SluggoC17

The “AIPs” (Agreements in Principle). Negotiator's Notepad 16-08, Negotiator's Notepad 16-09, Negotiator's Notepad 16-10, Negotiator's Notepad 16-11.

 We’re certainly glad that the MEC directed the release of the AIPs, and that the MEC CH and Negotiating Committee quickly published the AIPs as well as the earlier Company position on pay and compensation.

 Making this interim negotiating update and information available to the membership is not how things have been done at least since the MEC merger in January 2009. We welcome and appreciate the increase in transparency.

 Certainly the information has gotten the attention of the pilot group and required a more significant time and effort commitment from us to explain the details, receive your concerns and attempt to take action where necessary.

 We still believe it was / is worth the extra effort.

 All direction (and certainly ultimate acceptance) on any of these items is

completely dependent upon significant pay rates...... which is, again, where the polling / survey data put a clear emphasis. This has never historically been a secret.

 The initial direction was given to the Negotiating Committee last fall (2015) prior to entering NMB mediation.

 We have continued to work to minimize the negatives and ultimately supported the effort on many or most with some significant caveats, which include necessary changes or improvements highlighted via pilot input and the receipt of more detailed information (i.e. VEBA).

 Keep in mind that the net value of the AIPs in the Co’s favor represent approximately 1% of the value of the overall current contract (approx. $3B). Note that the end state (final year) value of the PWA as a result of our re-engagement proposal is well in excess of $4B. We believe that a valuation at this level is necessary for approval.

 Most of the comments have been very critical of the AIPs. The context of a full agreement may address or mitigate some of those concerns.

 Pay, Pay, Pay. Of course pay rates are easier to define and generate clear(er) data about. The problem is that other priorities weren't / aren’t as clearly defined.

Retirement.

We have just begun more specific polling on retirement issues.

 One of the biggest problems addressing overall retirement issues and the

associated heightened interest in Defined Benefit (DB) plans are that responses during the survey and polling last fall emphasized increasing Defined Contribution (DC) as the retirement vehicle priority. A DB plan wasn’t in the re-engagement proposal in part for this reason as well as the expectation of high cost and complication when we evaluated the deployment of negotiating resources and priorities.

 Obviously and understandably pilot attitude about retirement and DB plans has been affected by FDX and UPS keeping / improving theirs in their recent contracts.

 Admittedly, another factor could be that the earlier questions about retirement issues and DB plans weren’t specific enough.

 Furthermore, there were recent difficulties getting more specific polling questions included even now due to concerns about the need to have extensive "education" about DBs prior to polling. Certainly more information prior to polling is always better, and there are other areas where it would have been beneficial for more information to have been available yet the polling was completed anyway. It’s unfortunate that the “education” issue has held up polling relative to DB’s.

 Prior to the recent March turnover on the MEC, we were unsuccessful convincing the MEC to agree to even cost a very generic forward looking DB plan for comparison / order of magnitude purposes. Fortunately, that attitude changed and the current MEC CH directed the R&I committee and specialists to get that done a couple of months ago.

 The very, very approximate, order of magnitude annual cost of a new, forward looking DB plan, assuming all or most of the hurdles described in MEC Alert 16-15 could be overcome, would be in the $400M range annually for a plan structure similar to the terminated Delta Pilots’ DB plan, and would likely increase annually for some time depending upon a large number of variables. Note high emphasis on all the caveats.

 See MEC Alert 16-15 addressing some of the issues associated with establishing / re-establishing a DB plan. Certainly there are a lot of “coulds”, “mays”, “possibilities”, and other qualifiers that “may” indicate that it would “likely” be very difficult to establish a new forward-looking plan and certainly be difficult to un-terminate or un-freeze the respective DB plans.

 That doesn’t mean that it’s impossible and that it shouldn’t be tried if we receive sufficient input that it has become a higher priority, especially a new plan.

 However, the stark reality of the situation is that, since it wasn’t included in last fall’s direction and we’re under NMB mediation, it would be very difficult to attempt to include DB parameters now where it would “likely” significantly divert efforts, resources, and priorities.

 The most “likely” circumstance where a DB could be revisited would be to reach the end (or very near the end) of this current round of negotiations and not be able to reach (or ratify) an agreement. At that point the subsequent repackaging and reordering of priorities “could” include a DB plan of some amount.

 Keep in mind, as painfully lacking as many older pilots’ retirements are, making that an overarching priority for them, there is an increasing demographic who are younger and would prefer a high value DC plan with the funds in their own name, as well as other older pilots who are also cognizant from their own, the previous generation’s, and even their parents’ very negative experiences with retirement benefits dependent upon their company’s financial health. Getting data that supports the prioritization of a new DB plan is not assured, even as we get to asking more comprehensive questions about it.

Negotiating Committee Direction Process. Since the special MEC meeting ended last week there’s been some distorted, over the top communications from other LEC / MEC members who were unhappy about the Negotiating Committee (NC) direction process at the meeting. Here’s a review of how the process generally works, and our perspective(s) about how it’s worked in the past, what happened last week, the ensuing hyperventilation and potential rationale(s) for it.

Background.

 Direction is given via a “straw poll”, which is an unofficial vote of the status / voting reps on a one person, one vote basis. No roll call is allowed since it’s not an official vote and it doesn’t become part of the meeting record.

