AMFA at AA- consolidated thread

[NYer]

NYer,

This is a site in which AA employees and others from the airline industry can share thoughts about common points.

It is an assumption on my part here, but you are neither.

For you to put your two cents into something where you have no vested interest or clue as to what your talking about, is foolish.

Do us all a favor and go blog someplace else where you can pretend to have a say, and you won't look so uninformed.

Hit a nerve, eh. And your "assumption" is incorrect.

BTW--If I did look uninformed I would tend to guess that you would welcome the participation because it would make your arguments look better. However, if they don't make your arguments look better then I guess you'd want the information itself to disappear.

I guess this is where you guys start the smear campaign instead of debating the issues that have been brought to the table.

 

[Anomaly]

So you can't engage in debate, the recourse is to go after me? Doesn't help your cause and doesn't convince anyone that the alternative you believe is better, is in fact better.

Yes....It's how they roll. The amfa way when you are on the loosing end is to blame or shift focus.

 

[Anomaly]

Please, if anyone knows anyone in US Air, tell them to spread the word that IAM AND IBT is not there only choice. They can use the write in option. Lets rid ourselves of these unaccountable, back door dealing unions.

Write In AMFA!!

swamt, it looks like you created yourself another account. How many is that now?

 

[NYer]

NYer

Unless there is an emergency, O/T is not mandatory, as employees we can stay or go . Mgmt can ask and we can say no, it is not a job action. You're probably not an airline employee either. The company can't get an injunction for employees not working O/T.

Not doing your job, calling in sick, walkouts, these are things that can be done and the company has the right to seek and expect protection from unions. As long as both the company and the employees abide by the rules and guidelines set forth in the company regulations each party is acting legally.

No one should feel pressured not to work, but it's kind of a unwritten rule within the union. I understand that the NOW generation only care about themselves. That each persons situation can be looked at differently. If your financial situation is so bad that you require O/T just to survive you, should look for a better paying job or check your credit card activity. This would exclude medical reasons I get that before you throw that in.

By you saying employees should adapt that only shows me your are from the I Got Mine generation and that you care less about your coworkers.

Here you go from the US Airways pilot situation: "Judge Conrad went on to say that US Airline Pilots Association "does not dispute that it has encouraged pilots to change their behavior regarding maintenance write-ups, calling in fatigued and pre-flight procedures that affect taxi times." Judge Conrad ordered the US Airline Pilots Association to refrain from "instigating, authorizing or encouraging" the interference with US Airways operations and instructed pilots to resume their normal schedules and work practices."

And that's from an organization that only represents the same craft & class, your preferred option.

 

[Anomaly]

I know this has nothing to do with this topic, but it does have a lot to do with the differences of how the membership controls the union and the fact that Officers are held accountable with AMFA. Below is the results of SWA's/AMFA's current ALR re-call vote: 2013 SWA Airline Rep Recall Election Results
222 Voted Yes re-call ALR
139 Voted No to re-call ALR
A very sad 365 members voted. But it does show a rather large majority wanted change, and got change only because we are AMFA. No other industrial unions can you do this with, none...

With this, the only thing you prove is a leader who takes a stand on a controversial position WILL be removed from office by a small group of members. According to you, it only took 222 members to remove a person from office. Assuming there are 2600 in the entire membership (you do not state which ALR or who was eligible to vote) this equates to a little over 8% of the membership needed to yank someone out. You call this DEMOCRACY?

I call it mob rules. With this idiotic policy, how can you expect to attract any true and worthwhile leaders? Any person with talent and brains would realize their decisions are and must remain dictated by what a lot of the members want even if it is a BAD decision. Leading sometimes means taking an unpopular position, and your example proves the fact that your leadership must play to politics rather than to what is good for the membership.

YOUR SYSTEM DOES NOT REQUIRE A MAJORITY TO REMOVE A PERSON FROM OFFICE.

8% IS NOT A MAJORITY.

The company offers to give all line mechanics a 15% raise in exchange for the ability to farm out all hangar work. In order to keep his position under your system, the leader MUST make his decision based on which group has the votes to remove him from office rather than his personal beliefs and conviction. If he does not sacrifice all the hangar guys, all that is needed is 8% of the line mechanics and this guy is out.

