Accept Contract or Authorize a Strike

[FWAAA]

If the people who own AA give bonuses to the people who run it even when the company posts a loss then there is more to the picture than profits.

That's because the people who own AA haven't paid bonuses to the people who run it for a decade. Your (and I don't mean you, Bob, I mean the collective "you" as in nearly every poster here) failure to understand how executive compensation works doesn't convert variable pay into "bonuses."

All would support Dons position on every issue. All would reinforce Dons assertions of possible bankruptcy filing and othe expectation lowering propaganda. In one incident when I countered Dons fear mongering I brought up how Citibank just bought a Billion dollars worth of AAdvantage miles and I'm sure they did their homework. They wouldnt lay out a Billion dollars to a company that was about to file BK. Steve Luis, in an agitated tone retorted "That doesnt mean anything, a billion dollars is nothing to Citibank."

Sigh. The paragraph above shows guys discussing something they know very little about.

Citibank's billion dollar loan to AA (secured by the AAdvantage miles purchased periodically by Citi) doesn't prove one way or another whether AA might file Ch 11 protection. All of the airlines that filed for bankruptcy this past decade who continue to fly (including UA, DL and US) continue to sell miles to their credit card partners during and after their bankruptcy.

Delta did the same thing AA did (borrowed a billion from AMEX secured by its future miles needs) not long before DL filed for Ch 11 in 2005. Secured debt survives bankruptcy, so lending a company money with adequate security is not a vote of confidence that the company will not seek bankruptcy protection.

That said, AA is not likely to file for Ch 11 protection. I only see a Ch 11 filing if a work stoppage shuts off revenue for an extended time. And that's not a problem for you, since bankruptcy probably means a pay raise (you keep saying how the employees of the bankrupt airlines make more than you).

 

[Birdman]

Bob, it has been said by our local (514) shop steward that he's hearing from JFK mechanics, and DFW as well, that they are in favor of this T/A. Is that the feedback your getting from your members?

 

[JimJimmyJim]

Bob, it has been said by our local (514) shop steward that he's hearing from JFK mechanics, and DFW as well, that they are in favor of this T/A. Is that the feedback your getting from your members?

The vast majority in DFW ar NO's. How they vote? Time will tell.

 

[Birdman]

Our crew will be bringing our ballots to work and marking our choices so all can witness. I couldn't care less how they vote, it's their right, but there will be no doubt.

 

[Ken MacTiernan]

Bob, it has been said by our local (514) shop steward that he's hearing from JFK mechanics, and DFW as well, that they are in favor of this T/A. Is that the feedback your getting from your members?

Birdman,

As an AMT in DFW I can tell you that there will be some yes votes from AMTs in DFW. They will be the minority. Those voting yes for this ta are the Judas of our craft. They are the ones who do not educate themselves on the poor language this ta possesses. They are the ones who will grab at a rotting sack of 30 pieces of silver. They are the ones fearful of fighting.

 

[tech2101]

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.

This is a very poor way to take a strike vote. A negotiating committee uses a high percentage of "yes" strike votes to gain concessions from the company in order to get a T/A to pass. The TWU has intentionally watered down any strike vote by including it with a vote for the T/A.

If this goes down by 52% to 48%, all the company has to do is throw a little bone in the direction of the 3% it needs and you all are hosed.

The strike vote should be taken prior to the T/A vote; that way the negotiators have that in their pocket if the T/A goes down.

 

[Hopeful]

Birdman,

As an AMT in DFW I can tell you that there will be some yes votes from AMTs in DFW. They will be the minority. Those voting yes for this ta are the Judas of our craft. They are the ones who do not educate themselves on the poor language this ta possesses. They are the ones who will grab at a rotting sack of 30 pieces of silver. They are the ones fearful of fighting.

Ken, unfortunately what people say is one thing and do is another.
I am against this contract because of what will happen down the road given the language. It is not just about the money...not by a long shot.

Having said that, I respect each individual's right to vote yes or no. I will leave it as "agreeing to disagree."
Everyone must vote their own conscience. And the idea of everyone being forced by coworkers to all bring their ballots and vote in public is the most anti-democratic thing I have ever seen.
I, for one, will not be forced or put on the spot to do such a thing.

