get used to a hereafter without union representation...
(only if we can vote more than once)
Interesting IAM History
- Thread starter gonzo
- Start date
(only if we can vote more than once)
Here, here. The AFL-CIO should not endorse such behavior from any of its' affliates. There sits one of the saddest moments in Union history, for sure.
1945 was a very good year in the history of the AFL. They should have kept it that way.
U
UAL_TECH
Guest
This is something that someone here should explain to me because it must be beyond my comprehension.
I hear this ‘coat tale’ crap ‘wayyyyyyyyyy to much’ without a justification for this type of mentality.
In fact, this type of mentality continues to divide ‘us’ and provides fuel for the pyre.
JMHO-
The people that believe this are delusional and in some respects are insecure as to whom they are.
Do you (meaning the individuals that adhere to this philosophy) think that by ranting to reduce the wages of others will somehow(?) put their(!) pennies in you own pocket?
(FYI, the ‘penny watchers’ are scooping up all of the pennies, not you).
Would it not be more logical to state that if a ‘pickle picker’ employee makes X then ‘I should make’ = X + (X*j) for my skills? And, if the value of X is raised, would not the formula of ‘I should make’ be raised as well?
For those that adhere to the ‘mantra’ to reduce the wages of those that you ‘deem’ below your ‘status’ in your misguided search for higher wages are not only belittling yourselves but your fellow workers.
If we work together to raise the value of ‘X’ then we work to raise the value of ‘I should make'.
B) UT
I hear this ‘coat tale’ crap ‘wayyyyyyyyyy to much’ without a justification for this type of mentality.
In fact, this type of mentality continues to divide ‘us’ and provides fuel for the pyre.
JMHO-
The people that believe this are delusional and in some respects are insecure as to whom they are.
Do you (meaning the individuals that adhere to this philosophy) think that by ranting to reduce the wages of others will somehow(?) put their(!) pennies in you own pocket?
(FYI, the ‘penny watchers’ are scooping up all of the pennies, not you).
Would it not be more logical to state that if a ‘pickle picker’ employee makes X then ‘I should make’ = X + (X*j) for my skills? And, if the value of X is raised, would not the formula of ‘I should make’ be raised as well?
For those that adhere to the ‘mantra’ to reduce the wages of those that you ‘deem’ below your ‘status’ in your misguided search for higher wages are not only belittling yourselves but your fellow workers.
If we work together to raise the value of ‘X’ then we work to raise the value of ‘I should make'.
B) UT
UAL TECH, how do you feel about the IAM doing struck work at NWA? How do you feel about the IAM tring to "get even" with the AMFA mechanics because they voted them out? Doesn't that kind of mentality hurt and cause division also within the Unions?
U
UAL_TECH
Guest
JMHO
1) IAM Sucks for what they did and/are doing at NWA.
They have proven that they are not a 'union' and should lose their charter.
2) see #1
3) Yes, stupid is as stupid does...
(Gump)
Take Care,
B) UT
I can't add anything better to that sentiment. Kudos!JMHO
1) IAM Sucks for what they did and/are doing at NWA.
They have proven that they are not a 'union' and should lose their charter.
2) see #1
3) Yes, stupid is as stupid does...
(Gump)
Take Care,
B) UT
Thanks.
I think the guys that post such stuff are either pro-company, trying to act as if they support unionism or that little that they would indeed be willing to take a paycut if those below them took an even bigger one!
I always tell those who speak that way "What good would it do you to see those below you take a cut? All that does is give you more room to fall". It doesnt elevate us, it just makes the hole deeper.
groundcontrol
Veteran
- Oct 17, 2005
- 716
- 0
That could be the problem right there..."those below you" Should we look upon others as below oneself? Different employee classes are just that classes. No one is below anyone else. They all have a job to perform and each job/class is just as important and vital to running an airline. just my thoughts....
awausairtech
Veteran
Plz. Try to understand I am no way pro-company or am I trying to belittle the unskilled…
My point is that in this day and age we as AMT’s have brought up unskilled labor as far as we can...
Without the support of the Unions we will never be a Skilled Profession as is the AUTO WORKERS.
