TWU talks strike vote

[Hopeful]

Funny,
In maintenance, the TWU told M&R that the copies of the TA will start being mailed to members' homes between 7/6 - 7/8....
If Title I mechanics ratify our TA...Then we CANNOT support a strike by the other groups because there is a NO SYMPATHY STRIKE CLAUSE!
What is the TWU doing.....................

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/American-Airlines-workers-apf-1540122968.html?x=0&.v=2

 

[TWU informer]

Funny,
In maintenance, the TWU told M&R that the copies of the TA will start being mailed to members' homes between 7/6 - 7/8....
If Title I mechanics ratify our TA...Then we CANNOT support a strike by the other groups because there is a NO SYMPATHY STRIKE CLAUSE!
What is the TWU doing.....................

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/American-Airlines-workers-apf-1540122968.html?x=0&.v=2

Bluffing

 

[Hopeful]

Bluffing

Yep!

 

[olderguyAMT]

Yep!

So let me get this right....

TWU guru Robert Gless says that the NMB might decide in Sept. about releasing Title 3 folks from talks with the Co.

The timing of that decision will be after the Title 1 Contract vote in August. HOW CONVENIENT! Hmmmmm.

 

[Hopeful]

So let me get this right....

TWU guru Robert Gless says that the NMB might decide in Sept. about releasing Title 3 folks from talks with the Co.

The timing of that decision will be after the Title 1 Contract vote in August. HOW CONVENIENT! Hmmmmm.

Exactly...they know damn well, if title I ratifies their TA....that there is no SYMPATHY STRIKE!

What a sham!

 

[Bob Owens]

Exactly...they know damn well, if title I ratifies their TA....that there is no SYMPATHY STRIKE!

What a sham!

Especially since Don V and his YES boys inserted language that would allow the company to put permanent letters of discipline in the mechanics and stock clerks files if we did!

From Article 28

However, it is agreed that any letters of discipline properly assessed in the event of a sit-down, walkout, stoppage, strike, slowdown or curtailment of work will not be subject to the two (2) year provision.

The spinmasters will try to say that this language has been in the contract since 1980, but what they are leaving out is that the language was tied to a letter on illegal job actions.

The origins of the letter, from what I heard, was the TWU was trying to organize the gate agents and when the company interfered the guys shut the place down for a day, the letter came out of that.
So these guys not only violated the contract, they violated the RLA since there was no legally sanctioned action by the RLA.

This is different. Now permanent letters of discipline would become part of the contract without being tied to illegal activity. So if we struck in sympathy with the Ramp guys, a legal act per the RLA although it might be a contractual violation, subject to the two year letter, now it would be a permanent letter to be used against us for the rest of our career.

 

[Boomer]

What part of this do any of you not understand:

The TWU could accept any of the agreements without membership ratification;
The TWU could sign any letter of agreement without membership ratification;

So why are we going through the charade? Is it because the company and the union want to stand in front of an arbitrator, or a judge, and say that while all agreements are imperfect: this one was fully and completely ratified by the membership.

The real questions, that cannot be answered, are:
1) why do both AA and the TWU want this much room, to do this much damage ?;
2) what is the definition of a market jointly served by AA and AE ?;
3) are we merging with another carrier, and/or;
4) are we shuting down domestic flying through a merged outsourcing ?;
5) how much of an AMR company can be owned by another carrier and still have that flying called AE ?;
6) why did the TWU INTL announce that Conley stepped down and that his duties were to be assumed by another only to later withdraw and reject the TA for Fleet ?;
7) what could Conley have threatened the TWU INTL with to the extent that Little pulls the deal without the Locals' knowledge and then reiinstates Conley ?;
8) what was it that Conley knew but Videtich, Gless, ...et, al also had knowledge of but were unwilling to pursue? ;
9) what is the culpability for Videtich and Gless if they condoned and sanctioned activities substantially equal to those Conley chose to step down from his position rather than have them voted by the membership ?;
10) What if Conley is right and Little, Videtich and Gless are wrong: AND, we end up with a ratified TA for M&R and a strike by FSC that the rest of the TWU cannot legally support ?;
11) How long will a conscientious objector willfully remain in the company of those whose presence he despises?

