Industrial vs. Craft

Status
Not open for further replies.
Anomaly said:
The AMFA Mistake

For more than 50 years, airline workers enjoyed a level of solidarity and support unmatched in the labor movement. Pilots, Flight Attendants and Ground Workers all shared the same goals: better wages, benefits and working conditions. We also had a common enemy – airline management.

Management spent decades trying to shake our solidarity, but was never successful. Although at times we had our differences, we were able to work them out and our solidarity produced positive results. Our solidarity could not be broken.

Consequently, airline employees received pay, pensions and benefits far greater than workers in other industries, both union and non-union.

In 1998, however, that solidarity was fractured. Lured by lies and fed by greed, some licensed aircraft mechanics decided to break away from all other airline workers.

First at Alaska Airlines and then Northwest Airlines, brother turned against brother, and what management couldn’t do, airline workers did to themselves. We went from a single group of Ground Workers to divisions by classification. The results have been disastrous.
Click to expand...

For saving of bandwidth, I have snipped your diatribe of lies above....

I am in complete disagreement with your above posting as noted below:

Union Membership 1930-2010

union_members.png



Notice the Huge and Conitnued Decline of Unionized Workers since the AFL and CIO merger of 1955
These facts don't lie, but instead place a spot light on complete failure!

As a voluntary federation, the AFL–CIO has little authority over the affairs of its member unions except in extremely limited cases (such as the ability to expel a member union for corruption (Art. X, Sec. 17) and enforce resolution of disagreements over jurisdiction or organizing). As of June 2008, the AFL–CIO had 56 member unions.

Basically the AFL-CIO only exist for the purposes of preventing competition in union representation.
And since that began, unionization of workers has not only decreased but the service provided has diminished to the point that Unions are viewed as evil in the public's eye, and young workers have no use for unions, and even many union members hate their own unions.

AFL-CIO affiliation is not only worthless but is destroying the labor movement.

American Airlines Flight Attendants were certified into the non-affiliated APFA in 1977 and left the AFL-CIO affiliation of the TWU

http://www.apfa.org/...story_of_fa.pdf

American Airlines Pilots were certifed into the non-affiliated APA in 1963 and left the AFL-CIO affliated ALPA

http://public.allied...umentation.aspx

So the AA Flight Attendants and the AA Pilots both not only left but RAN from thier respective AFL-CIO representation unions long before your claimed 1998 fracturing of solidarity, and niether group has ever looked back, neither group has sought out reaffiliated with the AFL-CIO, never changed back to an AFL-CIO Union and appear to have been represented by a long shot, better than the Mechanic and Related work group at American Airlines.

Anamoly, You are posting verifiable and documented lies. You can copy and paste your anti-independent union rhetoric anywhere you like, but you should really educate yourself about the history of the American Airlines employees before posting that garbage here on this forum.

What is most glaring about the AFL-CIO mantra is that the affiliation will use union dues payers money to represent non-union workers issues without hesitiation, but will sit by and watch non-affiliated union work groups be attacked by greedy management and then use that idle ignorance as a campaign tool to try to keep the failing affiliation intact. This is not Unionism, this is not Unification, this not even Successful, this is called Institutional Politcs and downright detrimental to ogranized labor. The AFL-CIO places their survival of failed ideas and direction, over the welfare of working men and women.

This attitude and the chart above showing the destruction of Organized Labor are directly related.
 

The AMFA Mistake


For more than 50 years, airline workers enjoyed a level of solidarity and support unmatched in the labor movement. Pilots, Flight Attendants and Ground Workers all shared the same goals: better wages, benefits and working conditions. We also had a common enemy – airline management.

Management spent decades trying to shake our solidarity, but was never successful. Although at times we had our differences, we were able to work them out and our solidarity produced positive results. Our solidarity could not be broken.

Consequently, airline employees received pay, pensions and benefits far greater than workers in other industries, both union and non-union.

In 1998, however, that solidarity was fractured. Lured by lies and fed by greed, some licensed aircraft mechanics decided to break away from all other airline workers.

First at Alaska Airlines and then Northwest Airlines, brother turned against brother, and what management couldn’t do, airline workers did to themselves. We went from a single group of Ground Workers to divisions by classification. The results have been disastrous.
Click to expand...

