TWU Health Insurance?

[IORFA]

I hope you are on your wife's plan then. Save yourself some bucks.

 

[OldGuy@AA]

Isn't there a federal law that says a company can't offer different benefit packages such as insurance to different work groups. As in charging Twu employees much more for the same medical coverage? Does anyone know?

 

[Vortilon]

I hope you are on your wife's plan then. Save yourself some bucks.

I am.

 

[WorldTraveler]

Isn't there a federal law that says a company can't offer different benefit packages such as insurance to different work groups. As in charging Twu employees much more for the same medical coverage? Does anyone know?

no... perfectly legal

 

[eolesen]

Isn't there a federal law that says a company can't offer different benefit packages such as insurance to different work groups. As in charging Twu employees much more for the same medical coverage? Does anyone know?

There isn't a federal law like that I'm aware of. You get what you negotiate.

 

[Bob Owens]

Being that my wife is a Flight Attendant, I can tell you the amount a FA pays per month for health care coverage is almost exactly half of what the same coverage costs me as a TWU represented AMT.

They just stuck us for another $2million in concessions with the latest increase.
Thats small compared to how much its increased since 2004. I figure that AA has increased what they collect by around $42 million a year, I believe thats more than double of what we agreed to in 2003.

 

[OldGuy@AA]

They just stuck us for another $2million in concessions with the latest increase.
Thats small compared to how much its increased since 2004. I figure that AA has increased what they collect by around $42 million a year, I believe thats more than double of what we agreed to in 2003.

Sounds like a money maker for them. Besides the fact that they take back any raise we might get with medical increase.

 

[southwind]

Personally, I believe everyone's health care cost will be rising...............due to Nobama-care ! Someone has to subsidize it !

 

[Boomer]

8

So lobby to be taken out of the RLA, Bob.

If the unions got together and demanded it, I don't know that the airlines would have much reason to block that, especially since there are benefits for both sides for leaving it. You would benefit from no longer being held hostage by the NMB, and the airline would benefit from Right To Work.

Win-win.

Those who distrust management could still belong to a union, and those who don't wouldn't have to pretend anymore by paying union dues for nothing in return.

Me-thinks you protest too much.

In fact, the airline industry is a public utility:

1) Selection of Ownership of all 121 Carriers is subject to DOT, DOS, DOJ, and Homeland Security Approval;
2) Selection of the workforce for all 121 Carriers is subject to DOT, DOJ and Homeland Security Approval;
3) Required Certifications for 121 Carriers are subject to DOT, DOS, DOJ, and Homeland Security Approval;
4) International Operations Route Authority for 121 Carriers is subject to DOT, DOS, DOJ and Homeland Security;
5) Selected Domestic Route Operations Authority for 121 Carriers is subject to DOT, and DOJ approval;
6) Selected Domestic Route Operations Authority for 121 Carriers is authorized by DOT, and DOJ for specific air carriers;
7) No Union Covered under the RLA, and representing 121 Carriers, is allowed to violate the "status-quo," without specific authorization from the NMB;
8) Any Airline covered by the the RLA, under the provision for 121 Carriers, can resort to the BK Court under Sect. 1113 and implement changes to the "status-quo," provisions of the RLA.
9) No Union, representing workers under the 121 Carriers FAR, is allowed to equally resort to "self-help" given the implementation of any contract imposed during the BK process under Sect. 1113.

If the airline industry were, in fact, a free market:
1) Any carrier by air could service any market on a frequency they thought profitable;
2) Anyone with enough money could start or purchase any air carrier they wished;
3) Anyone wanting to work in the air carrier industry would only have to submit a resume, without a credential and background check, to the the individual airline for which they wished to work;
4) Anyone wanting to buy another airline, although they already owned one, could just stroke the check for an amount the seller thought reasonable;
5) Anyone wanting to buy another existing airline, although they are not a US Citizen, could just stroke the check for asn amount the seller thought reasonable;
6) Any Unionized Labor group would be able to initiate a resort to self upon perception of a violation of the CBA;

Ownership, Labor and Access are controlled by the US Government;
Certification to operate: corporate, union and individually, is controilled by the US Government;
Negotiation, and Performance, of Contractual Relationships for Labor is controlled by the US Government;
Abrogation, and Performance, of Contractual Relationships for Management is controlled by the US Bankruptcy Courts.

LINK PROVIDED: Free Markets or Hostage Labor?

 

[eolesen]

Good post, Boomer, but where exactly are you referring to on these two?

5) Selected Domestic Route Operations Authority for 121 Carriers is subject to DOT, and DOJ approval;
6) Selected Domestic Route Operations Authority for 121 Carriers is authorized by DOT, and DOJ for specific air carriers;

Regarding points 7, 8, and 9, if the RLA were not in effect, what would prevent a union from engaging in self-help over a contract rejection?

We discussed all this at length during the AMFA strike, and also during the failed NWA flight attendant strike...

There's case law to support the ability of a strike following abrogation:

http://ftp.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F2/739/739.F2d.341.84-5079.html

In this case, the employer sought bankruptcy and abrogated the IBT's contract. The employer sought an injunction against self-help.

The courts refused. They found that any worker who chose to strike out of dissatisfaction over imposed changes to wages/benefits was an economic striker. In short, they could be replaced, however the company had an obligation to hire them back following a legal strike as openings occurred.

 

[Hopeful]

Good post, Boomer, but where exactly are you referring to on these two?



Regarding points 7, 8, and 9, if the RLA were not in effect, what would prevent a union from engaging in self-help over a contract rejection?

We discussed all this at length during the AMFA strike, and also during the failed NWA flight attendant strike...

There's case law to support the ability of a strike following abrogation:

http://ftp.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F2/739/739.F2d.341.84-5079.html

In this case, the employer sought bankruptcy and abrogated the IBT's contract. The employer sought an injunction against self-help.

The courts refused. They found that any worker who chose to strike out of dissatisfaction over imposed changes to wages/benefits was an economic striker. In short, they could be replaced, however the company had an obligation to hire them back following a legal strike as openings occurred.

Why strike? Stay on the job and help drive passengers to other airlines....

 

[eolesen]

Sure, but then don't piss and moan about the NMB holding you hostage to politics, etc...

 

[Hopeful]

Sure, but then don't piss and moan about the NMB holding you hostage to politics, etc...

Since the NMB has made it clear we will not be released and we have no control over it, then what we do have control over is making sure AA dives to and remains at the bottom of every ranking there is.
And before you reply that Chapter 11 will be the end game, guess what? We can still make sure AA remains at the bottom of overy possible ranking there is even DURING and AFTER bankruptcy.

You see, I don't believe a strike is the answer. I say stay on the job and show the company just how happy we are.

If PATCO had stayed on the job and backed planes up from here to eternity, things would have gone quite differently for them!