Your system is fundamentally flawed. You are too ignorant to see it. Your system reduces amfa leadership to mindless sheep.

Think about it...

 

[Flying low]

With this, the only thing you prove is a leader who takes a stand on a controversial position WILL be removed from office by a small group of members. According to you, it only took 222 members to remove a person from office. Assuming there are 2600 in the entire membership (you do not state which ALR or who was eligible to vote) this equates to a little over 8% of the membership needed to yank someone out. You call this DEMOCRACY?

I call it mob rules. With this idiotic policy, how can you expect to attract any true and worthwhile leaders? Any person with talent and brains would realize their decisions are and must remain dictated by what a lot of the members want even if it is a BAD decision. Leading sometimes means taking an unpopular position, and your example proves the fact that your leadership must play to politics rather than to what is good for the membership.

YOUR SYSTEM DOES NOT REQUIRE A MAJORITY TO REMOVE A PERSON FROM OFFICE.

8% IS NOT A MAJORITY.

The company offers to give all line mechanics a 15% raise in exchange for the ability to farm out all hangar work. In order to keep his position under your system, the leader MUST make his decision based on which group has the votes to remove him from office rather than his personal beliefs and conviction. If he does not sacrifice all the hangar guys, all that is needed is 8% of the line mechanics and this guy is out.

Your system is fundamentally flawed. You are too ignorant to see it. Your system reduces amfa leadership to mindless sheep.

Think about it...

Maybe it only meant 361 people cared enough to vote.

 

[AMFAinMIAMI]

Here you go from the US Airways pilot situation: "Judge Conrad went on to say that US Airline Pilots Association "does not dispute that it has encouraged pilots to change their behavior regarding maintenance write-ups, calling in fatigued and pre-flight procedures that affect taxi times." Judge Conrad ordered the US Airline Pilots Association to refrain from "instigating, authorizing or encouraging" the interference with US Airways operations and instructed pilots to resume their normal schedules and work practices."

And that's from an organization that only represents the same craft & class, your preferred option.

NYer

increase of maint writeups/calling in sick/changing taxi procedures can and are considered job actions but hard to prove. "YES" companies have taken pilots
to court to stop this and won.

But as I told you O/T is an option it is not something that companies can't say is a job action. The work status quoe is/has changed when there is a layoff. So standard practice does not apply. Argue that?

And as I see you have a supporter, Anomoly, he represents the IBT, and since from what I read he and the IBT support working O/T when fellow union brothers are being laid off. If the IBT does not support this then have him admit this. This will counter what you have said or show us that the IBT will work O/T when fellow workers are hitting the streets.

Just another reason that the AA mechanics should not vote in the IBT if this is the case.

No accountability, No way to remove appointed officers, Local level or at Intl.
Officers at each local non airline employees, 2.5X union dues to support strike fund for non airline union workers.

The IBt is going to put out as much crap against the supporters of AMFA and amfa.

But since they are in a election against the TWU, the union in place here at AA they should be putting out info on how bad a job the TWU has done. How they can and will be much better. But Anomoly and others like him continue to bash AMFA. WHY?

If they (amfa) have no members, no money, and are just a little union that does not represent any large carrier, can't file cards on time during an election, Then why bother, do they LOOK at AMFA as a threat? If not then why attack them?

There must be a reason, even the AFL-CIO has joined with the CWA/TWU/IAM assoc. to squash the drive at AA. I find it odd that these large unions with so much power and money fear such a outfit such as AMFA.

It's been a yr we have heard it all, why we should go IBT or stay with the TWU.

If we want amfa and brought then here and they failed, then we could first try to remove the officers which is an option. Or vote them out as well.

Why does the BIG almighty IBT/TWU/IAM type unions want so much to keep members that want to try something new.? You know as well as I do its all about MONEY.

 

[Glenn Quagmire]

With this, the only thing you prove is a leader who takes a stand on a controversial position WILL be removed from office by a small group of members. According to you, it only took 222 members to remove a person from office. Assuming there are 2600 in the entire membership (you do not state which ALR or who was eligible to vote) this equates to a little over 8% of the membership needed to yank someone out. You call this DEMOCRACY?

