Locals Stripped of Representation

[MCI transplant]

OK kiddies, why in the (text excised) is someone from MCI still on the team? Come on, it's not like we're going to be around to actually see this abortion of an agreement come to fruition.......

More TWU AArrogance.......

<_< -----:bleh: :bleh: :bleh:

 

[TWU informer]

I don't why most seem to be astounded by this.

Same tactics nearly every negotiations for 25+ years.

If Bob Owens is no longer on the negotiating team, then no more threat of removal, and thus no more need to keep the secrets. Come on spill the beans Bob wtf has really been going on?

 

[Tex-Mech]

Just in..

The TWU Negotiating Committees reconvened in Chicago, IL the week of Nov 9th to Nov11th. During the week, members of the TWU M&R Negotiating Committee met with AA management.

During this week, AA Management responded to the Union's supposal that was presented on Jun 11, 2009. Management's response was simply a NO. As a result, your TWU M&R Negotiating Committee removed the supposal from the table. Our November 19, 2008 proposal is our current table position. The November 19, 2008 proposal can still be viewed by accessing the TWU negotiations website.

Management informed the Union and Mediator the Union had not addressed concessionary items presented in prior sessions. The Mediator (Jack Kane) addressed both Union and Management negotiating teams and he requested of the Union to restructure the committee to a smaller, more manageable size. He then asked the company to involve the appropriate management that can assist in reaching an agreement.

Your M&R committee voted to reduce the committee size. A vote was conducted and the seven members selected to move forward. The smaller group will keep the full negotiating committee apprised of all developments. Tentative agreements reached will require a vote of the full M&R committee.

Below are the individuals that were selected by the full committee.
S. Gilboy, R. Harp, D. Lantz, S. Luis, L. Pike, T. Woodward, B. Zimmerman

The next mediation session is tentatively scheduled for the week of Jan 11, 2010. The parties are trying to secure earlier dates in December of 2009

You should be prepared for any eventuality that may result, up to and including a declaration of impasse and a cooling off period. Your committee remains dedicated to securing an agreement through collective bargaining.

We thank all of our Members for your continued patience and support, both of which are essential as we try to secure a contract. 1

 

[MTheory]

In response to what the TWU negotiationg committee has posted:

This might actually be a good idea. Back in 2003 we had a TWU officers meeting in DFW to discuss the size of the negotiating committees for this very contract. The M and R committee in particular is too cumbersome to get anything done. With every Title I station and Title II station having induvidual representation the size if the M and R group was well over 20 members.

Unfortunatly back in 2003 the idea did not gain much traction. No one local or represented title group wanted to give up control. So a small Title I or Title II group within a larger Local of a different title group got to have a rep at the table.

Now if the induvidual reps still had a vote on whether or not to bring something back, but only 7 were there doing the talking then we might be getting somewhere.

Maybe we can get down to some serious negotiations? It is possible if we stop fighting amongst ourselves. So long as the vote was fair, and all involved had ample time to prepare and understand what was taking place then maybe this is the right thing to do. For now I give these 7 guys my support in hopes that they will do the best that they can for the benefit of those that they serve.

 

[Observer]

thanks MTheory for some good analysis

 

[Bob Owens]

Hey BOB any truth to this ??????

Yes

From now on negotaitions will be conducted by a subcommittee of seven.

While I agree that the committee was too large to be productive I dont agree with how it was sorted out. The group meeting with the company should reflect the varied composition of the membership. This is not the case. This is a Midwest committee, with the exception of one rep from MIA all the representatives are from the Midwest, two from Oklahoma, two from Texas, one from Missouri, one from Illinois. The needs, concerns and priorities of those in the much lower cost Midwest can be very different than the high cost coastal areas. Yes, there's one from MIA but MIA is one of the cheapest coastal areas where we have a substantial operation. To his credit the MIA Rep brought up that all areas should be represented on the committee, but obviously that was not how the majority felt.

While Larry Pike from AFW has been a staunch supporter and sympatheic to the challenges that workers in high cost areas face it wouldnt be fair to expect him to champion our cause as his own base is under threat.

Its also important to note that only one person on the subcommitttee voted for Geo pay. So that will be the first thing off the table. All except one voted in favor of the June supposal.I would expect to see a version of that resurrected.

Members from high cost areas are not represented at all at the table. They have zero opportunity to present the concerns of their members to the company.

