Union proposal

Hopeful

Veteran
Dec 21, 2002
5,998
347
I spoke by phone with my local president who is in DFW for the President''s Council negotiating the relief terms for the company. Without all the details, he stated the union presented the company with its proposals.
It provides for essentially a 3 year freeze (or extension, if you will, of the current contract), about 2000 layoffs (maintenance and related), and removal of the system protection provisions including the $12,500. He said the company would respond today.
 
Aug 20, 2002
10,015
675
www.usaviation.com
Hopeful;
I fully realize that your getting this info, second hand(and even at that, IT''S GREATLY APPRECIATED), but could you elaborate a little more on "getting rid of the SYSTEM protections". I fully understand about the $12,500.

I guess what I''m asking is
1. Would the "STATION" protected guys, still retain "Station Protection"?? This is "HUGE", because Station protection makes it "almost" impossible for AA to close small stations for FSC''s (I''m not exactly sure if it works the same way for the AMT''s)

Thanx, (in advance)

NH/BB''s
 

Flyboy4u

Veteran
Oct 6, 2002
538
1
----------------
On 3/21/2003 6:51:25 AM Hopeful wrote:

I spoke by phone with my local president who is in DFW for the President''s Council negotiating the relief terms for the company. Without all the details, he stated the union presented the company with its proposals.
It provides for essentially a 3 year freeze (or extension, if you will, of the current contract), about 2000 layoffs (maintenance and related), and removal of the system protection provisions including the $12,500. He said the company would respond today.

----------------​
Wow....A Union that votes to layoff it''s own members.. Where can I sign up to join?
 

Buck

Veteran
Contributor
Aug 20, 2002
7,320
1,576
www.fairtax.org
With the TWU it has always been about dues. It is the only way to have the membership "volunteer" to fund their political agenda.
 

RV4

Veteran
Aug 20, 2002
1,885
80
www.usaviation.com
----------------
On 3/21/2003 7:05:51 PM bagsmasher wrote:

They are going to lay off anyway. I''m sure the TWU does not want to give up everything they have fought to get over the many years. Giving up 2000 jobs is increasing productivity. They would still have the same amount of work to get done, with less workers. Just walk through MCIE sometime, and see how many are actually working compared to those sitting around. The TWU wants those left over after the layoffs to be productive, and have a job that''s worth something.

----------------​
In almost 20 years of employment, I have NOT seen the TWU "fight" for anything.

What history channel have you been watching?

Unless your talking about the B-Scale, Flex Benefits, OSM''s, and impressive scope language?
 
B

bagsmasher

Guest
They are going to lay off anyway. I''m sure the TWU does not want to give up everything they have fought to get over the many years. Giving up 2000 jobs is increasing productivity. They would still have the same amount of work to get done, with less workers. Just walk through MCIE sometime, and see how many are actually working compared to those sitting around. The TWU wants those left over after the layoffs to be productive, and have a job that''s worth something.
 
OP
Hopeful

Hopeful

Veteran
Dec 21, 2002
5,998
347
NH/BB''s:

He told me that the whole article regarding system protection would be removed. It was proposed to counter the company proposal of a six-year concession deal and more layoffs.

FLYBOYU:

Jim Little was bombarded with letters and email from a good portion of the mechanic group emphasizing layoffs before concessions. By eliminating this number of mechanics would pave the way for outsourcing of more work.

Bagsmasher is right, layoffs are inevitable.
 

Bob Owens

Veteran
Sep 9, 2002
14,274
6,112
----------------
On 3/21/2003 7:35:31 PM RV4 wrote:




In almost 20 years of employment, I have NOT seen the TWU "fight" for anything.

What history channel have you been watching?

Unless your talking about the B-Scale, Flex Benefits, OSM''s, and impressive scope language?

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

Well I have. The "Busdrivers" that you love to deride just fought for wage increases and contract language changes. Local 100 even threatened to go on strike in violation of the Taylor Law-a law that forbids strikes. They told the Mayor and the International to go scratch, if they did not have an agreement they were going on strike. This all happened this past December.
Unfortunately this type of militancy is lacking in the ATD.​
 

Bob Owens

Veteran
Sep 9, 2002
14,274
6,112
----------------
On 3/21/2003 10:27:34 PM Hopeful wrote:

NH/BB''s:

He told me that the whole article regarding system protection would be removed. It was proposed to counter the company proposal of a six-year concession deal and more layoffs.

