Accept Contract or Authorize a Strike

[Ken MacTiernan]

Approve the contract or authorize strike, TWU tells American Airlines employees

http://aviationblog.dallasnews.com/archives/2010/07/approve-the-contract-or-author.html

Really, is anyone surprised by this blog entry?

The twu was the first to allow dead people on an eligiblity list.

The twu is the first to allow people to change their vote from YES to NO to YES to NO, etc.

The twu is now the first to change a ballot from a simple YES or NO choice to a YES or NO vote with a spattering of fear sprinkled in.

Of course a NO vote is the member's voice saying we are willing to STRIKE. But the twu is fearful of a strike, otherwise they would not print it on a ballot.

It is funny, those who voted yes to bring this POS ta to the members so we can give them a mandate that the members are unified and willing to fight the good fight for fair pay and benefits will not come out and say vote NO, "It's the member's decision. We are not the gatekeepers." Blah, blah, blah. Yet the very ballot you will receive will not be a straight YES or NO choice. Here is what the twu should really have on a potential ballot:

==================================



YES: I vote yes and am willing to be responsible for ruining our craft and profession. I am willing to be responsible for allowing a cancerous disease to spread throughout the industry and continue to live on my knees and fight amongst ourselves for 30 pieces of silver.

NO: I vote NO because this TA is a huge pile of dog crap and I refuse to allow this cancerous disease to take root in my back yard. I vote NO because I am a true union person that wishes to PROTECT & PROMOTE a profession I entered and am RESPONSIBLE for raising the bar because I am a Steward for my craft and profession.

 

[DallasConehead]

While I do see it as a scare tactic, one thats proven to be effective I do agree with what I think you are saying, that if we arent prepared to fight for something better, and that includes striking, that we shouldnt complain when we keep getting something thats worse.

Of course a NO vote is the member's voice saying we are willing to STRIKE. But the twu is fearful of a strike, otherwise they would not print it on a ballot.


NO: I vote NO because this TA is a huge pile of dog crap and I refuse to allow this cancerous disease to take root in my back yard. I vote NO because I am a true union person that wishes to PROTECT & PROMOTE a profession I entered and am RESPONSIBLE for raising the bar because I am a Steward for my craft and profession.

To me it's quite simple and honestly I don't quite grasp why there is a debate about it. If you see it as a fear tatic, then so be it, there evidently are alot of people afraid of a strike on the union side of the house, as I have said all along, it's not like they haven't had more then 2 years to prepare now all of a sudden they see the language on the ballot and get "scared".

I see the language as more of a reality check and a legal responsibility by the Int to let the membership know that a NO vote is a strike vote. And, if the NO vote prevails then this also serves as THE STRIKE VOTE to the Company and the NMB.

The best thing that could happen is for the POS to go down with HUGE numbers, that would indeed light a fire under all their arses to come up with something better. But we all know, there are so many that will use a myriad of excuses as to why they will vote for it.

 

[proAMT]

"Will Strike if Provoked", ROLMAO

The TWU uses the word strike to scare their "good union members" into voting yes.

This union has no teeth.

If I were a negotiator for the company I'd be fetching more.

If the membership is afraid to stand up for itself we don't deserve what we got.

 

[The Goose]

... snip
The best thing that could happen is for the POS to go down with HUGE numbers, that would indeed light a fire under all their arses to come up with something better. But we all know, there are so many that will use a myriad of excuses as to why they will vote for it.

The sole reason many of us are employed at AA is simply because the older guys/gals sold us out for the proverbial "pieces of silver". It's evident the company wishes to continue this.

I agree - I hope this POS TA goes down in flames - I would like to think we newer "kids" have principals and won't sell out the "kids" this time as the retirees did to us.

I'm not enamored with the prospect of a strike - nobody should be as it's not a good thing to be out of work for any reason but, as it's said in the anti-smoking advertisement, the concession BS stops with me (and anyone else with the 'nads to vote NO).

If they want a bankruptcy grade contract, let them file for Chapter 11 protection.

Let's get this over with.

 

[olderguyAMT]

thats why we will vote it in

yes

Just read the TA.

The Wage Re-opener is for Line only, no base AMT.

also the topped out ASM gets less pay than a airplane cleaner not incl the measler $2.50 license pay. A fine way to treat our new A&P mechanics.

Still upon retirement, you only get about $3 per hour for your unused sick leave.

 

[Bob Owens]

Just read the TA.

The Wage Re-opener is for Line only, no base AMT.

also the topped out ASM gets less pay than a airplane cleaner not incl the measler $2.50 license pay. A fine way to treat our new A&P mechanics.

Still upon retirement, you only get about $3 per hour for your unused sick leave.

Just think of the "Wage Re-opener" as the 2010 version of the 1995 "Me Too Clause" or the 2003 "Early Opener".

Remember that?

The TWU told us we would get everything back in 2006 with the Early Opener.

Now you have another International official peddling language that is just as weak and useless as those two provisions, only this time there is no threats of bankruptcy, in fact they are already making profits! (Like 1995). Even if for some reason the company decided not to screw us and actually agreed to adjust our wages according to the intent its still BS. When you calculate in the dollar value for the sick time we dont get, the holidays we dont get, the holiday pay we dont get, the vacation we dont get, the LTD coverage we dont get and the IOD time we dont get, our real pay is several dollars behind what competitors pay, AA would still enjoy a huge cost advantage at our expense.

The only people who would get the $25/hay payout for unused sick time would be those who retire within the next three years. Those under 50 get nothing for unused sick time.

The prefunding was supposed to pay for early Retiree benifits plus post 65 for what medicare didnt pay for. Thats gone as well, but the company did say they will help find somebody to sell us the covergae they are taking away as long as they pay nothing. Look for more insurance being sold by our union.