I call it mob rules. With this idiotic policy, how can you expect to attract any true and worthwhile leaders? Any person with talent and brains would realize their decisions are and must remain dictated by what a lot of the members want even if it is a BAD decision. Leading sometimes means taking an unpopular position, and your example proves the fact that your leadership must play to politics rather than to what is good for the membership.

YOUR SYSTEM DOES NOT REQUIRE A MAJORITY TO REMOVE A PERSON FROM OFFICE.

8% IS NOT A MAJORITY.

The company offers to give all line mechanics a 15% raise in exchange for the ability to farm out all hangar work. In order to keep his position under your system, the leader MUST make his decision based on which group has the votes to remove him from office rather than his personal beliefs and conviction. If he does not sacrifice all the hangar guys, all that is needed is 8% of the line mechanics and this guy is out.

Your system is fundamentally flawed. You are too ignorant to see it. Your system reduces amfa leadership to mindless sheep.

Think about it...

I am an AMFA supporter and I agree with most of what you said. I think the constitution should be changed to require at least a 50% +1 vote of the current membership to remove a person from office. That would prevent a loud minority from doing what you said. The good thing about AMFA is that the change could actually be made. Good luck doing that with the IBT or TWU.

 

[Anomaly]

With this, the only thing you prove is a leader who takes a stand on a controversial position WILL be removed from office by a small group of members. According to you, it only took 222 members to remove a person from office. Assuming there are 2600 in the entire membership (you do not state which ALR or who was eligible to vote) this equates to a little over 8% of the membership needed to yank someone out. You call this DEMOCRACY?

I call it mob rules. With this idiotic policy, how can you expect to attract any true and worthwhile leaders? Any person with talent and brains would realize their decisions are and must remain dictated by what a lot of the members want even if it is a BAD decision. Leading sometimes means taking an unpopular position, and your example proves the fact that your leadership must play to politics rather than to what is good for the membership.

YOUR SYSTEM DOES NOT REQUIRE A MAJORITY TO REMOVE A PERSON FROM OFFICE.

8% IS NOT A MAJORITY.

The company offers to give all line mechanics a 15% raise in exchange for the ability to farm out all hangar work. In order to keep his position under your system, the leader MUST make his decision based on which group has the votes to remove him from office rather than his personal beliefs and conviction. If he does not sacrifice all the hangar guys, all that is needed is 8% of the line mechanics and this guy is out.

Your system is fundamentally flawed. You are too ignorant to see it. Your system reduces amfa leadership to mindless sheep.

Think about it...

I am an AMFA supporter and I agree with most of what you said. I think the constitution should be changed to require at least a 50% +1 vote of the current membership to remove a person from office. That would prevent a loud minority from doing what you said. The good thing about AMFA is that the change could actually be made. Good luck doing that with the IBT or TWU.

Agreed, and as AMFA members at UA, many of us saw the same flaw with this issue. In fact, many before us voiced the same idea you posted of having 50% plus 1 of the current membership should be needed to remove a duly elected person from position rather than a simple majority from those who bothered to vote. IN ALL THESE MANY MANY YEARS, THIS CONSTITUTIONAL CHANGE THAT MOST AGREE WITH HAS NEVER BEEN DONE. How is that for ease?

I think it would be easier to change an IBT rule rather than this AMFA disaster constitutional disaster.

 

[Glenn Quagmire]

It is called apathy. It is rampant no matter what union is on the property.

I got mine, you didn't get yours? Too bad, now where is that overtime list so I can sign up.

After all, I need that OT to make up for the concessions that the company forced on us on that contract that "the union" says we go by. You know the one that "those union guys" voted in for us?

Pathetic.

 

[AMFAinMIAMI]

Agreed, and as AMFA members at UA, many of us saw the same flaw with this issue. In fact, many before us voiced the same idea you posted of having 50% plus 1 of the current membership should be needed to remove a duly elected person from position rather than a simple majority from those who bothered to vote. IN ALL THESE MANY MANY YEARS, THIS CONSTITUTIONAL CHANGE THAT MOST AGREE WITH HAS NEVER BEEN DONE. How is that for ease?

I think it would be easier to change an IBT rule rather than this AMFA disaster constitutional disaster.

Anomoly

Now as a IBT member, explain this. There are 8000 members in the Florida Local 769.

Mike Scott has been re-elected in to his position 3X. If we the AA mechanics join the IBT. Then there will be 9000 in that Local.

