TWU Mechanic and Related T/A - Important Questions

[TWU informer]

After reading through the entire T/A Agreement Language I have a question for anyone on the negotiating team to answer in detail.
The language below has been inserted into Article 1. Page 7

Was this a Union Proposal or a Company Offer?

Was there any specifics discussed regarding sale or spin-off of Overhaul that would fall under a confidentiality agreement that would prohibit public discussion or disclosure?

What was the offering party's intent of this language insertion?



Article 1 Recognition and Scope

(l) Other Labor Protective Provisions In Substantial Asset Sale

In the event that, within any Twelve (12) month period, the Company transfers (by sale, lease, or other transaction) or otherwise disposes of facilities operated by the Company for the maintenance of its aircraft (“Aircraft Maintenance Facilities”) which, net of Aircraft Maintenance Facilities purchased or otherwise added by the Company during the same 12 month period, constitute 20% or more of the value of the Aircraft Maintenance Facilities of the Company, to an entity or a group of entities acting in concert that is either (i) an air carrier or that will operate as an air carrier, or (ii) is a repair station under 14 CFR Part 145 (“Repair Station”) or that will operate as a Repair Station, following its acquisition of the transferred Aircraft Maintenance Facilities (any such entity or group the “Aircraft Maintenance Transferee; any such transaction, a “Substantial Aircraft Maintenance Transaction”):

1. The Company shall require the Transferee to proffer employment to that number of Employees on the master seniority list in strict seniority order (the "Transferring Employees") equivalent to the reduction by the Company in the number of Employees resulting from the Substantial Aircraft Maintenance Transaction. [The number of transferring employees shall be no fewer than the average monthly staffing over the prior twelve (12) months for the Aircraft Maintenance Facilities transferred to the Transferee in connection with the Substantial Aircraft Maintenance Transaction]; and

2. The Company shall not finally conclude a transaction under this subsection unless the Transferee agrees to integrate the Transferring Employees into the Transferee's seniority list pursuant to Sections 3. and 13. of the Allegheny-Mohawk LPPs.

Every employee regardless of station but especially those at Tulsa and AFW should view this language as a very significant item.

Language like this does not just appear out of nowhere without cause and should raise concern. Yes it protects us but why does it read as if there is already something in the works?

 

[Tex-Mech]

Yes it protects us but why does it read as if there is already something in the works?

I don't see much protection in that all it says is a "proffer of employment". This could be for $10 an hour doing whatever.

shall require the Transferee to proffer employment

 

[Hopeful]

After reading through the entire T/A Agreement Language I have a question for anyone on the negotiating team to answer in detail.
The language below has been inserted into Article 1. Page 7

Was this a Union Proposal or a Company Offer?

Was there any specifics discussed regarding sale or spin-off of Overhaul that would fall under a confidentiality agreement that would prohibit public discussion or disclosure?

What was the offering party's intent of this language insertion?



Article 1 Recognition and Scope


The intent is that overhaul is being threatened with either a sale or spinoff. You can rest assured that if this TA is voted down, the company will step up the rhetoric regarding it.
I've asked myself this exact question...."WHY INSERT THIS LANGUAGE NOW?.....

Either with or without a YES vote, this TA is worse for the bases than it is for the line people....and make no mistake, it is a BAD TA for ALL of us.

 

[TWU informer]

I was hopiing for some specifics from someone that was in negotiations. I guess I should have expected the negetative rhetoric that attempts to sway the voting on the T/A. B)

Bob Owens were you there when this language was inserted? Do you Know or Have any answers? Or was this done after you were removed from negotiations?

 

[TWU informer]

I don't see much protection in that all it says is a "proffer of employment". This could be for $10 an hour doing whatever.

Try reading the rest of the scope language and you will see your fear is unfounded.

 

[TIME FOR CHANGE]

Try reading the rest of the scope language and you will see your fear is unfounded.

lLets just assume there is a spin-off behind the curtain would that change your vote from a yes to no

just curious what your limit to concessions are. If you think a spin-off is a concession.

You never know the line guys might change their NO to a YES if they found out Tulsa would be on the chopping block

 

[Tex-Mech]

Try reading the rest of the scope language and you will see your fear is unfounded.

I did read the entire article, and under the substanial sale provision there is no guarantee of wages or benefits, just a proffer of employment. Like I said earlier, it could be for $10 an hour. No fear, just stating the facts that the langauge does not include a guarantee of wages or benefits.

If stating facts interferes with your Vote Yes campaign, I do apologize.

 

[AA767JET]

I have a question
Does the airline (AA) itself have to have this language in the upcoming contract to (spin off) sell off a maintenance base ??
OR !! can they just sell it off at any given time with no warning or language in a contract !!!

 

[TWU informer]

lLets just assume there is a spin-off behind the curtain would that change your vote from a yes to no

just curious what your limit to concessions are. If you think a spin-off is a concession.