First Let me say that AMFA first entered the industry in 1964 at Ozark Airlines they were very successful and represented Ozark for the better part of 2 decades they introduced the first license preimium to the industry in 1968 they led the industry in wages and work rules many times just as they do today.

I am glad you posted this piece of fiction, because one it has more lies in it than I have time to answer but the key part for me is that it shows you truly are a Industrial Unionist and as such I still would like to know what is wrong with the Stock Clerks at AA, they have ask to join your merry band and while you claim solidarity here again you have told our Stock Clerks to pound sand this leaves me wondering what your true motivation is although I think we all know.

Finally why does your drive or so called drive at AA only attack AMFA why do you not ever tell us about the failures of the TWU,could it be that their Failures are the same failures of the Teamster so you do not dare mention them for fear of someone seeing the Teamsters flaws.
 
James Hoffa speaks of the IBT and TWU partnership.
June 2012 video the same month the IBT started a "raid" on their partner at AA?
Really?

Watch Video
http://www.amfa-aa.c...l-2012.VOB_.mp4

Meawhile Captain Bourne has to make public statement that the "Drive is Real"?

What or Who are you suppose to believe?

Do you really want to be represented by Liars?
 
TWU informer said:
James Hoffa speaks of the IBT and TWU partnership.
June 2012 video the same month the IBT started a "raid" on their partner at AA?
Really?

Watch Video
http://www.amfa-aa.c...l-2012.VOB_.mp4

Meawhile Captain Bourne has to make public statement that the "Drive is Real"?

What or Who are you suppose to believe?

Do you really want to be represented by Liars?
Click to expand...

He looks like his daddy. Which was the topic of many sit down dinners in my Grandfathers house. Who was a UAW member and part of the 1936 Flint Sit Down Strike. I noticed that my Grandpa didn't like him very much and said the menu at UAW Local 659 was Jimmy Dogs and Jimmy Burgers.
 
trouble_with_teamsters.png


(And The Trouble with TWU and IAM)

Any minority work group in a majority rule organization will never have their issues advanced, addressed, and heard to satisfaction! NEVER!​



A Craft Union is ALWAYS Better Than Industrial Unions​

Sign an AMFA Card Today!​
 
Raiders, Not Union Builders


If you make the decision to go with DPA AMFA, you should know that you're hiring Seham Seham Meltz & Petersen (SSM&P) as the chief advisors and legal team to run your union. SSM&P is good at one thing, and running a union isn't it.

SSM&P specializes in raiding unions when the membership is emotional over a contract, an arbitration award, or a bankruptcy. They'll tell the group whatever they need to hear in order to win them over. For the East pilots, it's how they'll change the Nicolau award. For the West pilots ... well, let's just say Seham couldn't stand the heat of the desert and didn't have anything to tell them other than to complain about being recorded and to distort what he had previously said.

In this respect, Seham denied in PHX that he ever said anything about making a "cost neutral" agreement with the Company. However, the tape of the PHL meeting shows that Seham told the group that one of the first agreements USAPA would make with the Company would be to reorder the seniority list, a deal the Company would be happy to make because it would be "cost neutral."

Aside from the lie about having used the term, the claim shows incredible naivete. No company ever views a major accommodation to a union as "cost neutral"- particularly one that will inevitably lead to litigation. Anyone who believes that the Company will perform this "cost neutral" favor for free, particularly in the present environment, is obviously not connected to reality. And, to make matters worse, USAPA made it clear in PHX that it did not have a "Plan B" in the event the Company either was unwilling to make Seharn's "cost neutral" accommodation or insisted on a contractual concession in exchange.

The lack of candor exhibited in PHX is typical of a group of advisors who are skilled at attacking unions but have established a miserable record when it comes to representing them. They claim to be professional negotiators, but not a single member of the firm has ever negotiated a pilot agreement. They claim to be union lawyers, but under their counsel, various airline managements have hired scabs, threatened union workers, and sought to deprive them of hard-earned wages and benefits in bankruptcy.

SSM&P helped bring the B-scale into the industry and, while representing unions, lost cases that gravely undermined your right to strike and negotiate. They have been fired by the APA and the PFAA, and over the past five years, the Aircraft Mechanics Fraternal Association (AMFA), their primary labor client, has been reduced from 17,000 to approximately 3,000 dues-paying members. Simply put, SSM&P's record in no way supports its claim to your trust.

