----------------
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.
15 PM KCFlyer wrote:
57 PM KCFlyer wrote:
