Follow The Leadership Off The Cliff

[TWU informer]

I have been to several meetings recently in Tulsa.

When AA/TWU Leadership speak of the management philosophy currently being implemented in Tulsa they also quickly and boldly point out that 86% of the companies that try these policies fail.

Why in the hell is our union leadership taking us on a path with a 14% success rate?

The Local President has clearly stated he is in bed with the company.

The Local President builds a new union hall even after three failed motions to do so before the membership.

TWU has for years claimed that being affiliated with the AFL-CIO gives us strength. Now there are at least four large unions preparing the leave the AFL-CIO, some strength that must be. Not to mention several unions have already bailed out the liberal political wing of Organized Labor.

I think the Company and the Union Leadership in Tulsa is leading us down a path off the cliff!

The TWU has been busted in Tulsa. There is no union, there are two groups of morons steering the ship.

 

[PRINCESS KIDAGAKASH]

I believe this picture says it all.

 

[Garfield1966]

I have a question. Is there something other than what is typically known as a union? Seems like everyone is dissatisfied with the representation that you have all been receiving. From what I can gather unions are just like any other business. There are there to make money. If they happen to do good by their membership so much the better. It does not seem that anyone has it down pat. I hear complaints about the TWU, ALPA, APFA, IAM …you get the point. It also seems to me that your leadership is no better or more qualified than the leadership at any of the companies that these unions are part of (I do not mean that they are bought by the unions but that they represent you who work for the company). Anyway, since you do not seem to be satisfied with than, and replacing them with another does not seem to be the answer, does anyone have an idea for a way to represent ones self with out the current union structure and the inherent flaws that come with that? Such as greed, corruption … etc. The way I see it, going with the current system does have a good future. I am not sure if the unions can change and yet deal with the same management. I do not se management changing anytime soon. Their power base seems to come from a more powerful source than that of the union. Not sure what I mean by that but it just seems different to me. Perhaps they are more insulated from the rest of us and it is more difficult to place blame that it is with the union leadership.

Someone mentioned something about industry seniority. I assume that means getting one union for everyone. I don’t see how that would work. Doesn’t the company have the right to hire whom ever they choose? They would then have to join the union if that work force is represented but how can a union say “here are 10 applicants we have, you have to hire one of them.â€￾ That is how it would work right?

Anyways, just some questions / ideas. Currious

 

[NewHampshire Black Bears]

I have a question. Is there something other than what is typically known as a union? Seems like everyone is dissatisfied with the representation that you have all been receiving. From what I can gather unions are just like any other business. There are there to make money. If they happen to do good by their membership so much the better. It does not seem that anyone has it down pat. I hear complaints about the TWU, ALPA, APFA, IAM …you get the point. It also seems to me that your leadership is no better or more qualified than the leadership at any of the companies that these unions are part of (I do not mean that they are bought by the unions but that they represent you who work for the company). Anyway, since you do not seem to be satisfied with than, and replacing them with another does not seem to be the answer, does anyone have an idea for a way to represent ones self with out the current union structure and the inherent flaws that come with that? Such as greed, corruption … etc. The way I see it, going with the current system does have a good future. I am not sure if the unions can change and yet deal with the same management. I do not se management changing anytime soon. Their power base seems to come from a more powerful source than that of the union. Not sure what I mean by that but it just seems different to me. Perhaps they are more insulated from the rest of us and it is more difficult to place blame that it is with the union leadership.

Someone mentioned something about industry seniority. I assume that means getting one union for everyone. I don’t see how that would work. Doesn’t the company have the right to hire whom ever they choose? They would then have to join the union if that work force is represented but how can a union say “here are 10 applicants we have, you have to hire one of them.â€￾ That is how it would work right?

Anyways, just some questions / ideas. Currious

[post="277570"][/post]​

===================================================

Garfield(the movie);

I'm going to give you the HUGE "benefit of the doubt", and assume that your NOT being disingenuous, and give you a few things to "consider"

The organized labor movement/theory WILL still work !

I say still, because there are a (few) examples recently that prove it does.
BUT,
in regard to the current airline unions, they are ALL failing miserably.

Despite whats been written about AMFA(AND I SUPPORT THEM), there is not a "
dimes worth of difference" betweem the TWU,IAM,IBT, CWA AND given theie most recent failures, AMFA !!!!!!!!!!