The mechanics of United Airlines voted overwhelmingly to oust AMFA on March 31, 2008. Should the pilots of US Airways step up to restore this loss of revenue for the Seham firm? Or should you reflect on why it is that yet another group of workers has concluded it is important to be part of the labor movement and left Seham and his clients behind?

Will you be the next group of employees who quickly come to the realization that Seham - style company unionism doesn't work?
 
TWU informer said:
For saving of bandwidth, I have snipped your diatribe of lies above....

I am in complete disagreement with your above posting as noted below:

Union Membership 1930-2010

union_members.png



Notice the Huge and Conitnued Decline of Unionized Workers since the AFL and CIO merger of 1955
These facts don't lie, but instead place a spot light on complete failure!

As a voluntary federation, the AFL–CIO has little authority over the affairs of its member unions except in extremely limited cases (such as the ability to expel a member union for corruption (Art. X, Sec. 17) and enforce resolution of disagreements over jurisdiction or organizing). As of June 2008, the AFL–CIO had 56 member unions.

Basically the AFL-CIO only exist for the purposes of preventing competition in union representation.
And since that began, unionization of workers has not only decreased but the service provided has diminished to the point that Unions are viewed as evil in the public's eye, and young workers have no use for unions, and even many union members hate their own unions.

AFL-CIO affiliation is not only worthless but is destroying the labor movement.

American Airlines Flight Attendants were certified into the non-affiliated APFA in 1977 and left the AFL-CIO affiliation of the TWU

http://www.apfa.org/...story_of_fa.pdf

American Airlines Pilots were certifed into the non-affiliated APA in 1963 and left the AFL-CIO affliated ALPA

http://public.allied...umentation.aspx

So the AA Flight Attendants and the AA Pilots both not only left but RAN from thier respective AFL-CIO representation unions long before your claimed 1998 fracturing of solidarity, and niether group has ever looked back, neither group has sought out reaffiliated with the AFL-CIO, never changed back to an AFL-CIO Union and appear to have been represented by a long shot, better than the Mechanic and Related work group at American Airlines.

Anamoly, You are posting verifiable and documented lies. You can copy and paste your anti-independent union rhetoric anywhere you like, but you should really educate yourself about the history of the American Airlines employees before posting that garbage here on this forum.

What is most glaring about the AFL-CIO mantra is that the affiliation will use union dues payers money to represent non-union workers issues without hesitiation, but will sit by and watch non-affiliated union work groups be attacked by greedy management and then use that idle ignorance as a campaign tool to try to keep the failing affiliation intact. This is not Unionism, this is not Unification, this not even Successful, this is called Institutional Politcs and downright detrimental to ogranized labor. The AFL-CIO places their survival of failed ideas and direction, over the welfare of working men and women.

This attitude and the chart above showing the destruction of Organized Labor are directly related.
Click to expand...

Ousting an Independent


Remember the 1992 firing of the Seham firm as APA’s general counsel? There’s more to this drama, however. Just six months after being dismissed, the Sehams launched a bid to create another independent union for pilots at American Airlines — the American Independent Cockpit Alliance, Inc. (AICA) — with the aid of the McCormick Advisory Group, an administrative support firm that funds start-up “independents.”

According to its website,
“AICA was incorporated in June 1993 . . . and provides all services normally associated with a labor union except collective bargaining. AICA exists to become the certified bargaining representative for the pilots of American Airlines.”​

Seham Seham Meltz & Petersen — the same general counsel that DPA has hired to represent Delta pilots — set up another independent union to decertify its own former client, the Allied Pilots Association (APA), the supposed model for DPA.

In fact, the AICA website refers to Martin Seham’s experience as APA counsel to show his ability to help establish “independent” unions. It does not mention Seham’s dismissal by APA.

The AICA website also talks favorably about the law firm’s representation of management. Of the firm’s lawyers, the site states:
“They have had the experience of sitting on both sides of the table and share one of the greatest aids to negotiated settlements; that is, the ability to put oneself in the other guy’s shoes.”​
That is a fancy way of saying that the firm, while it primarily represents management, attempts to walk on our side of the street but has no allegiance or loyalty to labor or to unions.

