Local 514 Officers - Make Fools of Themselves at AFW

[Buck]

----------------
On 7/24/2003 5:08:23 AM Bob Owens wrote:

----------------
On 7/23/2003 838 PM Buck wrote:





However the TWU allows through their form of socialistic unionism that Fleet Service ride the coat tails of skilled labor.

----------------​

One problem with that statement. Fleet service did not vote on our contract. As mechanics we have to accept that our condition is the product of our own collective actions (or lack of).
Fleet service made an easy scapegoat for years. Its time to stop blaming them. Blaming them will not help us.
I believe our Fleet Service is the highest paid in the industry. I believe they get more than SWA. However we get less than SWA. The real problem for mechanics is that Tulsa overwhelmingly accepts concessionary contracts one after the other. Has Tulsa ever seen a concessionary contract they did not like? Now that we know what the problem is, we have to work on a solution. How do we get Tulsa to be willing to fight for more, or, if they are really content, at least let the line guys try and get more?

----------------​

Bob, I understand what you are saying. My blaming Fleet Service is just an inherent response for so many years of belonging to a Fleet Service union. You are correct, it is really not Fleet Service, it is TUL, Little Jim and Sonny Hall collectively that conspire to defraud the mechanic and related. Fleet Service just happens to be in the right position to be compensated because they are the majority in an industrial union. It is the Ostrich mentality of the members at TUL that is truly holding back the potential of the mechanics. The soulution? Replace the current representitive. If this does not become reality, then maybe removing TUL as the largest local from the equation is the Line Mechanics ultimate solution.

 

[Hopeful]

You have to remember that before the mechanics had our own maintenance locals, we were grouped in with the TWU as a whole. The TWU leadership, having been the majority, would not negotiate substantial license increases for mechanics because the majority fleet sefvice would only see the "across the board" raises due all TWU members, and therefore "unfair" to them. That has been a fact with every major airline union. And even if a considerable lisense increase made it to the vote, the entire TWU membership got to the vote on those very maintenance issues that you claim "we" as mechanics control. Of course this was prior to the structure we have now.

But even now, with Jim Little and his Grand High Exalted Mystic Ruler status, he definitely played a major role in browbeating all the local presidents into "sharing the pain."

 

[twuer]

----------------
On 7/23/2003 749 PM RV4 wrote:


Where did the screaming Kevin Hammack go?

He showed up here ready to debate, and then ducks out faster than he left  the Local 567 Union Hall being chased by an observer wearing a Kangaroo Pelt and Police Officer ready to haul him to jail.

He must be really tired from all that work he accomplishes at work!

You guys are not defending a UNION, the union is divided, non-existant, and we need a reconciliation election. You are defending a name and/or a tradition, not a union.

What is more important?

Defending the name of TWU while your union is dismanteled by division, or re-establishing a union on AA's property to defend the profession?

The only way to put the union back into the mechanic and related class or craft at AA is through a democratic vote of preference. This negative campaigning is making us weaker, and more divided.

If the TWU supporter thinks the TWU is superior, then why fear the vote? Tulsa TWU supporters will NEVER convince the line and AFW mechanic to support the TWU, the line mechanic will never convince those like Hammack, Howard, and Mullings to support AMFA. Thus the membership is divided and there is a result of NO UNION on the property.

Sign your cards boys, bring Art Luby, Sanford Dennison, the AFL-CIO, ECLAT and anyone else you can muster and convince the voting majority you are correct, the TWU is best for us, and the entire industry of mechanic and related is wrong. I am sure a debate for the members to get "INFORMED" can be arranged, and if you are truely defending the superior organization, then you have nothing to fear?

You claim to want to communicate to the members, you claim to want to inform them and then provide links to biased, one sided websites. If you really want to protect the members, call for the vote, hold the debate, and let the members decide!

THE MEMBERS DON'T NEED YOU TO SAVE THEM FROM THEMSELVES, THEY NEED YOU TO HELP US CALL FOR THE VOTE AND PUT THE UNION BACK INTO THE MEMBER!


----------------​

My goodness RV4. . .what are you so up in aires about Hammack for? He must be giving you a pretty good run for your money for you to get so defensive. For some of us, our lives DON'T revolve around these boards. Especially when you won't respond or answer the questions that are asked of you.

You never did respond back to mine. But you expect response. I will wait for your response to my last post though. I'm dying to read it!!! Are you doing a little research on it?? Or you could save me the trouble of waiting and let me know whether or not you even plan to respond.

