Outsourced Work - TULSA

[TIME FOR CHANGE]

I have a hypothetical situation regarding Tulsa farm outs and system protection....

There's an attachment in Article 42.....Attachment 42.2 dated January 19, 1996 between Mark Burdette and John Orlando...where it states

1. A system protected employee can displace a non-protected employee at another station. A system protected employee CANNOT displace another system protected employee at another location.

If Tulsa begins to experience mass layoffs as a result of farm outs and all non-protected employees have been displaced, and applying No.1.....what choices will system protected employees in Tulsa have if they can't displace other system protected employees at other stations?????

Read it yesterday and with all this discussion regarding farm outs wanted to throw it out there.

I think there is language that has station protection which was given to some back in the 85 contract. i believe anyone after that has system protection. But it goes by seniority low man out the door system protected or not.

 

[TIME FOR CHANGE]

I stand corrected. The retiree medical coverage was altered and modified in BK. You have it but you pay alot more for retiree medical in contributions and copays. I guess that's a good deal.

IV. UNITED PROPOSES A QUINTESSENTIAL EQUITY – LINING UP THE MEDICAL BENEFITS OF CURRENT RETIREES WITH THOSE TO BE PROVIDED TO FUTURE RETIREES.

United proposes a uniform medical benefits plan under which current retirees will receive the same benefits package as future retirees, but with a sliding discount on premium contributions such that longer-retired plan participants will pay less than recently-retired participants.(4) (Grady Decl. (Ex. 4) ¶¶ 4, 27 - 29) AMFA, which represents 7,385 retired mechanics and related former employees (the largest retiree group with over 21 percent of United’s total current retirees), has already faced up to the realities of restructuring an airline in today’s industry environment, consenting to benefit modifications and the Company’s proposed common retiree medical plan. (Declaration of Marilyn Pearson (“Pearson Decl.”) (Ex. 6) ¶¶ 12 - 15; AMFA 1114 Agreement (Ex. 21)) United projects that its current proposal and the changes




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(4) In United’s proposal and in this Memorandum, “current retirees” refers to all retirees who retired before July 1, 2003, while “future retirees” refers to those who retire on or after July 1, 2003 and are covered by the reduced retiree medical benefits negotiated during the Section 1113 process.

Court approves termination of United Airlines pension plans http://www.wsws.org/articles/2005/may2005/unit-m13.shtml

Because the PBGC took it over for the plans. Everything else is frozen.

SNIP

In effect, the contract has been transformed into a completely one-way agreement, a form of indentured servitude: workers are legally obliged to work, but the company is not legally obliged to pay the wages and benefits it previously agreed to. No airline union has every struck a carrier while it was in bankruptcy.

A strike against such conditions is absolutely justified. But such a struggle can only advance the interests of UAL workers if they break out of the organizational and political straitjacket imposed on them by the union leaders. They must reject the perspective of “equality of sacrifice” and appeals to the federal government and the Bush administration.

There can be no equality between airline workers and corporate CEOs like United’s Glen Tilton—whose $4.5 million annual pension is guaranteed by his employment contract with the company, even while the pensions of pilots, mechanics and flight attendants are shredded. As for the Bush administration, it is the sworn enemy of the airline workers, the principal instrument of corporate America in its war against the working class

 

[strikeforce]

I think there is language that has station protection which was given to some back in the 85 contract. i believe anyone after that has system protection. But it goes by seniority low man out the door system protected or not.

I'm not talking about station protection....this is system protection. For example, Tul amt hired in 1986 cannot displace amt in DFW hired in 1997. Both are system protected, and with the application of the attachment....the Tul mechanic cannot displace a system protected mechanic at any other station and vice versa. At least that's the way I interpret the letter. Station protected is just that. We have one aircraft cleaner in ORD because he is station protected.

 

[Overspeed]

US M&R have the IAM National Pension Plan.

So this is wrong?

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2005/jan2005/air-j12.shtml

US bankruptcy judge terminates contract of US Airways workers

This is the third time in just over two years that workers at US Airways have taken concessions. Flight attendants have already given up more than a third of their pay. For example, a flight attendant with 22 years of service who was making $47,000 five years ago is only making $32,000 today.

