Mechanics Have Reason To Be Upset

[Buck]

----------------
On 6/4/2003 11:51:58 AM KCFlyer wrote:

----------------
On 6/4/2003 1123 AM Buck wrote:




That is exactly right. The problem is that the TWU, at least Local 514 in TUL, focuses all of their assets on other airlines union issues. These assets need to be redirected to the membership that pays them to represent them.
----------------​

So why is it that nobody from AMFA is pointing out what they would do to handle the "bad" situation at AA that exists at the other airlines? It seems by posting that "NWA and SWA make more than you do" is only showing the sunny side of life in the AMFA. Another poster attempts to point out the "less sunny" side of life in the AMFA and he is jumped on pretty hard by the AMFA supporters. Not one of the posts that is pro AMFA addresses how AMFA would propose to maintain wages and benefits while at the same time, working with management to control costs.

----------------​

AMFA is an association that represents those who choose to select them as a representitive. AMFA does not approach the employees of any airline. Organizing drives are grassroot movements istituted by employees whom have tired of the current representation. AMFA is not in the business of pointing out the flaws of the current representive, those employees who are actively seeking change and have exhausted all internal means, are the ones who post here and are seeking a change in representation.
The posting of wage scales is not an issue for AMFA or the TWU it is related to the A&P mechanic and his earning power in his or her industry. Those who are currently represented by the AMFA are compensated more than those represented by the industrial unions. The main difference is that airlines like AA are able to pay less and keep the mechanics employeed for a longer period . Airlines like Northwest are seeing Force Majure used to layoff mechanics, yet wages are maintained. The TWU at AA has successfully aided the company in gaining concessions which allowed more to stay employeed for the short term. AA is attempting to copy the actions of it''s competitors. Therefore more are being layed off, it is just a few at a time, but wage concessions are already in place. Now that AA has successfully gained wage concessions, they are using the one time job security concession to lay off as they please at no cost, however Northwest who has not cut wages but layed off more mechanics is attempting to copy AA and UAL in wage and work rule concessions.

And when someone points out the less sunny side of the TWU thet too are jumped upon by the opposition. As a customer KCFlyer, you have the disadvantage of seeing only that which is generated on these boards. Working with management would be that management would honor the contracts that they have entered into legally. It is the operation of the companies in this industry that have failed to manage their businesses. It is the fault of the industrial unions of the AFL-CIO; the TWU and the IAM etc.. that attempt to keep dues payers at the cost of wage and benefit gains of fairly negotiated agreements.

 

[Buck]

----------------​

I missed something here, when and where has the TWU Local 514 focused "assets" I guess you mean capital on the problems of other airlines? How about some examples? I have not attended membership meetings in a long time.

Through the use of the Informer newsletter. It is always focused on the AMFA at Northwest. While the issues facing the membership at the TWU are rarely mentioned.

If your concern is that the local''s officials are pointing out that the grass may not be greener, just painted, on the other side that is hardly a miss-use of their time.

The local officials are are doing what they are instructed to do from the international. That is collect dues and keep as many as you can employeed. the more members the more dues. The RTW expenses that have no bearing on those who work unser the RLA

Why don''t you start laying out the blueprint as to what WOULD YOU DO DIFFERENTLY? Don''t cop out by saying that that will be up to the membership, or we don''t want to give the game plan away. Lay out a blueprint. Even the Bolshies under Lenin knew where they were going and how they intended to get there.

I would concentrate assets on legislation that had to do with the membership related to the mechanics and related in this industry under the RLA. FAR 145 FAR 66 etc.. not the liberal left wing agenda where a good portion of the members dues go.

You sure are educated in the Socialist Doctrine. If you are concerned about those outside of the mechanic and related craft and class, you could have a card drive to decertify and then start a non mechanic and related union. Oh that is the TWU

It is pretty obvious that the membership like the population at large is 80% occupied with their daily lives, and politics is at most 10% activists.

So why do you attempt to push your leftist isuues here?

The atmosphere is about right at AA for AMFA to make a move, turmoil from lay-offs, bumping, a paycut, company reviewing attendance records. Just the kind of things that get people worked up and willing to vote for "change", and to throw "the rascals out".

The waters are now muddy enough for Dell to go fishing.

You and others are always making excuses about when the time is right or wrong for a represetational election. Remember the AMFA is not even a threat to your members.


