Seeing the latest drivel from the Mechanics for Change regarding seniority, I felt compelled to respond. Like charlatans that pick and chose sentences from well known documents to prey on the unsuspecting masses, the authors of this rag chose to frame a story comparing contracts by selecting only certain sentences in order to make it appear that only they know the true path to perfect contract language.
Now let’s examine some facts as they pertain to this seniority flyer. The protection of seniority goes far beyond a couple of paragraphs in CAL Article 3. True protection takes advantage of multiple elements. In light of that how does the UA agreement fare? First in 2000 we had over 15,700 mechanics and related employed under this agreement. Today we have 4823. During that same time the CAL mechanics never suffered a furlough of any kind, and in fact their numbers increased by 15%. How could the Mechanics for Change claim the seniority language in the UA agreement is better if 70% of the membership has been decimated while the CAL membership increased? Gaining pay seniority while laid off is little comfort if there is limited possibility of return due to the extreme numbers of mechanics on furlough.
Looking at mechanic Jane Doe in their missive, they claim that under the CAL agreement using only the terms they spell out, she would lose 2 weeks of vacation. What they don’t tell you is this would be her choice to be furloughed to the street, because CAL has job security for everyone on the seniority list. LOA 22. This is unlike the UA language which currently provides no protection for 23.5% of the UA membership because the current UA agreement doesn’t protect anyone with less than October of 1989 seniority. In addition CAL Jane Doe would be able to bump anywhere her seniority would hold, Article 6, which would create many paid system bumps, which is and was a deterrent to layoffs in the first place. Of course the UA language requires that Jane Doe could only bump the most junior employee and that mechanic could be all the way across the country. The UA agreement requires a severely reduced exercise of seniority in all situations, including layoffs, when compared to the CAL language. But there is no sense letting the facts get in the way of a good story.
In monetary terms while Jane Doe at United was accruing her extra two weeks of vacation, Jane Doe at CAL, because of her extra protections, was actually receiving wages in the amount of $150,000 if she were on dayshift. Do the Mechanics for Change really advocate the position that the UA membership sacrifices $150,000 for two weeks of vacation? This idea is the very definition of insanity!
