AA/TWU/TWA/AMFA

[KCFlyer]

----------------
On 7/27/2003 8:42:53 PM will fix for food wrote:


I can/t see any evidence to this point that AMFA has negatively impacted any airline's bottom line. Have you?

----------------​

Time will tell. When an airline starts talking concessions and the AMFA proposes layoffs, it will be interesting to see. I don't foresee AMFA doing diddly squat to improve employee morale, and employee morale is the airline. Y'all hate the TWU and that's cool. But when things don't change with the AMFA, what's gonna happen??

 

[KCFlyer]

RV4 - a rule on Wall Street is "buy low, sell high". If stock is trading at pretty much all time lows, imagine the windfall when you guys turn this company around....that is....if turning this company around is Job 1....

 

[will fix for food]

----------------
On 7/27/2003 2:59:34 PM KCFlyer wrote:


You know, maybe I'm just a managment koolaid drinker sympathizer, but is being a "thorn in the side of AA" supposed to somehow help improve relations between labor and managment? 

----------------​

I can/t see any evidence to this point that AMFA has negatively impacted any airline's bottom line. Have you?

 

[KCFlyer]

----------------
On 7/27/2003 10:05:13 PM RV4 wrote:

----------------
On 7/27/2003 8:57:58 PM KCFlyer wrote:


RV4, editing the post to change the font on "Here is what some Pilot's are getting in exchange for their stock options!"doesn't do much to address Hopefuls accusations about me.

----------------​

You are the one making arguement that management gave up as much as the union worker.
NOT HARDLY
Now get on back under the CEO's desk JIM!

----------------​

Hmmm...instead of refuting, just personal attacks. Hope you don't run for union office....the competition may smear your name far worse than you can smear theirs. Any proof about that???....and please, use real dollars and not some "they took a $4,500 cut and I took so much that I have to PAY THEM to come to work. Ask your supervisor if they would trade jobs with you...you might be surprised.

 

[RV4]

----------------
On 7/27/2003 8:57:58 PM KCFlyer wrote:


RV4, editing the post to change the font on "Here is what some Pilot's are getting in exchange for their stock options!"doesn't do much to address Hopefuls accusations about me.

----------------​

You are the one making arguement that management gave up as much as the union worker.
NOT HARDLY
Now get on back under the CEO's desk JIM!

 

[KCFlyer]

RV4, editing the post to change the font on "Here is what some Pilot's are getting in exchange for their stock options!"doesn't do much to address Hopefuls accusations about me.

 

[limit]

"How much overtime do those supervisors get? Any holiday pay ? Oh...that's right...they are "exempt" employees. No overtime...no holiday pay. And giving up $4200 PLUS any overtime can amount to well over $14,000 per year. ANd yes, it really DOES make sense to have more supervisoers than mechanics since they don't have to pay overtime and holiday pay."


This must be the best post this year.
Thanks for the smile!!
It has been a rough day at work.

 

[KCFlyer]

Glad I could make yours and Hopefuls day. But at least I address an issue, not dodge it, as Hopeful has been so good at. And since I admittedly do not know how the functions of mechanics and supervisors work, perhaps you could answer a couple of questions:

1. Are the supervisors who "can't turn a wrench" prevented from turning a wrench by a union rule, or are you saying that it's possible for me, one who has never been within a mile of an aircraft with a wrench in my hand, to be hired as a maintenance supervisor?

2. If the reason supervisors can't turn a wrench is based on a union rule, do you not get a little bit concerned about the possiblity of this staff of "supervisors" being "demoted" to a position of "exempt mechanic"? Especially should the airline find itself in bankruptcy and all labor agreements up for immediate ammending?

 

[flyers4]

so buck what happens to all the osm's if amfa gets in do they hit the street?????

