AMT morale in the toilet

[Hackman]

<_< ---No Hackmen! The real question is would TUL vote AMFA? Or are they harder in the head than those here at MCI?-----

If not for MCI buying the twu bag of tricks that they sold you, more than likely AMFA would have had more cards. MCI combined with AFW and the line stations would have been a majority.

 

[Bear96]

Looks like it might be a big Chapter 13 failure on his part in the near future.

Corporations cannot file Chapter 13 bankruptcy.

No, it was AMFA's following of the tainted RLA and not going out on a wild cat while Dougies' scabs were training in Arizona. If AMFA would have gone on strike after finding out about the "scab plan" and broke the law like management did (not bargaining at all and hiring scabs a year in advance), the outcome would have been the near immediate flushing of Scab Air, instead of the slow death underway.

The bolded part is exactly what I meant by management outsmarting AMFA. They had a plan and exectuted it well, acheived what they wanted to, and moved on. Meanwhile, AMFA still has their heads spinning wondering what happened to them.

Many are doing just that. The FAA recently predicted a major shortage in the near future.

Great news! Then that should finally bring wages back up. Problem solved! It should be happening, when . . . any day now, right? Maybe next Thursday? (Is that kinda like the big pilot shortage that has been predicted for so long? I guess there is one of those -- if you want to live in China or India or the Middle East.)

I predict your continued anti-worker, anti-union nonsensical flaming bullsh*t to continue . . .

I'm not anti-worker or anti-union. I am, however, anti-ignorant and anti-whining.

"Labor's finest moment?" No. I do call it, labor standing and fighting for the members. The IAM stood up at Eastern. They did not lose. Lorenzo did. Same thing at NWA. Management lost.

Is that the union talking point about the AMFA strike now -- management lost; AMFA won? Do you really believe what you post?

If what happened there is an example of a union "winning," no wonder most workers reject the idea of being unionized.

"Hoards of qualified mechanics"? No. Just enough SCABS to keep tires falling off aircraft.

That's enough. Are you admitting NW had more mechanics than was needed before?

It seems as if your lack of a solid substance that constitutes a back bone denies you the ability to stand when needed. Fortunately the honorable men and women at AMFA stand for those willing to follow.

I guess spouting unionista rhetoric in an effort to try to keep the remaining dues-payers motivated is the only thing you have left to keep you going. I don't envy your position.

 

[MCI transplant]

If not for MCI buying the twu bag of tricks that they sold you, more than likely AMFA would have had more cards. MCI combined with AFW and the line stations would have been a majority.

<_< ----No again Hackmen! If the knot heads in TUL would have turned it down, there wouldn't have been an issue!!! They have the numbers, we (MCI) don't! Today we have less than 500 votes! Our "Brothers" saw to that! But are we going to cry over something already done, or look to what can be done???

 

[Hackman]

Corporations cannot file Chapter 13 bankruptcy. My bad, I meant to say Chapter 7, you know, like the one Eastern management said would never happen back in 1990. http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html...750C0A966958260

The bolded part is exactly what I meant by management outsmarting AMFA. They had a plan and exectuted it well, acheived what they wanted to, and moved on. Meanwhile, AMFA still has their heads spinning wondering what happened to them. You call it "outsmarting", I will call it violating the RLA by bargaining in bad faith, breaking the law, and ultimately dooming the airline to the junk pile. If Scab Air emerges from BK and becomes more than a shell of an airline, then I guess you can say the management minions you cheer for have won. Would you say EAL management "outsmarted" its workers also? They did "move on" right? NWA is not the "be all-end all" for AMFA. It is still the largest AMT union, NWA is just a small part of the bigger picture.

Great news! Then that should finally bring wages back up. Problem solved! It should be happening, when . . . any day now, right? Maybe next Thursday? (Is that kinda like the big pilot shortage that has been predicted for so long? I guess there is one of those -- if you want to live in China or India or the Middle East.) I didn't state I believed the FAA statement, when has the FAA ever told the truth? To me, they are just like your heros in the ivory towers of big business.....with a difference...they require deaths to act. The FAA are LIARS for the almighty dollar, and corporation controlled.

