Industrial vs. Craft
- Thread starter whoop whoop
- Start date
- Status
Why does the AMFA model seem to suit the WN guys? Perhaps freedom to choose is not for everyone.
Anomaly
Veteran
- Jun 2, 2012
- 1,220
- 218
Take a stand for a hundred grand. Sound familiar?
Beyond accomplishing this, I understand the level of apathy is astounding.
Your quote doesn't ring a bell but what you call apathy could be translated contentment.
Anomaly
Veteran
- Jun 2, 2012
- 1,220
- 218
Good point. I will yield to that.
(the quote was a slogan used during the representational election to decertify the Teamsters)
AC Tynker
Senior
- Jun 24, 2012
- 481
- 107
Thank You for your input Brian (<-ACTUAL AMFA Represented member). Shouldn't be long and Informer (<--Charter Member Never Been a Full Fledged Member) & Co. should be here throwing the "Liar" and "You Don't Know what You are talking about" Soon.
ThirdSeatHero
Veteran
As a former AMFA represented member I'd like to offer the counterpoint that the "political agendas" were no more prevalent in AMFA than they were in the ibt or the IAM. Those who are truly serving the membership have nothing to fear from a recall, and despite the claims here on this board, one can gain a grasp on the truth of the matter by looking at how many actual recalls their were under AMFAs tenure at any of its current or former represented carriers.
The ability to recall elected officers/representatives will always stand superior to the consequences of unelected/unaccountable appointees and the associated cronyism.
The ability to recall elected officers/representatives will always stand superior to the consequences of unelected/unaccountable appointees and the associated cronyism.
ThirdSeatHero
Veteran
I offered my take on this because there are some posts here that are more outlandish than factual. Did we have recalls in AMFA? Yes. Were they happening everyday? No. Was there cases of politic based infighting Yes, but no more so than in the ibt or IAM. Just as example under the ibt here in SFO during the latest international election one of our Chief stewards reported on one of our BAs who later under investigation was found guilty of election violations.....does that mean its happening every day? No.
I have no problem with what you pointed out AC Tynker. I know there are those out there that will never see AMFA the way that I and others do. I accept that.
Anomaly
Veteran
- Jun 2, 2012
- 1,220
- 218
Oh come on! To explain; The election "violation" was the BA inadvertently, unknowingly, or mistakenly left some campaign material for delegates to the national convention on the same table as the sign in sheet for a monthly meeting. Under the IRB's (Internal Review Board) strict election rules, even this small act constitutes a contestable election violation. It is important to note, the BA paid NO fine, suffered NO suspension, and answered NO written admonishment from the Federal overseeing elections body. The election continued and no further protest was made because of the specific issue even after the completion of the election.
The Local was only made to post the rules and regulations on the bulletin boards in all the associated work areas in all stations governed by the Local.
This is certainly a lot different than the antics that were going on uncontested at AMFA. For instance, at one time, the friction between at least one Airline Rep and a Local President was so high, the latter would not approve the former for union funds to attend negotiations. The bi-laws were being thrown back and fourth and being used against one another to the detriment of the members.
Now I am not suggesting there was never an issue of the same or more serious nature in any other union. There were problems before and have been since with both the IAM and the IBT. I am personally aware that there have been improprieties ranging from the laughable to the more serious where a Local is essentially confiscated. The big difference, however is the oversight.
I never saw AMFA International step in to resolve a situation with the same degree that the other two unions have. In fact, (take it as a good or bad), because of their "interesting" past, the Teamsters are now one of the most monitored unions. One could view this as a good thing. We are now watched over by more than one Federal Agency which could minimize the possibilities of future serious infractions. On the other hand, the history that brought us to this point could lend negatively to the Teamsters as they are now, This is something I am quite aware of when bringing up the sorted history of AMFA. It runs both ways.
To sum this all up, there are times for an overseeing body to step in. I did not see this type or sense of overall leadership at AMFA. It seemed each Local was free to do what they wanted, and often times the grabs for power worked against the members.
Back to your point above on the person who turned in the BA (and did so for political purposes), I would like to point out that he did not act alone. There was also another person who was behind the scenes and trying to create an internal campaign of his own to overthrow some of the elected officers of the Local. The Teamsters, however, viewed this as a perfectly legitimate political process. After the dust settled on this issue, both of these persons were invited in to the negotiating process by the same Local President they hoped to unseat, and both are now involved in the Teamsters. I seriously doubt we ever would have seen that type of maturity and integrity at either of the other two Unions for similar situations. Politics is a dirty business, but at the end of the day, the Teamsters have not let politics get in the way of doing what is right for the membership.
ThirdSeatHero
Veteran
Is that your story?