 

[FrugalFlyer]

----------------
On 7/27/2003 5:13:02 PM Hopeful wrote:
How much are we supposed to have shoved up or rectums before it's acceptable by your standards?
----------------​

Maybe that's a question that you should ask yourself.
If your job sucks so much, why not find a better one? Could it be that when you consider all the options out there right now, your airline job is still pretty sweet?

----------------
Oh I'm sorry! According to KC FLYER, AA owes its employees NOTHING!

They don't owe us benefits and they don't owe us a decent living. Isn't that right, KC FLYER?
----------------​

I don't know what KCFlyer thinks, but IMHO AA owes you nothing except your payckeck, nothing more nothing less.

----------------
KCFLYER and those like him are part of the reason the airline industry is in the condition they are in today.
----------------​

To me it seems that KCFlyer and those like him are the majority of the customers that AA and other airlines are going to get - at least for the next little while. Get used to it, leisure travel / advance tickets is all the airlines have got going for them these days.

----------------
THEY WANT TO FLY A $100,000,000.00 AIRCRAFT SEVERAL THOUSAND MILES ALL FOR $99.95! GUARANTEED!
----------------​

Correct, I'll be the first to admit, that if I ever find a $99.95 trans-con fare I sure would take advantage of it. Also, I wouldn't mind a $199.95 trans-atlantic fare either.
And, I'll go out on a limb here and say that if you ever had limited income and had to pay for airtravel out of your own pocket - you'd probably search for the $99.95 fare as well.

 

[Buck]

----------------
On 7/28/2003 8:40:25 AM flyers4 wrote:

so buck what happens to all the osm's if amfa gets in do they hit the street?????

----------------​

Actually if the current union is replaced in a representational election, the incoming union must administer the existing contract. When that contract becomes amendable, then it would depend on the negotiations.
Do you believe that the OSMs should be employed at the expense of the rest of the rank and file? What if the amount of work decreases? Should a union attempt to cure unemployment?

 

[Bob Owens]

----------------
On 7/27/2003 7:31:17 PM KCFlyer wrote:


Changing a union won't accomplish diddly-squat

----------------
How would you know?
Changing Unions might accomplish a lot. If the unions were exactly the same then you would be right, but apparently your assumption is that all unions are exactly alike. The fact is that even within the same union things can be very different.
Lets look at the TWU. In Local 100, the contract that they have with the NYC Transit Authority is between Local 100 and the TA. The Local has control of the negotiations and the contract. If the members are not happy with the contract(even after they ratify it) they can vote out those who negotiated and implemented it. If the leaders of Local 100 mislead, the members can hold them accountable.
In the ATD the contract is with the TWU International. Locals have no definite say in the contract which can be changed by the International at the ATD directors discretion. Jim Little, the ATD director and administrator of all negotiations can not be removed by the members. He is appointed by Sonny Hall, who also can not be removed by the members. If the International misleads the membership, as they clearly did in 95 with the "Me Too" clause, the members have absolutely no recourse, other than to try and vote out the entire union.