I'm not anti-worker or anti-union. I am, however, anti-ignorant and anti-whining. Wow!!! Then you must really tire of the whiney ignorant executives crying about high labor costs, getting our greedy bonuses or we will leave, and defending themselves in federal court. THOSE ATTORNEY FEES!!! JEEZ!!! I have read some of your posts, you travel around this BB as an antagonist flame baiter, who is always against the workers, unions, and for the greedy executive and the corporate minions. Don't attempt to change your spots now.

Is that the union talking point about the AMFA strike now -- management lost; AMFA won? Do you really believe what you post? Too soon too tell, but its looking good for the final nail in the Scab Air coffin. Nobody wants a carrier with a long history of constant problems for so many years, or dealing with a CEO IDIOT that spends more money to replace its workers than to bargain with them just to prove his point. I predict a liquidation fire sale, and therefore a win for AMFA and a loss for Stealin'. Your claiming victory before the shooting stops. :blink:

If what happened there is an example of a union "winning," no wonder most workers reject the idea of being unionized.
That's enough. Are you admitting NW had more mechanics than was needed before? Up against a tyrant like Lorenzo, most workers consider it a win. It isn't the workers rejecting unions per se', its big business/government and its dirty tactics of union busting and ever present threats against union organizers. Look at Wal-Mart as an example of these tactics, shut down any store under threat of a union, fire the organizers. Industrial unions have many problems to be sure, but so do the greedy big business barrons you seem to aspire to. Which designer prison cell would you like? Stealin' outsourcing all heavy maintenance isn't exactly what I would call a MENSA type move, being he spent a $100 million to do it with the "scab plan". Cost the airline much more than it would have in the end, and it just might be the end, hopefully forever. http://www.ufcw.org/take_action/walmart_wo...ion_manuals.cfm

I guess spouting unionista rhetoric in an effort to try to keep the remaining dues-payers motivated is the only thing you have left to keep you going. I don't envy your position. I don't envy yours either. The out of control executive pay and perks is front burner issue, and the heat is getting hotter. The country's workers (not just unionists) and some powerful lawmakers are more than a little tired of unjustified millions in executive pay, bonuses and perks when a company is crying poor mouth in the news or even in bankruptcy court. You talk about greedy whiners and idiots. Ok Bear69, FLAME ON!!!

 

[TIME FOR CHANGE]

In both cases, the IAM and AMFA were baited into a strike by Lorenzo and Steeland respectively. That's a rare situation in the airlines, and I wouldn't expect to see it repeated anytime soon.

I don't know if I'd say upper management lost at EAL, though.

In some ways, Lorenzo and Texas Air made out a lot better by being thrown out of Eastern and ultimately at Continental. The price they were paid for their stock was many times more what they'd have managed to hold onto during Eastern's liquidation and Continental's second bankruptcy.

The fact remains most of those Eastern Mechanics went on to get better paying jobs with other carriers. So I would Venture to say they did not loose either

 

[Wretched Wrench]

I doubt AA will do a buy-out if they haven't done one yet for the TWU, so why wait for retirement?

I agree, there will be no buy out. But there are medical issues. I need to wait till wife is medicare age.

 

[Bear96]

You call it "outsmarting", I will call it violating the RLA by bargaining in bad faith, breaking the law . . .

Training replacement workers is "bargaining in bad faith" and "breaking the law"? I guess a union organizing a strike committee is bargaining in bad faith and breaking the law too? After all, that must mean they have no intention of bargaining in good faith and have decided to go on strike no matter what, right?

I have read some of your posts, you travel around this BB as an antagonist flame baiter, who is always against the workers, unions, and for the greedy executive and the corporate minions. Don't attempt to change your spots now.

Please post an example of my support for executive greed? In fact I believe that executive pay is out of whack at the moment in the largest U.S. corporations.

Up against a tyrant like Lorenzo, most workers consider it a win.

Lorenzo? Dude, wake up! It's the 21st Century!

I don't envy yours either.

What don't you envy?

