More Concessions?
- Thread starter Hopeful
- Start date
FWAAA said:
Not quite. Your comparasion is an oversimplification. You cant compare the ease through which someone can move their excess capital to changing jobs.
Mechanics are a generally cautious people, we are trained to be that way. Our training is all about eliminating risk, not taking them. Investing is about weighing the risk as opposed to the possible gains. Do you want mechanics looking at their job that way? "Hmm, it will probably be good, and if it isnt I wont be on it anyway".
The fact is that most of the line mechanics voted NO. Its possible that the mechanics as a whole voted No and the vote was rigged. The company chosen by the union was not the one approved by the Presidents council nor did they use the same system. Instead the TWU hired a company where one of AAs top officers was also a part of the balloting company. They put in a pin system that was sequential, so if you had one pin number-employee number pair, and the seniority list for the station, (which both the company and the TWU would have), you knew every one elses pin number. Votes could be changed from any phone anywhere with the pin.
The fact that most are still here may have more to do with the fact that financially we are strapped. We never made enough to store away enough to give us the freedom to walk off the job and carry us until we find and start a better one. The fact is the more you make the more you can afford to demand.
So far we have seen about 15% of the mechanics at JFK leave. Some retired earlier than planned, others took the Stand in stead and others simply quit. Those that left were those that had the financial means to do so. Those that remain certainly are not confident that this will be the job that takes us to retirement, its simply what we do to try and put food on the table today.
You might figure that a 15% turnover is acceptable, but the fact is that we have 6 fleet types flying into just JFK. So for each avionics mechanic that means 92 hours of familiarization training for each aircraft type, except the 777, which is 132 hours. So thats 592 hours just for Gen fam, figure another 500 hours for physicals, taxi/run up, Hazwopper, misc equipement, fire safety, logbook etc. So the company invests a minimum of around $33000 in training for each mechanic to meet their maintenace program. You have to figure at least 5 years before a mechanic becomes very proficient in each fleet. Over that time period he will have experienced a broad range of discrepancies and know the quickest way of fixing them, making the difference between an on time departure and a cancelled flight. With a 15% turnover rate the company only gets around 6 years per mechanic. When the mechanic leaves the $33000 in training is gone and so is all the experience and expertise that went along with him/her. Many of the systems that he has become proficient with are easily applied to other industries as control systems tend to be pretty much alike. Just in the last two months we had a former Tech Crew Chief(bumped back to the floor due to a layoff) and another mechanic with 15 years with AA, plus 10 at EAL quit and go to Con Ed. With them went years of training and experience and the ability to take an out of serivice aircraft and return it to service quickly.
So you can come back with your BS one liners about how we vote to accept these wages by showing up for work, the fact is we voted no, just because we still show up, just like our bills do every month, it does not mean that we accept this, we endure it.
After investing 28 years, and having a family to support its not quite as easy as striking a fews keys on your computer and moving you excess capital from one company to another.
TIME FOR CHANGE
Veteran
The way I see it no contract means no work rules.
Ask the guys at Eastern who decides if a strike is legal or not 😉
Former ModerAAtor,Mar 31 2005, 10:10 PM]
Whether or not you can strike is still up for debate, since there's no case law on this.
Thats right and in America unless its expressly prohibited by Law then it is permitted. The RLA is clear that the prohibition on self help is directly tied to the maintenace of the status quo, the status quo being previously agreed to terms between the two parties.
So as you said, "there is no case law on this", however there is legislation that covers it in the RLA. And the RLA does not include an exception to the "status quo" for BK.
US Airways created the case law for a S1113 arbrogation, but didn't get to the point of making a judge decide if the right to strike was permitted when a contract is arbrogated under the bankruptcy code.
Usair workers accepted the new terms by not striking. The Judge never said anything because as you said there is nothing in case law, more importantly legislation already covers it. The terms were changed and implemented, the company excercised self help through the courts instead of the NMB and the workers could do the same as per the RLA.
But you're definitely wrong about the second half of your statement.
The S1113 imposed contract isn't replaced until there's a new contract negotiated. That could be months or even years after a company exits from bankruptcy.
And outside of BK there is no question at all over whether or not the employees could strike at will.
Whether or not you can strike is still up for debate, since there's no case law on this.
Thats right and in America unless its expressly prohibited by Law then it is permitted. The RLA is clear that the prohibition on self help is directly tied to the maintenace of the status quo, the status quo being previously agreed to terms between the two parties.
So as you said, "there is no case law on this", however there is legislation that covers it in the RLA. And the RLA does not include an exception to the "status quo" for BK.
US Airways created the case law for a S1113 arbrogation, but didn't get to the point of making a judge decide if the right to strike was permitted when a contract is arbrogated under the bankruptcy code.