If we want Mike gone, And as he explained, every one assigned to that Local votes.

The Non Airline members like his way of doing things but we don't, so the vote will always be a 8:1 ratio. We loose every time. With every Local that the airline members are attached too, that have the same type of circumstances the airline guys will never have a real say at the Local.

You can't spin that no matter what.

Spin this if you can, I heard from a UAL mechanic that in the new contract the IBT wants to increase the time to top out from 5yrs to 8.5. Also that if you have less than 30 yrs you top out at $39.00 but if you have over you get to go to $41.00.

Tommy and the money he makes is also not on the LM2, so if he is the IBT's biz agent for UAL here in Florida why is that info not there?

Why did Local 769 take down the bios from the web site? Why did the IBT tell the UAL guys that Daisy was removed due to sickness that she does not handle the members that deal with the RLA.

 

[NYer]

NYer

increase of maint writeups/calling in sick/changing taxi procedures can and are considered job actions but hard to prove. "YES" companies have taken pilots
to court to stop this and won.

But as I told you O/T is an option it is not something that companies can't say is a job action. The work status quoe is/has changed when there is a layoff. So standard practice does not apply. Argue that? --Anything that changes from normal practices, including the working of OT, meant for a specific action to constrict output is and has been considered a job action. When management can show they would hold X amount of hours of OT over an extended period of time and suddenly it stops, coupled with terminology in a union document which encourages such action IS A JOB ACTION. In order to make the argument that it's not would entail that no OT is ever taken.

And as I see you have a supporter, Anomoly, he represents the IBT, and since from what I read he and the IBT support working O/T when fellow union brothers are being laid off. If the IBT does not support this then have him admit this. This will counter what you have said or show us that the IBT will work O/T when fellow workers are hitting the streets. --I'm not speaking about anyone else or about any other organization. Don't try to deflect attention away from the organization you support in order to make a point.

Just another reason that the AA mechanics should not vote in the IBT if this is the case.

No accountability, No way to remove appointed officers, Local level or at Intl.
Officers at each local non airline employees, 2.5X union dues to support strike fund for non airline union workers.

The IBt is going to put out as much crap against the supporters of AMFA and amfa.

But since they are in a election against the TWU, the union in place here at AA they should be putting out info on how bad a job the TWU has done. How they can and will be much better. But Anomoly and others like him continue to bash AMFA. WHY? --I guess you want to concede that a "write-in" campaign has no change of winning if you want us to focus on the Teamsters. If you don't want to concede, then I guess you may not have enough confidence in your arguments and want to divert attention. Either way...that's very telling.

If they (amfa) have no members, no money, and are just a little union that does not represent any large carrier, can't file cards on time during an election, Then why bother, do they LOOK at AMFA as a threat? If not then why attack them? --The "attack" is against the information that is share and a debate that ensues due to that flawed information. If the organization is as robust as you believe it is then there should be no need to divert attention away or try to make another union a subject of THIS debate.

There must be a reason, even the AFL-CIO has joined with the CWA/TWU/IAM assoc. to squash the drive at AA. I find it odd that these large unions with so much power and money fear such a outfit such as AMFA. --They don't "fear" AMFA, they're protecting their Members from what they believe is a mistake. They're doing what is expected of them. You're doing what's expected of someone that supports another organization. Problem is, you don't seem to have the ingredients to form a viable argument and you may not be able to see it because of the emotions that engulf your point of view.

It's been a yr we have heard it all, why we should go IBT or stay with the TWU. --It's been a 10 year organizing job by AMFA, how long before they get enough support for a vote.

If we want amfa and brought then here and they failed, then we could first try to remove the officers which is an option. Or vote them out as well. --Basically, what you're doing here. Despite the realities of the situation and the industry , you will continue to find people that say what you want to hear. It's a never ending quest.

Why does the BIG almighty IBT/TWU/IAM type unions want so much to keep members that want to try something new.? You know as well as I do its all about MONEY. So AMFA, with 3000 Members, trying to grow 300% in one vote won't collect dues? That's a silly argument unless you say AMFA doesn't want money and therefore won't collect dues.

 

[Anomaly]

Anomoly

Now as a IBT member, explain this. There are 8000 members in the Florida Local 769.

