From: Rock Salomon <rocksalomon@hotmail.com>
Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2011 15:41:10 -0500
To: Laura Glading <president@apfa.org>
Cc: APFA Membership <newapfa@yahoogroups.com>
Subject: January 28th Hotline Message
Laura,
I'm writing you regarding the January 28th Hotline message, specifically the statement: "The NMB has stated that APFA is in a 'status quo' situation. This means that for the time being we are not released and there are no further meetings scheduled."
I could be misinterpreting this, but this statement suggests that because the APFA failed to make a counter offer in Nashville, that the National Mediation Board (NMB) has no interest in acknowledging an impasse, one which could lead our membership toward self-help. It also suggests that negotiations are in an unspecified holding pattern with no foreseeable end in sight.
This is disheartening to say the least. While you and I will never agree on the merits of the RPA Lawsuit, reading this statement and realizing the position that flight attendants find themselves in financially, one can only ask why the union spent millions over the course of seven years defending the company in court. What exactly was the benefit for flight attendants? Flight attendants are hemorrhaging economically and yet their union dues were spent defending corporate greed. I really believe you owe the membership an explanation as to why their money was spent in this fashion. I’d attempt it myself, but I can find no logical way to answer it.
Flight attendants have given APFA more than $75 million since 2003, yet have received little more than a dues increase — that and a handful of bag-tags. We work for wages negotiated by Denise Hedges in 1995, but with fewer work-rule protections and greater benefit contributions. Truthfully, I know of no other business that can generate that kind of revenue and offer so little in return.
APFA's job is to protect pay, benefits and work rules, and to negotiate improvements on a contractual timeline. The fact that flight attendants work for wages negotiated in 1995 is a testament to this organization's inability to perform its job. By my own personal estimate, that's $120 million in dues revenue with no sign of a tangible return. By all standards of business, this organization should have been out of business long ago.
That said, after three years of negotiating, members still have no idea what their union is asking for at the negotiating table. Honestly, I know of no other agency relationship where the bargaining agent refuses to share information with the client, yet will share it with the opposing party across the table. And when we read that our elected negotiators are barred from participating in talks with the company and that your administration refuses to release the Strike Vote Base Tallies, the feelings of distrust fester by the day. Nothing about these negotiations makes sense.
When I look at AFA negotiations, I see an item-by-item contract analysis of what the union is asking for at United. I also see a 20-page outline of what the AFA is asking for at American Eagle. When I look at the APFA website, all I see is chest thumping over American's executive bonus payouts. This is ironic because you, as a negotiator in 2003, agreed to the bonus plans for executives. And your administration also defended them in Federal Court. Your anger, whatever it may be, is not supported by your actions.
Now we both know that American and APFA can agree on matters of interest, particularly when they suit management’s needs. When I look at the bill the company/union jointly sent Plaintiffs demanding $32,479 in deposition reimbursement costs associated with the RPA Lawsuit, it clearly shows that the two can reach a mutual understanding when interests suit. In the union's own words: "Union Defendants and co-defendants American Airlines, Inc. and AMR Corporation (jointly, the 'Employer Defendants') agreed to share equally the costs associated with the transcription of many of the depositions taken in this action." Could you please explain how APFA was able to negotiate an agreement to share litigation costs but not able to negotiate anything beneficial for the flight attendants when it was their dues that was being spent defending the company?
And this brings me to the "Smoke & Mirrors" mentioned in the Hotline message. Your assertion that the company is using smoke and mirrors just isn't supported by facts found in the media. In one breath you're telling the APFA membership that the company refuses to bargain in good faith, but then you turn face and tell Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood how great it will be for employees if the government will grant American antitrust immunity so it can a enter into "joint business" agreements with foreign carriers. AMR President Tom Horton states that the AA/BA/IB alliance will generate an additional $500 million in annual revenue for American. May I ask why your administration is promoting revenue growth for American without demanding any economic growth for the APFA members who have been subsidizing this growth for the last eight years? In your own words: "I think the benefits of that agreement will be realized very shortly, and the Japan Airlines antitrust [immunity] will go through as well. I think it will be good for American, and I think it will be good for the employees. I supported those alliances because American needs to think more globally." Funny, when I read the aviation headlines, I see that flight attendants are in bitter labor disputes at BOTH British Airways and Japan Airlines. Nowhere do I read the benefits you speak of.
Your administration even went against the pilots' union who adamantly opposed granting American antitrust immunity on the grounds that it could lead to job loss. Former APA President Lloyd Hill stated that: "Antitrust immunity is inherently anti-competitive. If the Transportation Department grants American Airlines' application for antitrust immunity in a linkup with British Airways and Iberia, one of the consequences will be less competition, which logically means higher prices for travelers. In addition, as employees of the airline, we fear that more U.S. jobs might be permanently outsourced overseas...."
In closure, APFA has expensed $3.5 million over the last two reporting periods under the heading of "Negotiations." Of that, $812.821 was paid to APFA's Strategic Counsel, Rob Clayman. At $400 thousand per year, how is it that negotiations are still at ZERO-SUM? At what point can flight attendants expect Attorney Clayman's strategies to bear some fruit?
There’s a rumor circulating which suggests that negotiations are purposely stalling. While this rumor is unfounded, it alludes to the notion that the company and union want to deliver a tentative agreement closer to the next national officer election so as to muddle the contract in confusion. Personally, I hate to even think it. But given the scandal involving Senator McCaskill and the recall extension last election, and given your administration’s lack of assertiveness toward this company over its concessionary proposal, it’s important that we sleep with one eye open.
Actions speak louder than words. It’s time we see some action.
Rock Salomon
BOS
###