Decision 2004
Veteran
- Mar 12, 2004
- 1,618
- 0
Beyond Repair: Union Strife Divides Aa Mechanics
- Thread starter Checking it Out
- Start date
Bob, funny, the president of the US received around 25% of the vote, but he is still making the rules at this time. You are trying to twist the politics of voting to your advantage. Whether you like it or not Randy McDonald represents all members of local 514. Last I checked that is how democracy works. Of course maybe AMFA will only represent those who can prove they support it? Your mind set is running in interesting directions.Bob Owens said:
You seem to advocate that each local gets one vote at the table, fair enough; lets divide the negotiating expenses by the number of locals and each local pays an equal share.
Decision 2004
Veteran
- Mar 12, 2004
- 1,618
- 0
Go tell that to the 718 That lost their job security and hit the street.j7915 said:
Go tell that to the guys who took aa 34% paycut.
Go tell that to someone that cares who Randy McDonald represents, which is not many, he will NOT be re-elected.
Bob, funny, the president of the US received around 25% of the vote, but he is still making the rules at this time.
Funny, I thought that the two houses of Congress also had a big part in "rule making" and all are "elected" by "the people". After a rule gets through all three (Reps, Senate, Exec) the the Supreme Court decides whether or not it conforms to the Constitution. Whereas with the TWU the contract and all the top decisions are made by the International, none of whom are elected by the members. I often see letters of agreement with Bobby Gless, Gary Yingst and John Connely's signature on them. They are binding agreements that the members had no enforcable say on and all these guys were appointed. They were all appointed by someone else who was appointed by someone who the members do not get to vote for.
Can you tell me how this last contract and the International promotion of it conforms to Article II of the TWU Constitution?
You are trying to twist the politics of voting to your advantage.
I'm making my arguement and presenting things to support it. Its up to you to counter it. If you cant then the fair and logical conclusion is that I am right.
Whether you like it or not Randy McDonald represents all members of local 514. Last I checked that is how democracy works.
And the members voted to make Randy their President?
Of course maybe AMFA will only represent those who can prove they support it?
Do you mean like the TWU?
Your mind set is running in interesting directions.
I wish I could say the same. Instead I see a "man" who thinks he is pro-union but brags that his Unions democracy is structured like a corporations. The labor movement has been very critical of "corporate" democracy. I see a "union man" in favor of massive long term concessions because he is too much of a coward to risk a fight. I see a union man, repeating all the company's arguements in favor of concessions, arguements that go back to the beginning of the labor movement, arguements that have been repeated by every "company" union since, arguements put forward by "anti-labor" forces like the RTW and not once has it really dawned on him that he has taken on, accepted and promoted the ideology of anti-unionists.
Its not interesting, its sad, scary even.
You seem to advocate that each local gets one vote at the table, fair enough; lets divide the negotiating expenses by the number of locals and each local pays an equal share.
I dont recall Tulsa paying any of our expenses. The International pays most of the expenses because after all it is their contract. The only place that the Locals sign is as "witnesses". Why are you so preoccupied with thinking that other Locals benifit at Tulsas expense? They dont, except for maybe a few that Tulsa may have volunteered to support. Dont you have over $12 million in the bank? If you feel that each Local should only finance its issues then I guess you support Local 100s decision to keep all their COPE Contributions instead of turning them over to Sonny?
Funny, I thought that the two houses of Congress also had a big part in "rule making" and all are "elected" by "the people". After a rule gets through all three (Reps, Senate, Exec) the the Supreme Court decides whether or not it conforms to the Constitution. Whereas with the TWU the contract and all the top decisions are made by the International, none of whom are elected by the members. I often see letters of agreement with Bobby Gless, Gary Yingst and John Connely's signature on them. They are binding agreements that the members had no enforcable say on and all these guys were appointed. They were all appointed by someone else who was appointed by someone who the members do not get to vote for.
Can you tell me how this last contract and the International promotion of it conforms to Article II of the TWU Constitution?
You are trying to twist the politics of voting to your advantage.
I'm making my arguement and presenting things to support it. Its up to you to counter it. If you cant then the fair and logical conclusion is that I am right.
Whether you like it or not Randy McDonald represents all members of local 514. Last I checked that is how democracy works.
And the members voted to make Randy their President?
Of course maybe AMFA will only represent those who can prove they support it?
Do you mean like the TWU?
Your mind set is running in interesting directions.
I wish I could say the same. Instead I see a "man" who thinks he is pro-union but brags that his Unions democracy is structured like a corporations. The labor movement has been very critical of "corporate" democracy. I see a "union man" in favor of massive long term concessions because he is too much of a coward to risk a fight. I see a union man, repeating all the company's arguements in favor of concessions, arguements that go back to the beginning of the labor movement, arguements that have been repeated by every "company" union since, arguements put forward by "anti-labor" forces like the RTW and not once has it really dawned on him that he has taken on, accepted and promoted the ideology of anti-unionists.