If you look at it this way a CAR MECHANIC IS A SKLLED WORKER AND AN AIRCRAFT MECHANIC IS UNSKILLED?????????
This is what I call being belittled.
IMO!
Why Not Let the ASE Mechanic pull the load and let The AMT set the Higher Wage.
As a Skilled Licensed Worker The ASE can pull the unlicensed up with them as a Support Group.
This way The AMT can help pull the ASE mechanics up a little further along with the unskilled and unlicensed workers.
There will be a point were the ASE Mechanics will have to cut the coattails as Professional Licensed Mechanics to stay up with the Professional Licensed FAA AMT Mechanics.
We as AMT’s have done this for unskilled for over 30 years and now we are stalled in this day and age.
This is why I say the Company is not going to pay the Paperboy what they will pay the Plumber.
I hope UAL TECH you can understand my Math Formula –X = XYZ to the second power of the new day and age.
Groundcontrol I totally agree with you. (They all have a job to perform and each job/class is just as important and vital to running an airline.) But Some Jobs Should Pay More Due To The Responsibility Of The Job Class And Craft.
I like to get 7 all woundup...LOL
My point is that in this day and age we as AMT’s have brought up unskilled labor as far as we can...
Without the support of the Unions we will never be a Skilled Profession as is the AUTO WORKERS.
If you look at it this way a CAR MECHANIC IS A SKLLED WORKER AND AN AIRCRAFT MECHANIC IS UNSKILLED?????????
This is what I call being belittled.
IMO!
Why Not Let the ASE Mechanic pull the load and let The AMT set the Higher Wage.
As a Skilled Licensed Worker The ASE can pull the unlicensed up with them as a Support Group.
This way The AMT can help pull the ASE mechanics up a little further along with the unskilled and unlicensed workers.
There will be a point were the ASE Mechanics will have to cut the coattails as Professional Licensed Mechanics to stay up with the Professional Licensed FAA AMT Mechanics.
We as AMT’s have done this for unskilled for over 30 years and now we are stalled in this day and age.
This is why I say the Company is not going to pay the Paperboy what they will pay the Plumber.
I hope UAL TECH you can understand my Math Formula –X = XYZ to the second power of the new day and age.
Groundcontrol I totally agree with you. (They all have a job to perform and each job/class is just as important and vital to running an airline.) But Some Jobs Should Pay More Due To The Responsibility Of The Job Class And Craft.
I like to get 7 all woundup...LOL
PurduePete
Senior
- Jun 15, 2006
- 320
- 0
The list needs to be updated to read...
2006 - IAM recruits scab mechanics at NWA in Detroit to join the IAM, thus cementing their standing as a scab union!
http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article...ESS05/604180332
awausairtech
Veteran
CEO. PARKER IS NOT DONE AT THE NEW USAIR!!!
(MERGERS) AND IMHO IS THAT THE IAM KNOWS MORE THAN THEY SHOULD.
Look at what they did to there members (IAM) at USAIR?????
Look at what they are up too now at NWA (AMFA) (SCABS????)
O' Please give me them STRONG SCAB MEMBERS...
CAN ANY ONE HERE COUNT TO TWO?????? ok UP MY DUES!
CSAR GYRENE
Veteran
IAM, AMFA,...Teamsters, TWU....Company, Union....What comes to mind? "Meet the NEW Boss..Same as the OLD boss" -The Who, Dont Get Fooled Again
- Banned
- #29
Boeing Machinists Strike, 1948
On April 22, 1948, the Aeronautical Machinists Union, IAM District Lodge 751, struck the Boeing Company. William Allen was then president of Boeing. For the Machinists the issues were preserving longstanding seniority rules that the company wanted to scrap, and achieving a 10 cent per hour raise for all categories of labor. The strike was characterized by the unusual occurrence of another union, Dave Beck's Teamsters, collaborating with the company to defeat the machinists union. On September 13, 1948, the Machinists returned to work without a victory, but in the subsequent NLRB-supervised election they soundly defeated the Teamsters.
