High Speed Steel
Veteran
- Feb 14, 2004
- 1,375
- 136
AAmech said:
I guess that means more work for the TWU represented employees of AA. Great news
Aa Throughs A Party!
- Thread starter MCI transplant
- Start date
I guess that means more work for the TWU represented employees of AA. Great news
OP
MCI transplant
Veteran
- Jun 4, 2003
- 5,311
- 584
- Thread Starter
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #48
<_< And I do also!!!!Wretched Wrench said:
seed
Advanced
Which original contract are you talking about now? The contract where the members of TWA voted to screw ourselves of seniority and protection? You lay blame to the MCIE workers for your failed flogging of the TWU. And better yet, now you want to lay blame for the next 10 years due to recall rights. Bob, sooner or later, 10 years or 20, you are going to run out of members to blame and possibly, just possibly, you will look in a mirror and find that YOU are resposible. Perhaps the words Bob Owens and responsible were never meant to be used in a sentence.
- Aug 20, 2002
- 7,319
- 1,555
seed said:
Not long ago Bob Owens was the grand defender of the TWU. I do not believe he is blaming those at MCIE for the debacle at which we all are a part of, it would appear to me that he is blaming the structure of the industrial union and the way the AFL-CIO is being ran instead of the way it was intended.
Ken MacTiernan
Veteran
AAmech said:
Hey, aamech, are you bobby gless? Heh, heh.
seed
Advanced
Buck said:
Buck. allow me to quote Bob from a previous post...
...now you may read that different than I but I see it as Bob needing to lay blame to someone ,other than himself or his agenda, instead of worrying about the future of our industry.
What benefit does it do throwing blame? I hear "20 years of concessions!" when speaking of the TWU, it's a shame MCIE wasn't around to lay blame to 20 years ago, instead they lay blame to the TWU, of which they belonged, how redundant.
Had AMFA repped the airlines 20 years ago do you believe that a different scenerio and history of contracts would have been extremely different? I know, the companies would have been trembling at the table and would have given Delle all he requested and more, regardless of the financial condition of their respective companies.
I am not badmouthing AMFA, I just do not see them as our savior. As we all have beared witness to, AMFA is voting concessions after stating proudly "WE ACCEPT NO CONCESSIONS". As I see it, AMFA is regulated, at the table, just as the other unions are. I do not see UAL's contract as a "black eye" to AMFA, I see it as AMFA doing what they fely best for their members at the time. AS MOST UNIONS DO. I believe Delle, when dealing with the UAL contract, was welcomed into the real world of negotiations. If not, why haven't the members ousted them with their democratic voting process you so proudly make apparent.
WIth that stated let me also state that I do not agree with the TWU's bedroom policies when establishing a rapport with the company. They say it is a new style of running business, I see it as a loss of negotiating posture when required.
Wretched Wrench
Veteran
- Apr 21, 2003
- 1,626
- 12
seed said:
Agreed.
The problems are larger than union selection. However, the concept of one union industry-wide could be of great help. As it is, we are being picked off, one by one.
We also need to organize the chop shops.
But the most pressing need is legislation to require a US A&P license for anyone working on an airplane. Period. And much more stringent FAA oversight of maintenance, both here and abroad. My employment history and criminal history was checked back from birth, while we have who knows what, illegals and perhaps terrorists working on airliners in chop shops. Is ANY checking done in foreign maintenance facilities? Can it even be done? What about FAA oversight overseas?
Much of our bad stuff is happening as a result of outsourcing or the threat thereof. Requiring a US license will diminish the economic advantage the chop shops offer.
- Aug 20, 2002
- 7,319
- 1,555
seed said:
When the AFL-CIO grants concessions as a common prcatice for over twenty years, you cannot expect any other group to be able to stand their ground alone. It is not AMFA's fault nor is it MCIE's fault, it is the members of the AFL-CIO who have allowed the structure to be transformed from a union to a business. This is what I believe Bob Owens is trying to communicaate. What I see from Bob Owens is an attempt to show that it is going to take the restructuring of the industry to change our direction from concessions to at least stability.
The only savior is the members. The TWU allows the industries common practice of concessionary contracts without the help of the bankruptcy court. AMFA on the other had to deal with the results of the IAM burn and run policy that has left the members looking for alternatives in representation. If the members do not use the AMFA constitution to oust those that they are not happy with, it is their own fault.
