What is next after failed ratification vote?

[NYGiantsFan90]

I guess you forgot about AMFA at NW, you saw what no solidarity did to them, right?

 

[eolesen]

I guess you forgot about AMFA at NW, you saw what no solidarity did to them, right?

So easy to blame AMFA, but I suspect they could have had the best representation in the world, and that still wouldn't have stopped Doug Steenland.

 

[1AA]

So easy to blame AMFA, but I suspect they could have had the best representation in the world, and that still wouldn't have stopped Doug Steenland.

I agree. The scabs were lined up 18 months in advance and no support from the other work groups.
It could have been any union but the AMFA was at bat at the time. Full count two outs bottom of the ninth and a killer closer about to put the lights out.

 

[Birdman]

The overwhelming rejection shows that the TA is a no go. Its unworkable in its entirety. We will not set up the bases to be spun off, we will not sell out the new hires, we will not give up our retiree health benifits, we will not allow the company to put our Crew Chiefs on permanent probation, we will not agree to the vauge definition of a maintenance base we will not agree to permanent letters of discipline should we avail ourselves to our rights under the RLA, or any of the scores of additional concessions included in the TA in exchange for an inferior and disproportionate wage increase, inferior Holiday accrual, inferior sick benifits, inferior IOD coverage, inferior vacation accrual or inferior medical benifits than the pilots.

Bob, I believe your suggestions have given us a good place to start a meaningful debate on exactly what we expect the TWU to fight for in our behalf, since they are the ones at the table. Perhaps the pro and anti TWU posters on this forum can have a civil discussion, as much as humanly possible, on a top 10 or 12 wish list. Anyone, please feel free to modify this list.

1. No base set up for spin offs.
2. No sell out of new hires..No new SMA classification etc.
3. No changes in retiree health benefits.
4. No CC "permanent " probation.
5. No vague definition of maintenance bases.
6. No permanent letters of discipline.
7. No inferior and disproportionate wage increases.
8. No inferior holiday accrual.
9. No inferior sick benefits.
10.No inferior vacation accrual.
11.No inferior medical benefits compared to the pilots.
12.No blanket base 24/7 operation.

 

[Duke787]

Bob, I believe your suggestions have given us a good place to start a meaningful debate on exactly what we expect the TWU to fight for in our behalf, since they are the ones at the table. Perhaps the pro and anti TWU posters on this forum can have a civil discussion, as much as humanly possible, on a top 10 or 12 wish list. Anyone, please feel free to modify this list.

1. No base set up for spin offs.
2. No sell out of new hires..No new SMA classification etc.
3. No changes in retiree health benefits.
4. No CC "permanent " probation.
5. No vague definition of maintenance bases.
6. No permanent letters of discipline.
7. No inferior and disproportionate wage increases.
8. No inferior holiday accrual.
9. No inferior sick benefits.
10.No inferior vacation accrual.
11.No inferior medical benefits compared to the pilots.
12.No blanket base 24/7 operation.

I'm obviously a pro company guy, I like all these except for c/c probation, I see to many c/c's who get their spot and keep it because of their seniority. I guess the argument could be made for management to do their job and manage and build up a case for demotion.

Another is for the base to work 24/7, welcome to the airline industry. This is a 24/7 company, and I'm willing to get something for ALL mechs, if AA gets a 24/7 schedule at TUL and AFW.

I've heard form the guys married to FA's that we pay double what they pay for insurance, how does that happen.

 

[FrequentFlierCA]

I agree. The scabs were lined up 18 months in advance and no support from the other work groups.
It could have been any union but the AMFA was at bat at the time. Full count two outs bottom of the ninth and a killer closer about to put the lights out.

And that was when the economy was relatively good and unemployment low. UE has doubled since then. How fast do you think they'll be lining up if TWU'ers walk out now?

 

[787nightmare]

I guess you forgot about AMFA at NW, you saw what no solidarity did to them, right?

Hardly...I work with a bunch of exNWA mechs.
And they have pointed out several scabs out at Boeing(amazing)(787 prog is FULL of the scabass pukes-just had one pointed out on MY crew-had NO idea). They had pretty good solidarity, but like was mentioned, Steenland was intent on busting AMFA from the get-go. He knew what AMFA meant for the aircraft mechanics in this ind.
And it wasn't the typical IAM or TWU song and dance with mngt/sell to rank & file.
But you're right on one issue...(unintentionally)...
the mechanics can't agree on what color the sky is, much less hold the line in unity for however long it takes.

 

[1AA]

And that was when the economy was relatively good and unemployment low. UE has doubled since then. How fast do you think they'll be lining up if TWU'ers walk out now?

I don't know why don't you tell us since we do not seem to know much about our own industry.

