Could F/a's Honor Mechanics Strike Now?
- Thread starter Skyyggoddess
- Start date
ExAF said:
OK, fine, blame management.
So the pilots wanted to stand together and fight for concessions?
As far as the mechanics not honoring the pilots pickets in 1998, "did the pilots want them to?". At AA the flight attendants felt that they had more of an economic impact by having evryone else draw a paycheck while the airline flew empty airplanes around. That strategy would work for the pilots too if there was a shortage of pilots, as there was in the late 90s.
I'm sure the pilots would not have turned down any support had it been offered. I don't know if they asked for it or not. I was still in the AF at the time and had to rely on my friends at the airline to tell me what it was like then. I don't remember them crying foul to the press or on the web forums. I don't remember them blaming other labor unions for them being out on strike on their own. I certainly don't remember ALPA calling (at that time) the IAM scabs for crossing the pilot line to report for work. My point was not to point fingers, but to point out that the NWA MEC at ALPA has a very good history when it comes to fighting. I continue to support the mechanics. Many of them are my friends and neighbors. I just get tired of the venting on this board saying they got left out in the cold when they had another option and their leadership elected not to take it. The opportunity for labor to present a united front was offered and rejected.Bob Owens said:
ExAF said:
Remember in '98 when the pilots struck and the IAM, which represented the mechanics at the time, agreed with ALPA's MEC that continuing to clock in would increase the financial pressure on NWA to settle? Remember how 90% of the mechanics were laid off two days into the strike for almost two weeks (without pay) and ALPA never even bothered to acknowledge that fact? Did any of the NWA mechanics presume to try to tell the NWA pilots what they should be willing to settle for? Certainly none that I knew did; we supported you guys 100%. We knew what negotiating with NWA is like.
Remember in 2001, when the mechanics were in front of the PEB fighting over many of the same issues the pilots had fought NWA over in 1998? Not a day went by without a pilot 'dropping around' the mechanics ready room - something they never do at other times - or calling us out to the plane on some pretext and telling us some variation of "You don't want to kill the golden goose" - an actual quote, incidentally. See the difference?
AMFA's leadership most certainly DID NOT tell them to "pound sand" or any other variation on the theme. What AMFA told them was the same thing they had told NWA when they offered to open their books if AMFA leaders would sign a non-disclosure agreement - "Don't show us numbers and then expect us not to share the information with our members".
AMFA said that they were interested in joining forces but were not willing to let ALPA decide issues for their members. While these discussions were going on, ALPA chose to drop the subject of cooperation and negotiate what they thought would be a better deal for, and minimize concessions from, their own members. Subsequent events have proven that NWA did not perceive the ALPA agreement in the same light as the pilots did, something that should surprise no one who's been with NWA for more than a few years.
Like when the ALPA MEC chair tried putting media pressure on the other unions in an attempt to influence their negotiations? Some cooperation...
It wasn't "shunned"; the price was just too high.
Don't let reality get in the way of them either. When the pilots have issues with NWA they're "fighting to protect the airline"; do you know anyone in ALPA who perceives other union's issues with NWA that way?
As I supported the pilots 100% in 1998. The difference is that if NWA had brought scab pilots on board in '98, I would have been out of there and on the picket line, not crossing it. Again, see the difference?
Agreed.
AMFA has been making that exact point for the last few years. It would have been nice if ALPA had been there too, rather than trying to take a neutral stance with a management team who sees such things as weakness. Appeasement never works with such people.
Too much cutting and pasting for me. As I said in my post, I was in the AF during the 98 strike and am not up on all of the facts for that period. As I said before, in the present situation, the offer of a united front was there. If the price was too high for AMFA, don't blame ALPA. AMFA decided to go their own way. The pilots were buying time and trying to prevent bankruptcy. You think they liked giving 15% with the understanding that the company would be back for more? They were facing the harsh reality of the economic situation the company was in. They realized concessions were a reality. The whole idea was for a united front to try to limit those concessions, not prevent them completely. It was going to be painful either way. Your side of the story is ALPA decided to drop the cooperation and make their own deal. Our sid of the story is AMFA wasn't really interested in cooperating and decided to go their own way. The truth is probably somewhere in between. The union leadership on both sides thought they were right. Both thought their approaches were the best for their membership. There was a fundamental difference of opinion. ALPA was not out to sink or abandon AMFA and they still aren't. Don't blame them for the situation we are all in now. They are not the enemy.