You guys keep saying all kinds of things on these boards, even personal attacks, and it is getting "unfun" to read. Can't you guys prove your point without name calling and defensivness. Anyone who uses those tactics must be covering up something that he is having problems with in his own life. (just a bit of Psych for you!) And you have yet to post any solid evidence why anyone should sign an AMFA card. The only thing I am reading is money, money, money. Tell me what Del the real estate guy has done for you. Give me some evidence.

And do us all a favor. . .stop with the personal attacks. We all get that you don't like the guy. Some of us don't like AMFA and you and your buddies don't like TWU. Let's stick to that debate. You are hammering someone for doing the same thing you are doing. . .supporting a union. Not everyone is going to agree on the same thing. And you are right, there is division. I don't think the question is that the TWU is scared of the vote, it's the mere thought of having AMFA as our union at AA. I personally am happy wiht what the union is doing and has done as a whole. You can't like everything all the time but as a whole I'm satisfied. AMFA doesn't have a very good track record and surely doesn't have high powered support from anyone. Which is necessary these days. Give me some SOLID evidence RV4. Not a bunch of talk.

 

[Checking it Out]

It is amusing to see the AMFA spin on the travesty I witnessed last Saturday. Dan Cunningham is a Local 567 Executive Board officer who was elected by a single vote against divided TWU opposition. During the campaign and even after taking the oath of office, he has worked full time to destroy the TWU. False swearing of an oath, lying, threats and intimidation are his calling card. He even once felt the need to insult a union officer in front of the officer’s son. None of this seems to bother the majority of the Executive Board at Local 567, because, when Cunningham was finally charged with violating the Constitution, they put together a proceeding which was a total sham.

To begin with, Kirk Wells, the courageous member who filed the charge, was systematically threatened by Cunningham's supporters the entire week before the trial. Then a Trial Committee -- whose only qualifications were that they were prepared to exonerate Cunningham no matter what -- conducted a hearing without swearing witnesses and interfered with the presentation of evidence throughout the day. A witness was even badgered because he looked at the advocate when the trial committee was asking him a question and other witnesses were prevented from testifying.

Despite all of this, Kirk Wells' testimony against Cunningham stands unrebutted in the record. Cunningham didn't have the courage or character to even try to counter him or testify. Cunningham's supporters may believe that they accomplished something with the whitewash they engineered on Saturday, but the true losers will be the AFW membership. They now have a Board member who has never put on an arbitration case, never negotiated anything of value with management, and simply cannot tell the truth about anything. All this will eventually come out, as it did when he was removed from office ten years ago. The only question is, how many jobs and careers will be lost in the meantime?

A Signed Card Means a Vote to Eliminate Your Job at the Bases!

TWU SOLIDARITY!

 

[jake]

Finally....an Answer!!!!

Buck said....
"AMFA does have an issue with craft and class. I have never denied that."

Buck,
Do you have an issue with any other crafts as defined by the NMB,(welders maybe?) or do you just disagree with the government when you freinds are involved?

 

[Buck]

----------------
On 7/24/2003 251 PM jake wrote:

Finally....an Answer!!!!

Buck said....
"AMFA does have an issue with craft and class. I have never denied that."

Buck,
Do you have an issue with any other crafts as defined by the NMB,(welders maybe?) or do you just disagree with the government when you freinds are involved?

----------------​

There have been many answers you are just blind to see them.
No I do not have an issue with other crafts and classes. I believe that woodworkers, plumbers,electricians etc.. are skilled labor and deserve their recognition as such. IF the NMB has determined that welders in the airline industry are part of my craft and class, I do not have a problem with that either. However Fleet Service is not designated within my craft and class as per the NMB. There is the Allied Ground Workers if they tire of TWU representation. [url="http://www.the-agw.org/"]http://www.the-agw.org/[/URL]
I do not disagee with the government on this isuue, I disagee with the Socialistic form of representation provided by the TWU under the AFL-CIO umbrella. I have no problem with Fleet Service having self determination and acheiving all they can, but not at my expense.
When I said AMFA has an issue with craft and class, AMFA is actually the members themselves. Not some political organization determine to use dues money to further their political agenda that may differ from their members as does the TWU. AMFA recognizes that it is the skill of the mechanic craft and class that is their bargaining tool, not the ancient philosophies that have acheived little or nothing in recent times. SO it is the membership that takes pride in their profession and therefore has an issue with craft and class.

 

[twuer]

----------------
On 7/22/2003 11:49:27 PM RUM@AA wrote:

Here CIO. Read how NWA unions will give NO CONSESSIONS for the rest of the year.

http://biz.yahoo.com/djus/030716/1014000994_1.html

twu SUCKS!