The only thing to blame the former TWA mechanics for is that they did not listen to what they were being told from those who had had their fill of the TWU. Not only are they to blame, but so are the AA mechanics who have allowed the twenty years of concessions. Of course they do this out of the fear that the TWU promotes.
seed
Advanced
Well then Buck...I would assume then that the only members of AMFA that are not directly responsible would be those not voting on their concessionary contract, that would be Delle and friends. UAL members were part of the AFL-CIO, through the IAM , thus responsible for their progress, or regress, through the years of contracts.
I agree, but I do not agree the AFL-CIO grants concessions as a common practice. When we were IAM, not one time did the AFL-CIO come to MCIE and vote/grant concessions as a common practice, or uncommon practice. Now, if you want to rephrase and state members of various unions had voted and accepted concessions, then I would say I agree. Our voting process is our responsibility, not the AFL-CIO's.
Did UAL's acceptance of AMFA absolve the members from past voting history?
And Buck...here's a quote from Bob Owens in another thread reference the AFL-CIO.
Hmmm..doesn't sound concessionary to me.
I agree, but I do not agree the AFL-CIO grants concessions as a common practice. When we were IAM, not one time did the AFL-CIO come to MCIE and vote/grant concessions as a common practice, or uncommon practice. Now, if you want to rephrase and state members of various unions had voted and accepted concessions, then I would say I agree. Our voting process is our responsibility, not the AFL-CIO's.
Did UAL's acceptance of AMFA absolve the members from past voting history?
And Buck...here's a quote from Bob Owens in another thread reference the AFL-CIO.
Hmmm..doesn't sound concessionary to me.
seed,Jun 12 2005, 03:31 PM]
Buck. allow me to quote Bob from a previous post......now you may read that different than I but I see it as Bob needing to lay blame to someone ,other than himself or his agenda, instead of worrying about the future of our industry.
And what do you think my agenda is?
Dont worry about the future of the industry, worry about the people working in it. Make sure that we get a fair wage for what we do. The industry will be here, its not going to dissapear, the airline industry is no longer a luxury, they are more like a utility. Once you realize this and look at it that way you will come to realize that the strategy for dealing with crisis' has to change. We are not the steel industry or the auto industry. This industry is still in the process of expanding and the threat of moving work overseas is overstated as aviation is probably growing at an even faster rate overseas than here. Instead of taking concessions to try and keep the work away from TIMCO we should be organizing Timco.
One of the things that must change is our strong ties to any single employer. Assetts are easily transferred and the threat of liquidation helps the industry drive down wages. We need portability and need to reduce the penalties for moving around. In order to do that we must first all get into the same union, a union that is run by its members. There is only one option towards that goal right now AMFA.
What benefit does it do throwing blame?
Well if you accept that you are to blame then you also realize that you have the means to correct it. Lets say I said that even if MCI had all voted NO that we would still have taken the concessions. Well that lets you off the hook doesnt it? You have no reason to try and change anything because it would not matter. If we agree that things are screwed up then the idea is to find out why and correct it. We must locate where the problem(s) is(are). For this industry, one of the problems has been Tulsa and MCI. Two low cost areas of the country in RTW states with a high concentration of mechanics that have been voting in concessions for years.
Prior to the TWA purchase there was a lot of talk about a USAIR -AA merger. That faded away. Perhaps if we had things would have been different. By merging Tulsa and MCI into one voting unit they created a concessions powerhouse. UAL had major overhaul in the Oakland area, and USAIR in Pittsburg, both union strongholds. Missouri and Oklahoma are both RTW states.
I hear "20 years of concessions!" when speaking of the TWU, it's a shame MCIE wasn't around to lay blame to 20 years ago, instead they lay blame to the TWU, of which they belonged, how redundant.
Well I did, and do blame Tulsa,(to be more specific the blame goes to the leaders who misinform or fail to inform their members) but the point was that a higher percentage of Tulsa voted NO than MCI. That if MCI was not counted, even with Tulsa, the contract would have been voted down. That could have been in part because of the ad we put in the Tulsa World right before the vote letting them know how we felt andthe true impact of the concessions. I feel given the right leadership that the guys in Tulsa and MCI could start to think like union people and realize that if we worked together we would all be better off. However with the TWU that will never happen. If you like I'll give you an example why but it would lengthen this post even more.Clue-seperate locals, contracts, negotiations and Internationals possession of the contract. Locals not a party to the contract.
Had AMFA repped the airlines 20 years ago do you believe that a different scenerio and history of contracts would have been extremely different?
Yes, even if we were all in XYZ union , as long as we were all in the same union where the leaders could be held directly accountable by the members, no matter what you call it things would have been different. Remember the industry is a utility, not a luxury.