 

[TWU informer]

Birdman,

As an AMT in DFW I can tell you that there will be some yes votes from AMTs in DFW. They will be the minority. Those voting yes for this ta are the Judas of our craft. They are the ones who do not educate themselves on the poor language this ta possesses. They are the ones who will grab at a rotting sack of 30 pieces of silver. They are the ones fearful of fighting.

I am neither a Judas of the craft, nor a coward. What is it specifically you want to fight for and how do you plan to implement your fight with the TWU negotiating your contract? This contract offers me $580 per month more than I make now. This contract offers me a $4,000.00+ retro to 5/5/2010 in signing bonus. This contract offers me 2 more vacation days and 3 more holidays. This contract offers to keep all of us within #2 in pay in the industry. This contract offers a $200,000.00 increase in lifetime medical benefits.

I have witnessed TWU Negotiations for 27+ years and this is the first time I am NOT in the group getting sold down the river at the expense of another groups gains.

The fact is the TWU has admitted they are unable to negotiate industry leading standards so they have put in place "me too" clauses and "wage openers" that will allows the other unions of the industry to negotiate on our behialf. I think this is better than placing in the TWU hands another chance. I do However think that if other unions are going to negotiate for us we should be giving them our 2 hours pay per month.

I personally take exception to you calling me Judas or a coward because my views on this differ from yours.

I also believe that you and others would proudly take $45.00 per hour and send the Overhaul Bases packing if given the chance. My point is this union is already so divided up, I don't want to end up the financial victim of your desire for personal or professional gain. You know as well I do the company and the TWU agree that overhaul needs to be cost wise closer to Timco and AAR in pay and benefits. I have even read some postings from line AMT's making reference to this in their sarcastic attempts to express their objection. I am not willing to "fight" when the outcome will only mean you get more and I get less.

And above all. My Wife is sick and while not perfect the health insurance is attempting to find the cause and I cannot place a price tag on her life or my sanity. I am not willing to risk losing this medical coverage in a show of strength strike after I witnessed what took place at Northwest Airlines. Right now I would rather be with my wife with a possible better outcome than take on fight with a bunch of selfish scabs willing to take what I have. You cannot deny the SCABS of the Northwest fight and the outcome, but you seem to bury your head in the sand about that possible outcome just as the Northwest AMT did when pounding their chest about a "fight for the profession". What makes you convinced the outcome of your "fight for the profession" doesnt end with the same result?

There is only one factual and fairly recent outcome of a group of AMT's "fighting for the profession" while using the same name calling and peronal attacks you are using to call someone out that thinks different than you. Everyone has different circumstances at any given time. If your wife or child was sick in front of you everday, you mght be a little more humbled as to what really matters in this world. At least I hope you are more compassionate than selfish when faced with this circumstance.

 

[Hopeful]

I am neither a Judas of the craft, nor a coward. What is it specifically you want to fight for and how do you plan to implement your fight with the TWU negotiating your contract? This contract offers me $580 per month more than I make now. This contract offers me a $4,000.00+ retro to 5/5/2010 in signing bonus. This contract offers me 2 more vacation days and 3 more holidays. This contract offers to keep all of us within #2 in pay in the industry.

Informer, I hear and respect what you are saying.
My take on this contract is that it is truly the beginning of the end for our craft. It is not just about the money, or the vacations, or the holidays. It is about what door it opens in terms of the company replacing a good number of us down the road.
Next contract it will be a frozen pension and NO retiree medical for anyone. And for a couple more bucks, people will vote that in because, "hey, I don't have prefunding medical", or "Hey, I was hired with NO pension and I make $10 an hour less than those "real" mechanics."

What I am saying, Informer, is that even though we all need a raise, this contract has far more implications that we know.

 

[DallasConehead]

The vast majority in DFW ar NO's

Birdman,

As an AMT in DFW I can tell you that there will be some yes votes from AMTs in DFW. They will be the minority.

You guys are talking out your arses. You have no quality information to back up what you are saying. DFW has NEVER voted down any agreement and I predict (although I have no data other then 24 years of history) DFW will pass this one too. I have witnessed over the years that people talk smack and then vote it in, then talk smack about the thing. Go out there and try to find anyone that voted for the concessions, but it blew through like the wind on a Midwestern plain.