----------------​

 

[j7915]

----------------
On 6/4/2003 118 PM Buck wrote:

----------------

On 6/4/2003 1:02:17 PM KCFlyer wrote:



Then how come the grassroots organizers are loathe to use as their rallying cry "C''mon junior guys - sacrifice your livlihood so that the rest of us can keep our wages and benefits."?    You can tell a guy all day long that a vote for AMFA is a vote for wages that are $15 an hour more than you''re currently making.  Why Southwest is making way more than you guys, and they are even hiring more.  After a while, that starts to sound nice.  Except that AA is in no position to give everybody a $15 an hour raise.  Why not tell what  the the price of that extra $15 will be for several thousand of the less senior mechanics?  


----------------​

I believe that the less senior mechanics understand this to some extent. There is some theory that when the industy does turn around that it would be beneficial to those recalled to be able to come back at a good wage. Why is AA not in the position to give $15 an hour raises? They have had the lowest average wages in the industry since 1983. You sir speak of mismangement of the company. What did the company do with all of that savings?

----------------​

I mentioned it before, why don''t you just ask all the junior mechs to fall on their sword so the AVERAGE wages will go up at AA. While they are scrambling to get new employment and justify the expense of their license? Not to mention that the OSM work will roll South on Mingo to Nordam among others.

The lower average wages is what paid for the grows of the company. Buck you may not remember but before the B-scale was implemented AA had no plans to buy new aircraft and no growth plan and no potential employment for one "Buck A&P" mechanic, one each.

There is mis-management, but having been around I can say we were all part of the problem, how many times was it too close to break tme, lunch time, shift change, Friday, the pay gets better after eight, "it is not my job the other shift works that wing", and inspectors had to come back the next day? That does not even include all the oversights and "we have always done it this way".
Equipment gets broken and not turned in, thrown around or thrown away because it is a "tax write off"? Take your pick there is plenty of blame to go around.

I would say that AA has had good maintenance, look at how few AA airplanes stay in the desert and for how long. On average the efficiency was acceptable for those times. Those times are gone, look at the integration of structures and systems.

 

[RV4]

----------------
On 6/4/2003 2:35:08 PM j7915 wrote:

The lower average wages is what paid for the grows of the company. Buck you may not remember but before the B-scale was implemented AA had no plans to buy new aircraft and no growth plan and no potential employment for one "Buck A&P" mechanic, one each.

----------------​

j7915,

Let''s use your logic to it''s full potential!

Go have Jim Little sign a 150 year contract that pays $8.50 per hour and AA can expand and we can have an overhaul base in every state. Then AA wont need line maintenance because they can have midnight shifters working for .02 cents per hour premium.

Think of the growth and the jobs j7915, you are ready willing, correct?

 

[Bob Owens]

----------------
On 6/4/2003 2:35:08 PM j7915 wrote:


The lower average wages is what paid for the grows of the company. Buck you may not remember but before the B-scale was implemented AA had no plans to buy new aircraft and no growth plan and no potential employment for one "Buck A&P" mechanic, one each.

Well at least now we know why you use an alias.

Is the Idea of "work for less money so you can work more" the new credo of business unionism? Unions usually say work less hours so more people can work, thats why they went for the 40 hour week. The TWU/ATD/AA has been a leader in making its members work more hours instead of less. Are you trying to say that if we did not work for less that there would be no jobs?
This only goes to validate my other post where I said that the TWU,IAM,and IBT are more concerned about companies than members. They are more concerned about growing companies than wages.
Isnt corporate growth the concern of the company and government? I thought the unions were to provide balance to ensure that wages are nort sacrificed in the name of growth.
I heard this same line from Koziatek three years ago.

My answer is that maybe AA would not have grown to satify the demand for travel, maybe they would still be a second rate airline, but somebody else would have and Buck, myself and every other worker at AA would have found a job working for them. Basically what you are saying is that in honor of the Logo we should be willing to work for less so that AA can grow. Tell me how much sense does that make for mechanics? Why should we care less if AA ever gets bigger? What should we rather have a bigger airline or a bigger paycheck?
The pilots need to see growth so they can go up, so in some cases it pays to lower rates to facilitate growth, if the airline grows they can move up through fleet types and to the left seat in much less time. Mechanics have no such incentive. Five years and your at top. Paycuts in exchange for growth only takes money out of our pockets and puts it in someone elses.It helps our company undercut others and as a reward we all get to make less.