TWU informer
Veteran
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2003
- Messages
- 7,550
- Reaction score
- 3,731
operaations said:
Maturity and Professionalism doesn't seem to pay well in this industry.
We are trying a "new approach".
Thomas Paine
Veteran
- Joined
- Sep 4, 2003
- Messages
- 583
- Reaction score
- 569
NWA/AMT said:
Yea, they got the Gold and wanted you guys to accept the other stuff the Goose dropped!
ExAF said:
Yet that did not prevent you from rendering an opinion and attempting to equate that with the current situation despite a lack of facts.
The vast majority of the NWA mechanics were more than willing to honor the ALPA picket line in 1998, although, in retrospect, the course of action chosen by the IAM and the ALPA MEC to keep the financial pressure on was the right one. Still, I never heard any mechanics question the pilots decision to strike, even when we had to absorb two weeks without pay. All to have you imply that the current ALPA decision to cross the AMFA picket line is the same.
ALPA set the conditions, not AMFA.
AMFA chose the only path left to them other than total capitulation, and it's a decision I, for one, will never regret.
Noble. But naive, at best. Bankruptcy became inevitable when it became a way for corporations to avoid their pension obligations, obligations NWA has intentionally underfunded even when times were good. Attempting to prevent that is a great slogan but won't change the reality of the economic incentive to file.
As did every employee at NWA, including AMFA members. I think the employees of NWA have proven in the past that they are willing to go to great lengths to keep the airline alive. However, the company was far less willing to negotiate with the rest of us this time, particularly after they had an agreement with the pilots. At that point, negotiations became demands and no longer negotiable.
Indeed. Yet that didn't keep ALPA from striking a deal with NWA even as they spoke to the others about the need for a united front.
My "side of the story", as you put it, is based on the fact that while still in discussions with the other unions, ALPA reached a 'separate peace' with NWA. Those facts, as well as the efforts by the ALPA MEC chair to influence the other unions negotiations, are easily verified.
Given the conditions placed upon that cooperation, they were not. It might be also be helpful in the future is ALPA were to keep in mind that people other than pilots may also have had an affiliation with a college or university a little deeper than attending sporting events and be just a little less condescending in such situations.
Indeed.
I do not blame them, although many do. ALPA acted as I expected ALPA to act; without reference to anyone else and with certainty that their way was the only way. However, in the end, ALPA did something AMFA has never done: crossed a legal picket line to go to work.
I have no blame for you, but I have no absolution either.
PlayTheOdds
Veteran
I could have so much fun with this board but I think I'm going to leave it alone. Instead I'm just going to say that there will be no foreign replacements for the Flight Attendants. If the flight attendants choose to strike in support of AMFA then there will be a very quick and decisive reactive response. No foreigners required.
"Yet that did not prevent you from rendering an opinion and attempting to equate that with the current situation despite a lack of facts."
Only opinion I was trying to express in that part of the thread was that ALPA has stood and fought in the past, nothing more, nothing less. Tried to make that clear in the text but was unsuccessful. Don't read too much into it.
"ALPA set the conditions, not AMFA."
Again your side of the story. ALPA presented an option (taking the initiative) and AMFA didn't like what they heard. We could argue this point from dusk till dawn. Let's agree to disagree.
"AMFA chose the only path left to them other than total capitulation, and it's a decision I, for one, will never regret."
Noble but naive, at best. Did AMFA not see what happened to US Airways and United? They knew Mgt had trained and deployed SCABS and had been planning their union busting plan for a long time. In this economic environment and the pervasiveness of corporate greed, the decision to strike may end up being the total capitulation you were trying to avoid. Again a difference of opinion here. Many (including myself) think it would have been better to save the union presence on the property and live to fight another day. I'm not saying its over by any means. I do hope AMFA perseveres and gets back on the property and soon.
