US shoves it down our throats again!!!!!!!

[usfliboi]

COMPANY TO IMPLEMENT NEW RESERVE SYSTEM
AFA and the Company have been meeting for the last several
months in an attempt to resolve differences regarding
the new reserve system that was accepted as part of last
December''s restructuring agreement. AFA forwarded another
proposal to the Company last week and today AFA was advised
by the Company that the Company is no longer interested
in continuing our discussions and that they will be implementing
what they believe was negotiated, effective November 1,
2003.

At this time, the Company has not advised AFA of what
they intend to implement. AFA is confident that whatever
the Company implements, it will be a far cry from what
we believe was negotiated last year. As soon as the Company
issues their interpretation of the new reserve system,
AFA will be filing yet another grievance. Again, as we
advised you during the implementation of the Company''s
new sick policy, we will be asking you to contact your
Inflight Supervisors for explanations/clarifications about
the new reserve system.

AFA realizes the global bid for 2004 is currently open.
Since we have not been advised of the details of the company''s
intrepretation of the new system we cannot offer any advise
on how you may want to alter your bid for 2004.

Perry L. Hayes
US Airways MEC President
[email protected]
--------------------------------------------------

Visit the web address below to tell your friends about
this.

http://www.unionvoice.org/join-forward.htm...&r=s11wa861s1q4

If you received this message from a friend, you can sign
up for AFA - US Airways MEC E-Line at:

http://www.unionvoice.org/e_line_afa_usair...r=s11wa861s1q4E

 

[USAirBoyA330]

The whole new reserve system has more holes and discrepancies than you can imagine. Go ahead...implement all they want but NO relief when it doesn''t work and blows up in their face. They beat us down and act like we are scum of the earth only to come to us and ask us to change some things so they can instate this new program? I can see this being like SABRE all over again. If some people in management had done the homework they might had anticipated these problems. Oh well...what will happen in November because of this new system IS NOT the F/A''s fault. And why do they have to play "lets try and cause as much drama with the system" ALWAYS right near a holiday? Rings of Christmas 2 years ago. Huuuum....makes you wonder.
This is going to be FUN.

 

[Analyst]

----------------
On 7/22/2003 12:33:08 PM usfliboi wrote:
attempt to resolve differences regarding the new reserve system that was accepted as part of last December's restructuring agreement.
----------------

AFA is upset over something that was accepted. Next time your group should think more carefully before signing off.​

 

[usfliboi]

I think your confused Analyst! Either your a company person or dont know what your referring too..... There were "windows of opportunity" obviously in all of the union contracts simply because of the pressure and final deadlines put on the unions. There are no mistakes on what we agreed upon my friend, it is the companies wanting to squeeze more out of this turnip... I predict it wont happen and if so a major mess.....

 

[CLTBWIDAYSYR]

Here''s the company''s official response:

Date: Monday, 21 July 2003 17:41 ET
To: Emc2-News-c
From: GROFF.S
Subject: Reserve Time Balancing

Dear Flight Attendants,

We are jointly sending this letter to update you on the
status of the implementation of the Reserve Time Balancing
System agreed to with AFA in the January 2003 Restructuring
Agreement.

After reaching the agreement last winter, it became clear to us
that there were certain issues related to the modified reserve
system which needed to be clarified with the AFA leadership
team. As a result, the Company agreed to delay implementation
of the Reserve Time Balancing System in an effort to work
together with AFA to reach a joint understanding. The downside
to this delay is that we have been unable to meet the projected
savings requirement associated with the January agreement.
However, we felt it was worth waiting to see if we could jointly
resolve all of these issues.

The parties had numerous conversations and ultimately met face
to face over a period of eight days, with both the Company and
AFA working hard to clarify issues and concerns in an effort to
come to an understanding on the final language. At the conclusion
of these meetings, the Company believed that the creative process
produced a Reserve Time Balancing System which included good
solutions and compromises by both sides. For example, the
Company''s proposed time balancing system would provide for
more equal distribution of time based on a flight attendant''s option
while honoring a reserve''s seniority in several key areas. The AFA
negotiating team was subsequently given additional time to conduct
internal discussions and consult with members of the MEC.

Despite what we believed were productive meetings with the
negotiating team, the resulting reserve structure was not acceptable
to the AFA. The impact of this conclusion is that the Company can
no longer afford to delay implementation and, effective
November 2003, the Reserve Time Balancing System will be
implemented with the provisions as outlined in the January
agreement without the enhancements we had planned. We feel it
bears repeating that the Company and AFA have worked very
hard to reach an acceptable interpretation of the language and
implement a procedure that is more flight attendant friendly.
Both parties desire a fair time balanced system designed around
the reserve rules and flying options that are unique to US Airways.