Managements, and Republican presidents DO STILL FEAR unions !!!!!!!!
Sadly the only example I can give you, that occured on DUMBY's watch, that was COMPLETELY successful, was the west coast longshoreman's/dockworkers STRIKE, a few years back.
In that one, the Longshoremans Union, made their FINAL demands, and struck WHEN THEY SAID THEY WOULD !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Now the "little TURD" in washington was eager to hit the dockworkers with their own personal Injunction, that was created exclusively for them, called the Taft-Hartly act.

Ah, but the union had a "fool proof" strategy. It was fool proof, because Management was told, beyond any shadow of a doubt, that IF ordered back by "TH", that they would "work-to-rule", and zero overtime !!!!

So management "locked them out" !! THAT accomplished NOTHING !!

The shippers assoc./management had 3 choices.

1. Lock them out ??, ships with perishable cargo ROTS while tied up to the pier, OR at anckorage !!

2. Let "the little #### HEAD invoke Taft-Hartly which would FORCE them back to work = A LEGAL slowdown, NO overtime+ Perishable cargo STILL ROTS !!!

3. CAVE in to their demands becomes the "lessor of 3 evils" !!

The ONLY reason this works is "100% UNITY"
No "back stabbing union official" would DARE double-cross the membership.

The reason why ?? I'm told that unless "they" can fly, It's a looooong way down from the main deck of a freighter, into Long Beach Harbor !!!!!

Sadly the airline industry does'nt have UNITY anymore, and may(god forbid) never again.

Hope that answers you question.

NH/BB's

ps,
The Dockworkers union IS AFL-CIO.

 

[eolesen]

Managements, and Republican presidents DO STILL FEAR unions !!!!!!!!

[post="277576"][/post]​

Bears, there's a big difference between fear and respect.

And I'd say that few managements or politicians actually fear unions. Obviously, there are people who'd rather not deal with them at all, but there really is a such thing as management and labor working together towards common goals.

Go ahead and rant about pajama parties, company lapdogs, and all the other crap that the persistently negative players want to spew on a daily basis, but personally, I think most people would agree that everyone is better off when the relationship isn't adversarial.

 

[AMFAMAN]

everyone is better off when the relationship isn't adversarial.

[post="277599"][/post]​

Adversarial as compared to joined at the hip in what we have with the twu. The last time the relationship between the twu and the company was adversarial would be in the 60's and the last strike. They claim it to be non-adversarial now only because they have officially come out of the closet. Now you can have a working relationship with the company and keep them in check by always remembering that you can trust them as far as you can throw them. A perfect example is going on in MCI right now. The local jumps in bed with the company, promises the workerbees the world, makes public claims about savings jobs, being one with the union and the end result; more hitting the street right now. That's what happens when as a union you put your full faith and trust in the hands of a management team that time and time again have proven to be nothing more than greedy vultures. Pull Together, Win Together, C.I., TeAAm, etc; it's all recycled B.S. whose goal is one thing: UNION BUSTING. Guess what, you succeeded, at least with the current union.

 

[TIME FOR CHANGE]

Someone mentioned something about industry seniority. I assume that means getting one union for everyone. I don’t see how that would work. Doesn’t the company have the right to hire whom ever they choose? They would then have to join the union if that work force is represented but how can a union say “here are 10 applicants we have, you have to hire one of them.â€￾ That is how it would work right?

All the trade unions in NYC do it why cant the airline industry.
If Brand X has a lay off due to reduced schedule 10 mechanics and brand Z is hiring due to exspansion 10 mechanics.
The union representing all AMTs tells brand Z I have 10 mechanics for you take it or leave it. If you want to be in the aviation industry join the union for a job. If you dont less chance of getting work considering the majority of AMTs will belong to the union.

 

[TWU informer]

Go ahead and rant about pajama parties, company lapdogs, and all the other crap that the persistently negative players want to spew on a daily basis, but personally, I think most people would agree that everyone is better off when the relationship isn't adversarial.

[post="277599"][/post]​

Why does NOT SUPPORTING smoke blowing rhetoric that management and union admits 86% of companies trying this lapdog company kiss ass philosophy fail mean we favor adversarial relationship?

You're the one pigeon holing everyone into that belief.