I fault the International for this. They should have ensured that a tyranny of the majority did not impinge the rights of the minority. Thats what we have. The minority, workers in high cost areas, have no voice at the table.

A title I mechanic and a title II mechanic from the midwest are more likley to have the same priorities, yet they are represented by six negotiators, Title i and II mechanics from the high cost northeast and California are not represented at all. Its a form of taxation without representation. Without anybody looking out for our interests does anyone expect that our interests will be vigorously presented to the company?

I dont.

From my observations I do not expect that an ILC is even an objective. The update doesnt mention ILC, only a contract as the objective. Its pretty sad that we arent even attempting to get an ILC anymore.

Sentiment has already been expressed that in this economy "The status quo is just fine". Perhaps if I lived in the Midwest i would share that sentiment, doubtful, but maybe.

Sure, everything the negotiations sub-committee agrees to in principle will be brought back to the whole witness committee before its brought back to the members for ratification but in reality they may as well not even bother, it doesnt matter, the majority voted these guys in and they will pass whatever they bring back. Without the ability to represent their members concerns directly to the company representatives from the high cost areas cant effectively represent their members interests. Our needs are no longer even a consideration.

I do not expect the product this subcommitteebe be a living wage for members in high cost areas. The majority of the subcommittee has already demonstrated that they dont feel that any consideration should be given to workers in high cost areas, despite the fact that the revenue generated in those areas allows the company to employ them in the low cost areas.

The situation at negotaitions doesnt bode well for the future of workers in high cost areas. We will likely face futher real income declines and greater economic hardship because the priorities of the committee has been narrowed by the exclusion of their voices at the table. This will leave us with less options if we wish to ever enjoy any sort of economic security, find a new job, transfer to a low cost area or hope you wife gets a good job. Needless to say my vision of a future with AA is moving towards "doubtful".

 

[MTheory]

Yes




"I fault the International for this. They should have ensured that a tyranny of the majority did not impinge the rights of the minority. Thats what we have. The minority, workers in high cost areas, have no voice at the table."

Dont fault others because a vote didnt go your way. That is democracy. The majority won. period. Move on and do the best you can for those you represent.


[b]Sure, everything the negotiations sub-committee agrees to in principle will be brought back to the whole witness committee before its brought back to the members for ratification but in reality they may as well not even bother, it doesnt matter, the majority voted these guys in and they will pass whatever they bring back. Without the ability to represent their members concerns directly to the company representatives from the high cost areas cant effectively represent their members interests. Our needs are no longer even a consideration."[/b]

So, because the majority voted these guys in, you are going to roll over? Present your views in such a way as to convince others of there merits, without insulting them. Since you are in the minority, your going to have to work harder to achieve your goals.

 

[Bob Owens]

Dont fault others because a vote didnt go your way. That is democracy. The majority won. period. Move on and do the best you can for those you represent.

Maybe the fact that high cost areas, where the revenue is generated, can be stripped of representation by the low cost areas, where the revenue is spent, doesnt bother you because its the will of "the majority" but it does bother me. Democracy is more than simply majority rules, checks and balances must be put in place to protect the minority, otherwise if the minority is ignored there can be no unity. Rhode Island has 2 senators just like California, every state regardless of size is guaranteed representation. The other states can not vote to exclude Rhode Island from the Senate and fall back on well it has to go through the House of Representatives so its fair.

The International dictated that we have 2 guys from the bases, 2 guys from Title II and three guys from the line. Title II, so as you can see stipulations were made to address title groups but no stipulations were made by the International to address regions. If it had been broken down to title II votes for Title II, basaes vote for bases and Line votes for line then it would have had more merit but the Midwest guys pushed to have everyone vote in every category. That would be like letting us vote on who represents Rhode Island. Majority rules? You bet, is it right? No.

Eventually the vote will come down to the membership, thats where majority rules, at the table is where the minority should have an equal role in the process.

As far as it not going "my way" thats your spin. If the guy from 501(NY1) or 510 (DCA) and 564(LAX)had been on the subcommittee that would have meant that at least we had someone who represented workers who face the same challenges. The fact is our members are not represented at the table.

So, because the majority voted these guys in, you are going to roll over? Present your views in such a way as to convince others of there merits, without insulting them. Since you are in the minority, your going to have to work harder to achieve your goals.

