In January, Labor Relations released an edition of the Tech Ops Perspective that was viewed by many as an insulting, and rightfully so! Only a few things the company claimed were true, many assertions were either mischaracterizations of the negotiating committee’s position and in many cases they were just flat out lies.
A Brief History
As stated in the Company’s January “Tech OPs Perspective” the IBT did indeed insist that following the conclusion of the sub CO negotiations that the other two subs complete their standalone contracts. After completion of all three agreements the company approached the IBT leadership with an idea to enter into a new “expedited” process for negotiations. After hearing the company’s presentation the 55 member rank and file steering committee unanimously agreed to enter the process. Unfortunately the company chose to finalize the pilot’s agreement instead of moving directly into the process. After a delay, negotiations finally began January of 2012. Much progress was made despite the fact that the company appeared to be unprepared and quite frankly unaware of the past practice surrounding the intent of much of the language they had agreed to in the sub UAL Agreement. The non-economic side of negotiations mostly concluded on schedule and the parties then entered into the economic phase of negotiations.In this second phase, the pace slowed considerably while the company finished up with the IAM. The parties finally broke in May without an agreement and far apart. The company stated in their flyer that they came ready to conclude negotiations but it was obvious to the committee that was far from the truth.
The Actual Company Proposal
After the “expedited process” failed, the company released the offer refused by the committee with the mistaken belief that mechanics can’t count. It was immediately evident that the proposal was cost neutral, at best, for many, concessionary for most and far short of industry leading. In fact, the counter offer submitted by the IBT committee was not even seriously considered, and the company instead filed for mediation.
Claimed Preconditions
The company maintained that the IBT insisted that certain preconditions must be met in order to reach a deal. They claim these were new and unreasonable conditions. This is just not true. Let’s look at those alleged preconditions. The company was told any new agreement would need to have enhanced job security, a pension option for the sUA group, a fair and equitable wage increase and affordable health care with a certain maintenance of benefit. These are the cornerstones of any acceptable agreement. That the company was surprised by this is a disgrace, and a failure on their part to effectively manage their business.
Current Wages
All three agreements currently place a 12 year mechanic in fourth place in the industry. The carrier is currently the largest airline in the world for comparison and will be the second largest after completion of the AA and US Air merger.
Proposed Wages
The yellow bars in the chart below represent the last company proposal. These represent sCO and sUA mechanics with 30+ years of service as opposed to twelve years at the other carriers. They take into account work rule give backs proposed by the company . These concessions have been subtracted from the Company’s advertised $40.85 wage to reflect an accurate comparison. As you can see there is no material improvement (as compared to today’s $36.92 wage rate). We would still be in fourth place amongst industry mechanics.
A Message of Failure
Clearly the release of the company’s table position followed by the TechOps Perspective is a message of failure. The company failed to convince the committee that its proposal was worthy of a vote so they released this information to the membership. This is no way to bargain and is clearly a sign that this management team is incompetent. In other words, this is just another management misstep in regards to closing this merger. You deserve better!
Where do we go from Here?
Unfortunately the company filed for mediation. That move will only serve to shine a bright light on this latest management failure. But that does not mean there is no hope, nor does it mean we are barred from challenging the leadership of this company in different venues and in different ways than we’ve traditionally approached negotiations. We all know from reading the papers that frequent flyers are abandoning this carrier in droves. That is alarming given that we depend on those valuable flyers to keep the airline running and pay our salaries. Union leaders from across the country met in January to form strategies to achieve the goal of realizing an industry leading agreement. Part of the strategy is to engage those frequent fliers to help affect change. Further, Wall Street is very interested in the inner workings of the corporation and openly wonders why management can’t capitalize on synergies in the same way as Delta. We will be assisting these analysts by providing information from the membership so they can better understand the lack of competent leadership. Constant pressure should help current management see the error of their ways. Members should also ask their immediate managers to pass on the message that the correct way to conclude these negotiations is not to produce glossy flyers or leak proposals, but rather to return to the table in earnest and deliver what they promised, an Industry Leading Contract!
Download Committee Response to UAL Tech Ops Perspective 021014
Download TheTechOpsPerspectiveJan2014