I personally believe that if management is incapable of managing, then they should be replaced with someone who is capable.

Recruiting employees from the toolbox, who won a popularity contest with less than 20% of the membership vote to run a multi-billion dollar company, is as assnine as it gets.

Maybe we should change our Union Consitution and By-Laws to require Masters, or BS in Business Management to be eligible to run for union office?

If you want the Union Officers to run the Company, then fire the overpaid morons, who cannot run it, and we will change our requirements to hold management/union office.

You can sit there in your office in Dallas, and pretend everything is good, but truth is, there are now just twice as many dumbasses running Tulsa, and getting a decision is near impossible. You dont know, because (A You dont work there and (B You believe every damn thing the palyers in Tulsa tell you.

Adversarial Union Relationships and the Management Running the Company are two different things.

Call me a negative player all you want, but you and the TWU stooge are in good company, you both refuse to hear the truth when it is presented and you both live in fanatasy lands that will destroy AA.

Why can't the Union Negotiate and Enforce the Contract, and Management run the company?

It seems to have been working for what 70+ years?

I didn't hear you claiming when AA was profitable that you needed some TWU Hillbilly from the Toolbox to run the Company then, why do you feel compelled to allow that now?

How about your job, can a Union Officer step in and help/replace you also? I might be interested in running for Office, if I can take your duties on top of my own, and eventually eliminate your need for employment and the employment of an entire corporation.

Go ahead there Mr. Positive, tell what aspects of your company position can the Union Officers take off your shoulders and do a much better job than you can. List them all out for us will ya? Surely you will run out room in the forum before you complete your list.

 

[NewHampshire Black Bears]

Bears, there's a big difference between fear and respect.

And I'd say that few managements or politicians actually fear unions. Obviously, there are people who'd rather not deal with them at all, but there really is a such thing as management and labor working together towards common goals.

Go ahead and rant about pajama parties, company lapdogs, and all the other crap that the persistently negative players want to spew on a daily basis, but personally, I think most people would agree that everyone is better off when the relationship isn't adversarial.

[post="277599"][/post]​

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Actually "E" in the dockworkers case, It's probably a bit of "both" !!

Bottom line, It's Still a Reality, "ON THE WATERFRONT " !!!!!!!!!

NH/BB's

 

[Buck]

All the trade unions in NYC do it why cant the airline industry.
If Brand X has a lay off due to reduced schedule 10 mechanics and brand Z is hiring due to exspansion 10 mechanics.
The union representing all AMTs tells brand Z I have 10 mechanics for you take it or leave it. If you want to be in the aviation industry join the union for a job. If you dont less chance of getting work considering the majority of AMTs will belong to the union.

[post="277613"][/post]​

That sounds like the AFL-CIO would have to get off of their butts and support their members in the airline industry.

 

[High Speed Steel]

Why does NOT SUPPORTING smoke blowing rhetoric that management and union admits 86% of companies trying this lapdog company kiss ass philosophy fail mean we favor adversarial relationship?

You're the one pigeon holing everyone into that belief.

I personally believe that if management is incapable of managing, then they should be replaced with someone who is capable.

Recruiting employees from the toolbox, who won a popularity contest with less than 20% of the membership vote to run a multi-billion dollar company, is as assnine as it gets.

Maybe we should change our Union Consitution and By-Laws to require Masters, or BS in Business Management to be eligible to run for union office?

If you want the Union Officers to run the Company, then fire the overpaid morons, who cannot run it, and we will change our requirements to hold management/union office.

You can sit there in your office in Dallas, and pretend everything is good, but truth is, there are now just twice as many dumbasses running Tulsa, and getting a decision is near impossible. You dont know, because (A You dont work there and (B You believe every damn thing the palyers in Tulsa tell you.

Adversarial Union Relationships and the Management Running the Company are two different things.

Call me a negative player all you want, but you and the TWU stooge are in good company, you both refuse to hear the truth when it is presented and you both live in fanatasy lands that will destroy AA.

Why can't the Union Negotiate and Enforce the Contract, and Management run the company?

It seems to have been working for what 70+ years?

I didn't hear you claiming when AA was profitable that you needed some TWU Hillbilly from the Toolbox to run the Company then, why do you feel compelled to allow that now?