I know, the companies would have been trembling at the table and would have given Delle all he requested and more, regardless of the financial condition of their respective companies.
Its not about Delle, or Little, its about getting all the workers on the same page.
I am not badmouthing AMFA, I just do not see them as our savior.
You are looking for a savior, we have to choose to take part in our own salvation.
As we all have beared witness to, AMFA is voting concessions after stating proudly "WE ACCEPT NO CONCESSIONS".
Well we havent seen AMFA accept concessions at SWA. The TWU was granting concessions to AA even when they were profitable-look at the stats for 1995. UAL is in BK yet it took them two years, (really 20) to finally come close to matching the concessions the TWU put in place at non-bk AA. Again, we, the workers are stil not on the same page. The AMFA idea has not been realized so you canbnt say its not working, we must all get into AMFA.
As I see it, AMFA is regulated, at the table, just as the other unions are. I do not see UAL's contract as a "black eye" to AMFA, I see it as AMFA doing what they fely best for their members at the time.
I do see it as a black eye. A black eye because one hand is still tied behind their back. When we go to AMFA we will be cutting that other arm loose.
AS MOST UNIONS DO.
Perhaps. But not most of the unions that represent ground workers in this industry. They do whats best for them.Keep digging into the TWU and you will see a union run by people who have nothing but contempt for the members.
I believe Delle, when dealing with the UAL contract, was welcomed into the real world of negotiations. If not, why haven't the members ousted them with their democratic voting process you so proudly make apparent.
Maybe because they realized that since the TWU at AA had lowered the standard, and AA is not BK that they had no arguement for not matching AA/TWU. WE(notice that includes me) are responsible for setting the bar so low, eliminating doubletime, holidays, lost vacation, lost sick time, lost medical benifits, lost wages etc. When I see guys from other airlines I'm ashamed. We screwed them, and there is no way to deny it. As long as we continue to pay dues to the union that put us in this position we are screwing them. We need to change and join with them and start to fix what went wrong. If we stay with the TWU they will continue with the race to the bottom in the hopes that they will end up with all the members.
With that stated let me also state that I do not agree with the TWU's bedroom policies when establishing a rapport with the company. They say it is a new style of running business, I see it as a loss of negotiating posture when required.
Well it might be new to your leaders in MCI but its not new to the TWU. I attended the retirement party for Ed Koziatek-Little predacessor. The party had more management there than union. Carty sat with Ed at the same table and toasted how his retirement gift to Ed was "7000 new members". (TWA).The TWU has been in bed with the company for many many years.
Buck. allow me to quote Bob from a previous post......now you may read that different than I but I see it as Bob needing to lay blame to someone ,other than himself or his agenda, instead of worrying about the future of our industry.
And what do you think my agenda is?
Dont worry about the future of the industry, worry about the people working in it. Make sure that we get a fair wage for what we do. The industry will be here, its not going to dissapear, the airline industry is no longer a luxury, they are more like a utility. Once you realize this and look at it that way you will come to realize that the strategy for dealing with crisis' has to change. We are not the steel industry or the auto industry. This industry is still in the process of expanding and the threat of moving work overseas is overstated as aviation is probably growing at an even faster rate overseas than here. Instead of taking concessions to try and keep the work away from TIMCO we should be organizing Timco.
One of the things that must change is our strong ties to any single employer. Assetts are easily transferred and the threat of liquidation helps the industry drive down wages. We need portability and need to reduce the penalties for moving around. In order to do that we must first all get into the same union, a union that is run by its members. There is only one option towards that goal right now AMFA.
What benefit does it do throwing blame?
Well if you accept that you are to blame then you also realize that you have the means to correct it. Lets say I said that even if MCI had all voted NO that we would still have taken the concessions. Well that lets you off the hook doesnt it? You have no reason to try and change anything because it would not matter. If we agree that things are screwed up then the idea is to find out why and correct it. We must locate where the problem(s) is(are). For this industry, one of the problems has been Tulsa and MCI. Two low cost areas of the country in RTW states with a high concentration of mechanics that have been voting in concessions for years.
Prior to the TWA purchase there was a lot of talk about a USAIR -AA merger. That faded away. Perhaps if we had things would have been different. By merging Tulsa and MCI into one voting unit they created a concessions powerhouse. UAL had major overhaul in the Oakland area, and USAIR in Pittsburg, both union strongholds. Missouri and Oklahoma are both RTW states.
I hear "20 years of concessions!" when speaking of the TWU, it's a shame MCIE wasn't around to lay blame to 20 years ago, instead they lay blame to the TWU, of which they belonged, how redundant.
