the meaning of management interference when it comes to labor relations. The AA team walking away from a scheduled negotiating session is not management interference. Management can not interfere with its own representative employees. Them walking away was not a result of interference. It was simply the result of the AA team following orders. Now, the NMB may rule that as "not negotiating in good faith" which is a requirement of the law and punishable, but it is not management interference.

Management interference from a labor law perspective can only occur if management interferes with/threatens/manipulates union (or potential union) employees to vote/act a certain way that can be proved to be detrimental to the union in question through misrepresentation of the truth. For instance, if there is a representation vote for a class of workers, and management tells individual workers that if they vote FOR representation it means the loss of their job. And, that doesn't have to mean that they were told they would be fired. If management for instance told a relatively new worker that a union would force the company to lay off the new worker in favor of paying more to a senior worker. That could be construed as management interference.

 

[737823]

What are you talking about? My goodness, some of the unfounded ideas people come up with. Plain and simple.....this is how AA has operated, does operate, and will operate in the future. There really is nothing unique as far as these negotiations are concerned...at least as far as the APFA is concerned. American Airlines tactic has always been to drag out negotiations and kick and scream every time they have to negotiate contracts that cost more money. To be honest, this is nothing like the awful negotiations of 1993 when the membership was bombarded with "Negotiations News" and threats galore if we went out on strike. Heck, even when we were out on strike they kept up this facade of everything working fine.

There has been no accusations by the APFA of any interference. Only complaints about the slowness of the process that works in the companies favor.

Glading has a tough job because she needs the memberships support and the only measure of her performance is the contract she can secure. Perhaps unionists don't care to use objective measures to review competency and performance, but it's straightforward to me. Why do you suggest AA wants to drag on the negotiations? Do you think AA likes having these negotiations hanging over their head-consuming company resources, staff time, and providing uncertainty for the companies cost outlook? The negotiating process costs the company money, so they would like it resolved as quickly as possible.

I don't think the OP understands the meaning of management interference when it comes to labor relations. The AA team walking away from a scheduled negotiating session is not management interference. Management can not interfere with its own representative employees. Them walking away was not a result of interference. It was simply the result of the AA team following orders. Now, the NMB may rule that as "not negotiating in good faith" which is a requirement of the law and punishable, but it is not management interference.

Management interference from a labor law perspective can only occur if management interferes with/threatens/manipulates union (or potential union) employees to vote/act a certain way that can be proved to be detrimental to the union in question through misrepresentation of the truth. For instance, if there is a representation vote for a class of workers, and management tells individual workers that if they vote FOR representation it means the loss of their job. And, that doesn't have to mean that they were told they would be fired. If management for instance told a relatively new worker that a union would force the company to lay off the new worker in favor of paying more to a senior worker. That could be construed as management interference.

jimntx, I was referring to the nature of an adversarial labor/management culture that has been in place at AA for many years and is currently taking place at Delta while fate of the elections are decided. I used the March 2010 video/article as an example but it seems given the state of labor relations with management, if asked I imagine many APFA/APA/TWU members would feel AA has interfered and not facilitated the negotiations process. I agree though, legally interference charges are only for the purposes of the certification/decertification of collective bargaining agents.

With the collective bargaining rights of union at the former Northwest Airlines extinguished in the previous weeks, does APFA support their "brothers and sisters" in pursing interference charges? It seems whatever energy the NMB devotes to resolving matters at Delta will be taken from APFA's cause. I think labor wants to show support for their "brothers and sisters" when underneath the surface they only care about their own interests and will support fellow unions if it helps their cause.

Josh

 

[jimntx]

jimntx, I was referring to the nature of an adversarial labor/management culture that has been in place at AA for many years and is currently taking place at Delta while fate of the elections are decided. I used the March 2010 video/article as an example but it seems given the state of labor relations with management, if asked I imagine many APFA/APA/TWU members would feel AA has interfered and not facilitated the negotiations process. I agree though, legally interference charges are only for the purposes of the certification/decertification of collective bargaining agents.

With the collective bargaining rights of union at the former Northwest Airlines extinguished in the previous weeks, does APFA support their "brothers and sisters" in pursing interference charges? It seems whatever energy the NMB devotes to resolving matters at Delta will be taken from APFA's cause. I think labor wants to show support for their "brothers and sisters" when underneath the surface they only care about their own interests and will support fellow unions if it helps their cause.

Josh

Josh, I agree that AA has stonewalled the negotiations process; however, as I said, that is not interference. It is failure to bargain in good faith. As far as the alleged interference at Delta with the certification elections, what would you expect APFA to do? Write a letter to the NMB stating that we support the AFA's charges of interference? The NBM could care less. Unless you have evidence to present to support the charge against Delta management, the NMB will tell you to mind your own business--if they even bother to do that. Opinion and hearsay have no place in a legal proceeding, and charges of interference constitute a serious legal issue to the NMB.

The reality is that AA has no motivation to move the negotiations along unless there is a finding of failure to bargain in good faith or a real threat of a strike. We are working under concessionary contracts that save the company millions everyday. And, thanks to the RLA we are stuck with these contracts until new contracts are ratified.

 

[damajagua]

Josh, I agree that AA has stonewalled the negotiations process; however, as I said, that is not interference. It is failure to bargain in good faith. As far as the alleged interference at Delta with the certification elections, what would you expect APFA to do? Write a letter to the NMB stating that we support the AFA's charges of interference? The NBM could care less. Unless you have evidence to present to support the charge against Delta management, the NMB will tell you to mind your own business--if they even bother to do that. Opinion and hearsay have no place in a legal proceeding, and charges of interference constitute a serious legal issue to the NMB.

The reality is that AA has no motivation to move the negotiations along unless there is a finding of failure to bargain in good faith or a real threat of a strike. We are working under concessionary contracts that save the company millions everyday. And, thanks to the RLA we are stuck with these contracts until new contracts are ratified.

And this is happening under the leadeship of an administration that is suppose to be friendly to labor...What a joke.