There is mis-management, but having been around I can say we were all part of the problem, how many times was it too close to break tme, lunch time, shift change, Friday, the pay gets better after eight, "it is not my job the other shift works that wing", and inspectors had to come back the next day? That does not even include all the oversights and "we have always done it this way".
Equipment gets broken and not turned in, thrown around or thrown away because it is a "tax write off"? Take your pick there is plenty of blame to go around.

I would say that AA has had good maintenance, look at how few AA airplanes stay in the desert and for how long. On average the efficiency was acceptable for those times. Those times are gone, look at the integration of structures and systems.


Look at todays OTS report. 5% of the fleet is out of service.(Not counting those in scheduled checks) Look at the delays due to the company''s new "no check" policy. Now that a large percentage of the fleet is no longer getting checked on those nights when they visit a maint base things are crappping out on kick offs and through trips. Low oil quantities, bad tires, low bottles what are these people thinking? We were told that the company started this stupid idea "in order to catch up on the MELs". Doesnt seem that their idea is working.

The mechanics look at it another way-more layoffs.

How much of a dollar figure does mechanics "Good Will" translate into? Can they claim that as a loss? Whats the value of over 30 airplanes sitting in hangars instead of flying? Good thing they have plenty of spares. But, is it more cost effective to keep spare airplanes laying around or to just have a motivated workforce, like well paid SWA or UPS and keep them all flying and then fix them when they are not scheduled to fly? How many line mechanics are going to "go the extra mile" now that the company took away their money, vacation, sick time, training pay, double time, holidays, shift pay, longevity, and especially the 80 day IOD bank? In the past if a mechanic went above and beyond he knew that if he got hurt hanging off that ladder or lifting that ACM that he would be coverd 80 days. You can recover from just about everything that is recoverable in 4 months. Now if you get hurt, 10 days and see you later, so be careful out there!

Maybe they should be happy in the knowledge that their sacrifice was put in place to keep Tulsa working, Tulsa, who showed their appreciation by motioning to have the 80 % of line mechanics who have an increased risk of dying in a car crash, several different forms of cancer, high blood pressure, martital difficulties and depression because they work night shift give up what was left of the differential they recieved for night shift so day shift workers in Tulsa could get more money. The night shift workers , Randy felt should give up the $1040 a year they get for working nights out in the cold rain and snow so his boys working day shift in the shops could get and extra couple of hundred dollars. According to CIO thats fair because "majority rules".



----------------​

 

[KCFlyer]

----------------
On 6/4/2003 507 PM RV4 wrote:

----------------
On 6/4/2003 2:35:08 PM j7915 wrote:

The lower average wages is what paid for the grows of the company. Buck you may not remember but before the B-scale was implemented AA had no plans to buy new aircraft and no growth plan and no potential employment for one "Buck A&P" mechanic, one each.

----------------​

j7915,

Let''s use your logic to it''s full potential!

Go have Jim Little sign a 150 year contract that pays $8.50 per hour and AA can expand and we can have an overhaul base in every state. Then AA wont need line maintenance because they can have midnight shifters working for .02 cents per hour premium.

Think of the growth and the jobs j7915, you are ready willing, correct?

----------------​

On the other hand, you can have all the less senior AA mechanics sign an AMFA card so they can get an early vacation. And be sure to tell the new hires when all this turns around, as I am sure that many of the junior AA mechanics will tell the AMFA to stick it where the sun don''t shine, that the union dues that they will pay will insure that they will be laid off at the very first sign of trouble, although when you lay off a mechanic, how exactly do you keep the remaining ones from working more than 40 hours - since the goal of the union is to have the members paid more to work less? I guess AA can become the feeder for Comair.

 

[RV4]

YOU IDIOT!

Companies lay off workers NOT unions!

Except of course when the Company Union strips a member of his/her JOB SECURITY PROTECTION in "active engagement" negotiations well in a year advance of contract amendable date! Even then though, the COMPANY lays them off with the union's permission.

It is the TWU that volunteered 3500 heads without a fight.

At NWA, AMFA has pending grievances on every "force majeure" lay-off conducted by management. Not once has AMFA agreed to furlough any employees without "force majeure" being declared.

Why is the difference so hard for the bone heads to see?

 

[KCFlyer]

----------------
On 7/4/2003 7:22:39 AM RV4 wrote:


YOU IDIOT!

Companies lay off workers NOT unions!