New Era, New Manager
On September 5, 1945, William Allen, a longtime attorney at the Boeing Company, assumed the presidency of the aircraft company. Almost immediately, massive postwar layoffs began. Allen brought a different labor relations philosophy to the company -- as Boeing employees would find out before the new decade began.
1947 Contract Negotiations
When contract negotiations began in January 1947, it became clear that the Boeing Company wanted to turn back the clock on seniority provisions that had been negotiated as far back as 1937. For example, the company wanted 10 percent of the bargaining unit to be exempt from seniority; it wanted blanket disqualification of women from open jobs if, in the Boeing Company's opinion, the job required a man; and it wanted the elimination of plant-wide seniority. The Machinists' union wanted to protect seniority and to attain a 10 cents per hour raise for all labor grades.
Formal negotiations opened on March 16, 1947, with the 1946 contract "in full force and effect." By April, the Machinists' Union accused the Boeing Company of not negotiating in good faith and filed strike notice (a 30 day cooling off period was required.)
On May 10, 1947, the union held a General Membership Meeting to discuss the situation. On May 24, 1947, the union rejected the Boeing Company's final offer and authorized a strike. From June to December 1947, the company and the union negotiated only sporadically.
Boeing Revises Its Proposal
The Boeing Company submitted a revised proposal on January 6, 1948 and negotiations were intensive for about 90 days. At mid-March 15, the Machinists' Union offered to submit unresolved articles to arbitration. The Boeing Company demanded the right of veto in the choice of arbiters and demanded to submit the entire contract to arbitration. The Machinists' Union refused those conditions. On March 26, 1948, under provisions of the new Taft-Hartley law, the NLRB (National Labor Relations Board) held an election to determine if the union was authorized to negotiate a union shop. The vote was a resounding 12,000 YES to 800 NO.
April Deadlines Set
On April 13, 1948, the Machinists' Union established April 16 as the deadline for choice of arbiters. The Boeing Company refused to budge. So, on April 20, the Machinists' Union District Council and 320 shop stewards voted to strike at 12.30 a.m., April 22, 1948. The Machinists' Union District Council met again on April 21 to review the circumstances. One report tells of some of the reaction:
"Grand Lodge Representative Cotton addressed this meeting and cautioned the members as to possible consequences of such strike action, reminding them of their weak strategic position, and informing them that the advice of the Grand Lodge (the national union) was to stay on the job. However, emotions were running high and he was booed from the platform."
At the prescribed time on April 22, 1948, the Machinists' Union members laid down their tools and struck the Boeing Company. By April 28, the national union, International Association of Machinists, granted strike sanction.
Dave Beck's Not-So-Friendly Intervention - Local 451 Formed
On May 28, 1948, Dave Beck, president of Joint Council 28 of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, announced that Teamsters would seek jurisdiction at the Boeing Company. At this time, the IAM was not affiliated with the American Federation of Labor (AFL), having disaffiliated in 1945 over the failure of the AFL to settle a jurisdictional dispute between the IAM and the United Brotherhood of Carpenters.
Beck's raid was intended to capture all of Machinists' Union 751 membership. He organized Aeronautical Workers and Warehousemen Helpers Union Local 451. He opened a hiring hall to recruit strike breakers for Boeing. In the words of Sam Bassett, an attorney on the Teamsters' staff during 1948 (and a founder of the oldest labor law firm in Seattle), "I am sure that Mr. Allen will not deny that he came to Dave Beck's office and requested him to assist in breaking the strike of the Aero Mechanics' Union."
Beck and Boeing recruited strikebreakers and scabs through most of the 1948 strike period. (Note: The term strikebreaker is used to mean a person newly hired during a strike; a scab is an employee who crosses a picket line set up by co-workers.)
NLRB Acts
In June 1948, the National Labor Relations Board requested District Court to grant an injunction requiring the Boeing Company to bargain. The court refused. By late July, it was becoming difficult for the Machinists' Union to remain on strike. The Boeing Company refused to bargain. The Boeing Company, with Beck and the Teamsters, was recruiting strikebreakers and some members are becoming scabs. On July 20, the NLRB ordered the Boeing Company "to cease and desist from refusing to bargain with Lodge 751" and to reinstate "all employees who went on strike on April 22, 1948, without prejudice."