I think that in addition to stealing the Prefunding match that was supposed to pay for our retiree medical, netting the company around $27 million, the company feels that their punative policy will decrease sick time usage, I think it will do the opposite.

The company wants to charge us $600 worth of sick time for what they currently charge $140/month. Economically wouldnt it still make sense to use up all your sick time and just set $140 out of every $600 worth of sick time paid aside to pay for the coverage? If you dont plan on retiring early, (with these wages how could you?) then it really makes no sense to save sick time.

 

[DallasConehead]

Now you have another International official peddling language that is just as weak and useless as those two provisions.

Bob, not that I'm sticking up for the guy. We all have the right to be infuriated by this behavior and I'm sure a great many are. But, all of this comes as no surprise to me, Koziatek and Orlando did it before him. Its his blinking job to push the crap. If he gets anything voted in, he's that much closer to a lifetime title.

After all, he is "ME"chanic too.

I agree - I hope this POS TA goes down in flames - I would like to think we newer "kids" have principals and won't sell out the "kids" this time as the retirees did to us.

I hope your right Goose, but from what I've heard out on the floor. I think some of the "new kids" would sell their own mothers for loose change.

 

[High Speed Steel]

I hate to say it but I'm not convinced that a NO vote is the way to go. No one has given any hint of direction with what we will try to gain with a NO vote on this TA only hopes for something better. Well that won't cut it for me... I don't see much hope in reversing the damage that has been done and what alarms me is this TA was brought to us within the realm of mediation and we will see this turd TA again. I am considering voting Yes only to try to stop the bleeding....

 

[High Speed Steel]

Speaking of the TA has anyone noticed the number of new LOA's attached to the M&R TA? I counted 24 new and two amended for a total count of 26 LOA's. This reverses the trend set in the 2001 negotiations that focused on reducing LOA's and incorporating their intent into the basic language of the agreement.

 

[frontline]

So just a "no" vote is not an option. So much for "union Democracy". :blink:

A strike is the last thing many of us want, because we know what it would do to our careers, pay, retirements, etc. Putting the ballot in these terms was a dumb and dangerous move.

 

[Bob Owens]

So just a "no" vote is not an option. So much for "union Democracy". :blink:

A strike is the last thing many of us want, because we know what it would do to our careers, pay, retirements, etc. Putting the ballot in these terms was a dumb and dangerous move.

No, the last thing we want is another concessionary contract. This contract is even worse than the 2003 agreement because it leaves all those concessions in place and adds more.

Do we want to Strike? NO, but I'd rather strike than give up even more.

 

[Hopeful]

So just a "no" vote is not an option. So much for "union Democracy". :blink:

A strike is the last thing many of us want, because we know what it would do to our careers, pay, retirements, etc. Putting the ballot in these terms was a dumb and dangerous move.

At some point, if you want to preserve your craft, you have to stand up for something.
As for your logic that a strike would impact "our careers, pay, retirements, etc,".....I have a surprise for you....THEY ARE ALREADY AFFECTED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


What will be your logic in three more years when they want to freeze your pension, eliminate more A&P jobs, and virtually do whatever they want with you??????

what will you say then? "OH, WELL, DUH..AT LEAST I HAVE A JOB....."

Passiveness and complacency had destroyed our careers, and attitudes like yours are continuing to undermine us all!

 

[Bob Owens]

At some point, if you want to preserve your craft, you have to stand up for something.
As for your logic that a strike would impact "our careers, pay, retirements, etc,".....I have a surprise for you....THEY ARE ALREADY AFFECTED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


What will be your logic in three more years when they want to freeze your pension, eliminate more A&P jobs, and virtually do whatever they want with you??????

what will you say then? "OH, WELL, DUH..AT LEAST I HAVE A JOB....."

Passiveness and complacency had destroyed our careers, and attitudes like yours are continuing to undermine us all!

What he chooses to ignore is that everything we had was won through strikes, thats the same way we will get them back. The last thirty years have proven that failure to strike in the face of concessions will only lead to more concessions. There is no security in poverty.

 

[FWAAA]

Since 2002 when AA/TWU collaborated to steal vacation we had in the bank from the previous year - AND got the saps in this "organization" to agree to a pay reduction without a "ShAAre the Gain" clause,
.. we have EACH lost (approximately) over $230,000 in pay alone.

Formula: $10 / hr. x 2080 (hrs per year) x 8 years = $230,400 EACH, not counting holidays, sk etc.

Your math doesn't add up. When I multiply 10 x 2080 x 8 I get 166,400 and not 230,400. Additionally, the concessions were imposed on May 1, 2003, not in 2002, so you've only suffered just over seven years of the concessions, not eight. Accordingly, using your formula (without the math mistakes), you've lost just over $145,600 plus the holidays and sick pay, etc. that you said were excluded from your $230,400 total. Make no mistake, $145,600 is a lot of money over seven years, but it's not $230k.

 

[jimntx]

As Mr. Owens so clearly stated, a NO vote is nothing more than a statement that this TA is unacceptable. It is an instruction to the negotiators on both sides to try again. The strike vote portion is nothing more under the law than an authorization to the union leaders to call a strike if a strike becomes necessary. That is, if all else fails.

We in the APFA have already voted the permission to our leaders to call a strike if a strike becomes necessary. So, you might be out on the sidewalk at an airline that is in a dead stop anyway. Might as well build a fire under your negotiators while you are at it.

As far as the 26 LOAs attached to a Tentative Agreement. That alone is sufficient reason to vote NO. The TA should not have anything except contractual language in it, attached to it, or on the table next to it. LOAs can be changed/eliminated/superseded (by another LOA) without a vote of the membership. Given the history of the TWU, do you really want that much "gray" in your contract?