The out of control executive pay and perks is front burner issue, and the heat is getting hotter. The country's workers (not just unionists) and some powerful lawmakers are more than a little tired of unjustified millions in executive pay, bonuses and perks when a company is crying poor mouth in the news or even in bankruptcy court.

I agree with you about that, as I mentioned above. But the problem is what to do about it. Any proposed solution (i.e., government meddling in wage and compensation controls) is likely to have more of a negative impact on workers long-term than anything else, and the people at the top will figure out a way around the rules one way or the other.

 

[Hopeful]

I agree with you about that, as I mentioned above. But the problem is what to do about it. Any proposed solution (i.e., government meddling in wage and compensation controls) is likely to have more of a negative impact on workers long-term than anything else, and the people at the top will figure out a way around the rules one way or the other.

Keep in mind, that when the Board of Directors approve CEO compensation package and executive payouts, they are not spending their own money. So they can spend like drunken sailors if they wish!

 

[Bob Owens]

Is that the union talking point about the AMFA strike now -- management lost; AMFA won? Do you really believe what you post?

Did Amfa win? No, Did NWA? Well I guess that when the Titanic hit the Iceberg and moved on those on deck thought they won too.

Lorenzo? Dude, wake up! It's the 21st Century!

So what are you saying? Are you claiming that corporate greed is something that only existed in a bygone era? You are the one who needs to wake up!

You say the AMFA structure is "attractive" and you desire for the ability to vote upon each position filled within the international.

How exactly do the candidates campaign for such required positions?

Do the required positions go unfilled until you have the opportunity to have your say?

I don't see how you could possibly function as an association, without appointments to required positions.

Simple, utilize modern technology. The Internet has provided unprecidented opportunity to exchange information and ideas, just as we have been doing on sites such as this for years.

I've been pushing this for months but since our top two Local officers are in the Internationals pocket we havent had much luck. Its easier and more convienent to blame the members for not particpating than it is to make it easier for them to do so.

 

[Bob Owens]

<_< ---- So if we had the AMFA vote today, do you feel it would turn out the same way? :huh:

Same way? There never was a vote. How would it turn out? Well we could look at the sworn testimony of TWU International Rep Bobby Gless who testified they worked to block the vote "because the TWU would lose".

 

[Bob Owens]

You have issues that quite frankly a pay decrease didn't cause.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that after deregulation no one in the airline business makes as much money.

Wrong , airline profits have soared since deregulation, so have losses. The fact is that all of the industy's most profitable years occured after deregulation. The intent of deregulation was to increase profits.

Bear96
If labor market forces have nothing to do with wages, then if no one was applying for these jobs, and there were vacancies everywhere, and flights were cancelling because airlinrs simply can't find workers for those positions, wages wouldn't go up for those positions? If that is what you are saying, I completely disagree.

One of the problems with your so called "market rate" theory on wages is that it looks at individual workers and ignores the existance of unions. The fact is unions exist, and they should exist, just like corporations exist, and they should.


No one can deny that power is increased when individuals or units act collectively when compared to individually.

Corporations, banks etc are often examples of collective capital just as unions are examples of collective labor.

If workers can not act in a collective manner than neither should capital be afforded the same opportunity. If labor is confined to act as individuals then capital should also be prohibited from acting collectively, let each individual buy, or build his own airplane and start his own business with his own resources only, no collective collaboration allowed, after all collectivization is a form of conspiracy. Outlaw usary and close the Banks too, because most of them are collectives also.

Then we would have a more balanced playing field where many employers seek workers and potential employees have many employers to choose from, a true free market. Fair is fair right?

Obviously that would not work. The inefficiencies would be too great and the costs would be too great of a barrier for individuals to provide the needs and expectations of modern society.We would have a level playing field, but we would also be back in the stone age.

So if you abolish unions because they are collectives then you must abolish corporations also, because they are collectives of capital. To do otherwise would give those with capital and unfair advantage over those who only have labor.If you abolish one with out abolishing the other you have tyranny. A tyranny of capital. Tyranny is bad, and we must destroy tyranny right? Clearly collectives are a part of modern society because after all society itself is a collective.