In August, William Allen and the Boeing Company announced their intention both to ignore the NLRB and to carry the case to the U.S. Supreme Court. The Boeing Company defied the NLRB until September.
Machinists End Strike
On September 13, 1948, Machinists' Union members went back to work for the following reasons:
They were concerned about the Teamsters Local 451.
the cost of the strike had gone over $2 million.
About a third of the original 14,000 members had defected.
The Boeing Company continued to refuse to bargain.
The Boeing Company and Beck and the Teamsters continued to recruit strikers.
The provisions of the new Taft-Hartley Act made the strike more difficult to win.
The Boeing Company took the workers back because it was accruing a large financial burden with a fine of $172,000 per day from the NLRB reinstatement order, and, probably, most importantly, high military authorities wanted no further delay in production of the B50 because of Cold War pressures.
This set the stage for the NLRB election between Machinists' Union District Lodge 751, International Brotherhood of Teamsters Local 451, and the Taft-Hartley required "No Union." The International Association of Machinists, District Lodge 751's national union, was outside the AFL and had been since 1945. In the minds of other AFL affiliates that made IAM local unions the same as renegade unions and so-called fair game for raiding. Though some AFL and CIO unions supported District Lodge 751, the powerful Seattle Central Labor Council threw its support behind William Allan's "labor statesman" Dave Beck and Local 451.
The NLRB set the election for November 1, 1949. Despite the help of AFL president William Green, Beck's Teamsters lost that election. District Lodge 751 received 8,107 votes; the Teamsters Local 451 received 4,127 votes, and the Taft-Hartley "No union" received a mere 401 votes.
On April 22, 1948, the Aeronautical Machinists Union, IAM District Lodge 751, struck the Boeing Company. William Allen was then president of Boeing. For the Machinists the issues were preserving longstanding seniority rules that the company wanted to scrap, and achieving a 10 cent per hour raise for all categories of labor. The strike was characterized by the unusual occurrence of another union, Dave Beck's Teamsters, collaborating with the company to defeat the machinists union. On September 13, 1948, the Machinists returned to work without a victory, but in the subsequent NLRB-supervised election they soundly defeated the Teamsters.
New Era, New Manager
On September 5, 1945, William Allen, a longtime attorney at the Boeing Company, assumed the presidency of the aircraft company. Almost immediately, massive postwar layoffs began. Allen brought a different labor relations philosophy to the company -- as Boeing employees would find out before the new decade began.
1947 Contract Negotiations
When contract negotiations began in January 1947, it became clear that the Boeing Company wanted to turn back the clock on seniority provisions that had been negotiated as far back as 1937. For example, the company wanted 10 percent of the bargaining unit to be exempt from seniority; it wanted blanket disqualification of women from open jobs if, in the Boeing Company's opinion, the job required a man; and it wanted the elimination of plant-wide seniority. The Machinists' union wanted to protect seniority and to attain a 10 cents per hour raise for all labor grades.
Formal negotiations opened on March 16, 1947, with the 1946 contract "in full force and effect." By April, the Machinists' Union accused the Boeing Company of not negotiating in good faith and filed strike notice (a 30 day cooling off period was required.)
On May 10, 1947, the union held a General Membership Meeting to discuss the situation. On May 24, 1947, the union rejected the Boeing Company's final offer and authorized a strike. From June to December 1947, the company and the union negotiated only sporadically.
Boeing Revises Its Proposal
The Boeing Company submitted a revised proposal on January 6, 1948 and negotiations were intensive for about 90 days. At mid-March 15, the Machinists' Union offered to submit unresolved articles to arbitration. The Boeing Company demanded the right of veto in the choice of arbiters and demanded to submit the entire contract to arbitration. The Machinists' Union refused those conditions. On March 26, 1948, under provisions of the new Taft-Hartley law, the NLRB (National Labor Relations Board) held an election to determine if the union was authorized to negotiate a union shop. The vote was a resounding 12,000 YES to 800 NO.