Failure to reach a mutual agreement is an unfortunate turn of events.
Both sides have attempted to be responsive to the concerns of each other,
as we spent significant time and resources focusing on these issues.
Because of our inability to jointly reach an agreement, we must now focus
on implementation in order to obtain the savings planned for in
January 2003. This planned change is one of the many cost savings
components assumed in our restructuring plan.

Sincerely,

Doug McKeen
Vice President- Labor Relations

Sherry Hendry Groff
Vice President-Inflight Services

 

[PITbull]

----------------
On 7/22/2003 12:42:49 PM Analyst wrote:

----------------
On 7/22/2003 12:33:08 PM usfliboi wrote:
attempt to resolve differences regarding the new reserve system that was accepted as part of last December's restructuring agreement.
----------------

AFA is upset over something that was accepted. Next time your group should think more carefully before signing off.​

----------------​

Yea, your right....should have liquidated. Pittsburgh voted "AGAINST".

 

[PITbull]

----------------
On 7/22/2003 3:18:43 PM usfliboi wrote:

I think your confused Analyst! Either your a company person or dont know what your referring too..... There were "windows of opportunity" obviously in all of the union contracts simply because of the pressure and final deadlines put on the unions. There are no mistakes on what we agreed upon my friend, it is the companies wanting to squeeze more out of this turnip... I predict it wont happen and if so a major mess.....

----------------​

You are dead on. The company had their window of opportunity to get those provisions in our contract to make the system work when they had the trump card of liquidation. They should have had the right folks at the table, but they didn't...

Now, manageement thinks they can just say, "well, that's not what we meant", and now impose. Language is black and white. The language does not speak to what is "silent". Just like the retired ITD pension... co. argued that the language is silent, and YOU and I know damn well that if you are ITD and retire on ITD, your vacation payout is ITD NOT DOMESTIC.

Same here with the reserve system. You didn't get it while you could; you don't have any kind of repore or relationship with the flight attendant group or leadership, THERE WILL BE NO RELIEF.

 

[firstamendment]

This management team amazes me. They have an answer for everything. They are never wrong....amazing. We have such a perfect management team, why are we still losing money and slipping in service? oh yeah, labors fault. That is all this team can think about. They have a wise ass answer for everything. For example, the sick call issue. Management says we as a f/a group abuse the sick calls and time. They claim most have around thirty hours of sick time. Ok, thats fair. Now, lets see, before layoffs, we had almost 10,000 f/a,s....10,000. You can fill a basketball arena with 10,000 f/a''s. Now if 10,000 f/a''s or even half of those are abusing the sick calls, did the jerk Sleezgle ever consider that there may be a reason? 30 managers...5-10,000 flight attendants. The 30 managers proclaim that that many f/a''s are abusive? I would think Sleezgle would want to find out why the working conditions are apparently so POOR that his f/a''s would rather call sick...but no, blame, blame, blame...threat, threat, threat.


And then they give the unions too short of time to negotiate and threaten to liquidate...I guess the original poster forgot that. Now I don''t like to be rushed at work. I wouldn''t want that in negotiations.

If all this group wants to do is liquidate, then do away with it. I''m tired of the threats or sell them off already. This group has no shame.

 

[usfliboi]

Its amazing to me that the company''s response to everything is "your union and we " were unable to reach agreement therefore we will implement it.................The anger is building DAVEY!

 

[lindy]

Yea, your right....should have liquidated. Pittsburgh voted "AGAINST

Who cares if Pit F/a''s voted against the concession package? If the esteemed leader of the Pit local was soooooooo against the package, she should have coordinated and implemented a campaign to get the 1000 + Pit F/A''s, who were on voluntary/involuntary furlough, to vote against the package. Had this been done, the concession package would not have passed. Instead, these F/A''s chose not to vote at all, which guaranteed passage.

What we continue to receive on these boards is the continued chest thumping of one individual who thinks the local AFA leader is the Pied Piper, able to lead her minions in whatever direction she so desires. The fact that the Pit local voted against the package means little in the overall picture.

Lindy

 

[jetstewus]

What bothers me is that we agreed to give them relief...no matter where you are based or how you voted or if you voted under threat of liquidation...they got their concessions. Now that these things are being implemented, the company has not the integrity to honor what is written in black and white. I believe they purposely created "gray" areas with the full intent to bend us over later.