"As did every employee at NWA, including AMFA members. I think the employees of NWA have proven in the past that they are willing to go to great lengths to keep the airline alive. However, the company was far less willing to negotiate with the rest of us this time, particularly after they had an agreement with the pilots. At that point, negotiations became demands and no longer negotiable."
The agreement with the pilots was only a "downpayment" agreement. ALPA was buying time and ensuring they weren't going to be the only ones to bear the burden. The agreement was ratified before AMFA negotiations were even opened. No other group had given anything on this round of negotiations except the pilots and the cuts mgt had to take as a part of the agreement. It was written in the agreement that more would have to be given as soon as all of the other groups were on board. This course was driven because the other groups rejected the offer of a joint solution. The "demands" you are talking about are hitting the pilot even as this is being typed. I'm sure the flight attendants won't be far behind. (I knew I could find a way to make this post relevant to the original thread.)
"Given the conditions placed upon that cooperation, they were not. It might be also be helpful in the future is ALPA were to keep in mind that people other than pilots may also have had an affiliation with a college or university a little deeper than attending sporting events and be just a little less condescending in such situations."
So...You are saying those upity college boys were looking down their noses at you and that's why you rejected their proposal? I get the impression that AMFA is proud of the extent that their leadership is open and accountable to the membership. If so, that membership should have allowed them to look at the books and comply with the nondisclosure requirements of the economic data. At some point you need to trust your leadership to do what is right when nobody is looking. A company can't just turn over it's books for the world to see since it would provide the competition (other airlines, not NWA employees) with a competitive advantage.
"I do not blame them, although many do. ALPA acted as I expected ALPA to act; without reference to anyone else and with certainty that their way was the only way. However, in the end, ALPA did something AMFA has never done: crossed a legal picket line to go to work.
I have no blame for you, but I have no absolution either."
ALPA acted as they were left to act. Again that difference of opinion thing. ALPA tried the united front and was rejected. Why, can be debated until the cows come home, but the united front option was there. The bridge (read downpayment) agreement was to buy time and try to hold off BK as long as possible even though it was inevitable. The greedy college boy pilots stepped up to the plate before the AMFA negotiations were even opened and gave blood first in an attempt to stave off BK for as long as possible. It also forced mgt in to some concessions up front as well. It wasn't meant to be a cure, only a bandaid. The AMFA view is that they were abandonded. The ALPA view is that they were abandonded first. There is enough blame to go around for everyone. I have no blame for you either and I don't need your absolution. I'll see you in the unemployment line (again) soon enough.
Only opinion I was trying to express in that part of the thread was that ALPA has stood and fought in the past, nothing more, nothing less. Tried to make that clear in the text but was unsuccessful. Don't read too much into it.
"ALPA set the conditions, not AMFA."
Again your side of the story. ALPA presented an option (taking the initiative) and AMFA didn't like what they heard. We could argue this point from dusk till dawn. Let's agree to disagree.
"AMFA chose the only path left to them other than total capitulation, and it's a decision I, for one, will never regret."
Noble but naive, at best. Did AMFA not see what happened to US Airways and United? They knew Mgt had trained and deployed SCABS and had been planning their union busting plan for a long time. In this economic environment and the pervasiveness of corporate greed, the decision to strike may end up being the total capitulation you were trying to avoid. Again a difference of opinion here. Many (including myself) think it would have been better to save the union presence on the property and live to fight another day. I'm not saying its over by any means. I do hope AMFA perseveres and gets back on the property and soon.
"As did every employee at NWA, including AMFA members. I think the employees of NWA have proven in the past that they are willing to go to great lengths to keep the airline alive. However, the company was far less willing to negotiate with the rest of us this time, particularly after they had an agreement with the pilots. At that point, negotiations became demands and no longer negotiable."
The agreement with the pilots was only a "downpayment" agreement. ALPA was buying time and ensuring they weren't going to be the only ones to bear the burden. The agreement was ratified before AMFA negotiations were even opened. No other group had given anything on this round of negotiations except the pilots and the cuts mgt had to take as a part of the agreement. It was written in the agreement that more would have to be given as soon as all of the other groups were on board. This course was driven because the other groups rejected the offer of a joint solution. The "demands" you are talking about are hitting the pilot even as this is being typed. I'm sure the flight attendants won't be far behind. (I knew I could find a way to make this post relevant to the original thread.)