Well I did, and do blame Tulsa,(to be more specific the blame goes to the leaders who misinform or fail to inform their members) but the point was that a higher percentage of Tulsa voted NO than MCI. That if MCI was not counted, even with Tulsa, the contract would have been voted down. That could have been in part because of the ad we put in the Tulsa World right before the vote letting them know how we felt andthe true impact of the concessions. I feel given the right leadership that the guys in Tulsa and MCI could start to think like union people and realize that if we worked together we would all be better off. However with the TWU that will never happen. If you like I'll give you an example why but it would lengthen this post even more.Clue-seperate locals, contracts, negotiations and Internationals possession of the contract. Locals not a party to the contract.
Had AMFA repped the airlines 20 years ago do you believe that a different scenerio and history of contracts would have been extremely different?
Yes, even if we were all in XYZ union , as long as we were all in the same union where the leaders could be held directly accountable by the members, no matter what you call it things would have been different. Remember the industry is a utility, not a luxury.
I know, the companies would have been trembling at the table and would have given Delle all he requested and more, regardless of the financial condition of their respective companies.
Its not about Delle, or Little, its about getting all the workers on the same page.
I am not badmouthing AMFA, I just do not see them as our savior.
You are looking for a savior, we have to choose to take part in our own salvation.
As we all have beared witness to, AMFA is voting concessions after stating proudly "WE ACCEPT NO CONCESSIONS".
Well we havent seen AMFA accept concessions at SWA. The TWU was granting concessions to AA even when they were profitable-look at the stats for 1995. UAL is in BK yet it took them two years, (really 20) to finally come close to matching the concessions the TWU put in place at non-bk AA. Again, we, the workers are stil not on the same page. The AMFA idea has not been realized so you canbnt say its not working, we must all get into AMFA.
As I see it, AMFA is regulated, at the table, just as the other unions are. I do not see UAL's contract as a "black eye" to AMFA, I see it as AMFA doing what they fely best for their members at the time.
I do see it as a black eye. A black eye because one hand is still tied behind their back. When we go to AMFA we will be cutting that other arm loose.
AS MOST UNIONS DO.
Perhaps. But not most of the unions that represent ground workers in this industry. They do whats best for them.Keep digging into the TWU and you will see a union run by people who have nothing but contempt for the members.
I believe Delle, when dealing with the UAL contract, was welcomed into the real world of negotiations. If not, why haven't the members ousted them with their democratic voting process you so proudly make apparent.
Maybe because they realized that since the TWU at AA had lowered the standard, and AA is not BK that they had no arguement for not matching AA/TWU. WE(notice that includes me) are responsible for setting the bar so low, eliminating doubletime, holidays, lost vacation, lost sick time, lost medical benifits, lost wages etc. When I see guys from other airlines I'm ashamed. We screwed them, and there is no way to deny it. As long as we continue to pay dues to the union that put us in this position we are screwing them. We need to change and join with them and start to fix what went wrong. If we stay with the TWU they will continue with the race to the bottom in the hopes that they will end up with all the members.
With that stated let me also state that I do not agree with the TWU's bedroom policies when establishing a rapport with the company. They say it is a new style of running business, I see it as a loss of negotiating posture when required.
Well it might be new to your leaders in MCI but its not new to the TWU. I attended the retirement party for Ed Koziatek-Little predacessor. The party had more management there than union. Carty sat with Ed at the same table and toasted how his retirement gift to Ed was "7000 new members". (TWA).The TWU has been in bed with the company for many many years.
seed
Advanced
I could be wrong here, after all, it is YOUR agenda, but you come across as a disgruntled ousted ex-TWU rep that has developed a "tunnel-vision" in your quest to expire the TWU from AA.
Your opinion only Bob. I believe that the AMT's could organize against industry change regargless of whose union they belong to. I do understand your logic and agree somewhat, but it would be a "perfect world" for the AMT's if we all backed each other faithfully, without hesitation or regret. I wish I was wrong, but I do not believe you will ever see all AMT's back any one entity during contract negotiations. Can you imagine an "across the board" strike? I can't.
How convenient, you see it as a "black eye", and then allow the blame of that "black eye", to be taken off AMFA's shoulders and placed upon other organized unions. This is exactly what hits me wrong about AMFA and some of their supporters. Bob, you did not change the minds of many at MCIE when you visited, you lay blame to their vote to MCIE employees not being informed. What lack of information did the members of UAL have? They voted Bob.