The fundamental question is this: Does Seham Seham Meltz & Petersen help establish independent unions to represent labor?

We don’t think so. Simply put, DPA’s law firm acts in a way that seeks to divide and conquer labor and, at the same time, helps management undermine contract standards and set legal precedent that is favorable only to management.

Transform DPA will further examine Seham Seham Meltz & Petersen’s litigation and bargaining work in the weeks to come and provide some examples of how the efforts of DPA’s law firm have harmed pilots and the entire labor movement.

For example, in future issues, you’ll see that the firm has also worked to undermine other AFL-CIO unions like the IAM through their representation of AMFA — similar to its work to undermine the APA after being dismissed as its general counsel in 1992.
 
trouble_with_teamsters.png
ibt_mechanic_minority.jpg


Anomaly said:
For example, in future issues, you’ll see that the firm has also worked to undermine other AFL-CIO unions like the IAM through their representation of AMFA — similar to its work to undermine the APA after being dismissed as its general counsel in 1992.
Click to expand...

You are apparently to engulfed in Industrial Unionism that you fail to realize that the membership, the National Executive Council of AMFA can replace the Seham firm if it ever turns out that the frim doesn't properly represent the interest of the Association's Membership.

You can personally attack anyone and everyone, but the democratic nature of the AMFA Constitution makes replacing the problem or "anamoly" issues a simple as a membership vote.

So you attacks are pointless and worthless.

Now is we were under the APPPOINTED rule of TWU, IAM, or IBT these issues you raise might be of concern to the membership. But the Democratic Nature of AMFA makes your attacks pointless.
 
TWU Informer, you have the graph correct, but seemingly in an attempt to deceive, you edited the text.

Attached is the full and complete text found from

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_unions_in_the_United_States


Possible causes of drop in membership




Rise and fall of union membership in the United States.
Although most industrialized countries have seen a drop in unionization rates, the drop in union density (the unionized proportion of the working population) has been more significant in the United States than elsewhere. Dropping unionization rates cannot be attributed entirely to changing market structures. In fact, scholars have shown the tremendous complexity inherent in explaining the decline of union density.
Popularity





A historical comparison of union membership as a percentage of all workers and union support in the United States.
Public approval of unions climbed during the 1980s much as it did in other industrialized nations,[sup][18][/sup] but declined to below 50% for the first time in 2009 during the Great Recession. It's not clear if this is a long term trend or a function of a high unemployment rate with historically correlates with lower public approval of labor unions.[sup][19][/sup] One explanation for loss of public support is simply the lack of union power or critical mass. No longer do a sizable percentage of American workers belonged to unions, or have family members who do. Unions no longer carry the “threat effect”. The power of unions to raise wages of non-union shops by virtue of the threat of unions to organize those shops.[sup][19][/sup]
Institutional environments

A broad range of forces have been identified as potential contributors to the drop in union density across countries. Sano and Williamson outline quantitative studies that assess the relevance of these factors across countries.[sup][20][/sup] The first relevant set of factors relate to the receptiveness of unions’ institutional environments. For example, the presence of a Ghent system (where unions are responsible for the distribution of unemployment insurance) and of centralized collective bargaining (organized at a national or industry level as opposed to local or firm level) have both been shown to give unions more bargaining power and to correlate positively to higher rates of union density. Unions have enjoyed higher rates of success in locations where they have greater access to the workplace as an organizing space (as determined both by law and by employer acceptance), and where they benefit from a corporatist relationship to the state and are thus allowed to participate more directly in the official governance structure. Moreover, the fluctuations of business cycles, particularly the rise and fall of unemployment rates and inflation, are also closely linked to changes in union density.[sup][20][/sup]
Legislation

Labor lawyer Thomas Geoghegan attributes the drop to the long term effects of the 1947 Taft-Hartley Act, which slowed and then halted labor's growth and then, over many decades, enabled management to roll back its previous gains.[sup][21][/sup]

First, it ended organizing on the grand, 1930s scale. It outlawed mass picketing, secondary strikes of neutral employers, sit downs: in short, everything [Congress of Industrial Organizations founder John L.] Lewis did in the 1930s.