Its not interesting, its sad, scary even.
You seem to advocate that each local gets one vote at the table, fair enough; lets divide the negotiating expenses by the number of locals and each local pays an equal share.
I dont recall Tulsa paying any of our expenses. The International pays most of the expenses because after all it is their contract. The only place that the Locals sign is as "witnesses". Why are you so preoccupied with thinking that other Locals benifit at Tulsas expense? They dont, except for maybe a few that Tulsa may have volunteered to support. Dont you have over $12 million in the bank? If you feel that each Local should only finance its issues then I guess you support Local 100s decision to keep all their COPE Contributions instead of turning them over to Sonny?
How about the folks at ATL? AMFA did nothing. At UAL they claim ignorance while they were trying to become the representing union, during contract talks and after 9/11.Decision 2004 said:
As always AMFA goes fishing in troubled waters. Sort of like two other extremist organizations I can think of.
It is always easier to promise the sky when things are gloomy, and then blame everything on others.
What is the statute of limitations, when AMFA will have to step up and take responsibility? One contract, two, NEVER?
Decision 2004
Veteran
- Mar 12, 2004
- 1,618
- 0
Number one, ATL Mechanics had job security provisions and CHOSE not to exercise their rights, and as for UAL, if you guys are going to claim that AMFA has some responsibility at an Airline that AMFA has not yet been certified, then will you please get the AA/AMFA organizers into your secret meetings with AA management so we can at least have some input on that which you claim we will be accountable for?j7915 said:
Number two, can you tell us the "troubled waters" at AA in 1989 when Scott Davies was fired for running an advertisement in the Tulsa about an AMFA meeting? Can you describe for us the "troubled waters" at AA in 1994 when Kenyon Wallace sued the TWU for being placed in bad standing for supporting AMFA? And can you inform us about the "troubled waters" at AA when 7 Tulsa mechanics sued AA in 1999 for violating RLA 152 Eleventh (inteference in union organizing)? Can you tell about the "troubled waters" at AA when between 1999 and 2001 over 85 TWU members were found guilty of dual unionism? Was there "troubled waters" at AA when Dave Kruse and Dennis Burchette held an anti-AMFA rally on the ramp in June of 1999? Most of the above activity took place during periods of AA record profitability.
Look at the facts j7915, the Mechanics at American Airlines have been in pursuit of AMFA since 1963, and very strong since 1989. "AMFA" is not in pursuit of your union or AA, the Mechanics at AA are in pursuit of AMFA! What part of "FED UP" don't you understand?
Tell us all again about how AMFA is taking any advantage of "troubled waters"? This is nothing more than another TWU liberal attempt to blame someone or something else on TWU failures that trigger membership rebellion.
Get a grip and look at the FACTS! The rest of us are !
How about the folks at ATL? AMFA did nothing.
Do you mean the TWU represented AA mechanics at ATL, not to mention JFK, LGA, BOS, SJU, BDL, PHL, EWR, (and thats just our Local) that got laid off? What is AMFA suposed to do about that? Or are you trying to focus on NWA, which as an airline, which has remained profitable, chose a different method of dealing with the recession? You usually forget to mention that at NWA the layoffs were across the board, and that the AFL-CIO affiliated members at NWA were hit just as hard as the AMFA represented members. Besides arent we talking about AA? According to Jim Little whatever happens at NWA is none of our concern. Why dont you start a TWU drive over at NWA?
At UAL they claim ignorance while they were trying to become the representing union, during contract talks and after 9/11.
Ok, and at what time would you find such an effort "acceptable"? You forget that the UAL drive was initiated by mechanics at UAL. Unlike the TWUs failed drive at Delta that was promoted run and financed by George Roberts, who never even worked at Delta. What was that figure again $2 million? I doubt AMFA ever spent that much money organizing.
As always AMFA goes fishing in troubled waters. Sort of like two other extremist organizations I can think of.
Again, every AMFA drive was initiated by would be members who are employees at the company in question. They volunteered their own time and money to get AMFA. Does the TWU have any such volunteers? Does anyone contribute voluntary dues to the TWU? You guys ask to be given a chance. Then when you fail, you complain when those members who gave you the opportunity to do right decide to go for AMFA.
It is always easier to promise the sky when things are gloomy, and then blame everything on others.
OK, so who is to blame for the performance of the TWU over the last TWENTY YEARS!
You guys keep claiming that all these "promises" were made. Well what are they other than democracy and accountability?
What is the statute of limitations, when AMFA will have to step up and take responsibility? One contract, two, NEVER?