 Done in closed session when addressing negotiating direction for amendments to the PWA up to and including RLA Section 6 negotiations.

 The MEC first receives briefings from the NC and other committee members / professional ALPA Subject Matter Experts (SMEs) supporting the issue to be addressed. The Negotiating Committee usually develops recommendations for MEC direction for the MEC to consider.

 The MEC members discuss the issues during the meeting during organized debate and more casually at other times before, during, and after the meeting day. This discussion occurs between multiple groups of Reps during caucuses, breakfast, lunch, pre-dinner, dinner, and beyond. Usually the direction phase is the last day of the meeting so that these discussions (sometimes more like negotiations between individual members or groups of members) occur for more than a day or two.

 After considering the differing perspectives as well as what each rep believes is required to represent their constituents (which can certainly be honestly different for even the same constituency), usually like-minded or generally philosophically aligned members (in general or just for a particular set of issues) coalesce and agree to coordinate arguments and priorities for the debate of the direction during the meeting. This coordination occurs during caucuses (during the meeting day) sometimes limited to those having the same strategy, as well as lunch, dinner and other casual settings in intentionally selective groups for the same reason. Sometimes the discussions will seek to avoid including those whose attendance would be intended (or perceived to) solely to impede the coordination or priorities.

 The coordination can be maintained through common talking points, emails, texts, etc.

 Certainly during this whole process, the NC, MEC CH and Admin engage the MEC members individually and in smaller groups to advocate for something close to the direction that they prefer or believe that they need to accomplish the overall negotiating task.

 Once the direction debate starts usually several iterations of the recommended direction are generated via multiple straw polls that lead to a final straw poll that determines item by item or total package direction.

The “Terrible 12 vs. the Saintly 7”. Last week’s meeting.

 All the normal steps and interactions mentioned above occurred.

 After discussions between most MEC members it was clear by the third night

of the meeting that there were a couple key, bright line issues where individual

positions were hardening. Nothing new.

 12 of us (voting reps) worked out what we were willing to focus on to address

these key issues (where we did have general agreement) most effectively.

 We came up with a proposal primarily along the lines of what the NC had optionally offered in their recommendation. We did not specifically address all open issues.

 The long-winded among us were politely requested to minimize or refrain from comments other than the focused comments we had agreed upon. (We complied).

 The normal process would have been for someone to state the priorities and then those who were in agreement would each take a turn essentially saying “What he just said”. (Or try to at least; see previous bullet).

 The difference occurred when, during the presentation of the direction we had focused on, it was explicitly stated that there were 12 of us who had pre- agreed to it. Rather than the normal exercise where it’s already implicitly obvious that something has been coordinated and agreed to, yet all take a turn at the speaker’s list to reach the de facto conclusion. Every voting rep in the room (and many non-voting reps) knew this was how things have worked, (and not just in our organization), especially the CVG / C108 CH who worked as part of a highly disciplined machine for years that very effectively coordinated group efforts, votes and straw polls through the use of talking points (printed & electronic) including speeches written for “member” reps (sometimes from the MEC Admin, at that time, itself). A key notable example was the recall of the MEC CH in 2013.

 So......Feelings were hurt and the 7 who were not part of the coordinated direction “refrained” from giving any direction or discussing any of the issues further, including issues that weren’t addressed in our joint position. The irony is that a few of the 7 frequently attempt to discredit and disregard those with whom they disagree with by stating that they are making “emotional” decisions and statements, yet their refusal to further participate, as well as obnoxious, overwrought actions and statements since from a couple / few, seem to be highly “emotional” responses.

 Or.... It could just be cynical opportunism on some of their parts to try to create enough hysteria to attempt to bully and berate some to changing their positions and expectations relative to overall negotiating priorities. (Even though our differences are not that large in the context of the wide gulf between the ALPA and Co positions).

 We’re sorry about the hurt feelings and the apparently fragile damaged psyches from the meeting direction but we’re certainly not sorry about the direction itself. Clearly it would be better just to press on as previously during debates where minds have already been made after extensive discussion, rather than have the same bruised feelings and egos again. Having been part of the minority view on many key issues for a very long time, refusing to engage during negotiating direction, even in cases when explicitly mentioned that there was already a majority and our perspective didn’t matter, was not an option.

 The bigger irony is that many of the 7 would have supported parts of the package if they had been willing to address the items individually. Apparently the ongoing “firing for effect” is more of a priority.

 No one, at any time, had their speaking rights taken away, not by parliamentary means nor otherwise, and no “manifestos” were issued. No pilots that the 7 represented went unrepresented. Ridiculous. They know that, but it’s too inconvenient to allow that to get in the way of some feel good righteous indignation; they individually made choices not to engage on further issues after it was, albeit indelicately, pointed out that they were in the minority on a few issues.

 In our opinion, a couple of the 7 also need to consider that constant bullying, insults (including suggesting that another MEC member has a brain tumor because of the way he talks / writes), accusing many who simply disagree with them of being “liars”, and trying to deflect the importance and seriousness of core disagreements about key issues by frequently assigning political motivations, both before and after the last meeting, may not positively predispose other members to actively consider their points of view.... Not cause to ignore a good suggestion, just not to be as open to hear it.