You never know the line guys might change their NO to a YES if they found out Tulsa would be on the chopping block

If a spin-off is going to happen, it is already in the works. A NO VOTE does not prevent that in any way shape or from. The Scope Language provides some assurrance that the new employer would hire us all back. Why would I vote NO to protecting my job and seniority? Do you have enough seniority to withstand and demolition of TUL O/H and that seniority flushing to the line?

That is why I ask where this language came from. What if detailed discussions were held and a non-disclosure/confidentiality agreement prohibits the membership from getting the details? You can bark all you want about your NO vote and saving the profession. I am more interested in saving my job.

You and Bob Owens my not fear something like in Tulsa taking place, but I do and you will never change my mind about that regardless of name calling and badgering. Secret Negotiations and Confidentiality Agreements by Union Leaders leave all of us Dues Payers to speculate and attempt to protect ourselves.

If you worked in Tulsa and witnessed daily the mis-management and lack of productivity due to NO accountability you wouldn't be doubtful that something like this could be near and on the horizon.

We all witnessed first the company next door (Rockwell) Spin Off and those employees were sent home, the new employer sent letters to those they wanted to re-hire the rest were screwed from their jobs. Those that did come back were hired at substantially lower pay. Currently their A&P Mechanic new hires work for $12.00 per hour and 60 hours mandatory work week. The place is now called Spirit AeroSystems. I have a good friend working (re-hired) there and a guy in my crew has a son (new hire with license) working there right now.

And you guys think the profession will be saved by voting NO. A&P Licensed Mechanics are hiring there for $12.00 per hour. That is what your profession is worth in Tulsa Oklahoma regardless of the ratification outcome on this TWU Concession Agreement.

 

[AA767JET]

So it seems to me if you vote yes or no it really does not matter because the company can and always do whatever they want , in this situation selling or spinning off heavy maintenance ....

 

[TWU informer]

So it seems to me if you vote yes or no it really does not matter because the company can and always do whatever they want , in this situation selling or spinning off heavy maintenance ....

Good Grief! Read the language. It does matter, a YES vote places that labor protection provision language of employement and seniority protection into a/new current agreement. If it were to take place under the Voted NO agreement those protections are not there. How can you say that doesnt matter?

The Line AMT should be concerned because there is alot of high seniority in Tulsa and AFW and they will bumping those lower in seniority before they hit the street. Sure the Labor Protection Provision doesn't appear to apply to them. But when the bumping starts it will directly affect them in a negative way.

I don't recall this Labor Protection Provision even mentioned in the Bob Owens and Chuck Schaulk video release. In fact until now nobody has mentioned this. Instead we are busy name calling and badgering each other over our personal opinions.

 

[Hopeful]

Here's the way I see it.
By inserting language specific to sale/spinoff, some employees think it might be inevitable and vote YES as to be "proffered" employment rather than the unkown.

Now, the 2nd piece to this puzzle is creating the new classification with pay rates wAAy less than an AMT.
In the event of a spinoff, AA could say "WE ARE SPINNING OVERHAUL OFF, AND NOW EVERYONE IS AN SMA."

Who knows......but you have to wonder why this language was inserted AND the SMA classification.

 

[TWU informer]

Here's the way I see it.
By inserting language specific to sale/spinoff, some employees think it might be inevitable and vote YES as to be "proffered" employment rather than the unkown.

Now, the 2nd piece to this puzzle is creating the new classification with pay rates wAAy less than an AMT.
In the event of a spinoff, AA could say "WE ARE SPINNING OVERHAUL OFF, AND NOW EVERYONE IS AN SMA."

Who knows......but you have to wonder why this language was inserted AND the SMA classification.

A Yes vote protects the TWU as the union representation and the new T/A Language. A NO vote leave us vunerable to the everyone is an SMA scenario. Have you read the T/A? It appears you have not.

That is why I asked for someone form negotiations to give us some details about this language. Instead we are just speculating and posting emotional rhetoric.

Secret Negotiations suck and so do confidentiality agreements signed by Labor Leaders.

Again, does anyone have any facts?

What does a NO vote without facts do to protect your job and seniorty?

 

[Tex-Mech]

And you guys think the profession will be saved by voting NO. A&P Licensed Mechanics are hiring there for $12.00 per hour. That is what your profession is worth in Tulsa Oklahoma regardless of the ratification outcome on this TWU Concession Agreement.

So with this contract you are saying that you will be overpaid by roughly $25 an hour?

Just give me half of that overage, and I will be the happiest AMT on the rock.

 

[OgieJFK]

I don't recall this Labor Protection Provision even mentioned in the Bob Owens and Chuck Schaulk video release. In fact until now nobody has mentioned this. Instead we are busy name calling and badgering each other over our personal opinions.

I've seen it mentioned a couple of times either here or in the videos.