The fact is that corporations do provide benifits for society in that it allows for efficiencies of production and elevated standards of living as well as profits for its owners that would not be possible otherwise. Corporations exist with the consent of the peoples government. Lets not forget that incorporation was something that the founding fathers were wary of and for good reason. Those who wished to incorporate had to apply for permission and often they had a termination date where once the goal was accomplished the corporation was dissolved.The great risk of incorporation is that it eliminates individual accountability and our whole concept of Democracy is built upon accountability, to undermine accountability is to undermine Democracy.

Over the last two-hundred years corporations have exceeded their original intent, they used the 14th amendment, which was put in place to give African Americans rights of citizenship, to gain rights the founding fathers never fathomed. While not being able to actually cast a vote they have been granted undue influence in government by expressing their wishes through campaign funding. Whereas individual citizens can only vote for those who supposedly represent them, collective capital has the resources to influence representatives all over the political spectrum. Whereas a citizen can only vote for one candidate for each position capital can fund all candidates. Clearly funding provides for more political influence than voting and its not limited to citizenship. Corporate funds are the primary source of all campaign funding, either directly from corporations or through front groups set up by corporations.The founding fathers would be horrified if they saw how the democracy they founded has been bartered and sold.

For better or worse Corporation are here to stay. The fact that they have pretty much neutralized our ability to act collectively and gain accountability within the politcal process is something we can change, however if they eliminate our ability to act collectively in the economic arena through the use of our labor then all will be lost.

So corporations for better or worse must exist, but so must unions, otherwise we have tryanny.

Unions(should) provide a balance for the supply side of labor, (workers),to balance the downward pressure that the consumer side of labor(collective capital)wishes to exert.Clearly collective capital would desire that all the supply side was broken up into individual units(workers) and acted as such. Clearly thats not in the workers interests.

Unions are a part of the labor market as well as individuals. Clearly this already gives combined capital an advantage from the start.

The relationship between unions and individual non-union workers is similar to how a corporation can be in the same market as a Mom and Pop store. Just as the larger corporations have more of an impact on "market rates" on any particular product than small Mom and Pop stores, unions have more of an impact on labor rates than individual nonunion workers.


The ability to hire is not the sole determination of "Market Rate" for labor, retention and replacement is also a factor, and is often cited as the excuse for the excessive compensation that we see with executives.

Clearly if workers thought that the starting rate was the final rate airlines would have run out of applicants years ago, workers agree to low start rates with the assumption that rates improve significantly.

Replacement and retention is where your market theory on wage rates fall apart. While companies can usually replace workers lost through attrition unless their rates are way, way below market rates, they have a much harder time replacing an entire group of workers.

Unions,collective labor, are blocked from utilizing market forces. Unions are blocked either through court injunction or governmental delay from taking advantage of market opportunities. Supposedly Executives use retention and replacement levergage as their bargaining chips but collective labor is denied this ability.This is what keeps wages artificially low, lower than that they would be without such government interference, interference that is often without legislative guidance.

A recent example of this was where the NWA Flight Attendants were blocked from striking. Why? Because NWA claimed that there was not enough available FAs on the market to replace them, and the FAs were ordered to continue to work under court orders under conditions that they collectivly rejected. Market provided opportunity to simply protect themselves from paycuts was denied to the collective group of flight attendants. Basically the court says that labor can not act collectively in thier best interests as executives and capital can, despite the fact that legislation says that labor can. Capital is free to act in its best interests but labor is not.Too unjust to put into law but not too unjust for a crooked judge to put into effect.

How can we illustrate how unfair this is? Lets contruct a situation where the court treats capital like they are treating labor, for the same reason-the "third party", the flying public.

Lets say a consumer declared he could not afford to fly and that was a denial of his court proclaimed "right to travel from here to there". Lets say the government then asked the customer what he would like to pay based upon his resources and what he felt he could afford to pay and then set rates at that level even if that level was below what it cost NWA to provide the service. Is that free market? Surely if the investor in NWA felt his money could be better used elsewhere he is free to divest so where is the injustice? After all if the unlegislated rights of this "third party" trump legislated rights of collective labor then they also trump the rights of collective capital, doesnt the free market theory profess that both parties in a business exchange come together on an equal and fair basis or at least of their own free will?