Of course I will continue to fight. I wouldnt stop representing the members to the best of my ability because a vote didnt go "my way", would you?

 

[Deleted member 14439]

Well another punch in the gut. It is no surprise really. Bob I have worked at AFW for the last 15+ years and TUL for 4 years before that. I truely empathize with all of you in high cost areas. It is my personal belief that a palatable COLA be automatic for all of you. I live six miles from AFW in a nice home with great schools for my son. The high cost area guys should be able to make a wage that affords them the same.
This is not the same work place I hired into. The AMT`s are, to put it simply, beat down. As an example, at the bases we "had' a process known as "labor loaning". That is if another shop needed help in an extreme situation paperwork would be filled out and the junior man/men went for the specified time period. That does not happen anymore. It seems here at AFW that people just go wherever they are told without regard to our contract. Some supervisors try to act as if we have no contract. I told my supervisor the other day I was going to lunch as I had been on shift for over 6 hours with no break. He said "you can`t, its not time".Well I went anyways as I knew the contract and this was going to be a 12 hour or longer shift. My point being, the rules are out the door and we seem to have no fight left.
The fate of the bases is inevitable. Sooner or later there will be very few AMT`s overseeing/working with unlicensed workers. I hope I am wrong,but I`d bet I am not. This pace of negotiations is unprecedented and totally unsurprising. This company and its union have zero regard for the well being of its employees. Eventually this place will go the way of,eastern pan am and twa. It is only a matter of time.

 

[jimntx]

Some supervisors try to act as if we have no contract. My point being, the rules are out the door and we seem to have no fight left.

dvl (may I call you by your nickname? ), it's happening because the members allow it to happen. I see it with the f/as as well. No one (except management) wants to bother learning what the contract actually says--"it's the union's responsibility to keep the company honest." Problem is, the union doesn't know about the contract violations because the members don't know that it's been violated and they need to report the incident to the union. Or, in some cases even HOW to report the incident.

Crew Scheduling tried to send me out on a trip for which I was not legal. When I quoted (on a recorded conversation) the contract page and paragraph that made the trip illegal, the Senior [scheduler] On Duty said "You think you're pretty smart, don't you?" My reply was, "Oh, I'm your worst fears realized. I'm a junior flight attendant who has read the contract." (I did not have to fly the trip.)

 

[Deleted member 14439]

Well jimntx you are right. The AMT`s here don`t care or are just plain tired. I used to work with a great bunch of guys about 10 years ago. Some accused us of being militant because we fought with management at every STUPID move they made. We worked 16 hours days as we had tons of work. Our "C" checks rolled on time everytime.Drop in? No problem bring`em on. Management eventually closed our line and surplused us out. They could not handle us. Things have gone downhill ever since. That was 2002, then april of 2003 came the concessions and what really bites them here at the base is the general program. Oh boy was that a laugher of a mistake. Airplanes do not go out on time anymore. As for you folks that fly on my airplanes I have an honest question. Does it really matter to you pilots and flight attendants who maintains the airplane? As I said in a previous post I see them eventually using more and more non licensed folks to do the work and few AMT`s to oversee them. SRP-OSM-General its slowly going that direction.

 

[MTheory]

Maybe the fact that high cost areas, where the revenue is generated, can be stripped of representation by the low cost areas, where the revenue is spent, doesnt bother you because its the will of "the majority" but it does bother me. Democracy is more than simply majority rules, checks and balances must be put in place to protect the minority, otherwise if the minority is ignored there can be no unity. Rhode Island has 2 senators just like California, every state regardless of size is guaranteed representation. The other states can not vote to exclude Rhode Island from the Senate and fall back on well it has to go through the House of Representatives so its fair.

The International dictated that we have 2 guys from the bases, 2 guys from Title II and three guys from the line. Title II, so as you can see stipulations were made to address title groups but no stipulations were made by the International to address regions. If it had been broken down to title II votes for Title II, basaes vote for bases and Line votes for line then it would have had more merit but the Midwest guys pushed to have everyone vote in every category. That would be like letting us vote on who represents Rhode Island. Majority rules? You bet, is it right? No.

Eventually the vote will come down to the membership, thats where majority rules, at the table is where the minority should have an equal role in the process.