"Given the conditions placed upon that cooperation, they were not. It might be also be helpful in the future is ALPA were to keep in mind that people other than pilots may also have had an affiliation with a college or university a little deeper than attending sporting events and be just a little less condescending in such situations."
So...You are saying those upity college boys were looking down their noses at you and that's why you rejected their proposal? I get the impression that AMFA is proud of the extent that their leadership is open and accountable to the membership. If so, that membership should have allowed them to look at the books and comply with the nondisclosure requirements of the economic data. At some point you need to trust your leadership to do what is right when nobody is looking. A company can't just turn over it's books for the world to see since it would provide the competition (other airlines, not NWA employees) with a competitive advantage.
"I do not blame them, although many do. ALPA acted as I expected ALPA to act; without reference to anyone else and with certainty that their way was the only way. However, in the end, ALPA did something AMFA has never done: crossed a legal picket line to go to work.
I have no blame for you, but I have no absolution either."
ALPA acted as they were left to act. Again that difference of opinion thing. ALPA tried the united front and was rejected. Why, can be debated until the cows come home, but the united front option was there. The bridge (read downpayment) agreement was to buy time and try to hold off BK as long as possible even though it was inevitable. The greedy college boy pilots stepped up to the plate before the AMFA negotiations were even opened and gave blood first in an attempt to stave off BK for as long as possible. It also forced mgt in to some concessions up front as well. It wasn't meant to be a cure, only a bandaid. The AMFA view is that they were abandonded. The ALPA view is that they were abandonded first. There is enough blame to go around for everyone. I have no blame for you either and I don't need your absolution. I'll see you in the unemployment line (again) soon enough.
ExAF said:
ExAF said:
Then why mention the mechanics in that sentence at all?
Indeed they did, and if what NWA was asking of its mechanics was even remotely similar to what those two airlines achieved in bankruptcy court, there would have been an agreement several years ago.
Far from it. If the strike were to fail and I never go back to NWA, I still find that preferable to surrendering to a corporate management that refuses to negotiate but only demands.
Are you at all familiar with what NWA is demanding of AMFA? The union presence remaining on the property under their last, final offer would have been rather brief.
Yet once that agreement was reached, the tone of NWA management's communications changed dramatically. Once they knew that any talk of a 'united front' was just that, they changed their tactics to take advantage of that.
As if NWA has not been seeking concessions since 9/11.
Which would be impressive if ALPA had not reached their agreement with NWA BEFORE the other groups rejected the offer of a 'united front'.
No, I'm saying that I was in attendance and the presentation was extremely condescending, as if ALPA assumed that the people they were giving the presentation to had never dealt with such complicated issues. The education on our side of the table was at least equal to, if not greater than, their own but their initial assumption was that it was nonexistent. An interesting tactic to use if you want someone to agree with you.
Once you start keeping secrets from the membership, you lose a bit of their trust. We had been down that road before and were unwilling to duplicate that experience. We offered to NWA to have our financial advisors look at their data and make recommendations to the AMFA leadership, but NWA never bothered to respond.
ExAF said:
ALPA acted as they chose to act when the other unions did not immediately accede to their plan. No one is condemning them for that, as no one really expected them to do otherwise, but it makes your attempts to take the "we offered, you refused" position now rather humorous.
"Agreeing to disagree" doesn't really work if you keep bringing up the point. Unless you really meant "agree to disagree as long as I have the last word on the subject".
If NWA had not begun making their pitch for concessions to AMFA and the other unions in Sept, 2001, that assertion might stand up to scrutiny, but it does not. I do find it interesting that you have latched onto the least important part of my statement that the ALPA presentation was condescending as some sort of personal criticism, however.
I have never heard anyone from AMFA say that. The only criticism I have heard from AMFA of ALPA was of ALPA's decision to cross the picket lines.
If so, why do you react so violently when you perceive someone criticising the pilots? It's not as if that is a new phenomenon.
Not necessarily.