In addition to terminating the contract, Judge Mitchell also terminated three pension plans covering 53,000 current and retired workers saving the airline roughly $1 billion over the next three years. According to the Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation or PBGC, the three plans being terminated cover 12,643 flight attendants, 11,336 IAM members and 20,676 mostly nonunion employees.

A US Gov GAO report from 2005 states that the US and UAL plans were terminated but covered by the PBGC. Unless something changed their are no new contributions and no new participants.

The remaining legacy airlines’ defined benefit plans expose PBGC to
billions more in potential losses. At the end of 2004, these legacy airlines
reported $23.7 billion in total termination liabilities for their defined benefit
plans, with assets to cover 48 percent of these obligations.

When US Airways and United terminated their pension plans, active and
high-salaried employees generally lost more of their promised benefits than
did retirees and low-salaried employees because of statutory limit

And the IAM plan replaces the one terminated in BK. So the union took over the plan that is funded by a defined contribution from the Company and you get the PBGC portion for the pre-BK.

 

[Overspeed]

This is another one of your false statements.

"Volume of Work" has not been defined. There is still ongoing TWU/AA debate over if this is based on manhours or maintenance budget.
To date not defined.

In fact I believe Steve Luis had a proposal on the negotiations table to clarify.

You sure have a strange belief system that is not based on fact, but more like on dreams and hope. Much like Rick Mullings always has, and who using those dreams received an unearned appointment to the TWU International.

I would argue volume of work has been pretty well defined by past decisions. For example, the “volume of work” language in Article 1 gives AA a free hand to outsource whatever it wants is too lame for words. In the last two Greenbaum Awards the arbitrator comprehensively reviewed AA’s right to outsource work which she said only applied in certain circumstances. Neither she nor the Company referred to the volume of work language as authorizing outsourcing. More than that, the AA PEB panel also did not find that this language allowed for outsourcing, even though it would have been directly relevant to the APA’s claim that the new aircraft it wanted to fly would not have been subject to the TWU agreement. That panel was chaired by the late Robert Harris, one of the most highly regarded airline and labor arbitrators. While it is true that future arbitrators are not bound by his views, they will certainly be influential. As for his decision being binding, no arbitration decision is legally binding on a future arbitrator, the decision only binds the parties on the particular grievance being reviewed. However, arbitrators generally respect the views of other arbitrators, particularly when it is a well known and respected arbitrator like Harris.

Four major carriers have gone through bankruptcy. There are transcripts for each hearing. Show me how many times UAL, US, DL, or NWA asked a court for the AA’s outsourcing language because it gave them more right to outsource. Show me how many times another carrier volunteered to sign on to our outsourcing language. Show me which mechanic and related scope clause at another carrier would have secured a remedy on even the three engines Greenbaum said we were entitled to, much less the other work she dealt with. Show me which contract has kept more work in house than ours. Greenbaum allowed some temporary and non recurring instances of outsourcing. At NWA by 2003 better than half of its heavy checks had been outsourced permanently.

I have a strange belief system that at least is based on real set of circumstances.

 

[TWU informer]

I would argue volume of work has been pretty well defined by past decisions. For example, the “volume of work” language in Article 1 gives AA a free hand to outsource whatever it wants is too lame for words. In the last two Greenbaum Awards the arbitrator comprehensively reviewed AA’s right to outsource work which she said only applied in certain circumstances. Neither she nor the Company referred to the volume of work language as authorizing outsourcing. More than that, the AA PEB panel also did not find that this language allowed for outsourcing, even though it would have been directly relevant to the APA’s claim that the new aircraft it wanted to fly would not have been subject to the TWU agreement. That panel was chaired by the late Robert Harris, one of the most highly regarded airline and labor arbitrators. While it is true that future arbitrators are not bound by his views, they will certainly be influential. As for his decision being binding, no arbitration decision is legally binding on a future arbitrator, the decision only binds the parties on the particular grievance being reviewed. However, arbitrators generally respect the views of other arbitrators, particularly when it is a well known and respected arbitrator like Harris.