Seems to me you left out quite abit. You try to make it out to be an innocent transgression with yout statement...
The petitions were passed around the meeting and the BA ask attending members to sign. He also attended shop steward weekly meetings where he asked them to get the petitions signed.
The BA was found guilty of using union resources to aid in an indivduals campaign, the investigator went so far as to call it a "text book example".
I have the report if you'd like me to post it here, rest assured it wasn't as innocent as you make out.
As for the rest, you illustrate my point perfectly.
You freely admit...for political purposes.
(just an aside, you claim ... "for political purposes" ...did it ever occur to you maybe the person in question did it because it was the right thing to do? The BA was found in violation)
All that being said you also left out the fallout that occured following this investigation where suddenly the Chief steward involved got brought up on charges....which of course went nowhere but the games were on, and continued on through the rest of the election cycle.......once again, you claim to be in SFO yet you either conviently forgot this or in fact weren;t aware of it.
As for your generalized statements against AMFA, while you may not have seen action, I have. You make vague claims of power grabs that worked against members...Like What?
Alls I have to do is turn to the back page of the teamster journal, or visit temaster.net and read a litany of actions by fellow teamsters that work against the members. You claim AMFA is worse, when it the teamsters STILL under federal oversight.
Seems to me you left out quite abit. You try to make it out to be an innocent transgression with yout statement...
The petitions were passed around the meeting and the BA ask attending members to sign. He also attended shop steward weekly meetings where he asked them to get the petitions signed.
The BA was found guilty of using union resources to aid in an indivduals campaign, the investigator went so far as to call it a "text book example".
I have the report if you'd like me to post it here, rest assured it wasn't as innocent as you make out.
As for the rest, you illustrate my point perfectly.
You freely admit...for political purposes.
(just an aside, you claim ... "for political purposes" ...did it ever occur to you maybe the person in question did it because it was the right thing to do? The BA was found in violation)
All that being said you also left out the fallout that occured following this investigation where suddenly the Chief steward involved got brought up on charges....which of course went nowhere but the games were on, and continued on through the rest of the election cycle.......once again, you claim to be in SFO yet you either conviently forgot this or in fact weren;t aware of it.
As for your generalized statements against AMFA, while you may not have seen action, I have. You make vague claims of power grabs that worked against members...Like What?
Alls I have to do is turn to the back page of the teamster journal, or visit temaster.net and read a litany of actions by fellow teamsters that work against the members. You claim AMFA is worse, when it the teamsters STILL under federal oversight.
Rcvd from DFW AMT
APFA vice president endorses American Airlines’ last, best and final offer to flight attendants
By tmaxon
[email protected]
10:35 am on August 1, 2012 |
August 1, 2012
Dear Fellow Flight Attendants,
My initial reaction to the Company’s Last Best Final Offer (LBFO) was, “Oh, hell no!” and at first I thought I could never endorse this for membership ratification. But after careful study of the potential harm and future devastation which would occur if the offer were rejected, and the clear improvements to the 1113 term sheet, my position changed. Among the key points for me was the scheduling provisions which will be lost forever with a vote to reject. The more I read and understood the offer and the realities we face as a union, the easier my YES vote became to make and recommend.
I want more than anything to see a merger with USAirways take place during bankruptcy. It is the best plan for the flight attendants and our company. According to USAirways’ CEO Doug Parker, the fastest way to accomplish a merger is by approving this offer. Having said that, the LBFO represents the best insurance policy available to us in the event that we do not achieve a merger. The absolute worst case scenario will be realized if we reject this offer and Horton keeps control of the Company. We simply cannot afford that.
In virtually all previous airline bankruptcies, labor groups secured agreements similar to our LBFO and as you will read below there is an important reason for this. If we deliver a NO vote, the judge has two options: rule in our favor on the Company’s Section 1113 motion, or grant the Company their motion and legal permission to abrogate our contract. History shows that Courts favor the bankrupt companies in these motions almost 100 percent of the time.
If American exits bankruptcy we will resume negotiations with management. But where will we start? Since the Court will likely allow the Company to gut our entire contract, will we be starting from scratch, using the Section 1113 term sheet from March 22, the LBFO, or our pre-bankruptcy numbers? The Company has said they want to stick with the March 22 term sheet, which as you remember was an insult to our profession. But, there is no law that says they can’t sink even lower than the term sheet and knowing their tactics and the money they’ve been shelling out to bankruptcy lawyers, management can probably can stretch this argument for at least a few years. Let me repeat that: if we reject the LBFO and the Court grants the Company’s 1113 motion, management may be able to impose a contract even worse than the March 22 term sheet. All they would need is a decent economic reason, like a sudden spike in oil prices, to make the argument that more cuts are needed. We’d fight it in court, but the system favors companies like American so heavily that we can’t afford the risk. There is a better option and it is the LBFO.