FLYBOYU:

Jim Little was bombarded with letters and email from a good portion of the mechanic group emphasizing layoffs before concessions. By eliminating this number of mechanics would pave the way for outsourcing of more work.

Bagsmasher is right, layoffs are inevitable.

----------------​
One thing we have to remember is that this will have to be voted on. Personally, I dont think we should let the company off that easy. First of all 6 years is out of the question, its completely unreasonable, and we have a contract in place so we do not have to ''counter it''. The company did not let us off the hook with the last 6 year deal. If they turn around and start making record profits do you think they will let us off the hook with another 6 year deal? We have a contract, come see us in 2001 we were told. Would we not be completely justified in taking the same position? The company is not in bankruptcy, they are threatening bankruptcy. With the history of deception this company has why should we believe them? Anybody remember the "Me too " clause? Article 42 is perhaps the only place where we have something our competators do not have. Our contract provides the company cost savings that USAIR and UAL still do not have. Why should we give up more with nothing in return? Would the company ever make such a deal with us where they just gave us something that they contractually do not have to without something in return? What was this language put there for? The good times? "Gee while we are expanding and making tons of money we will not lay you off"? It was put in for the bad times to protect workers. If we are going to allow the company out of this we MUST get something in return. My recomendations for M&E are; Get rid of the Part Time language, get rid of the "force majeure language, rewrite article 4 and make all progressions two years from start to top with a range of 20% between the two, eliminate Article 4e. None of these modifications would increase the companies financial burden. It would help our brothers who are being laid off economically recover faster when they return.
 

RV4

Veteran
Aug 20, 2002
1,885
80
www.usaviation.com
----------------
On 3/22/2003 6:28:23 AM Bob Owens wrote:




Well I have. The "Busdrivers" that you love to deride just fought for wage increases and contract language changes. Local 100 even threatened to go on strike in violation of the Taylor Law-a law that forbids strikes. They told the Mayor and the International to go scratch, if they did not have an agreement they were going on strike. This all happened this past December.
Unfortunately this type of militancy is lacking in the ATD.​


----------------​
You call a THREAT a fight?

No wonder were considered the weakest union in the industry. We do NOT even know how do define "FIGHT"!

Hell, Bob I saw snake buttons with the slogan "will strike if provoked" from your local.

Were you the mastermind behind that one and should we all thank you for the "FIGHT"?
 
B

bagsmasher

Guest
Let''s see, they are proposing 2000 layoffs. How many TWA mechanics are there? Hmmm.

I think this is a smart idea from the TWU. The company wants a certain dollar amount in savings, and their proposals were just to show ways to get to the magic number. I''ll bet the TWU is thinking that after giving the $620 million in concessions back, the company would still have huge layoffs. This kind of beats them to the punch.
 

Buck

Veteran
Contributor
Aug 20, 2002
7,320
1,576
www.fairtax.org
----------------
----------------

Well I have. The "Busdrivers" that you love to deride just fought for wage increases and contract language changes. Local 100 even threatened to go on strike in violation of the Taylor Law-a law that forbids strikes. They told the Mayor and the International to go scratch, if they did not have an agreement they were going on strike. This all happened this past December.
Unfortunately this type of militancy is lacking in the ATD.​

So if the Busdrivers have taken a stand, why not the ATD and it's locals?

Bob I also have a question:

Is there any way or proceadure that the TWU International or the ATD can impose an agreement on or for it's members, without the membership voting?
 

RV4

Veteran
Aug 20, 2002
1,885
80
www.usaviation.com
----------------
On 3/22/2003 8:10:57 PM Bob Owens wrote:

Threats can be pretty serious, after all we are over in Iraq because of the "possibility" of a threat.
They did not back down from the Mayor and his threats. The fact is they were prepared to go out. The opposition knew that and gave in. Sun Tzu said "To subdue the enemy without fighting is the acme of skill". The question is; was their objective achieved? I dont know about you but I would prefer to never go out on strike if possible. I only call for strikes because some preferances outrank my desire to not strike.

----------------​
Whatever you say Bob!

I dont think what you witnessed in New York on 9/11 was a threat at all...

...but whatever.

Get your snake buttons out and save us will ya?