How about your job, can a Union Officer step in and help/replace you also? I might be interested in running for Office, if I can take your duties on top of my own, and eventually eliminate your need for employment and the employment of an entire corporation.

Go ahead there Mr. Positive, tell what aspects of your company position can the Union Officers take off your shoulders and do a much better job than you can. List them all out for us will ya? Surely you will run out room in the forum before you complete your list.

[post="277638"][/post]​

informer, Not trying to toss a burr under your saddle, but why are you not making the same arguments about what is taking place over at United? It seems that the amfa Hillbilly's over there are trying a new approach as well.

See below......

LEAN

On Friday February 18 the Local 9 Leadership and senior management met to discuss LEAN at the Maintenance Base. The goal was to reach a common understanding of what LEAN is and lay down a collaborative effort by union and company to support positive necessary changes at SFO. The S200 business plan has earmarked over $80 million in cost savings due to LEAN initiatives. In addition to these savings, revenue growth in the Turbine Shop is to be viable with these measures for more capacity. The union is aware that LEAN follows with much skepticism on the floor. We have seen many programs come and go with little fruit to bear. EMSYS, Introspect, 20% Solution, and Best Maintenance are some of the names we are aware of. All these programs had cost. The concerns which are valid deal with the cost and effectiveness of such programs. Is LEAN the same? The processes we have now are results of years and years of planning, experience, and evolution. This is by no means taking the position that what we have now in Airframe, Turbine Shop, and Components is the absolute in efficiency and cost effectiveness. The parts supply system is an example of something that has appeared to be broken for a long time. We all know we have serious problems in several areas. Be it parts shortages, engineering support, management support, or our own cynicism and resulting lack of urgency, there does need to be the acceptance for positive change. If we fail to see that we need to constantly look for better ways of doing our job than we will fall victim to inefficiencies, waste, and passiveness.



What is LEAN? LEAN is a system successfully used in the Toyota Production System (TPS). This idea seeks to reduce waste, redundancy, and inefficiencies. The Toyota and GM NUMI plant in Fremont is a success story for LEAN with their production line of cars and trucks. One facet which may make it successful is a positive collaborative partnership between the company and the United Auto Workers Union (UAW). Recent contact AMFA has had with the UAW appears to show that LEAN may be a system which will help many areas. The three areas we have seen at UAL which have gone through LEAN include SFO Landing Gear Shop, ORD 747 A Checks, and the SFO Tire Shop. AMFA has talked with members on the floor in each area. The results are mixed as there are some gains and some questions. The SFO Tire Shop appears to have stalled in its change over. Furthermore, all successful LEAN programs at other companies show witness to streamlining management and moving more responsibility to the work force. At UAL, AMFA has seen neither.

With the subject of LEAN AMFA has a predicament. The company is actively asking for help from knowledgeable members and union support. Even with support for the LEAN concept, the union knows LEAN will not work unless the members from the floor embrace and champion it. To achieve this, members must have trust, commitment, and stability. Senior management needs to ask these questions. What can they do to rebuild trust? What can they do to show commitment? What can they do to prove our careers have stability? To date, these questions of foundation have not been asked. This is something AMFA is willing to discuss in the current 1113 negotiations.

 

[TWU informer]

informer, Not trying to toss a burr under your saddle, but why are you not making the same arguments about what is taking place over at United? It seems that the amfa Hillbilly's over there are trying a new approach as well.

[post="277683"][/post]​

Well first off, "LEAN" is not the pajama party joint management team.

Your own post spells out what "LEAN" is, and it doesn't mention "pajama parties", "union is in bed with company", and it also never mentions a turnover of management functions to the union officer.

You should consider getting your facts straight before posting something like this and removing all doubt about your ignorance.

Hell HSS everybody knows we could and should be more efficient, I just wonder what the dollar value of this process is and was included in the $620 Million sellout, or are we giving this on top of the industry leading concessions?

I find one aspect of your post most interesting. The part where the "union" and the "member" appear to be two different things.

Even with support for the LEAN concept, the union knows LEAN will not work unless the members from the floor embrace and champion it.

When you post something like this HSS, do you ever consider who the "union" is, versus who the "member" is?

I am curiuos as to your explanation regarding the difference in the two?