Mike Scott has been re-elected in to his position 3X. If we the AA mechanics join the IBT. Then there will be 9000 in that Local.

If we want Mike gone, And as he explained, every one assigned to that Local votes.

The Non Airline members like his way of doing things but we don't, so the vote will always be a 8:1 ratio. We loose every time. With every Local that the airline members are attached too, that have the same type of circumstances the airline guys will never have a real say at the Local.

You can't spin that no matter what.

Spin this if you can, I heard from a UAL mechanic that in the new contract the IBT wants to increase the time to top out from 5yrs to 8.5. Also that if you have less than 30 yrs you top out at $39.00 but if you have over you get to go to $41.00.

Tommy and the money he makes is also not on the LM2, so if he is the IBT's biz agent for UAL here in Florida why is that info not there?

Why did Local 769 take down the bios from the web site? Why did the IBT tell the UAL guys that Daisy was removed due to sickness that she does not handle the members that deal with the RLA.

Do you really need me to teach you the points of a democratic election? In Florida, voting has had it's questionable issues and perhaps your lack of understanding a voting process is a telling sign for the rest of the region. I do not live in Florida nor do I know any of the names you mentioned. What position does Mike Scot hold? If he has been re-elected 3 times one might assume he is doing his job at least to the minimal levels.

Now before you get your panties in a bunch, do not try to accuse me of believing it is easy to overthrow a sitting officer. It is not. In fact, a correct system would make it difficult but not impossible. If Mike Scott were doing a bad job that negatively impacted his members, I have no doubt he would have lost at least one of his elections.

You claim the airline members do not like his way of doing things....what specifically are your dislikes? I can not attempt to provide an opinion if I do not know all the specifics.

Your other claims about the UA contract are made up. I have not heard any of these claims here in SFO and there has been plenty of dialog.

Why did wife go to bed last night without cleaning the mess she made in the kitchen??

I can not explain the LM2's or what the Local did to its web site. Come on dude?? Seriously?

 

[xUT]

It is called apathy. It is rampant no matter what union is on the property.

I got mine, you didn't get yours? Too bad, now where is that overtime list so I can sign up.

After all, I need that OT to make up for the concessions that the company forced on us on that contract that "the union" says we go by. You know the one that "those union guys" voted in for us?

Pathetic.

8% is piss poor, that is a fact. (if that number is true?)
Less than 60% of Americans voting in a national election is piss poor as well.
If we are to use this base line (50% + 1) then we will never see anyone elected/rejected "ANYWHERE"!

The problem is and always will be "apathy"!
IIRC when AMFA was first voted in at the Lazy'U one member in a component shop asked if they will finally get a permanent Shop Rep (Shop Steward). I explained that if you want a Shop Rep, you have to vote one in from your shop.
Glazed eyes...
No one wanted to be a rep, but everyone wanted one.... LOL

Talking with one of my old UA buddies, No one cares anymore. Just waiting for another buy out (which many took @ $75,000), the rest are waiting for retirement or lay off.
Not much solidarity at the Lazy'U.

If the NMB vote would be 50%+1 then AMFA would still be at UA.

Think about it!
B) xUT

 

[Anomaly]

8% is piss poor, that is a fact. (if that number is true?)
Less than 60% of Americans voting in a national election is piss poor as well.
If we are to use this base line (50% + 1) then we will never see anyone elected/rejected "ANYWHERE"!

The problem is and always will be "apathy"!
IIRC when AMFA was first voted in at the Lazy'U one member in a component shop asked if they will finally get a permanent Shop Rep (Shop Steward). I explained that if you want a Shop Rep, you have to vote one in from your shop.
Glazed eyes...
No one wanted to be a rep, but everyone wanted one.... LOL

Talking with one of my old UA buddies, No one cares anymore. Just waiting for another buy out (which many took @ $75,000), the rest are waiting for retirement or lay off.
Not much solidarity at the Lazy'U.

If the NMB vote would be 50%+1 then AMFA would still be at UA.

Think about it!
B) xUT

xUT, I believe Quagmires point was that 50% plus 1 should be required to REMOVE an elected official but not to elect. An election should be as it is which is the majority of those who bothered to vote.

I agree to the minimums that should be present in order to remove one from office. Otherwise any small group, even as small as 8% can change the will of many.