This is a very poor way to take a strike vote. A negotiating committee uses a high percentage of "yes" strike votes to gain concessions from the company in order to get a T/A to pass. The TWU has intentionally watered down any strike vote by including it with a vote for the T/A.

If this goes down by 52% to 48%, all the company has to do is throw a little bone in the direction of the 3% it needs and you all are hosed.

The strike vote should be taken prior to the T/A vote; that way the negotiators have that in their pocket if the T/A goes down.

I agree with you but as I said, they are covering their legal responsibility to everyone involved and adding in the fear factor to those that are on the fence. If memory serves correctly, before they did the Sec 6 opener there was a strike vote off the floor of the hall but, you tell me, is that an accurate gauge of the membership? I think not especially when you factor in that attendance is not 100%, it is a yea or nea vote with hands raised and it was more then 2 years ago.

 

[TWU informer]

Informer, I hear and respect what you are saying.
My take on this contract is that it is truly the beginning of the end for our craft. It is not just about the money, or the vacations, or the holidays. It is about what door it opens in terms of the company replacing a good number of us down the road.
Next contract it will be a frozen pension and NO retiree medical for anyone. And for a couple more bucks, people will vote that in because, "hey, I don't have prefunding medical", or "Hey, I was hired with NO pension and I make $10 an hour less than those "real" mechanics."

What I am saying, Informer, is that even though we all need a raise, this contract has far more implications that we know.

I understand what you are saying also, but with the exception of the shortlived 2001 agreement, name one contract the TWU has negotiated that hasn't been exactly as you describe the next one will be? We have been victims of quid-pro-quo negotiations for 20+ years and that is exaclty why the AMFA movement was as strong as it was. Then 1000+ Scabs busted that idea and that union at Northwest Airlines while AMT's were "fighting for the profession".

Every contract negotiated by the TWU has far more implications than we know at ratification. Side Letters of Agreement without membership ratification, does that ring a bell? Divisions of work groups has been a TWU staple in negotiations for years and we are still here today. The "B" Scale, the "C" Scale. Those that got a early out package, and those that didnt, The "SRP's" the OSM's" and now all of sudden in 2010 we are somehow going to reverse this trend? How?

You sound as though you want to fight over the next contract, or what you predict will happen next next. Forgive me if I am wrong but the reason divide and conquer works is a union is majority rule. Divide and Conquer has been in every TWU agreement since deregulation and now in 2010 you are all of the sudden claiming the time has come to fight this type of unionism. Even after wtinessing 1000+ Scabs at NWA bust the last attempt to reverse this trend.

It is not that I disagree with your desires for a fight to stop this type of unionism, it is that I disgree your fight will ever be successful given today's selfish and greedy society.

 

[Bob Owens]

Bob, it has been said by our local (514) shop steward that he's hearing from JFK mechanics, and DFW as well, that they are in favor of this T/A. Is that the feedback your getting from your members?

The Class II stations are all solid No votes.

New York (JFK/LGA) is nearly always a solid NO, I expect this time to be no different.

A smallgroup of guys, including an ex officer who I'm told recently put in for management, has been saying that he may vote YES because he doesnt trust the TWU. You can see these discussions on the 562 discussion forum. www.twu562.org/forum

His concerns are valid, his remedy is flawed.

I feel Videtich and his supporters, including your current President have been working towards this from the beginning. They tried to create a false crisis last June with the so called "white spaces" in the dock plan, (prior to that they used the surge in fuel prices in Aug of 2008), float it out there, see how the membership reacts, drag it out, the longer they wait the more the company saves and the more desperate the members become, however now they want a deal in place because the numbers are turning positive.

If the airlines numbers are turning positive now, at the depths of the recession can you imagine what they will be like when the rest of the economy rebounds? Remember the rule of Airline Economics-First down , last back up? This time the airlines are bouncing back before the rest of the economy, thats never happened before, airline labor was never this cheap or productive before.

Nobody but nobody has said that they think this is a good deal.

IMO the concern of the few who are saying they may vote Yes (but will probably vote NO) is past History. The same thing concerns many of the NO voters.