And yes, they (UAL) lasted in BK, with their wages for a couple of years, but at what cost? I do not have a grasp of airlines economics, but I know when TWA went BK, our lease rates of aircraft skyrocketed, a lot of our vendors demanded cash up front, and so on. BK hurts the airline financially and image wise, my opinion only.
I do not disagree that we need solidarity in our profession, however, I do not see dismantling all unions to join another that has proven they are NO DIFFERENT when it comes to accepting concessions. UAL members are just the same as us Bob. They have children in college, schools, and need to keep them there with a full tummy. Their obligations overweigh their union pride. Those are the ones that openly vote for concessions, for some, there is no option.
US economics sux.
seed,Jun 13 2005, 02:34 PM]
I could be wrong here, after all, it is YOUR agenda, but you come across as a disgruntled ousted ex-TWU rep that has developed a "tunnel-vision" in your quest to expire the TWU from AA.
Perhaps thats how you chose to percieve it, but I was ousted because my "agenda" was to fight for better wages and working conditions. Since I know we cant achieve that from within the TWU I'm promoting AMFA as a means to that end.
Your opinion only Bob. I believe that the AMT's could organize against industry change regargless of whose union they belong to. I do understand your logic and agree somewhat, but it would be a "perfect world" for the AMT's if we all backed each other faithfully, without hesitation or regret. I wish I was wrong, but I do not believe you will ever see all AMT's back any one entity during contract negotiations.
So you are saying that organization is irrelevant? Basically you are saying we should organize outside of our unions but keep the same unions that fail to organize us in place. Why have them? Isnt that what they are there for?
Can you imagine an "across the board" strike?
Sure. It happens all the time in other places.
I can't.
How convenient, you see it as a "black eye", and then allow the blame of that "black eye", to be taken off AMFA's shoulders and placed upon other organized unions.
Sure. Did AMFA lower the bar or simply meet the TWU/AA standard? Lets not forget that AA is, and was, not BK when they got those concessions. UAL has been unable to get out of BK for over two years now.
This is exactly what hits me wrong about AMFA and some of their supporters. Bob, you did not change the minds of many at MCIE when you visited,
I didnt get much of a chance, the Local would not allow me to meet with the members. I only met a few.
you lay blame to their vote to MCIE employees not being informed. What lack of information did the members of UAL have? They voted Bob.
Did they know that half of MCIE would be gone today? If they had do you think those who are gone now would have rather stayed at the higher pay till they were laid off? Do you realize that it was the rollong back of system protection that enabled the company to lay off so many out of STL and MCI? Under the old contract if there was someone with 3/1/01 system protection at a 25% station they could not lay off anyone with 3/1/1997 or prior TWA seniority. They could close the base but they would have had to find a place for everyone with that seniority. I doubt they would close JFK or LAX just to lay you guys off.
And yes, they (UAL) lasted in BK, with their wages for a couple of years, but at what cost? I do not have a grasp of airlines economics, but I know when TWA went BK, our lease rates of aircraft skyrocketed, a lot of our vendors demanded cash up front, and so on. BK hurts the airline financially and image wise, my opinion only.
Sure and when TWA went BK they were just about the only ones. If AA had joined UAL and USAIR, both larger airlines than TWA was when it went BK, Delta, Continental and even NWA would have been sucked right down into it too. So where would the lessors and vendors have taken their products? Instead, we took the cuts and saved them from taking losses. Did you see some of the figures out there for leases? $330,000/month!!!!! Sure its great if they can get cheap loans and leases. But at what cost to us? Are you willing to earn less so the company can get cheaper lease rates?
I do not disagree that we need solidarity in our profession,
Solidarity is diffcult to achieve and requires work to maintain under the best conditions. If we are all split up between different unions whose leaders see each other as competitors and not comrades its impossible and will not happen.
however, I do not see dismantling all unions to join another that has proven they are NO DIFFERENT when it comes to accepting concessions.
Well they are different in some ways. AMFA did not lower the standard, the TWU did.
As far as dismantling all unions, how do you think the TWU was initially formed? Prior to the TWU the NYC Mass transit industry mirrored the current airline industry. Many competing companies operating over similar routes offering similar services with the employees split up amoungst many many different unions.
Some were company unions, like the TWU/ATD and some were real unions that were simply unable to make real gains because of the structure of the labor movement was not able to deal with the structure of the industry.
If one union made gains the assetts were easily moved to a company with a more "cooperative" union. So, yes, the current structure must be dismantled because it has proven to be totally ineffective. It does not provide the members any real protection. It only provides a good job for those get into positions within the union itself. Unions that become self serving institutions like the TWU/ATD should be dismantled because that is not the purpose of unions.