As far as it not going "my way" thats your spin. If the guy from 501(NY1) or 510 (DCA) and 564(LAX)had been on the subcommittee that would have meant that at least we had someone who represented workers who face the same challenges. The fact is our members are not represented at the table./]

Since when did LAX and JFK (high cost areas) generate the most revenue for AMR??? Thats not even remotely true, and you should not be deriving a sense of entitlement from misrepresenting the facts.

Dont be so dramatic, the high cost areas were not "stripped of representation". You still have a voice and a vote. I hope that over the past 11 months you developed a good working relationship with Gilboy and Zimmerman. If you did then there should be no problem in getting your point across.

You have known Gilboy since 562 was charterd in 1999, and I know that you supported Zimmerman in his bid for election. Certainly there can be some commonality here?

Right now I doubt that you are scoring any points with those who will be representing us at the table. Time to end the "woe is me" tale and work together with the rest of the committee.

As I said before, the restructuring of the negotiating committee has been a long time coming. It was a forgone conclusion that the largest Title I line stations got a seat at the table. That does not mean that the North East and West coast are not represented. Being from 562, it may not be what I wanted, but it needed to be done.

We do have someone representing us from the high cost areas. YOU.

 

[Bob Owens]

Since when did LAX and JFK (high cost areas) generate the most revenue for AMR??? Thats not even remotely true, and you should not be deriving a sense of entitlement from misrepresenting the facts.

Did I say they "generate the most revenue'? Did I even single out JFK and LAX? No you did. Who is misrepresenting the facts here? Are you disputing my claim that the stations in high cost of living areas are stations that generate more money than the company lays out in wages?


Since you brought up JFK I recall reading the JFK company paper several years back where they cited that that JFK was responsble for a higher ratio of revenue generation vs flights. I dont recall the exact numbers as it was several years ago but it was something like 20% of the revenue with like 10% of the flights, like I said I'm not sure of the numbers but that was the gist of it.

Dont be so dramatic, the high cost areas were not "stripped of representation".

The High cost areas have nobody sitting across the table from the company. They did not vote for any of those that will be sitting across the table. In your world maybe you still feel we are "represented" but I dont see it that way.

You still have a voice and a vote.

The Northeast has no say or vote at the table, neither do the guys from the west coast and the MidAtlantic states.

I hope that over the past 11 months you developed a good working relationship with Gilboy and Zimmerman. If you did then there should be no problem in getting your point across.

I've made every reasonable effort to. Getting my point across doesnt always mean getting them to agree. When we (the guys in favor of GEO pay) brought up how desperate the situation for our members was the response was 'Well if its that bad then $40 weeek wont make much of a difference".

You have known Gilboy since 562 was charterd in 1999, and I know that you supported Zimmerman in his bid for election.

Gilboy always struck me as a Company man, even back in 1999.

Certainly there can be some commonality here?

Well Gilboy has stated on several occasions that the status quo is just fine by his guys. Its hard for me to find commonality with that.

Right now I doubt that you are scoring any points with those who will be representing us at the table.

They wont be representing you, they will be representing people who according to them are fine with the status quo. If you are willing maintain the status quo indefinatly(nominally-every year you take Real paycuts through inflation and medical premium increases) then yes they represent your interests.

Time to end the "woe is me" tale and work together with the rest of the committee.

I know that you are a fan of the "working Together" concept in any form but for me I have to know that there will be some quid pro quo for the membership that I represent.

We do have someone representing us from the high cost areas. YOU.

Yes but I'm not going to be in that room at the table nor is anyone from the high cost areas. We, workers from high cost areas are not represented in that room by anyone that any of us can hold accountable.

 

[TIME FOR CHANGE]

Dont be so dramatic, the high cost areas were not "stripped of representation". You still have a voice and a vote.
How can you have a voice if you are not part of the negotiations.
You must be a magician

 

[eolesen]

Do the 7 have the ability to agree to a TA? Or does everything still have to be approved by the original 20 man negotiating team?

And who says that the discussions on the language can only take place with the company and mediator?... There's no reason you can't also have the full quorum of 20 present to discuss positions and walk-away points before and after the mediated sessions.

When I've been involved in contract negotiations, it's not uncommon to have a limited number of people at the table, but the rest of the stakeholders present in another room or on call to react to positions that the face to face negotiators weren't prepared to respond to.

And, I've said it before and will say it again --- you'd be well served to have outside professional negotiators at the table with you, for no other reason than to make sure that *all* parties interests are indeed represented.