Most of the guys have 20+ years. Its clear that as bad as this deal is the line comes out better than OH, or more precisely the line doesnt get hit as hard as OH, and the guys here need financial releif badly. (Hence we see ex-officers applying for management, shooting high and seeing what deal they can get) Many are in financial distress, losing homes, financially driven divorces etc. Many have quit and even more are looking, myself included. They need every penny they can get. They dont trust the TWU, they dont trust the company and sadly they dont trust Tulsa. They also recall how Randy McDonald wanted to take away the line premium in order to get OH an extra holiday in the post 2003 concession exchange, as if we werent hurting enough already.

The last time we(the TWU) rejected a contract was in the late 80s, they tweaked the language, made it worse but it satisfied something that Wilson or Finley or whoever Tulsa had in place at the time wanted then it came back and passed. What these guys are concerned about is if it fails they will simply take money away from the line, give it to Tulsa, then it will pass. Unfortunately thats a reasonable concern given the history of our Union.I say its a chance we must take because even though we dont get hit as hard as OH we still are ending up with a deal that doesnt help us.

I think the company is pretty determined to get MRO pay rates in Tulsa, I think Videtich, Gilboy and Luis promised them that (look at Luis' recent quote in the paper where he says that despite the recent rebound the company still needs to recoup their losses, what about the memberships losses?) but they realize that we simply wont get their airplanes off the gates for those rates. At JFK we would end up with two types of mechanics, those who CS away as much as they can and have a business and those who live at work to survive, neither one will be running out to gate calls. Neither will take much of an interest in anything other than finishing their shift.

 

[Bob Owens]

That's because the people who own AA haven't paid bonuses to the people who run it for a decade. Your (and I don't mean you, Bob, I mean the collective "you" as in nearly every poster here) failure to understand how executive compensation works doesn't convert variable pay into "bonuses."

Bonus -A sum of money or an equivalent given to an employee in addition to the employee's usual compensation.

Semantics. The bottom line, the people who own this company pay the people who run it more than the base salary even though the company posts losses. You call it "variable compensation", we call it a "bonus', its money over and above their base salary based on performance.

If the people who own this company arent calling for heads to roll, but instead giving bonuses(call it what you want) after losses are posted then obviously the profits arent that important or expected. If they arent that concerned about it and agree to pay the people they have running it above the "base" ($750,000) for losses then why should we be concerned about what the company posts as profits when we negotiate for our wages?

 

[Bob Owens]

This is a very poor way to take a strike vote. A negotiating committee uses a high percentage of "yes" strike votes to gain concessions from the company in order to get a T/A to pass. The TWU has intentionally watered down any strike vote by including it with a vote for the T/A.

If this goes down by 52% to 48%, all the company has to do is throw a little bone in the direction of the 3% it needs and you all are hosed.

The strike vote should be taken prior to the T/A vote; that way the negotiators have that in their pocket if the T/A goes down.

It was, but the TWU at AA always does it this way because whatever AA management wants the International makes sure they get. Its been that way for a long time. The membership, for various reasons has always let them get away with it. Hopefully this time will be different.

Why would our own International be so cozy with the company? I can only guess.

Maybe its the A-5 passes (positive space, First class) that they dole out to International officials (they give their own management the lower priority A-10s).

Maybe the truth lies in the $2,2 million in company paid union business that the company said they would eliminate under the Vermont Plan back in 2003, that they didnt even ask for this time around.

The fact is I dont know why they do it, I'm just trying to prevent them from getting away with it, again.

 

[Bob Owens]

now all of sudden in 2010 we are somehow going to reverse this trend? How?

Vote NO, thats a start. Didnt the Mechs at NWA vote NO to the IAMs last proposal back in 98 or 99?

It is not that I disagree with your desires for a fight to stop this type of unionism, it is that I disgree your fight will ever be successful given today's selfish and greedy society.

Is greed and selfishness something new? The Spirit Pilots just had a successful strike. Our FAs appear to be pretty solid. Are their members different from the rest of society or are their unions structured and lead differently?

Our whole structure is divisive, in the end the membership has tolerated this, we need for the members to send the message that they will tolerate this No longer.

I realize that you have put a lot of yourself into fighting the inadequadacies of the Labor Movement but is siding with the International with a YES vote really the answer?