Well we have given the TWU twenty years. I dont have another twenty to wait.
Do you mean the TWU represented AA mechanics at ATL, not to mention JFK, LGA, BOS, SJU, BDL, PHL, EWR, (and thats just our Local) that got laid off? What is AMFA suposed to do about that? Or are you trying to focus on NWA, which as an airline, which has remained profitable, chose a different method of dealing with the recession? You usually forget to mention that at NWA the layoffs were across the board, and that the AFL-CIO affiliated members at NWA were hit just as hard as the AMFA represented members. Besides arent we talking about AA? According to Jim Little whatever happens at NWA is none of our concern. Why dont you start a TWU drive over at NWA?
At UAL they claim ignorance while they were trying to become the representing union, during contract talks and after 9/11.
Ok, and at what time would you find such an effort "acceptable"? You forget that the UAL drive was initiated by mechanics at UAL. Unlike the TWUs failed drive at Delta that was promoted run and financed by George Roberts, who never even worked at Delta. What was that figure again $2 million? I doubt AMFA ever spent that much money organizing.
As always AMFA goes fishing in troubled waters. Sort of like two other extremist organizations I can think of.
Again, every AMFA drive was initiated by would be members who are employees at the company in question. They volunteered their own time and money to get AMFA. Does the TWU have any such volunteers? Does anyone contribute voluntary dues to the TWU? You guys ask to be given a chance. Then when you fail, you complain when those members who gave you the opportunity to do right decide to go for AMFA.
It is always easier to promise the sky when things are gloomy, and then blame everything on others.
OK, so who is to blame for the performance of the TWU over the last TWENTY YEARS!
You guys keep claiming that all these "promises" were made. Well what are they other than democracy and accountability?
What is the statute of limitations, when AMFA will have to step up and take responsibility? One contract, two, NEVER?
Well we have given the TWU twenty years. I dont have another twenty to wait.
Dear cool shades, if you don't understand what fishing in troubled waters means then look at the airlines where amfa has organized, they are in financial trouble or in contract talks. Most of your efforts have not gotten you anywhere otherwise.Decision 2004 said:Number one, ATL Mechanics had job security provisions and CHOSE not to exercise their rights, and as for UAL, if you guys are going to claim that AMFA has some responsibility at an Airline that AMFA has not yet been certified, then will you please get the AA/AMFA organizers into your secret meetings with AA management so we can at least have some input on that which you claim we will be accountable for?
Number two, can you tell us the "troubled waters" at AA in 1989 when Scott Davies was fired for running an advertisement in the Tulsa about an AMFA meeting? Can you describe for us the "troubled waters" at AA in 1994 when Kenyon Wallace sued the TWU for being placed in bad standing for supporting AMFA? And can you inform us about the "troubled waters" at AA when 7 Tulsa mechanics sued AA in 1999 for violating RLA 152 Eleventh (inteference in union organizing)? Can you tell about the "troubled waters" at AA when between 1999 and 2001 over 85 TWU members were found guilty of dual unionism? Was there "troubled waters" at AA when Dave Kruse and Dennis Burchette held an anti-AMFA rally on the ramp in June of 1999? Most of the above activity took place during periods of AA record profitability.
Look at the facts j7915, the Mechanics at American Airlines have been in pursuit of AMFA since 1963, and very strong since 1989. "AMFA" is not in pursuit of your union or AA, the Mechanics at AA are in pursuit of AMFA! What part of "FED UP" don't you understand?
Tell us all again about how AMFA is taking any advantage of "troubled waters"? This is nothing more than another TWU liberal attempt to blame someone or something else on TWU failures that trigger membership rebellion.
Get a grip and look at the FACTS! The rest of us are !
These should be the golden years for AMFA, line maintenance is in, and the overhaul bases of all the majors are in trouble.
Happy fishing, just remember you got to do something with them fish after you land them. Gutting them a la NWA comes to mind.
Need I remind you of my earlier question...do they need welders on the line stations?
Ken MacTiernan
Veteran
j7915,
"Need I remind you of my earlier question...do they need welders on the line stations?"
The answer is not really. What is your point? We need welders at overhaul facilities. It seems as if you are trying to divide the work force. The twu tried doing that for the past twenty years. Listen, there is no difference from overhaul to the line because we all do the same job. We provide safe, airworthy aircraft. Our job functions may be different but that is it. There is no "us" or "them". There is only AMTs.
"Need I remind you of my earlier question...do they need welders on the line stations?"
The answer is not really. What is your point? We need welders at overhaul facilities. It seems as if you are trying to divide the work force. The twu tried doing that for the past twenty years. Listen, there is no difference from overhaul to the line because we all do the same job. We provide safe, airworthy aircraft. Our job functions may be different but that is it. There is no "us" or "them". There is only AMTs.