Four major carriers have gone through bankruptcy. There are transcripts for each hearing. Show me how many times UAL, US, DL, or NWA asked a court for the AA’s outsourcing language because it gave them more right to outsource. Show me how many times another carrier volunteered to sign on to our outsourcing language. Show me which mechanic and related scope clause at another carrier would have secured a remedy on even the three engines Greenbaum said we were entitled to, much less the other work she dealt with. Show me which contract has kept more work in house than ours. Greenbaum allowed some temporary and non recurring instances of outsourcing. At NWA by 2003 better than half of its heavy checks had been outsourced permanently.

I have a strange belief system that at least is based on real set of circumstances.

You can argue all you want.
But you just proved that your claim regarding "Volume of work" is still open to arguement, which is exactly my point.

You keep harping on other unions and other carriers. I work for AA and have the TWU representation, that is what I hold to a standard I desire. You on the other hand justifiy less than desired results and refuse to hold the TWU to the same standard you hold organizations that you dont pay for representation. Why is that?

Your arguements are like me paying for a set of GoodYear tires that are defective, when I return them for replacement or refund, the tire shop shows me documentation that shows Firestone, Wrangler, and General Tires have had worse defects than that which I have with my GoodYear Tires. Given you arguements, I should now accept the defective GoodYear Tires becuase I could have purchased some that were much worse. THAT, is not only wrong but patently ignorant.

 

[Overspeed]

""

You can argue all you want.
But you just proved that your claim regarding "Volume of work" is still open to arguement, which is exactly my point.

You keep harping on other unions and other carriers. I work for AA and have the TWU representation, that is what I hold to a standard I desire. You on the other hand justifiy less than desired results and refuse to hold the TWU to the same standard you hold organizations that you dont pay for representation. Why is that?

Your arguements are like me paying for a set of GoodYear tires that are defective, when I return them for replacement or refund, the tire shop shows me documentation that shows Firestone, Wrangler, and General Tires have had worse defects than that which I have with my GoodYear Tires. Given you arguements, I should now accept the defective GoodYear Tires becuase I could have purchased some that were much worse. THAT, is not only wrong but patently ignorant.

You are awesome! You missed the point. I posed cases where the TWU language is strong and also others where the language is inferior. I was not saying, "Look at them they suck more than us." To the contrary, the TWU has stood the test of time and won. The TWU language is solid and you can't accept it. A simple, "Thank you TWU for protetcing my job so I can blog would be sufficient."

One-fifth of the people are against everything all the time.

 

[700UW]

So this is wrong?

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2005/jan2005/air-j12.shtml

US bankruptcy judge terminates contract of US Airways workers

This is the third time in just over two years that workers at US Airways have taken concessions. Flight attendants have already given up more than a third of their pay. For example, a flight attendant with 22 years of service who was making $47,000 five years ago is only making $32,000 today.

In addition to terminating the contract, Judge Mitchell also terminated three pension plans covering 53,000 current and retired workers saving the airline roughly $1 billion over the next three years. According to the Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation or PBGC, the three plans being terminated cover 12,643 flight attendants, 11,336 IAM members and 20,676 mostly nonunion employees.

A US Gov GAO report from 2005 states that the US and UAL plans were terminated but covered by the PBGC. Unless something changed their are no new contributions and no new participants.

The remaining legacy airlines’ defined benefit plans expose PBGC to
billions more in potential losses. At the end of 2004, these legacy airlines
reported $23.7 billion in total termination liabilities for their defined benefit
plans, with assets to cover 48 percent of these obligations.

When US Airways and United terminated their pension plans, active and
high-salaried employees generally lost more of their promised benefits than
did retirees and low-salaried employees because of statutory limit

And the IAM plan replaces the one terminated in BK. So the union took over the plan that is funded by a defined contribution from the Company and you get the PBGC portion for the pre-BK.

The Company DBP was terminated in BK II in 2005, after the merger the IAMNPF was negotiated and put in place. M&R do not pay towards it, US contributes to it, so it is a DBP Multi-employer, oh by the way I was on the NC during 2005, I know what I am talking about.

The union did not take over the DBP that was terminated in court, that would be the PBGC.

We negotiated a new pension in the merger CBA.

And the IAMNPF is separate from the IAM, its has a board made up of union appointees and employer appointees with a trustee in charge of the plan.

Dont let the facts get in your way.