What benifits do you think you have from paying dues to the TWU? A job? Well 87% of the working people in this country have a job and dont have a union. A union is usually in place to prevent companies from exploiting economic conditions to drive down wages and eliminate benifits , not to create jobs, the market does that. Lets not forget that despite all the hype that this is still an industry for which there is a huge demand for the service we provide. As a whole this industry could lose money forever and it will still exist. Lets not forget that although labor makes up around 30% of the cost of moving people, which is low, the rest of the costs feeds money to other industries. We dont see the fuel companies lowering their prices to help the airlines. We dont see the leasing companies cutting their rates or the vendors lowering their prices. Why should they? People will fly.
UAL members are just the same as us Bob.
Thats right, thats why we should be in the same union.What is the benifit of us being represented by an unaccountble appointee like Jim Little, who continues to get raises, provided by our dues, as he puts in cuts for us, while the guys at USAIR have the same situation with Roache and others have Delle? We are all the same, why have all these different people at the top, especially when in some cases we dont even get to pick them? The structure is flawed. Give me one reason why we should keep it this way.Why should we all be in seperate unions when waht happens at one will have a direct effect on what happens at the others? What is the benifit of having our class and craft all divided?
They have children in college, schools, and need to keep them there with a full tummy. Their obligations overweigh their union pride. Those are the ones that openly vote for concessions, for some, there is no option.
US economics sux.
It is what it is, we have to find a way to deal with it. Blaming the kids for just sitting back and accepting less and less is unfair to them.
Now getting back to your position that AMTs should be able to get together without the unions:
Unions provide leadership. Leadership does not mean that the leaders do everything, it means they lead the members to do whatneeds to be done.
Now lets look at what you are proposing, if I understand you correctly.
You are saying that without any structure or leadership to coordinate things that we could , "organize against industry change".
Well I disagree with everythng in that statement.
We cant organize against industry change. We dont need to stop change, just stop the negative effects of change. Lower wages is not an inevitable change. Increased productivity, which workers in this industry have been delivering at a rate greater than any other industry I know of provides the ability for workers to earn higher wages, not lower.
Secondly, unions are our form of organizing, why should we try to organize outside of it? You also must realize that AMFA was originally just an advocacy group, similar to what you are calling for, within the TWU. The founders only sought to get more control over mechanics issues. The Union did everything within their power to destroy the movement, annd if we did as you ask they would do the same there.
Lets look at what the TWU does.
If leadership is getting people to do things how does the TWU provide leadership?
OK , the Locals have union meetings. At the meetings the members can address their issues to local leaders who have very limited powers. So the meetings are usually confined to minor gripes and local grievances. For the majority of members however their primary concerns are pay and benifits. Since these are contractual issues and are outside of the locals jurisdiction attending local meetings, except perhaps when they are coming up to negotiations, has absolutely no impact.
The fact is that the International controls the contract and there is no direct line of accountability between the members and the International. The members do not pick the International.
The International claims that the Negotiating Committee and the Presidents council have control. That is a LIE. The TWU was taken to court by several Presidents after the seperate locals were put in place. During the lawsuit the TWU International maintained that the Presidents coucil had no authority within the union. They were merely a means for the Locals to give their input to the International. THe court read the Constitution and agreed with the International, they ruled that while the International had the right to form any committee they liked, Presidents council, negotiaions etc, those committees had no power. The contract belonged to the International, not any or all of the locals.
The TWU can modify your contract without your consent, despite the fact that the Constitution says that you have the right to vote for it.
So the TWU puts contracts in place. Encourages you to accept lousy deals, then when we complain they claim that its our fault for voting them in. But wait, arent leaders supposed to lead, and when they do, arent they responsible if they led us astray? Not with the TWU. They control the information, use our money to promote their position while stifling others, then blame us for following them. Then they claim that since wefollowed them that they are not to blame!
Clearly the TWU does not provide leadership.
But then again, you claim we dont need leadership.
And with the TWU thats what you get. no leadership. The problem is, you are paying for it and the money they get from you is used to prevent you from ever getting it.
Can you give me an example of any movement anywhere that successfully acheived an objective without leadership? I've never seen one.
I could be wrong here, after all, it is YOUR agenda, but you come across as a disgruntled ousted ex-TWU rep that has developed a "tunnel-vision" in your quest to expire the TWU from AA.
Perhaps thats how you chose to percieve it, but I was ousted because my "agenda" was to fight for better wages and working conditions. Since I know we cant achieve that from within the TWU I'm promoting AMFA as a means to that end.
