If the IAM and their supporters were able to stand on their
own record, they would have already put it out for all of us to see. They would
have been printing flyers and posting on their website and shouting from the
mountain tops about how great their record is; about the objectively measurable
difference having IAM representation would make for the Delta flight
attendants.
But they can’t. So they don’t. And instead they revert back
to the same old tactics that we’ve seen all too often: namely trying to detract
from indisputable facts and irrefutable history by attacking anyone who
illuminates their untruths, or asks them the tough questions or presents facts
that are contrary to their dogmatic agenda. So the response to yesterday’s blog
should really come as no surprise, and if you think these people will be any
more factual or any less disrespectful if they get voted into office, know
this: the behavior that you see will only amplify when positions and salaries
and budgets are involved. For just one example, look no further than the
current ongoing drama at the highly touted TWU (one half of the ADFA equation
that is trying to organize the Delta flight attendants – along with AFA), over
at Southwest Airlines http://share.d-news.co/OPGLQGm
and for more details of breaking news on unauthorized communications and flight
attendant union leaders suspending and unsuspending each other, check out TWU
556’s own website here: http://twu556.org/.
In the interest of steering the conversation back to the
facts and history and the merits of relative positions, here are some answers
to questions that were publicly posted and privately submitted to me:
QUESTION # 1: So on Jose's table...of 1990
to present...are there any work rules included? This is a table based on hourly
pay only? That would not be a scientific comparison unless it includes
everything. Quarterly overtime, holiday pay, health care premiums, lead/purser
pay, per diem, Int'l premium, short crew pay, ground holding pay, crew meals,
etc. All of that is compensation. So what good is his little table and graph
without all of the data? Anywhere else, it would be completely dismissed as
incomplete date (sic). (Scott Johnston, posted on Facebook, May 22, 2013)
ANSWER: No Scott, there are no work rules
included. As I clearly explained in my blog, this chart was in response to a
much more narrowly focused pay chart put out by the IAM campaign. A couple
(well three) points on this subject:
a.
I’ve already done a trip rig/credit/work rule
comparison in a previous blog, something which the IAM campaign has yet to do.
b.
You are free to prepare your own comparison of
any or all of the items that you believe to be important. You are likely to be
disappointed for your efforts though, because if the IAM campaign could have
put together a comparison that showed them in a favorable light, they would
have already done so. The point in my email that you apparently missed is that
IAM GAVE UP most of the items you listed, just to preserve the hourly pay rate,
and the pay rate really is the best part of the IAM contract.
c.
I’d love to see the IAM’s response to your
request for a comprehensive, line by line comparison. Please tell me that in
your quest for truth and transparency, you are asking for the same information
from them that you are from me.
QUESTION # 2: He and many others continue
to say, "the IAM negotiated" or "AFA negotiated", etc. Are
there no flight attendants negotiating? We have always had flight attendants at
the table negotiating along with lawyers, actuaries, etc. It isn't just union
officials negotiating a contract. Correct? (Scott Johnston, posted on Facebook,
May 22, 2013)
ANSWER: That’s
correct Scott. There are flight attendants also at the negotiations table, just
like there were flight attendants at United, US Airways, Continental, Northwest
and other airlines that gave concessions. And that is exactly the point about
David’s “arithmetic” that I made in my email.
Even if we all agreed that pay, work rules, conditions would
magically be better with a union, how can we rely on that outcome if we elect
flight attendants to positions who are unclear about simple facts like how many
hours they fly each month, or will blatantly lie to us about what the hourly
pay rate is in the IAM contract?
The point isn’t whether there are flight attendants at the
table; the point is that there are people of character at the table with an
awareness of facts and knowledge of math and an ability to see beyond
themselves and their personal agendas in order to advance the profession.
Unfortunately that hasn’t been the case with certain flight attendant
individuals in the past. Some specific examples (in addition to the
above-referenced TWU tragedy that is currently unfolding) are:
-
Flight attendant union leaders who, at the
behest of AFA attorneys and international officers, voluntarily gave away our
right to strike in our last contract negotiations.
-
Flight attendant union leaders who, at the
behest of AFA attorneys and international officers, voluntarily voted to
abandon the grievance on the me-too clause in our contract when the pilots got
unilateral pay raises.
