I am reposting Bob's Blogs from DIA because I believe everyone should read them. The first is on the recommendation on the T/A. My opinion: to read the bullet points does not tell the whole story (Please Read the T/A), also when you have the Negotiation Team at your road shows ask them a little about how negotiations goes. It is interesting and I am glad we had a good team on it.
I have seen and been a Union Rep. with the 1989 contract, ESOP 1994, and the 2000 negotiations and this was by for the shortest time ever taken to reach a T/A. We have never reach this high of a pay increase, except for the PEB (Presidents Emergency Board and that as you know did not live long). To quote a Friend "If I got you a big pay increase and you were lay off tomorrow am I a good Union Rep?".
Negotiate smartly is the key. This is an intern agreement and needs to be look at it that way. Please take time to ask questions and read the full T/A. The second is on MRO and how the Teamsters watch for the trends and how we need to stay involved to keep our jobs from being shipped overseas.
Jock
Committee Recommendation
The Tentative Agreement that is now before you comes after two years of negotiations, both pre and post merger announcement. During this process we made a couple of major strategic decisions that were beneficial to the process.
The first decision was not to invoke federal mediation. This decision enabled us to continue the negotiations at a pace that we had more control of. While the other Unions made an early decision to invoke mediation, in our view, mediation is a process that you invoke only when nothing is being accomplished through direct negotiations. This was not the environment we were in, and that led to our determination that mediation would not be beneficial for us. That decision paid off by enabling us to freely schedule the negotiation dates and continue to make progress. While we wish our colleagues at the other Unions the best in their mediation sessions, we do not envy the current pace of their mediated negotiations.
The second decision was to not go into amalgamated negotiations without first completing our "Section 6" negotiations for a "stand‐alone" UAL contract. Last year, after the merger was announced and then again when the merger was approved by the government, the Company very strongly expressed its desire to enter into formal amalgamation negotiations to combine the UAL and CAL Mechanic contracts. The Company wanted to do this because it wants to set the upper bar or standard for a long‐term, amalgamated contract at the current CAL mechanics' agreement. We opposed the company's effort in part because of the large number of changes that needed to be improved in the current UAL CBA and because we fully intend to obtain economic and work‐rule improvements in amalgamation that are higher and greater than the current CAL mechanics' contract. There are so many differences between current CAL and UAL contracts that it was far better to fix a good portion of the contractual provisions and language in these pre‐amalgamation Section 6 negotiations, and then focus on the remaining, very important but uncompleted items when we are in amalgamated negotiations.
The TA immediately recovers many of the contractual rights and protections that were conceded and lost in the existing and prior contracts. The TA also has many improvements that will be beneficial to all of our UAL members. We have lived far too long under the existing wages that were a result of bankruptcy concessions, and we have seen too many of our coworkers laid off while our work has been outsourced due to the current weak scope language. But this TA is not the end of the road. It takes care of the more immediate need to raise our incomes and protect our work and our jobs as we go through this merger, while giving us an advantage going into the amalgamated negotiations, our second bite of the apple.
The decision that is now before you ‐‐ to either vote yes or no on this TA – comes during an extremely unusual situation that will not likely be repeated in our careers: both options will result in further negotiations. A yes vote means that we will immediately enter into the amalgamated negotiation process, and within 30 days, a joint committee will be established to work on alternative Health and Welfare options. Ultimately, a yes vote will allow the joint negotiating committee to focus on the core items – the compensation and benefits that we intend to obtain in amalgamation.
A no vote will also mean a return to negotiations, but the Company will almost certainly move those negotiations into NMB mediation, and those mediated negotiations will start at the existing UAL contract terms and will therefore be without any of the wage and work‐rule recoveries and improvements that are contained in the TA. In that no‐vote scenario, the Company will most likely slow the process down for what could be a very long time because the existing UAL contract is far cheaper for the Company than the CAL contract and the TA (in spite of the fact that the TA does not provide all of the compensation and benefit items that we want and deserve); and that savings could outweigh the Company's benefits of completing the amalgamation process.
In our view, if the TA is ratified, the Company will not be able to slow the process down nearly as long as it otherwise could. That's because the TA forces the Company to enter into amalgamation negotiations from a higher economic starting point. The Company therefore cannot stop or delay the amalgamation because the TA imposes additional costs without providing it with any of the benefits of a fully integrated operation. For the same reason, Wall Street will also push it to complete the amalgamation. The TA is, quite simply, a necessary, short‐term transitional step toward achieving an industry leading, long term contract. With its scope and other job‐related improvements, the TA places us solidly at the top of the legacy passenger airline industry and allows us to finish the job of amalgamating the contract from a higher level of wages, better work rules and much stronger job protections.
It's important to have a good understanding of the meaning and the benefits of the new language in this TA as you make your decision. We will be communicating through membership meetings, an online teleconference, and written publications in order to properly disseminate the information. Please take the time to learn all you can as we enter the voting process.
For all the above reasons, your negotiating committee strongly recommends a YES vote.
Sincerely,
Your Negotiating Committee
Posted by Bob Fisher
MRO America’s Conference.
This week as part of my duties with the Airline Division, I attended the MRO America's Conference in Miami. I am working on a detailed report but would like to quickly share some items with you.
My first initial thought upon entering the trade show was that the amount of vendors and the scope of work they perform were truly overwhelming. Literally every part or aspect of any aircraft had some provider offering maintenance services or repair to the operators. I say this not to scare anyone; rather this is to inform because we need to know the competition we face so we can develop sound strategies on how best to counter these potential outsourcing attempts.
This was the 16th year of this conference and there were over 400 vendors with over 8000 attendees. By all accounts, worldwide, annually this is an over $50 billion dollar industry. Most MRO providers were expecting an increased workload over the course of the next five and ten years. The one caveat was oil and a speaker from Aerostrategies stated that with oil at $110/bbl airlines would remain flat as far as profit was concerned however the losses would accelerate exponentially the higher oil climbed. The purpose of his report was to outline the potential challenges MRO providers may face and should take into account. The speaker told the audience with oil over $120/bbl in his opinion "all bets were off".
As far as the MRO providers were concerned they were encouraged as several airlines indicated they were willing to entertain nose to tail airframe maintenance contracts. This trend could lead to a windfall for the OEM group. That trend could also work to the benefit of other MRO providers as they work to become contractors for the OEM manufacturers. For us this means we have to be very careful with the scope clauses of our agreements as we move forward.
When my detailed report is complete I will post it here.
Bob