SO you have complete confidence that your Union Leadership team can manage the maintenance base, and at the same time, keep the union agenda of higher wages and benefits alive?

Sorry pal, but I don't recognize the Tulsa Local 514 Officers as superior management, decision making, leaders. And given the TWU track record, they cannot even successfully implement the union agenda, unless of course the union agenda is now lower pay, more jobs. Hmm, now that I think about it, maybe the TWU will make superior management afterall.

 

[High Speed Steel]

Well first off, "LEAN" is not the pajama party joint management team.

Your own post spells out what "LEAN" is, and it doesn't mention "pajama parties", "union is in bed with company", and it also never mentions a turnover of management functions to the union officer.

You should consider getting your facts straight before posting something like this and removing all doubt about your ignorance.

Hell HSS everybody knows we could and should be more efficient, I just wonder what the dollar value of this process is and was included in the $620 Million sellout, or are we giving this on top of the industry leading concessions?

I find one aspect of your post most interesting. The part where the "union" and the "member" appear to be two different things.
When you post something like this HSS, do you ever consider who the "union" is, versus who the "member" is?

I am curiuos as to your explanation regarding the difference in the two?

SO you have complete confidence that your Union Leadership team can manage the maintenance base, and at the same time, keep the union agenda of higher wages and benefits alive?

Sorry pal, but I don't recognize the Tulsa Local 514 Officers as superior management, decision making, leaders. And given the TWU track record, they cannot even successfully implement the union agenda, unless of cours the agenda is now lower pay, more jobs.

[post="277692"][/post]​

informer, I really don't see that much of a difference in the two programs. The term "pajama parties", was mearly a term to describe a meeting between two parties. As far as the post on LEAN, I did not author it, only brought it to your attention. I believe in the sentence that uses the word union, it describes amfa's leadership.

 

[TonyB]

I have a question. Is there something other than what is typically known as a union? Seems like everyone is dissatisfied with the representation that you have all been receiving. From what I can gather unions are just like any other business. There are there to make money. If they happen to do good by their membership so much the better. It does not seem that anyone has it down pat. I hear complaints about the TWU, ALPA, APFA, IAM …you get the point. It also seems to me that your leadership is no better or more qualified than the leadership at any of the companies that these unions are part of (I do not mean that they are bought by the unions but that they represent you who work for the company). Anyway, since you do not seem to be satisfied with than, and replacing them with another does not seem to be the answer, does anyone have an idea for a way to represent ones self with out the current union structure and the inherent flaws that come with that? Such as greed, corruption … etc. The way I see it, going with the current system does have a good future. I am not sure if the unions can change and yet deal with the same management. I do not se management changing anytime soon. Their power base seems to come from a more powerful source than that of the union. Not sure what I mean by that but it just seems different to me. Perhaps they are more insulated from the rest of us and it is more difficult to place blame that it is with the union leadership.

Someone mentioned something about industry seniority. I assume that means getting one union for everyone. I don’t see how that would work. Doesn’t the company have the right to hire whom ever they choose? They would then have to join the union if that work force is represented but how can a union say “here are 10 applicants we have, you have to hire one of them.â€￾ That is how it would work right?

Anyways, just some questions / ideas. Currious

[post="277570"][/post]​

Garfield poses her query so innocently trying to play the babe in the woods routine. But Garfield is merely an agent provacateur, trying to please her mAAster.
Does Garfield think that corporate America and the AFL-CIO have differrent "power bases?" The power base for unions is not its members as the unions want you to believe. The real power is unseen and controls both business and the unions. These are the same people who have always provided the Capital for both sides of wars and come out on top no matter who won.
Think I'm nuts? Here's two quotes at separate points in our history from two men much wiser than me.

"A power has risen up in the government greater than the people themselves, consisting of many and various and powerful interests, combined into one mass, and held together by the cohesive power of the vast surplus in the banks."
John C. Calhoun. May 27, 1836


"I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country. As a result of the war, corporations have been enthroned, and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed. I feel at this moment more anxiety for the safety of my country than ever before, even in the midst of war."
President Abraham Lincoln. Nov. 21, 1864

 

[Ken MacTiernan]

Anyway, since you do not seem to be satisfied with than, and replacing them with another does not seem to be the answer,

Garfield, how can a union be replace inside a corrupt system where dead people are included in the eligibility list?