Just as people with your frame of mind claim that govermental interference in collective labor is justified because the individual worker can quit cant the individual investor divest? If the ability to deny exploiting market forces are denied to collective labor then why should collective capital retain such rights?

My wife and I were both die-hard airline people when we met. If the two of us can get over AA, anyone can.

The fact that you are here means you havent gotten over it completely yet.

 

[Bear96]

One of the problems with your so called "market rate" theory on wages is that it looks at individual workers and ignores the existance of unions.

How have I ignored the existence of unions? All I said was that if the supply of airplane mechanics dried up tomorrow, wages for them would rise. You totally dodged my question. Do you disagree? How does that "ignore" unions? You seem to be confusing two distinct (though perhaps related) issues.

The rest of your post that was directed to me presumes I have said somehow or somewhere that unions should not exist. I have said no such thing. I think unions can, theoretically, serve as a useful check against the excessive greed that is inherent in corporations. Whether they actually do serve such a role today is up to debate, but I have no problem with workers acting collectively to temper the natural effects of a purer form of laissez-faire capitalism. In fact, in this very thread I have urged workers to take action against their situation if they think it is so unjust. You seem to be getting mad at me for the failures of unions and their workers to act.

You use way too many words to make a simple point (particularly when the whole premise of your speech -- that I am against workers acting collectively -- was flawed).

 

[Bob Owens]

You use way too many words to make a simple point (particularly when the whole premise of your speech -- that I am against workers acting collectively -- was flawed).

The point is its not that simple.

While the post was made in response to your quote it was directed at all those who take the positions that I attacked. Your use of the claim that if the airlines couldnt get mechanics that wages would rise, was interpreted by me and possibly others that as long as they get people to take the job, wages were good enough, and that the lowest possible wage should be considerd "market rate". People who express that belief usually believe in the other things I went after.

Do I agree that if they couldnt get mechanics that wages would increase? In theory starting wages might but that would not affect those who were already at top pay.If they couldnt get mechanics the airlines would simply try to change standards, push through part 66 and do away with A&Ps. They would then claim that the government changed liscencing proceedures and that all the people working on their aircraft are certified by the FAA. The only union that would fight that is AMFA, thats part of the reason why NWA was willing to spend hundreds of millions to defeat AMFA.

 

[Wretched Wrench]

If they couldnt get mechanics the airlines would simply try to change standards, push through part 66 and do away with A&Ps.

This is already happening. A great deal of airline maintenance (including AA)has always been done by unlicensed workers. The proportion is increasing much more rapidly the last few years. And the standards have been lowered for years, led by AA.

 

[Bob Owens]

This is already happening. A great deal of airline maintenance (including AA)has always been done by unlicensed workers. The proportion is increasing much more rapidly the last few years. And the standards have been lowered for years, led by AA.

Exactly, the TWU is obviously complicit in this industry/FAA scheme to undermine the profession of A&P mechanics. SRPs and OSM were nothing more than a pilot program to replace A&P mechanics with non-A&Ps. They are called AMTS just like us. Its all part of the plan to ease the transition away from independantly liscenced A&P mechanics to company controlled airman certificates.

The TWU, AA and FAA have a cozy relationship, as evidenced by their formation of the ASAP. While it does have some benifits in enabling mechanics to self disclose it also provides them with information to fine tune implimentaion of FAR66.

Sadly many mechanics fail to realize why NWA was so agressive towards AMFA. NWAs agression towards AMFA was part of a broader collaborative effort on the part of the industry to lower wages.AMFA was the only union that resisted the scam that was being perpetrated upon airline workers. Sadly most other unions not only participated in the scam but they accepted company funding to do so. The TWU has accepted company funding for years, and continues to do so.

NWAs agressiveness towards AMFA should be intrepreted by mechanics as more of a reason to join it. If the airlines dont want it then its probably in our best interests to pursue it, and do it now, before part 66 is put in place and A&Ps become a minority within the AMT classification.


Was Gary Yingst an A&P or an AMT?