----------------​

Yeh, but what about next year?????????????

Why so bitter? Scared?

 

[RV4]

Want to see something funny?

Look real close at twuer and Kevin Hammacks postings and you will realize, like I have, that they are not spit swappers, they are the same person. As in, one of the same.

Hammack apparrently is so low on supporter and believers that he has to generate an alias so he can post under that name and defend himself as Kevin Hammack.

Now I have seen everything!

Got any other tricks to convince the "unsuspecting suckers" that read this bulletin board Kevin? Newbie is right boy, you have to hide your missives better than that to fool those of us that are veteran readers/posters. We have seen that trick before, try something new.

Are you also Jake?

 

[RV4]

----------------
On 7/24/2003 6:05:52 PM twuer wrote:

I'm still waiting on your response to my questions I asked what, a day or two ago. Step up to the plate. . .


----------------​

What question specifically do you want answered? I read thru your post and you ask a question and then answer it yourself on many occassions, ask again, and don't answer yourself? I caanot make sense of your postings enough to even determine what you want answered.

 

[twuer]

----------------
On 7/24/2003 5:17:02 PM RV4 wrote:


Want to see something funny?
 
Look real close at twuer and Kevin Hammacks postings and you will realize, like I have, that they are not spit swappers, they are the same person. As in, one of the same.
 
Hammack apparrently is so low on supporter and believers that he has to generate an alias so he can post under that name and defend himself as Kevin Hammack.
 
Now I have seen everything!
 
Got any other tricks to convince the "unsuspecting suckers" that read this bulletin board Kevin? Newbie is right boy, you have to hide your missives better than that to fool those of us that are veteran readers/posters. We have seen that trick before, try something new.
 
Are you also Jake?

----------------​

Wrong again RV4!! Are you getting paranoid now?

Are you "Buck", maybe "Bob"?? Look at the past posting times! You are gonna have to come up with something better than that RV4.

I'm still waiting on your response to my questions I asked what, a day or two ago. Step up to the plate. . .

 

[twuer]

----------------
On 7/24/2003 7:12:01 PM RV4 wrote:

----------------
On 7/24/2003 6:05:52 PM twuer wrote:

I'm still waiting on your response to my questions I asked what, a day or two ago.  Step up to the plate. . .


----------------​

What question specifically do you want answered? I read thru your post and you ask a question and then answer it yourself on many occassions, ask again, and don't answer yourself? I caanot make sense of your postings enough to even determine what you want answered.

----------------​

This was the topic to begin with before things got "personal". You were quick to gloat when it was all over. I guess you condone what Dan is doing?? I would really like you opinion on this and also an answer to the question at the beginning of the post.



(the previous post)
Oh, just a simple question for you. . .why didn't Dan take the stand in his own defense? You are putting a really good spin on what took place and the testimony that was given. Les did attend the meeting that day. The same one Dan (and you) did, just not at the same time. How hard is that to understand??? Duh!! You guys had meetings all day long. Not a big turnout from what I understand, but that's another story. The issue (as I see it) is that Dan holds an elected postion with the TWU and is organizing and attending AMFA meetings. Just admit it already!! Now, if the shoe was on the other foot, you guys would probably send out a possee to pick up the AMFA guy who was advocating for the TWU, ready with the noose to hang the poor fellow. Tell me if I'm at all close. If anything, look at it ethically (if you are capable of doing so). I don't care what union you represent, you CAN'T hold an elected position then propogate for another. THAT'S WRONG!!!!!!!!!! I don't know Dan personally so I am not here to knock him but what he is doing is just not right. I personally didn't vote for him either but what about those who did. They voted him as an officer for the TWU not AMFA. He should resign his position. Or does he like the extra income he gets from the union (the one he claims to hate)?? It's not at all hard to figure out RV4. There was a legitmate reason for the trial in the first place. Wells didn't ask to be bumped to AFW. You can't knock a man for doing what he thinks is in the best interest of his union and its' members. Isn't that what you claim AMFA is all about? Taking care of the members. There are a lot of people who wish they had the balls to do what he did. On both sides.

Is it clearer now?

 

[RV4]

----------------
On 7/24/2003 8:00:19 PM twuer wrote:

----------------
On 7/24/2003 7:12:01 PM RV4 wrote:​

This was the topic to begin with before things got "personal". You were quick to gloat when it was all over. I guess you condone what Dan is doing?
Oh, just a simple question for you. . .why didn't Dan take the stand in his own defense?
How hard is that to understand?
You can't knock a man for doing what he thinks is in the best interest of his union and its' members. Isn't that what you claim AMFA is all about?