-
Flight attendant union leaders who, at the
behest of AFA attorneys and international officers, then voted to cover up
their mess on the me-too clause by going back and changing official meeting
minutes that they had previously approved.
-
Flight attendant union leaders and campaign
staffers, who at the behest of AFA international officers, personally attacked
fellow flight attendants who had a different opinion or a different life
experience or were in possession of facts that led them to a different
conclusion on the relative merits of a particular union.
-
Flight attendant union leaders who spent their
entire time in office attacking and undermining other flight attendant union
leaders, and bouncing in and out of positions because of childishness and
emotional immaturity.
-
Further, it is sadly becoming evident that there
are a few pro-union flight attendants on the EIG, who are attempting to halt
the progress that the EIG is making, so that they can then turn around and say
that the EIG (which they are attempting to hijack) is ineffective. This is a
perfect example of a small group of individuals holding up progress for the
larger group in order to advance their personal dogmatic agenda.
So you’re right Scott. Even if we change the name of the
union, we will get nowhere if we elect the same flight attendants that we had
before to represent us. Fortunately, only a few of the corrupt former union
leaders are currently listed as IAM campaigners. Unfortunately, there isn’t a
lot of depth or breadth of union experience among the IAM campaigners; no one
that’s filed grievances, negotiated contracts, argued at arbitrations, etc., so
they will be wagged by the IAM International tail, just like the inexperienced
AFA leaders were in the examples listed above, when they lost everything – up
to and including scope – for the Northwest flight attendants. The other
unfortunate thing is that the pro-union folks who are currently obstructing
progress on the EIG will likely find their way into union positions again, so
they can continue their obstructionism there.
QUESTION # 3: What are Jose's sources for
this information? We have already established that the table is NOT completely
accurate. Has anyone cross referenced any of the rest? (Scott Johnston, posted
on Facebook, May 22, 2013)
ANSWER: The
sources are the relative airline contracts for the effective periods as listed
in the chart and the table. The rates are accurate as listed, unless you have
some secret airline contracts that were in effect at the time. By the way, who
is this “we” you speak of? Is it the editorial we? The royal we? Which “we” is
it, and why hasn’t that “we” put out any fact-based comprehensive comparison to
make your case for IAM representation?
QUESTION # 4: Who writes a blog and uses a
co-workers name, trying to damage his reputation and credibility? If I were
David, I would look into the companies (sic) Social Media Policy because I
smell a serious violation, and to you Ginger, I would remove with (sic) this
with some degree of speed. I think you're awesome, so don't get caught up in Jose's
affairs (sic) (Scott Johnston, posted on Facebook, May 22, 2013)
ANSWER: It
appears you have a fundamental misunderstanding of how representational
democracy works in our country. First of all, I have not made any personal
attacks on any individual, nor have I discussed anyone’s private life or their
performance as a flight attendant.
However, in these United States, when someone is asking for
our vote in an election – any election – we have the right (and the obligation)
as individuals to ask questions about the position they are taking, challenge
their rhetoric and provide facts and information to support our position on the
relative merits of discussion.
So if someone claims that they are tired of flying 100 hours
per month and I point out that they are not, in fact, flying even close to 100
hours per month, then I am simply making a statement of fact. If you believe
that my statement of truth somehow disparages someone’s reputation, then that
speaks to what you really think of their misstatement more than anything else.
QUESTION # 5: And I would also like to
point out that in our most recent contract, reserves WERE able to pick up trips
on their days off. The credit for the acquired trip went over and above their
80 hour guarantee. . . reserves have always been able to pick up "high
time". When I was on reserve, I did it whenever it was offered (Scott
Johnston, posted on Facebook, May 22, 2013)
ANSWER: The most
recent contract wasn’t in effect nine years ago, which is the time period David
was referring to. In that contract (the “yellow book”) reserves could
“will-fly” (put themselves on availability), but were not able to pick up trips
on their off days. In the most recent contract, reserve flight attendants could
pick up trips on their off days, but only trips picked up from company open
time were paid in addition to their guarantee.
Trips swapped from other flight attendants went first towards their
reserve guarantee. So if you picked up a 20 hour trip from a friend on your
days off and only flew 50 hours that month as a reserve flight attendant, you
ended up working that trip for free (except for the per diem, and international
or lead pay if those applied). Also, high time was awarded in seniority order,
so it was only during extreme shortages that high time ever went down to
reserves. It was usually snapped up by senior people.