Usair workers accepted the new terms by not striking. The Judge never said anything because as you said there is nothing in case law, more importantly legislation already covers it. The terms were changed and implemented, the company excercised self help through the courts instead of the NMB and the workers could do the same as per the RLA.
But you're definitely wrong about the second half of your statement.
The S1113 imposed contract isn't replaced until there's a new contract negotiated. That could be months or even years after a company exits from bankruptcy.
And outside of BK there is no question at all over whether or not the employees could strike at will.
MCI transplant
Veteran
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2003
- Messages
- 5,311
- Reaction score
- 584
<_< Bob---- All these people are big boys now! Most have close to 20 years seniority! (The ones going out the door that is!) Believe me, they know their own minds and are quit aware of the AMFA drive!!!Bob Owens said:
Skymess said:BOHICA!!!!
I am very jealous of the Bohica pins and I would like to know where I can get one?
[post="259858"][/post]
Better yet, R,
You can have BOHICA embroidered on a Crew "flag" (for luggage) at Crew Outfitters, C21 OPS-DFW. That is what that 4 hour sit-time is good for.
Just fill in BOHICA for your name.
The cost is $12USD, and you will receive it in 2 weeks. I have never regretted getting mine...it causes too many laughs...well, it's either that or my faux leopard fur "White Trash" patch...I can't decide.
Take care and avoid the land of R/A...SJU.
From the Domestic S-80 ghetto that is not ORD,
Coop
p.s. My only regret is that the APFA stopped advertising the APFA flags in Skyword. That was my first choice!
jimntx
Veteran
Bob Owens said:
One of the lawsuits against the APFA and AA regarding the RPA is an attempt to avoid a "shop practice" precedent being set. It seems that there is a precedent in labor law that regardless of the law and regardless the stipulations of a contract, if a union allows the company to do something that violates the contract and does nothing to dispute such action, it becomes "the practice of the shop"--it is interpreted as an implicit acceptance of a contract modification. Not striking when the law allows can, in fact, constitute, acceptance of the new terms/practices. However, I don't know if the company has to go to court and have it officially declared "shop practice" or if it becomes that if the union tries to dispute the practice later.
(Got this all from a labor lawyer.)
jimntx said:
Well there is a little more to it than that. It could be easily argued that tolerating changes that are put in place by a judge during BK does not constitute acceptance of new terms.
There are a lot of "ifs" to shop practice, or "past practice". I disagree with the "regardless of the law" or "contract language claim". Normally clear written language is enforcable, certainly from the point in time that the issue is brought forward.
In other words lets say that the union or the company allowed things to go on due to certain conditions but then later decided to go back to what was written. They may not be able to go back and claim damages for what happened during the period prior to the point where they cite the language (where they allowed it to go on) but they certainly could demand that the language be adhered to henceforth.
For instance next week we have a fellow employees case being put before an arbitrator. The employee was fired for leaving early. It seems the company had two people from corporate security follow him home after leaving early on several occasions. When he was called in for a hearing by Corporate security he admitted that he left early. Reportedly, he said that he had been doing that for at least 15 years and even prior to that at Pan Am. Management was aware of it and condoned it. He did not think he was doing anything wrong because he considered himself to be a "teaam player".
Having been with the company for nearly 19 years I know he was telling the truth. I've worked three different stations, JFK, DCA and LGA, and this practice of allowing guys to leave early if they put out was common at all three. A few years back a FS clerk from BOS was reportedly drunk when he killed someone in a car wreck about an hour away from the airport while he was still on the clock, so its clearly not just a common practice with maintenance or the three stations that I worked at either.
Leaving early was just one of the "deals" that management used to sqeeze out more from the guys. Go over and above during the peak times when the company needs it and "I wont be looking for you" when it slows up.
Now can the union simply cite that this was a "shop practice"? Is this a slam dunk case? After all it was not something imposed by a judge under BK and it has gone on at least for the 19 years that I've been with the company, in fact, from the stories I've heard it has gone on far longer than that. Its doubtful that the company will admit that they explicitly told the guys they could leave early but clearly they knew.To try and say that the company was unaware of it is absurd.
In this case we have company regulations, written language, and we have the company allowing those regulations to be violated for many, many years with no real attempt at enforcement, in fact they used to even issue us multiple cards to be used for punching in and out. The ID we use for gaining entry is different than the one we use for clocking in and out, so despite its written rules the company has made efforts to make the practice of leaving early easier.
The company claimed that they only followed this particular individual because he was named in an anonymous letter, they said that they observed at least 60 others that were doing the same thing but they only went after this one employee.
Now I would say that the company's termination of this employee is unjust. Did he violate the rules? Yes, but they condoned it and they singled him out for different treatment simply because of an anonymous letter. Their failure to pursue the other 60 employees observed doing the same thing indicates disparate treatement.
