Well Brothers and Sisters, it seems pretty clear we will not see a new agreement prior to the New Year. By now you have read the Bargaining Committee Update for this past week's negotiations in San Francisco. As noted in the Update, the Union Committee fully expected to reach a deal with the Company over lead ratios and 7-day coverage. As difficult and emotional as those issues are, the Committee has worked long and hard to find a way to accommodate the Company's need for flexibility while protecting against the encroachment and loss of work and jobs, and while ensuring fair and workable schedules. The Company's negotiators have worked hard on these issues too, but at times over the last couple of months, it has seemed that the Company had bitten off more than it could chew: when push has come to shove on these issues, the Company wasn't able to explain what exactly it wants or how, with any level of detail, it expects to use the "flexibility" it is seeking. All the Company knows is that it wants "flexibility" but it won't – or simply can't -- explain how that flexibility will help the Company. At the same time, while the Union has worked hard to accommodate the Company's repeated requests for "flexibility," the Company has paid only lip service to the Union's job security needs. The Company's actions and failures concerning these matters have caused a lot of frustration and have caused many of us to question whether the Company's negotiators have fallen victim to the old-style UAL method of ram-and-jam "bargaining" that has helped fuel so much labor-management distrust over the years. Like all of you, we were given hope through testimony to congress as well as reports in the media that change was on the horizon. And with that, all of us truly want the new management team that the Company has assembled over the last couple of years to succeed, because it is much better to negotiate with a successful Company as opposed to one in bankruptcy. But it does not give us much confidence and does not make us feel very comfortable when the Company snubs our job security needs, refuses to deal realistically with our retirement security needs, and finds time to set aside only one week in December to bargain with us.
I told many of you during the summer that I felt we were on pace to possibly achieve an agreement this year, but things slowed to a crawl after September. It seems obvious to me as I related in an earlier post, that the Company would rather merge the agreements than negotiate a new one for us. The entire negotiating committee agrees this is not the best course for the membership.
It would be easy to go on a rant and complain about the process, but what could I tell you that you don't already know? The Company obviously doesn't respect either the concessions we made to save them, nor do they respect us. How can I say this? Well actions speak much louder than words, and if they truly felt it was in their best interest to make us feel proud to work here they would step up and reach an agreement with us that recognized our sacrifices. They haven't done that and they don't appear willing to do that.
Is this really the treatment we deserve? And if not, what can we do? I think the obvious answer is to continue to express your displeasure to your supervisor. The Company has to understand that respect is a two way street.
Last Monday I attended a second Jeff Smisek presentation in SFO. Mr. Smisek told the audience at that time he was indifferent as to whether we got a pension and would leave that up to each work group's negotiating teams. Indifferent? It seems like a theme is beginning to develop here. We truly deserve our own agreement! We've paid for it! Inaction on the Company's part is unacceptable! Remember tell your supervisor; WITH NO PENSION THERE IS NO AGREEMENT, WITH NO AGREEMENT THERE IS NO HAPPINESS!