The second effect of Taft-Hartley was subtler and slower-working. It was to hold up any new organizing at all, even on a quiet, low-key scale. For example, Taft-Hartley ended "card checks." … Taft-Hartley required hearings, campaign periods, secret-ballot elections, and sometimes more hearings, before a union could be officially recognized.

It also allowed and even encouraged employers to threaten workers who want to organize. Employers could hold "captive meetings," bring workers into the office and chew them out for thinking about the Union.

And Taft-Hartley led to the "union-busting" that started in the late 1960s and continues today. It started when a new "profession" of labor consultants began to convince employers that they could violate the [pro-labor 1935] Wagner Act, fire workers at will, fire them deliberately for exercising their legal rights, and nothing would happen. The Wagner Act had never had any real sanctions.
[…]
So why hadn't employers been violating the Wagner Act all along? Well, at first, in the 1930s and 1940s, they tried, and they got riots in the streets: mass picketing, secondary strikes, etc. But after Taft-Hartley, unions couldn't retaliate like this, or they would end up with penalty fines and jail sentences.[sup][21][/sup]​
In general the influence of politics in determining union strength in the US and other countries is contested. Brady[sup][who?][/sup] writes that political parties play an expected role in determining union strength, with left-wing governments generally promoting greater union density, other scholars contest this finding by pointing out important counterexamples and explaining the reverse causality inherent in this relationship.[sup][22][/sup]
Globalization

More recently, as unions have become increasingly concerned with the impacts of market integration on their well-being, scholars have begun to assess whether popular concerns about a global “race to the bottom” are reflected in cross-country comparisons of union strength. These scholars use foreign direct investment (FDI) and the size of a country’s international trade as a percentage of its GDP to assess a country’s relative degree of market integration. These researchers typically find that globalization does affect union density, but is dependent on other factors, such as unions’ access to the workplace and the centralization of bargaining.[sup][23][/sup] Sano and Williamson argue that globalization’s impact is conditional upon a country’s labor history.[sup][24][/sup] In the United States in particular, which has traditionally had relatively low levels of union density, globalization did not appear to significantly affect union density.
Employer strategies





Illegal union firing increased during the Reagan administration and has continued since.[sup][25][/sup]
Studies focusing more narrowly on the U.S. labor movement corroborate the comparative findings about the importance of structural factors, but tend to emphasize the effects of changing labor markets due to globalization to a greater extent. Bronfenbrenner notes that changes in the economy, such as increased global competition, capital flight, and the transitions from a manufacturing to a service economy and to a greater reliance on transitory and contingent workers, accounts for only a third of the decline in union density.[sup][26][/sup] She claims that the federal government in the 1980s was largely responsible for giving employers the perception that they could engage in aggressive strategies to repress the formation of unions. Richard Freeman also points to the role of repressive employer strategies in reducing unionization, and highlights the way in which a state ideology of anti-unionism tacitly accepted these strategies [sup][18][/sup] Goldfield notes that the overall effects of globalization on unionization in the particular case of the United States may be understated in econometric studies on the subject.[sup][27][/sup] He writes that the threat of production shifts reduces unions’ bargaining power even if it does not eliminate them, and also claims that most of the effects of globalization on labor’s strength are indirect. They are most present in change towards a neoliberal political context that has promoted the deregulation and privatization of some industries and accepted increased employer flexibility in labor markets.
Union responses to globalization