Does the company have the right to put a stop to this very long standing practice? Yes, because the language is clear. Do they have the right to go back in time to penalize those who did this while it was tolerated-No, because the workers upheld their part of the deal by going above and beyond and the company tolerated it.
The fact is that the company easily could have put a stop to this by simply calling the worker into the office. His free admission to corporate security indicates that he did not feel that he was doing anything wrong, despite the rules because it was "past practice". If they had informed him of the letter and corrected his assumptions the employee would have corrected his actions. However if the employee said "look this has been 'shop practice' for at least twenty years and I'm not going to stop" then I would say that the employee was wrong, and if continued to leave that they could terminate him.
I would say that while past practice can be used as a defense for past actions that you cant use it to override written language in the future.
eolesen
Veteran
- Joined
- Jul 23, 2003
- Messages
- 15,959
- Reaction score
- 9,375
Going home early is one thing. Going home early and being clocked out by someone else something else -- timecard fraud.
Since there are dozens of people caught and fired each year for just that, I don't think you can make a very convincing argument that this is a shop practice or past practice...
Since there are dozens of people caught and fired each year for just that, I don't think you can make a very convincing argument that this is a shop practice or past practice...
eolesen
Veteran
- Joined
- Jul 23, 2003
- Messages
- 15,959
- Reaction score
- 9,375
Bob Owens said:
That's one side of the argument, Bob. The other school of thought argues that the status quo isn't violated because the contract was lawfully arbrogated outside of the normal negotiating process, therefore there's no right to self-help under the RLA. You've got a third school of thought which believes that self-help under the RLA only applies after a 30 day cooling off period has been declared....
Because you have two different laws overlapping here, it's an area that's going to require either more concise legislation or a court ruling. Absent another S1113 proceeding, I doubt there's going to be any push to address it via amending the bankruptcy laws or the RLA. Tinkering with laws tends to backfire because it opens the door for other changes to be made... It's almost safer to wait for a court ruling so that only the specific area of concern is addressed.
Thats an assinine arguement. The fact is the status quo has been altered. Lawfully abrogated, whether through BK, or release to self help by the NMB, does not alter this fact. The RLA still applies.
In one case the Law is explicit-the RLA, in the other there is no language. When laws overlap we follow what has been explicitly laid out by law. The fact is there is no conflict between them. The judge can abrogate, the RLA allows the workers to use self help, something that the Judge needs to consider before abrogating.
Lets change the example from Labor to Jet fuel. If the Judge abrogates a contract betwen the airline and a fuel company to pay $3/gallon and the airline only wants to pay $1/gallon could the Judge force the fuel company to sell the airline fuel at $1/gallon and continue to sell them fuel at $1/gallon until such time as the two parties agree to a new price?
I think we can agree that the Judge can abrogate the contract, however I doubt he could force the other party to abide to continuening to do business, at terms that the other party considsers disadvantageous. He can make recommendations, but the other party would most certainly be free to use self-help once the contract has been changed.
Well I'd love to make the court rule on this. The unions were wrong for not pushing this. Because like I said if they can change labor rates, and force the workers to accept them then they could do the same thing to everyone else. Then every company would seek BK as a means of setting prices for what they consume at what they wanted to pay.
TIME FOR CHANGE
Veteran
What is it called when a supervisor or manager adjusts your auto TA because of a deal that was made. 😉
TIME FOR CHANGE
Veteran
FM your post seems to apply that we are not able to strike. If the company imposed a wage on you after your contract was abrogated what would you do.
:unsure:
:unsure:
eolesen
Veteran
- Joined
- Jul 23, 2003
- Messages
- 15,959
- Reaction score
- 9,375
TIME FOR CHANGE said:
It's not just my post, TFC -- the lawyers and labor law experts are divided on whether or not the right to strike would exist, and since I'm not a lawyer, I think it would be foolish to make wild a$s assumptions on whether or not you'd be permitted to walk in such a situation.
If things are so dysfunctional to the point both sides are too entrenched and inflexible to come to a negotiated settlement, it probaby doesn't matter, because at that point trying to salvage the business is historically a losing proposition. That's the current problem with US Airways, and it was the problem with Pan Am and Eastern. You can blame management for making some bad strategic decisions, but you can't overlook the fact that labor also wouldn't part with the us vs. them mentality long enough to realize that they were both on the same sinking ship, and couldn't survive without cooperation and mutual respect. TWA was one of the few examples where us vs. them seemed to have subsided long enough to survive a few years post-Icahn.
So, what would I do? It's just a job. I'd rather go drive a forklift at Home Depot than put up with the petty BS and infighting that appear to have made all of your lives so miserable for the past {fill in the blank} years. I left my first career as a teacher for that exact reason. We all have that option.