 

[Bob Owens]

I agree mAAnagement most often does not follow through with the proper documentation on anybody, including mechanics, and I agree 6 months is plenty of time to evaluate cc's. Having experienced the same scenario Frank discribed, our greatest frustration came from the unions response. It suddenly became the crews fault that the cc was so blatantly incompetent and we we're told to suck it up and work with the guy. So Bob, if the old system is not working to resolve our frustration, I certainly welcome any new ideas.

My suugestion for a solution is that Crew Chief pay should be a 10% differential. You never have to address it again and the difference in pay would make it a more desirable job. While the most senior guy would be first in line there would be many people putting in for the job so the company would not be as hesitant in applying their rights during the six month probation.

I think the company often just lets things slide is because not too many put in for the job, in theory most of the guys on the top of the seniority list should be Crew Chiefs but we often see very junior guys become Crew Chiefs, that dosent make them bad crew chiefs, it just means that not many put in for it.

From what I've seen a lot of Senior guys who would likely make great Crew Chiefs dont bother because there isnt enough to make it worthwhile.
That would be a good proposal for the next contract. For this one I think we are better off just going for something thats already been in place, 2001 language for 3 years from amendable date.

 

[eolesen]

My suugestion for a solution is that Crew Chief pay should be a 10% differential.

What's the differential now? 5%?

Taking that idea a step further, should management pay be keyed similarly? It would mean a raise for most of the L3 & L4 supervisors... but capping the L5 and above as a percentage of TOS might be an interesting way to address what you consider overpaid & under-qualified individuals. You might also end up with some better managers, as opposed to letting the company buy the lowest bidder from the chop shops.

 

[Birdman]

Another is for the base to work 24/7, welcome to the airline industry. This is a 24/7 company, and I'm willing to get something for ALL mechs, if AA gets a 24/7 schedule at TUL and AFW.

I agree, if not for the 03 concessions there would be a weekend premium in place. If we're going to give them 24/7 at the bases then make them pay for it.

I've heard form the guys married to FA's that we pay double what they pay for insurance, how does that happen.

Bob has mentioned how the TWU has subsidized the pilot group's insurance for years. Could it be we are doing the same for the f/a's?

My suugestion for a solution is that Crew Chief pay should be a 10% differential. You never have to address it again and the difference in pay would make it a more desirable job. While the most senior guy would be first in line there would be many people putting in for the job so the company would not be as hesitant in applying their rights during the six month probation.

From what I've seen a lot of Senior guys who would likely make great Crew Chiefs dont bother because there isnt enough to make it worthwhile.
That would be a good proposal for the next contract. For this one I think we are better off just going for something thats already been in place, 2001 language for 3 years from amendable date.

I have no problem with paying the cc's more, even the 10% you suggest as they have the most responsibility. Why are the inspectors and techs always included when the cc's receive a bump? A cc's workload is 10 times that of the others.

 

[Bob Owens]

Bob has mentioned how the TWU has subsidized the pilot group's insurance for years. Could it be we are doing the same for the f/a's?

We subsidize the company for what they pay to provide Health care to both the Pilots and the FAs because they kept the Caps in place (usually referred to as "The Pilot Cap"). The company took what exceeded the caps and dumped those costs into what we have to pay. The company made a deal with those groups and passed the costs of that deal (while keeping the quid pro quo that got them the deal) onto us.

Its like this, their union said "we need a cap on how much our benifit costs can go up" and lets say the costs exceeded the caps by $10 million, what they did was take that $10 million and add it to our cost and then charge us the difference. So if the costs to provide our group only went up $5million they charged us as if it went up $15 million. Thats partly why our rates went up 500%.

 

[Birdman]

We subsidize the company for what they pay to provide Health care to both the Pilots and the FAs because they kept the Caps in place (usually referred to as "The Pilot Cap"). The company took what exceeded the caps and dumped those costs into what we have to pay. The company made a deal with those groups and passed the costs of that deal (while keeping the quid pro quo that got them the deal) onto us.

Its like this, their union said "we need a cap on how much our benifit costs can go up" and lets say the costs exceeded the caps by $10 million, what they did was take that $10 million and add it to our cost and then charge us the difference. So if the costs to provide our group only went up $5million they charged us as if it went up $15 million. Thats partly why our rates went up 500%.

I believe we can take this as fact as none of the TWU die-hards have disputed it. Perhaps a similar cap should be added to our top 10 wish list. You can be sure negotiations will go well past our flex enrollment period. I wonder if the compAAny will hold those cost increases down this year?

 

[Interested]

I have no problem with paying the cc's more, even the 10% you suggest as they have the most responsibility. Why are the inspectors and techs always included when the cc's receive a bump? A cc's workload is 10 times that of the others.

Which CC has a more demanding job, Line or OH?

 

[SkydrolJunkie]

Midnight C/C at a class 2 line station has the most workload. He is the crew chief, manager, and data entry clerk. Oh, and I forgot, babysitter...