It's clear to me that "Dave" is not labor friendly or even labor indifferent like our old boss. He and his team of union busters are trying to reduce the head count, either by in-house witch hunts or by simply making staying on the property so unpleasant that people will throw in the towel. I can't imagine why our management would want to operate similar to past airline tyrants like Lorenzo and Ichan (sp.?) It makes me squirm when the CEO talks about the US Airways "family" and all of the employees he's so proud of for doing such a great job. It's an insult to our intelligence.

Having worked at United in onboard admin before flying for US, I'm amazed that our AFA MEC does not fight harder for what we negotiated. How, in this day and age can the company just say, "Well, we're tired of talking about it, this is how we read the language and this is how it's going to be?" We pay dues to receive the support and resources available from the MEC and the International Office. UA flight attendants may be having problems of thier own but I don't see them lying down and taking it like we are. This continuing backing down is setting a dangerous precedent, not only on our own property, but for employees at other airlines and in other industries.

I am involuntarily furloughed but hope to return to US someday. I want to be able to still have a good paying job with humane work rules. I don't want to come to work everyday to an advesarial environment. Unfortunately, I'm afraid that if this MEC doesn't DO SOMETHING soon, the erosion of our quality of life will continue until a career here will be worthless.

AFA, "Dave" has chosen not to be a leader, at least in regards to the employees who make this company work...please get some backbone, motivate your members, put those lawyers our dues pay for to work and stand up for our contract!

BTW, in case anyone missed it, we are not trying to change what we voted to accept but rather to get the company to honor those agreements as written instead of throwing in their own changes at zero hour. Good luck, everyone!

 

[Hula Girl]

That noise you just heard was champagne corks popping at Crystal City. It works in their favor when there is infighting in inflight. There IS a way to send a personal message on this forum. Make no mistake-these threads are read by many people in all ranks of this company.

 

[airlineorphan]

Lindy,

Involuntary furloughees were not allowed to vote per the constitution and bylaws of AFA.  Also, unless a voluntary furloughee volunteered to remain in good standing (i.e. pay dues beyond the 90 days), they were unable to vote. 

As an involuntary furloughee, I attempted to stay in good standing by paying my dues voluntarily beyond the point at which I was obligated, just so I could vote no on all of this nonsense.  Unfortunately, my dues were sent back to me and I was unable to vote.

Thus no such campaign amongst invol/vol furloughees was possible.  Of course, had I been on the property, I wouldn't have waited for any LEC leaders to lead a campaign for a NO vote though.  It's up to each and every union member to step up and do that.  Our union is only as good as we, the rank-and-file make it.

But it's way too late to cast recriminations back and forth about YES and NO voters.  I counselled a NO vote, and the majority of voters voted their very understandable fear by voting YES. 

Time to move on from that and ask the question:  What are each and every one of us doing to stop layoffs, hold management accountable, and back each other up in this untenable situation?

I am glad that the PIT and PHL AFA LEC presidents are there holding the company's feet to the fire.  If the rest of us would back them up instead of lobbing potshots at their backs, we just might stand a chance here!

Let us be clear.  What management is implementing is NOT what was ratified, even by the YES voters.  The Company Creative Writing Department continues to hurtle pell-mell and this handbacket is getting warm!

Call a picket, I'll be there!

In solidarity,
-Airlineorphan

 

[PITbull]

Airline orphan,

AMEN!

Some folks are so angry that they refuse to see the forest through the trees, and are quick to blame someone for their misery other than themselves. If you look at some of the posters closely who have critisized the same LEC Presidents consistently throughout the months on their "chest thumping" behavior, and can't wait to sieze the moment there is probably more to the issue and probably personal.

None the less,

With regard to the MEC meeting, it was dynamic. I will report out soon, get ready to "rock".

 

[PITbull]

----------------
On 7/23/2003 6:58:11 PM lindy wrote:

Yea, your right....should have liquidated. Pittsburgh voted "AGAINST

Who cares if Pit F/a''s voted against the concession package? If the esteemed leader of the Pit local was soooooooo against the package, she should have coordinated and implemented a campaign to get the 1000 + Pit F/A''s, who were on voluntary/involuntary furlough, to vote against the package. Had this been done, the concession package would not have passed. Instead, these F/A''s chose not to vote at all, which guaranteed passage.

What we continue to receive on these boards is the continued chest thumping of one individual who thinks the local AFA leader is the Pied Piper, able to lead her minions in whatever direction she so desires. The fact that the Pit local voted against the package means little in the overall picture.

Lindy

----------------​

"voted against means little to the overall picture"? Guess what? The PIT influence just permeated into the entire MEC, UNANIMOUSLY.

Enough "imposing" and stealing from our contracts by this mangement, and it makes the PIT President highly credible and convincing at the table along with PHL. The MEC designed thier own resolution.