Studies done by Kate Bronfenbrenner at Cornell University show the adverse effects of globalization towards unions due to illegal threats of firing.[sup][28][/sup]
Regardless of the actual impact of market integration on union density or on workers themselves, organized labor has been engaged in a variety of strategies to limit the agenda of globalization and to promote labor regulations in an international context. The most prominent example of this has been the opposition of labor groups to free trade initiatives such as the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and the Dominican Republic-Central American Free Trade Agreement (DR-CAFTA). In both cases, unions expressed strong opposition to the agreements, but to some extent pushed for the incorporation of basic labor standards in the agreement if one were to pass.[sup][29][/sup]
However, Mayer has written that it was precisely unions’ opposition to NAFTA overall that jeopardized organized labor’s ability to influence the debate on labor standards in a significant way.[sup][30][/sup] During Clinton’s presidential campaign, labor unions wanted NAFTA to include a side deal to provide for a kind of international social charter, a set of standards that would be enforceable both in domestic courts and through international institutions. Mickey Kantor, then U.S. trade representative, had strong ties to organized labor and believed that he could get unions to come along with the agreement, particularly if they were given a strong voice in the negotiation process. However, when it became clear that Mexico would not stand for this kind of an agreement, some critics from the labor movement would not settle for any viable alternatives. In response, part of the labor movement wanted to declare their open opposition to the agreement, and to push for NAFTA’s rejection in Congress.[sup][30][/sup] Ultimately, the ambivalence of labor groups led those within the Administration who supported NAFTA to believe that strengthening NAFTA’s labor side agreement too much would cost more votes among Republicans than it would garner among Democrats, and would make it harder for the United States to elicit support from Mexico.[sup][31][/sup]
Graubart writes that, despite unions’ open disappointment with the outcome of this labor-side negotiation, labor activists, including the AFL-CIO have used the side agreement’s citizen petition process to highlight ongoing political campaigns and struggles in their home countries.[sup][32][/sup] He claims that despite the relative weakness of the legal provisions themselves, the side-agreement has served a legitimizing functioning, giving certain social struggles a new kind of standing.
Unions have recently been engaged in a developing field of transnational labor regulation embodied in corporate codes of conduct. However, O’Brien notes that unions have been only peripherally involved in this process, and remain ambivalent about its potential effects.[sup][33][/sup] They worry that these codes could have legitimizing effects on companies that don’t actually live up to good practices, and that companies could use codes to excuse or distract attention from the repression of unions. Braun and Gearhart note that although unions do participate in the structure of a number of these agreements, their original interest in codes of conduct differed from the interests of human rights and other non-governmental activists. They believed that codes of conduct would be important first steps in creating written principles that a company would be compelled to comply with in later organizing contracts, but did not foresee the establishment of monitoring systems such as the Fair Labor Association. These authors point out that are motivated by power, want to gain insider status politically and are accountable to a constituency that requires them to provide them with direct benefits. In contrast, activists from the non-governmental sector are motivated by ideals, are free of accountability and gain legitimacy from being political outsiders. Therefore, the interests of unions are not likely to align well with the interests of those who draft and monitor corporate codes of conduct.
Arguing against the idea that high union wages necessarily make manufacturing uncompetitive in a globalized economy is labor lawyer Thomas Geoghegan. Busting

unions, in the U.S. manner, as the prime way of competing with China and other countries [does not work]. It's no accident that the social democracies, Sweden, France, and Germany, which kept on paying high wages, now have more industry than the U.S. or the UK. … [T]hat's what the U.S. and the UK did: they smashed the unions, in the belief that they had to compete on cost. The result? They quickly ended up wrecking their industrial base.[sup][34][/sup]​
Unions have made some attempts to organize across borders. Eder notes that transnational organizing is not a new phenomenon but has been facilitated by technological change.[sup][35][/sup] Nevertheless, he claims that while unions pay lip service to global solidarity, they still act largely in their national self-interest. He argues that unions in the global North are becoming increasingly depoliticized while those in the South grow politically, and that global differentiation of production processes leads to divergent strategies and interests in different regions of the world. These structural differences tend to hinder effective global solidarity. However, in light of the weakness of international labor, Herod notes that globalization of production need not be met by a globalization of union strategies in order to be contained.[sup][36][/sup] He points out that local strategies, such as the United Auto Workers’ strike against General Motors in 1998, can sometimes effectively interrupt global production processes in ways that they could not before the advent of widespread market integration. Thus, workers need not be connected organizationally to others around the world to effectively influence the behavior of a transnational corporation.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

proAMT
Tulsa's AMT's can make things better
13 14 15
Replies
213
Views
30K
swamt
S
C
Pensions Vs Strike
2
Replies
21
Views
2K
AMFAMAN
A
L
Let"s Not Forget This
Replies
13
Views
2K
Bob Owens
B
Ken MacTiernan
Answers
Replies
3
Views
2K
Ken MacTiernan
Ken MacTiernan
C
One of the Most Destructive Forces Against the AMT
2
Replies
29
Views
4K
aircraft_artificer
A

Latest posts

Back
Top