 

[TWU informer]

you're out of order brother

 

[bigdawg52]

you're out of order brother

The problem withthis whole scenerio, is this.... If anyone of the workgroups ratify these contracts... Title three is so screwed... No one thinks of this.... It is uity by numbers.... Unfortunatly.... The TWU does not see it that way....

 

[eolesen]

This is different. Now permanent letters of discipline would become part of the contract without being tied to illegal activity. So if we struck in sympathy with the Ramp guys, a legal act per the RLA although it might be a contractual violation, subject to the two year letter, now it would be a permanent letter to be used against us for the rest of our career.

First of all, why do you guys care about a permanent letter, and how do you really expect it to be "used against you for the rest of your career" as you put it?

You don't get merit raises, and most of you never consider leaving the classification for management.

Those of you who might consider it would probably also be the ones not to engage in a sympathy strike.


So what's the big deal?...


I interviewed and managed lots of people, and got their p-files as part of the screening process. Some had so-called "permanent letters" in their files, and many had old advisories which were never got removed by previous supervisors. Most were promptly ignored based on the date (and the old advisories got flagged for removal when I returned the file or tossed if they reported to me). A few were worthy of discussion, but I don't recall ever not hiring or interviewing someone simply because of an old letter in their file.

 

[TWU informer]

First of all, why do you guys care about a permanent letter, and how do you really expect it to be "used against you for the rest of your career" as you put it?

You don't get merit raises, and most of you never consider leaving the classification for management.

Those of you who might consider it would probably also be the ones not to engage in a sympathy strike.


So what's the big deal?...


I interviewed and managed lots of people, and got their p-files as part of the screening process. Some had so-called "permanent letters" in their files, and many had old advisories which were never got removed by previous supervisors. Most were promptly ignored based on the date (and the old advisories got flagged for removal when I returned the file or tossed if they reported to me). A few were worthy of discussion, but I don't recall ever not hiring or interviewing someone simply because of an old letter in their file.

Well then the question begs to be asked, why would management bring such a thing to the negotiating table if not to hold it against for our careers? Currently a letter would be removed after 2 years which should suffice for corrective action, so why bring this to table?

 

[Hopeful]

If it's no big deal, why would the company have such a policy of permanent letters?

 

[ReadyNow]

If it's no big deal, why would the company have such a policy of permanent letters?

It makes them feel better, but it is an empty threat as Eolesen said. Union people are promoted on seniority, not merit, so who cares what is in your record. I would ask for a premium for even more letters.....let them pile them on....

 

[TWU informer]

Out of all the things possible to birng to negotiations in work rule changes and AA management brings this letter that even management defenders see as useless. We need someone with a real vision to lead us or we all shall fail.

 

[Tex-Mech]

Out of all the things possible to birng to negotiations in work rule changes and AA management brings this letter that even management defenders see as useless. We need someone with a real vision to lead us or we all shall fail.

They allow management to have lifetime letters for those situations, but at the very least don't close the CR-1(lifetime 1st step) loophole in exchange. How pathetic can they be.

Bob O.
I do notice that this article was agreed to a year earlier, so why wasn't this brought out in the open when it was first agreed upon, and what was the vote to agree to this article?

http://aa.twu.org/tentativeagreements/(Union%20Version)%20Mechanic%20and%20Related%20Article%2028.TA.pdf


Correction, it was agreed to in Dec. 2007, but only scanned for us to see in March 2009

http://aa.twu.org/oldupdates/ContractNegotiationsCommunicationFinal12-3-07.pdf

It also appears to be the unions proposal from the session before that was accepted by the company.

Maintenance and Related Communications Update

The Maintenance and Related Negotiating Committee met with AA management November 12-16 in Dallas to discuss TWU proposals. As a summary of last week, both management and the TWU agreed to the negotiating ground rules.

On Tuesday, the following Articles were tentatively agreed to: 9, 20 and 38. The TWU also passed across the table proposals for the following Articles: 15 and 28. Management is currently reviewing the Union’s proposals.

The next session management accepted the proposal