Your opinion only Bob. I believe that the AMT's could organize against industry change regargless of whose union they belong to. I do understand your logic and agree somewhat, but it would be a "perfect world" for the AMT's if we all backed each other faithfully, without hesitation or regret. I wish I was wrong, but I do not believe you will ever see all AMT's back any one entity during contract negotiations.
So you are saying that organization is irrelevant? Basically you are saying we should organize outside of our unions but keep the same unions that fail to organize us in place. Why have them? Isnt that what they are there for?
Can you imagine an "across the board" strike?
Sure. It happens all the time in other places.
I can't.
How convenient, you see it as a "black eye", and then allow the blame of that "black eye", to be taken off AMFA's shoulders and placed upon other organized unions.
Sure. Did AMFA lower the bar or simply meet the TWU/AA standard? Lets not forget that AA is, and was, not BK when they got those concessions. UAL has been unable to get out of BK for over two years now.
This is exactly what hits me wrong about AMFA and some of their supporters. Bob, you did not change the minds of many at MCIE when you visited,
I didnt get much of a chance, the Local would not allow me to meet with the members. I only met a few.
you lay blame to their vote to MCIE employees not being informed. What lack of information did the members of UAL have? They voted Bob.
Did they know that half of MCIE would be gone today? If they had do you think those who are gone now would have rather stayed at the higher pay till they were laid off? Do you realize that it was the rollong back of system protection that enabled the company to lay off so many out of STL and MCI? Under the old contract if there was someone with 3/1/01 system protection at a 25% station they could not lay off anyone with 3/1/1997 or prior TWA seniority. They could close the base but they would have had to find a place for everyone with that seniority. I doubt they would close JFK or LAX just to lay you guys off.
And yes, they (UAL) lasted in BK, with their wages for a couple of years, but at what cost? I do not have a grasp of airlines economics, but I know when TWA went BK, our lease rates of aircraft skyrocketed, a lot of our vendors demanded cash up front, and so on. BK hurts the airline financially and image wise, my opinion only.
Sure and when TWA went BK they were just about the only ones. If AA had joined UAL and USAIR, both larger airlines than TWA was when it went BK, Delta, Continental and even NWA would have been sucked right down into it too. So where would the lessors and vendors have taken their products? Instead, we took the cuts and saved them from taking losses. Did you see some of the figures out there for leases? $330,000/month!!!!! Sure its great if they can get cheap loans and leases. But at what cost to us? Are you willing to earn less so the company can get cheaper lease rates?
I do not disagree that we need solidarity in our profession,
Solidarity is diffcult to achieve and requires work to maintain under the best conditions. If we are all split up between different unions whose leaders see each other as competitors and not comrades its impossible and will not happen.
however, I do not see dismantling all unions to join another that has proven they are NO DIFFERENT when it comes to accepting concessions.
Well they are different in some ways. AMFA did not lower the standard, the TWU did.
As far as dismantling all unions, how do you think the TWU was initially formed? Prior to the TWU the NYC Mass transit industry mirrored the current airline industry. Many competing companies operating over similar routes offering similar services with the employees split up amoungst many many different unions.
Some were company unions, like the TWU/ATD and some were real unions that were simply unable to make real gains because of the structure of the labor movement was not able to deal with the structure of the industry.
If one union made gains the assetts were easily moved to a company with a more "cooperative" union. So, yes, the current structure must be dismantled because it has proven to be totally ineffective. It does not provide the members any real protection. It only provides a good job for those get into positions within the union itself. Unions that become self serving institutions like the TWU/ATD should be dismantled because that is not the purpose of unions.
What benifits do you think you have from paying dues to the TWU? A job? Well 87% of the working people in this country have a job and dont have a union. A union is usually in place to prevent companies from exploiting economic conditions to drive down wages and eliminate benifits , not to create jobs, the market does that. Lets not forget that despite all the hype that this is still an industry for which there is a huge demand for the service we provide. As a whole this industry could lose money forever and it will still exist. Lets not forget that although labor makes up around 30% of the cost of moving people, which is low, the rest of the costs feeds money to other industries. We dont see the fuel companies lowering their prices to help the airlines. We dont see the leasing companies cutting their rates or the vendors lowering their prices. Why should they? People will fly.
UAL members are just the same as us Bob.
Thats right, thats why we should be in the same union.What is the benifit of us being represented by an unaccountble appointee like Jim Little, who continues to get raises, provided by our dues, as he puts in cuts for us, while the guys at USAIR have the same situation with Roache and others have Delle? We are all the same, why have all these different people at the top, especially when in some cases we dont even get to pick them? The structure is flawed. Give me one reason why we should keep it this way.Why should we all be in seperate unions when waht happens at one will have a direct effect on what happens at the others? What is the benifit of having our class and craft all divided?