April Deadlines Set
On April 13, 1948, the Machinists' Union established April 16 as the deadline for choice of arbiters. The Boeing Company refused to budge. So, on April 20, the Machinists' Union District Council and 320 shop stewards voted to strike at 12.30 a.m., April 22, 1948. The Machinists' Union District Council met again on April 21 to review the circumstances. One report tells of some of the reaction:
"Grand Lodge Representative Cotton addressed this meeting and cautioned the members as to possible consequences of such strike action, reminding them of their weak strategic position, and informing them that the advice of the Grand Lodge (the national union) was to stay on the job. However, emotions were running high and he was booed from the platform."
At the prescribed time on April 22, 1948, the Machinists' Union members laid down their tools and struck the Boeing Company. By April 28, the national union, International Association of Machinists, granted strike sanction.
Dave Beck's Not-So-Friendly Intervention - Local 451 Formed
On May 28, 1948, Dave Beck, president of Joint Council 28 of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, announced that Teamsters would seek jurisdiction at the Boeing Company. At this time, the IAM was not affiliated with the American Federation of Labor (AFL), having disaffiliated in 1945 over the failure of the AFL to settle a jurisdictional dispute between the IAM and the United Brotherhood of Carpenters.
Beck's raid was intended to capture all of Machinists' Union 751 membership. He organized Aeronautical Workers and Warehousemen Helpers Union Local 451. He opened a hiring hall to recruit strike breakers for Boeing. In the words of Sam Bassett, an attorney on the Teamsters' staff during 1948 (and a founder of the oldest labor law firm in Seattle), "I am sure that Mr. Allen will not deny that he came to Dave Beck's office and requested him to assist in breaking the strike of the Aero Mechanics' Union."
Beck and Boeing recruited strikebreakers and scabs through most of the 1948 strike period. (Note: The term strikebreaker is used to mean a person newly hired during a strike; a scab is an employee who crosses a picket line set up by co-workers.)
NLRB Acts
In June 1948, the National Labor Relations Board requested District Court to grant an injunction requiring the Boeing Company to bargain. The court refused. By late July, it was becoming difficult for the Machinists' Union to remain on strike. The Boeing Company refused to bargain. The Boeing Company, with Beck and the Teamsters, was recruiting strikebreakers and some members are becoming scabs. On July 20, the NLRB ordered the Boeing Company "to cease and desist from refusing to bargain with Lodge 751" and to reinstate "all employees who went on strike on April 22, 1948, without prejudice."
In August, William Allen and the Boeing Company announced their intention both to ignore the NLRB and to carry the case to the U.S. Supreme Court. The Boeing Company defied the NLRB until September.
Machinists End Strike
On September 13, 1948, Machinists' Union members went back to work for the following reasons:
They were concerned about the Teamsters Local 451.
the cost of the strike had gone over $2 million.
About a third of the original 14,000 members had defected.
The Boeing Company continued to refuse to bargain.
The Boeing Company and Beck and the Teamsters continued to recruit strikers.
The provisions of the new Taft-Hartley Act made the strike more difficult to win.
The Boeing Company took the workers back because it was accruing a large financial burden with a fine of $172,000 per day from the NLRB reinstatement order, and, probably, most importantly, high military authorities wanted no further delay in production of the B50 because of Cold War pressures.
This set the stage for the NLRB election between Machinists' Union District Lodge 751, International Brotherhood of Teamsters Local 451, and the Taft-Hartley required "No Union." The International Association of Machinists, District Lodge 751's national union, was outside the AFL and had been since 1945. In the minds of other AFL affiliates that made IAM local unions the same as renegade unions and so-called fair game for raiding. Though some AFL and CIO unions supported District Lodge 751, the powerful Seattle Central Labor Council threw its support behind William Allan's "labor statesman" Dave Beck and Local 451.
The NLRB set the election for November 1, 1949. Despite the help of AFL president William Green, Beck's Teamsters lost that election. District Lodge 751 received 8,107 votes; the Teamsters Local 451 received 4,127 votes, and the Taft-Hartley "No union" received a mere 401 votes.