But rather than rehashing ancient history, let’s talk about
the present. How about we compare the IAM full-month reserve system with the
Delta A-days system? I’d love to know your thoughts on the IAM (and yes – IAM
flight attendant) negotiated full month reserve system that pays an 83:00
guarantee for 10 days off per month. If I wanted to bid an equal number of
A-Days under the Delta system, I would have a 99:45 guarantee. Which do you
think is better, Scott?
QUESTION # 6: You can't believe what Jose
ibarra post (sic). He s (sic) now anti union because he was ousted from three
unions. Jose was with teamsters (sic) until he was removed or left. He then
started pfaa(sic) but could not hold office. The (sic) with afa(sic) he could
not hold office, so he began the negative union busting info (sic). He was pro
union for many years, but when he couldnt (sic) have what he wanted.(sic) He
began anti union campaigning. 90% (sic) or more of pmnw (sic) will tell you
that you can't believe or trust him.! (sic)(Robert Boehm, posted on Facebook,
May 22, 2013)
ANSWER: That’s an
interesting statistic, Bob. Over 90% of PMNW flight attendants? Did you arrive
at that number through scientific polling or a comprehensive survey or is it
just a “feeling” you have? I doubt that anywhere close to 90% of PMNW flight
attendants even know who I am, much less would claim to speak to intent or
veracity. Are you overreaching just a little? And by a little, I mean a lot.
By the way, you have the history wrong. I never held an
elected position with Teamsters. I held two positions with PFAA. And I never
ran for any office at AFA.
When AFA raided the Northwest flight attendants in the
middle of bankruptcy negotiations, supported by all those people who didn’t pay
union dues (and wanted their slates wiped clean) and those who never got
involved in their union, but liked to take potshots, spread gossip and misstate
facts and truths from their home computers, I knew that AFA and their
supporters didn’t have the best interests of the Northwest flight attendants in
mind, just like people today who misstate facts, operate out of emotion and
deflect from the merits of a position by attacking individuals, don’t hold
close the best interests of the Delta flight attendants.
QUESTION # 7: In response to the blog......
Who wants to fly 155 hours for the same pay we used to get flying 85 hours.
That is NO DEAL!! They are the cherry pickers, my husband just showed me my tax
returns from 25 years ago......... We are definitely working more hours for
less. Then factor in inflation and the rising cost of living....... IAM ready
for a change!!!!!! I have been with
Delta for 36 years and I am making less now than I ever have in my career. I DO
not want to work more hours for more pay. That is not attractive to me at all.
I want my pre bankruptcy wage which that isn't keeping up with inflation. We
are being paid LESS . Expenses are higher. And we don't even get a cost of
living. Oh I forgot our PPT time is terrible. After I was forced to commute I
try to fly 2 high time trips a month because as I said before I love my job as
a FA. Nite you guys, just got to Joberg and I need some sleep. Take care
everyone! (posted on Facebook, May 22, 2013)
ANSWER: In order
to have to fly 155 hours for the same pay as 85 hours before, you would have
had to be earning $91.10 per hour previously. Your math just does not bear out
your claim. The answer to the “mystery” of your tax returns from 25 years ago
may be in your later posts where you imply that you are now only flying 2
Johannesburg trips per month, as opposed to what you were flying 25 years ago.
All in all, most people would think that getting paid almost $4,000 (including premium
pay and per diem) for working four flights per month is a pretty sweet deal.
But even if it isn’t a good deal for you, the case has yet
to be made (almost a year into this campaign) that IAM can provide something
better. So far, no one has been able to show anywhere that IAM has a proven
track record of doing better for its members.
As far as the PPT, I’d like to see one other program at one
other airline that allows as much flexibility as PPT does. There’s no other
program that allows employees to use PPT for extra vacation, paid trip drops or
to cash it out at the end of the year. Under the old sick leave system (just
like with the pilots sick leave) if you don’t use the time for a sick call, you
lose the time.
In conclusion…
Thanks for your questions and feedback. I try my best to
respond individually when time permits and will address frequently asked
questions or those of general interest in future blogs.
Sincerely,
Jose Arturo Ibarra