So there is a difference. Voting out a local admistration is not that difficult and quite common. Local officials face periodic elections. Thats a good thing. It means that they must consider the members first. However in the AA/TWU/ATD the locals do not have any control over the contract or negotiations.The structure of the ATD allows the International to consider its own dues revenue first, they do not face periodic elections from the members. In fact they never face elections from the members.This freedom from electoral accountability allows the union to focus on policies that grow the union, even at the expense of members incomes. It is a structure that has led to over two decades of decline for airline workers.
Over the last two decades a clear pattern has developed where concessionary contracts are put in place upon the recommendation of the International. After the full effects of the contract are felt, the local officers are blamed, even if they recommended a no vote and are replaced because they are the only ones that the membership can blame. So they put in new leaders who promise change, change that they can not deliver. Change that they can not deliver because the locals power is pretty much confined to enforcement and grievance processing. The locals do not have control over the contract. This point has not been missed, the response of the International has been to form a "Presidents Council", a false governing body, to give the members the illusion of contractual control. When members complained that they had no control over their contract, the International always said that"your Presidents council voted for it". However this cover was completely blown in court last month when the TWU revealed that members do not have the right to vote for their contract( thats why it did not matter that thousands did not get ballotts) and that the International did not have to even sell changes to the Presidents Council.
The high turnover of officers in the Presidents council benifits the International. New officers who are learning as they go are a lot easier to manipulate. It makes it easier for the International to continue its policies that increase membership while reducing members pay and benifits.It forms a cycle. New officers get voted in, are courted by the International to gain the officers trust, cajoled to endorse concessionary contracts as a sign of their "leadership". " You guys have to make tough decisions, but we are confident in your abilities as leaders to make these tough choices". The contract go though, over time the extent and pointlessness from the members point of view of the concessions causes resentment. The International blames the Presidents council, the members vote out the Presidents, the International get a new crop of officers for the next round of concessionary bargaining. In the meantime, AA enjotys a competative advantage as far as labor costs over its competitors and expands, as it expands the membership, and total dues, of the TWU also grows.
From 1983 to the present the membership of the AA/TWU/ATD has tripled. The increased memership overwhelmes the reduced real dues recieved from individual members.

What is really ironic is that while Local 100 was able to get increases and better workrules from a supposedly "broke" TA an International representative was reported to have said that they were "hoodwinked" while they put in a full centerfold bragging about how Jim Little "saved jobs" by agreeing to the most concessionary contract ever brokered by any union.
​

It might make you feel better, at least until the layoffs that your union fought for are implemented.
I guess that we should be thankful to belong to a union that fought for layoffs and paycuts.
Then, if you are one of the unfortunate to be cut loose in the name of "class and craft", then good luck in the real world.
Been there. I'll survive. The secret to success is to work less and charge more, not work more and charge less. Even if it means that there may be times when you do not work. (Isnt that the objective of making more money?)Just ask Apey and all those others two faced Robber Barrons who tell us to work more for less while they work less for more.

 

[Bob Owens]

----------------
On 7/27/2003 715 PM KCFlyer wrote:


( it's easier to stop raises in the non union ranks)

----------------
Well it should be,,, unless of course Jim Little is the head of your union.
​

 

[Bob Owens]

----------------
On 7/28/2003 457 PM KCFlyer wrote:


Bob...earlier in this thread, someone said that the concessions won't be coming back, so changing your union will do diddly squat for the near term at American Airlines. It's great about all the things for future negotiations, but bottom line changing unions today will not make things all better by this time next week. Or next year. Or maybe not even for 5 years.


----------------
Do you contribute to a 401K or an IRA?
If you do, why?
It will not change the present, and you will not be able to spend that money until many years from now.
The FUTURE. If there is to be a Future in this industry we must make change NOW. Why wait? What's to stop Jim Little from extending our contract? Nothing. What could we do about it if he did within the current structure? Nothing.
Unions are supposed to provide members power and accountability. The TWU provides us neither. They are not supposed to focus on job growth through lower labor costs. The government and industry are already pulling that way. Unions are meant to oppose that direction, not embrace it. They are supposed to provide the balance.
We have no control over our contract and no accountability from those who have that control. This is intolerable. It has cost members hundreds of thousands of dollars in lost eranings already and will cost members hundreds of thousands more. Jim Little in the meantime will be making hundreds of thousands of dollars off our dues. Untouchable, and unaccountable.As our real income and living standards decline, membership will continue to rise, and that rising membership will be used as justification to give Little even more money. New presidents will be voted in and the International will still provide AA a competative advantage and then tell the membership that its all the Presidents councils fault.
​

 

[KCFlyer]

Bob...earlier in this thread, someone said that the concessions won't be coming back, so changing your union will do diddly squat for the near term at American Airlines. It's great about all the things for future negotiations, but bottom line changing unions today will not make things all better by this time next week. Or next year. Or maybe not even for 5 years.