 

[Birdman]

""

You are awesome! You missed the point. I posed cases where the TWU language is strong and also others where the language is inferior. I was not saying, "Look at them they suck more than us." To the contrary, the TWU has stood the test of time and won. The TWU language is solid and you can't accept it. A simple, "Thank you TWU for protetcing my job so I can blog would be sufficient."

One-fifth of the people are against everything all the time.

The TWU's language has not been "tested" in bankruptcy. We've already seen where rock solid "language" in the form of system protection, outside of BK, changed with the stroke of a pen. Since you seem to have vast knowledge of union activity in the airline industry, what superior language has other unions emulated from the TWU? BTW, the non union Delta mechanics find no language far superior to the TWU's language.

 

[Bob Owens]

I do not buy into the idea that moving the job security date is anything close to adequate scope language.

All AA would have to do is more of what has been taking place.

I think I said what the shortcomings were of system protection and that in 2001 we were pushing for better scope language but at this time rolling up system protection to DOS is about the best we could reasonably expect. The thinking is " if they have to keep the workers then they have to keep the work."

 

[Bob Owens]

The Company DBP was terminated in BK II in 2005, after the merger the IAMNPF was negotiated and put in place. M&R do not pay towards it, US contributes to it, so it is a DBP Multi-employer, oh by the way I was on the NC during 2005, I know what I am talking about.

The union did not take over the DBP that was terminated in court, that would be the PBGC.

We negotiated a new pension in the merger CBA.

And the IAMNPF is separate from the IAM, its has a board made up of union appointees and employer appointees with a trustee in charge of the plan.

Dont let the facts get in your way.

So you are saying that you guys will get a pension from the PBGC and another one from the IAM? Both are DBs so they keep coming till you and your spouse die. That doesnt sound too bad. How does it compare to what you were expecting before the BKs?

 

[700UW]

The terminated plan was substantially reduced under the PBGC, at 50 I would have gotten around a lot more than I will get now, I will collect $563 a month at 50 from the PBGC, if I wait till I am 65 I will get $1,000, my pension was reduced 50% to 75% from what it would have been under the plan before it was terminated.

I left so I dont know what the multiplier is for the current IAMNPF for the M&R. But yes they will get to collect both.

 

[Overspeed]

The TWU's language has not been "tested" in bankruptcy. We've already seen where rock solid "language" in the form of system protection, outside of BK, changed with the stroke of a pen. Since you seem to have vast knowledge of union activity in the airline industry, what superior language has other unions emulated from the TWU? BTW, the non union Delta mechanics find no language far superior to the TWU's language.

True it has not been tested in BK. I would hope it never is. Yes it can be changed with the stroke of pen but it has not and therefore is the best out there.

The non-union DL airframe overhaul mechanics that were laid off would have loved it though when their work was outsourced to AVEOS and ST Aero. And DL now has over 1,000 unlicensed mechanic helpers in ATL Base. DL management can do anything they want at any time.

 

[Overspeed]

The Company DBP was terminated in BK II in 2005, after the merger the IAMNPF was negotiated and put in place. M&R do not pay towards it, US contributes to it, so it is a DBP Multi-employer, oh by the way I was on the NC during 2005, I know what I am talking about.

The union did not take over the DBP that was terminated in court, that would be the PBGC.

We negotiated a new pension in the merger CBA.

And the IAMNPF is separate from the IAM, its has a board made up of union appointees and employer appointees with a trustee in charge of the plan.

Dont let the facts get in your way.

So the IAM plan is more lucrative than the previous US Air DBP? And so you are saying that BK court was better than working out a restructured plan that keeps your existing pension plan.

UAL employees seem to love the changes to their pension plans according to the PBS Frontline episode.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/retirement/view/#morelink

 

[700UW]

Apparently you have never been through bankruptcy before.

We negotiated for several months, US was not interested in anything except what they presented to us as the Negotiating Committee, our CBA was abrogated in court as US wanted to lay off 46% or the M&R workforce and terminate the pension, something we could not agree too.

We gave them a full comprehensive proposal, except pension termination and they were not interested at all, they didnt want to "manage" people.

Better go read up in Section 1113 of the bankruptcy code and educate yourself.