Is it clearer now?
----------------
​

To clear up the diatribe, I extracted the questions you asked and seperated them from the rhetoric.
Question #1 -
This was the topic to begin with before things got "personal". You were quick to gloat when it was all over. I guess you condone what Dan is doing?
RV4 Answer to #1 -
The topic was not about Dan, the topic was about Local 514 Officers making fools of themselves by getting involved in another Local's internal affairs, getting caught telling lies, and producing an absurd not-guilty verdict, in a case that should have been easily won. If you are asking me if I condone Dan advocating AMFA and being a TWU Officer, the answer is yes to advocating AMFA, and no to being a TWU Officer while doing so, I do see the credibility issues associated with taking an oath of office and conduct opposed to that oath. But Dan, like you is his own man, and I refuse to allow myself or AMFA to be blamed for these actions. And it is also important to point out that he was elected AFTER the meeting in Tulsa, and therfore, he did not take an OATH of OFFICE until after the meeting happened. On the other hand, TWU Officers attempting to enforce the Constitution and failing so miserably is direct reflection of our leadership's capabilities.
Question #2 -
Oh, just a simple question for you. . .why didn't Dan take the stand in his own defense?
RV4 Answer to #2 -
It is my understanding that he intended on taking the stand but never had to because the trial was out-of-control due to someone telling lies on the stand, and it appeared he was going to be found not guilty, so why help out the fools. I was told he was going to admit his activity but never had the chance. I wasn't there, and I await the transcript like everyone else to read what specifically happened. One thing is for sure, a clearly guilty conduct, was allowed to pass by some malfunction. Not Dan's fault. Not AMFA's fault. Not my fault. Was it your fault? Whos' fault was this?
Question #3 -
How hard is that to understand?
RV4 Answer to #3 -
It is easy to understand that Dan was at the meeting and advocating AMFA, I was there, I heard the exchange between Dan and Les Howard, and that is exactly why this topic made the internet. The guy was clearly guilty as charged, yet the superior TWU that you support and advocate could not successfully present a case against him. I don't give a darn what the name of the union is, something so absurd and ridiculous is without a doubt an indication that we need new representation. Thus the topic appears on the internet and you and I have this discussion.
Question #4 -
You can't knock a man for doing what he thinks is in the best interest of his union and its' members. Isn't that what you claim AMFA is all about?
RV4 Answer to #4 -
It never ceases to amaze me how you guys always seperate the member from the union in your discussions and postings. The leaders should be working for us, not us working to support them. This is what is wrong with the TWU today, the TWU has even negotiated contract language that reads "neither the union nor it's members" will engage in work stoppages or slowdowns. What does that mean to you? Who is the union? I know who the members are, but never figured out that "union" part of such non-sense.

Question #5 -
Is it clearer now?

RV4 Answer to #5 -
What is clear is this, the TWU had a guy advocating AMFA and then won an election to hold TWU Office, an attempt was made to enforce the Constitution and the TWU Leadership FAILED. Yes, Dan was guilty as charged, that is what makes the topic true! It is also clear that you and others that think like you, believe that the union is somehow seperate from the member. Myself, I believe the members are the union and the leaders should be working for us, not trying to save us from ourselves as if they are some seperate entity hired to babysit an adult workforce.
What is clear to me is that after leading the industry in concessions for 20 years, management has squandered the savings and still come back for more concessions on a continuous basis and the TWU leadership never stands up to this, they just roll over to save jobs and dues.
What is clear is the union is divided like never before and the only way to reconcile our differences would be to hold a democratic vote to determine who is correct. You are not defending a union, you have NO union, we are divided like never before. What is your priority, to defend against a democratic reconciliation vote to the point you have employment but pay and benefits that can be beat at McDonalds? Quit defending a logo or a slogan and sign your card, if the TWU is the choice of the majority, I can live with that outcome. The BIG question is WHEN AMFA wins at AA, what do you do?
I have do doubt that this more truth than you were hoping to see posted, but hey, you asked for it!

 

[twuer]

Good job RV4. A bit of rhetoric yourself but all in all a good response. I don't know how to extract quotes so I will just make responses. (computer illiterate!)

You and I have very differnt stories as to what went on in Dallas. But it still doesn't change the fact that the guy is getting paid as an officer but has no interest in TWU. In my opinion he should resign his position. (you forgot that part) And as far as it being a "Kangaroo Court" you could be right about that. Except it was made so by those in charge of running it, the 567 trial committee. I don't think they had a clue as to what they were doing.