They have children in college, schools, and need to keep them there with a full tummy. Their obligations overweigh their union pride. Those are the ones that openly vote for concessions, for some, there is no option.
US economics sux.
It is what it is, we have to find a way to deal with it. Blaming the kids for just sitting back and accepting less and less is unfair to them.
Now getting back to your position that AMTs should be able to get together without the unions:
Unions provide leadership. Leadership does not mean that the leaders do everything, it means they lead the members to do whatneeds to be done.
Now lets look at what you are proposing, if I understand you correctly.
You are saying that without any structure or leadership to coordinate things that we could , "organize against industry change".
Well I disagree with everythng in that statement.
We cant organize against industry change. We dont need to stop change, just stop the negative effects of change. Lower wages is not an inevitable change. Increased productivity, which workers in this industry have been delivering at a rate greater than any other industry I know of provides the ability for workers to earn higher wages, not lower.
Secondly, unions are our form of organizing, why should we try to organize outside of it? You also must realize that AMFA was originally just an advocacy group, similar to what you are calling for, within the TWU. The founders only sought to get more control over mechanics issues. The Union did everything within their power to destroy the movement, annd if we did as you ask they would do the same there.
Lets look at what the TWU does.
If leadership is getting people to do things how does the TWU provide leadership?
OK , the Locals have union meetings. At the meetings the members can address their issues to local leaders who have very limited powers. So the meetings are usually confined to minor gripes and local grievances. For the majority of members however their primary concerns are pay and benifits. Since these are contractual issues and are outside of the locals jurisdiction attending local meetings, except perhaps when they are coming up to negotiations, has absolutely no impact.
The fact is that the International controls the contract and there is no direct line of accountability between the members and the International. The members do not pick the International.
The International claims that the Negotiating Committee and the Presidents council have control. That is a LIE. The TWU was taken to court by several Presidents after the seperate locals were put in place. During the lawsuit the TWU International maintained that the Presidents coucil had no authority within the union. They were merely a means for the Locals to give their input to the International. THe court read the Constitution and agreed with the International, they ruled that while the International had the right to form any committee they liked, Presidents council, negotiaions etc, those committees had no power. The contract belonged to the International, not any or all of the locals.
The TWU can modify your contract without your consent, despite the fact that the Constitution says that you have the right to vote for it.
So the TWU puts contracts in place. Encourages you to accept lousy deals, then when we complain they claim that its our fault for voting them in. But wait, arent leaders supposed to lead, and when they do, arent they responsible if they led us astray? Not with the TWU. They control the information, use our money to promote their position while stifling others, then blame us for following them. Then they claim that since wefollowed them that they are not to blame!
Clearly the TWU does not provide leadership.
But then again, you claim we dont need leadership.
And with the TWU thats what you get. no leadership. The problem is, you are paying for it and the money they get from you is used to prevent you from ever getting it.
Can you give me an example of any movement anywhere that successfully acheived an objective without leadership? I've never seen one.
Wretched Wrench
Veteran
- Apr 21, 2003
- 1,626
- 12
Some of you would like to dismiss Bob Owen's antipathy toward the TWU as sour grapes from an ousted official.
Forget that for a moment and focus on the financial issues. There is sufficient material there for any TWU member to be unhappy with the way things went.
I am with AA for the paycheck, and I have been hit hard in that department. That alone is sufficient for me or anyone else to be unhappy with the TWU. I have also held union office, but am not at all bitter about any of that. Money talks, all else walks.
The issue of Bob's former union position is nothing more than a straw man, an attempt to create an ad hominum issue to distract us from dollar issues.
If you disagree with someone, do so. Do so with all your resources, but do not diminish your own credibility by attacking the person or what you perceive to be his motivation. Most of us are lousy mind-readers.
Forget that for a moment and focus on the financial issues. There is sufficient material there for any TWU member to be unhappy with the way things went.
I am with AA for the paycheck, and I have been hit hard in that department. That alone is sufficient for me or anyone else to be unhappy with the TWU. I have also held union office, but am not at all bitter about any of that. Money talks, all else walks.
The issue of Bob's former union position is nothing more than a straw man, an attempt to create an ad hominum issue to distract us from dollar issues.
If you disagree with someone, do so. Do so with all your resources, but do not diminish your own credibility by attacking the person or what you perceive to be his motivation. Most of us are lousy mind-readers.