If we reject the LBFO, and the Court grants the Company’s motion, our contractual status will closely resemble our Agents’. If we reject the LBFO, and the Company exits bankruptcy, we will be without a contract, without an agreement, and living under implemented language.
More to the point, we all know how effectively management dragged their feet during negotiations for the four years leading up to bankruptcy. Count on this behavior continuing as they have nothing to lose and everything to gain. To make matters worse, although we were once at the top of the National Mediation Board’s priority list, we have now been bypassed by other airlines’ labor groups and their negotiations.
On the other hand, our colleagues at TWU have ratified an agreement similar to our LBFO and no matter what the Company cannot later alter it. Their deal may be concessionary and tough for them to swallow, but it is still a ratified agreement and like our LBFO, it is a whole lot better than the term sheet they were handed in March.
If we reject the LBFO, you and I are at the mercy of the Company. Based upon our history and management’s behavior and actions I say, “Oh, hell no!” to this option and will vote YES for the Last Best Final Offer.
In Unity,
Marcus Gluth
Flight Attendant, IMA
Vice President, APFA
APFA vice president endorses American Airlines’ last, best and final offer to flight attendants
By tmaxon
[email protected]
10:35 am on August 1, 2012 |
August 1, 2012
Dear Fellow Flight Attendants,
My initial reaction to the Company’s Last Best Final Offer (LBFO) was, “Oh, hell no!” and at first I thought I could never endorse this for membership ratification. But after careful study of the potential harm and future devastation which would occur if the offer were rejected, and the clear improvements to the 1113 term sheet, my position changed. Among the key points for me was the scheduling provisions which will be lost forever with a vote to reject. The more I read and understood the offer and the realities we face as a union, the easier my YES vote became to make and recommend.
I want more than anything to see a merger with USAirways take place during bankruptcy. It is the best plan for the flight attendants and our company. According to USAirways’ CEO Doug Parker, the fastest way to accomplish a merger is by approving this offer. Having said that, the LBFO represents the best insurance policy available to us in the event that we do not achieve a merger. The absolute worst case scenario will be realized if we reject this offer and Horton keeps control of the Company. We simply cannot afford that.
In virtually all previous airline bankruptcies, labor groups secured agreements similar to our LBFO and as you will read below there is an important reason for this. If we deliver a NO vote, the judge has two options: rule in our favor on the Company’s Section 1113 motion, or grant the Company their motion and legal permission to abrogate our contract. History shows that Courts favor the bankrupt companies in these motions almost 100 percent of the time.
If American exits bankruptcy we will resume negotiations with management. But where will we start? Since the Court will likely allow the Company to gut our entire contract, will we be starting from scratch, using the Section 1113 term sheet from March 22, the LBFO, or our pre-bankruptcy numbers? The Company has said they want to stick with the March 22 term sheet, which as you remember was an insult to our profession. But, there is no law that says they can’t sink even lower than the term sheet and knowing their tactics and the money they’ve been shelling out to bankruptcy lawyers, management can probably can stretch this argument for at least a few years. Let me repeat that: if we reject the LBFO and the Court grants the Company’s 1113 motion, management may be able to impose a contract even worse than the March 22 term sheet. All they would need is a decent economic reason, like a sudden spike in oil prices, to make the argument that more cuts are needed. We’d fight it in court, but the system favors companies like American so heavily that we can’t afford the risk. There is a better option and it is the LBFO.
If we reject the LBFO, and the Court grants the Company’s motion, our contractual status will closely resemble our Agents’. If we reject the LBFO, and the Company exits bankruptcy, we will be without a contract, without an agreement, and living under implemented language.
More to the point, we all know how effectively management dragged their feet during negotiations for the four years leading up to bankruptcy. Count on this behavior continuing as they have nothing to lose and everything to gain. To make matters worse, although we were once at the top of the National Mediation Board’s priority list, we have now been bypassed by other airlines’ labor groups and their negotiations.
On the other hand, our colleagues at TWU have ratified an agreement similar to our LBFO and no matter what the Company cannot later alter it. Their deal may be concessionary and tough for them to swallow, but it is still a ratified agreement and like our LBFO, it is a whole lot better than the term sheet they were handed in March.
If we reject the LBFO, you and I are at the mercy of the Company. Based upon our history and management’s behavior and actions I say, “Oh, hell no!” to this option and will vote YES for the Last Best Final Offer.
In Unity,
Marcus Gluth
Flight Attendant, IMA
Vice President, APFA
- Status