How did the trial get "out of hand" by telling of lies? Was it so irreversible that they couldn't continue? That's a crazy notion that you have. To begin with there were no lies told. Mr Howard was bombarded with questions and his answers were taken way out of context. The committee couldn't get it that Les and Dan were at the same meeting just at different times. It doesn't take genius to figure that out. But yet the committe bungled it up. And I know for a fact that Les didn't know who was paying for the trip down. It was one of 3 who could but it wasn't clear at the time of the trial. But then again they refused to hear the truth. And why isn't it Dan's fault? His actions are at fault. He took the TWU position and continues to advocate AMFA. It boggles the mind. . .The trial committee needs to take blame for this as well. They messed the thing up. Like you said the transcript will tell all.


Clearly the TWU had a case, but like I said, the trial board didn't know how to oversee or run this trial, thus the TWU folks were not allowed to do certain things or present factual information in the trial. The committe even allowed some things that were wrong contractually. That is a FACT! Withthout a chance to present your full case, of course you will probably lose. (don't you watch court t.v!)

Up until now, this post of yours, no one ever admitted that Dan was guilty, it was (and still is) all about your perception of the officers and others who were reqested to partixxxxte as witnesses by Local 567. It should have been about the truth that Dan was guilty and if AMFA is about "Honesty and Integrity" that alone should have been enough for you guys to admit his guilt right up front and for him now to resign. How can you relate what happened in Dallas to the leadership of the TWU? The TWU presented what the trial committe would allow to be heard. Period. And I can tell you that it wasn't much. They didn't even allow some of the witnesses to be heard. The TWU didn't stand a chance with that committee. They made a farce of the whole thing! To be honest the blame does go on the committee. The transcript will show that. They even got mad and all out of shape because one of the prosecution witnesses was looking at his council. So your question of who's fault is it. . .the trial committee's, hands down! I never blamed AMFA as a whole. But I have to say that he probably got elected by a majority of the AMFA boys vote. Do you agree or disagree? By doing so they are saying that it is okay to deceive and get the guy you want in office. Says a lot of the AMFA integrity.

As far as your comment about separating the union from the members, I make no separation. I speak that way because it is a union and the people in it are members. It is redundant because you do the same thing! Who is AMFA? Is it not a "union"? Is the word "association" suppose to soften the concept? And yes we work to support them and they work to support us. AMFA has leaders just like the TWU. You are just being hypocritical with your statements.

As for your response to #5, well let's just say same song, same dance. Concessions this and concessions that. Everyone has had to take them. When you are #1 in your industry there are more that need to be taken. Is it right, no, necessary, unfortunately yes. Tell me this. . .what do you think would have happened if the company had gone into bankruptcy? Honest answer.

I am all for democracy, but what needs to be told is the truth. Take this subject for instance of your original post. You posted what you heard from your AMFA buddies without hearing from the TWU side. You assumed some things and harped on the negative, and ran with it. Same issue with the TWU. The company is in trouble for reasons I don't have time to get into, and have to make some sacrifices. They ask the "unions" (members) to take consessions and they voted to do so. It is really that simple. There are always going to be those who don't like the outcome, always! But don't exploit the situation by bringing in your AMFA information without telling the whole AMFA story. You are taking advantage of a bad situation. And what do you mean that I don't have a union? I don't get that.

We can agree to disagree man, but like I said in a previous post I haven't seen any hard evidence that AMFA is the way to go. You are preying on those who are upset with the wage situation and making it look like it will be all sunshine and daisies if AMFA takes over. It won't be! How high on the integrity scale would that be?? And if AMFA ever does win I'm sure I will be right where I am now.

Just curious, how did you feel, pre 9-11, when you were given the industry leading pay increase? Or how do you think you will feel when you cash in your stocks given to you? You can't always look just at the bad RV4.

 

[RV4]

twuer,

I bet you think it was the COURT's fault that O.J. Simpson was found "not guilty" don't you?

 

[twuer]

----------------
On 7/25/2003 519 AM RV4 wrote:


twuer,

I bet you think it was the COURT's fault that O.J. Simpson was found "not guilty" don't you?



----------------​

RV4,

No, that was the jury's fault! I'm afraid they were biased as well.

I'm was just telling it like it was. The transcript will show that.

I worked hard on that post last night, is that all the response I get from you RV4? Your wimpin' out on me. . .