----------------
​

Then please explain what the AMFA solution is for AA''s current problems. And I sure as hell hope it doesn''t involve lay offs, lest you look like a bigger idiot than I.

 

[RV4]

----------------
On 7/6/2003 5:42:04 AM KCFlyer wrote:

----------------
On 7/4/2003 7:22:39 AM RV4 wrote:


YOU IDIOT!

Companies lay off workers NOT unions!

----------------
​

Then please explain what the AMFA solution is for AA's current problems. And I sure as hell hope it doesn't involve lay offs, lest you look like a bigger idiot than I.
----------------
​

The replacement of the TWU as our bargaining agent has NOTHING to do with AA's current problems. Our internal union business has NOTHING to do with AA with the exception of the fact the TWU is such a COMPANY UNION, one could argue that point. I will leave that arguement to the industrial unionist that are experts in the matter.

I have been a supporter of the AMFA since 1995, and that includes both the good times and the bad, as far as the company is concerned.

I don't know how many times you must be told that the UNION is NOT the COMPANY. In fact, if our union would spend more time representing the membership instead of managing the company and every political campaign on the planet, there liekly wouldn't be a need for a change.

I really don't expect, nor do I have need to change your mind about anything. You have nothing to do with our choice in union representation matters, unless of course you are not really who you claim to be, and once that is exposed, you will need another alias.

 

[j7915]

----------------
On 7/4/2003 7:22:39 AM RV4 wrote:


YOU IDIOT!


Companies lay off workers NOT unions!


Except of course when the Company Union strips a member of his/her JOB SECURITY PROTECTION in "active engagement" negotiations well in a year advance of contract amendable date! Even then though, the COMPANY lays them off with the union''s permission.


It is the TWU that volunteered 3500 heads without a fight.


At NWA, AMFA has pending grievances on every "force majeure" lay-off conducted by management. Not once has AMFA agreed to furlough any employees without "force majeure" being declared.


Why is the difference so hard for the bone heads to see?

----------------​

You mean NWA invoked force majeure, a week after the contract was signed to lay off people?

 

[Hopeful]

The difference is that when AMFA negotiates, their only concern will be MECHANICS, not fleet service. So with Jim Little overseeing all negotiations, he has to keep in mind ALL of his union dues payers. He has the ability to say F*^& the mechanics, let them lose 50% of sick time for the first 2 days.

 

[WO/drone]

AS someone who has been a member of several unions, Teamsters(aviation), Operating Engineers(heavy equip), Pipe Fitters(A/C and refridgeration), some unions seem to have only there pockets in mind in negotiations. Keep base rates up (for dues) and cut benefits and add costs. Get the best representation you can. Be involved. I only wish all the best of luck, and make as much luck as you can.

 

[KCFlyer]

----------------
On 7/6/2003 1:44:02 PM Hopeful wrote:

The difference is that when AMFA negotiates, their only concern will be MECHANICS, not fleet service. So with Jim Little overseeing all negotiations, he has to keep in mind ALL of his union dues payers. He has the ability to say F*^& the mechanics, let them lose 50% of sick time for the first 2 days.

----------------​

But hopeful....I thought I''d read earlier in this and other threads that the AMFA would rather see layoffs than concessions - regardless of WHO they represent...IF that''s the case, I''d really like to know "who" lays people off, the company or the union, bearing in mind that the union suggested that layoffs are the better route.

 

[KCFlyer]

ZING....Another diverted answer. Let''s pretend that all is well at AA and the rest of the world...AMFA is voted in by the mechanics at AA and the danged economy is headed down again. The airlines are impacted. Now that AMFA is the voice of the mechanics, what is their number one solution to head off the problems...hope that "L" word isn''t in the vocabulary, as everbody knows the company lays people off...not the union, right?

 

[Hopeful]

Before this 5 year debacle was shoved up our anuses, the line station presidents wanted to see layoffs before wage and benefit cuts. I have been laid off twice over the past 25 years. At no time was I out for more than four months. But when I did return I came back to what I left in terms of wages and benefits. The first time I came back to a raise that was agreed to but the company was spiteful and laid off about 600 mechanics. That''s the point when you have a union with too many classifications to worry about. He has a tendency to become Robin Hood and take away from the higher paid mechanics and diviert it for the cause of the lower paid fleet service.

The company has used and abused the state of the economy and airline industry to break its unions. And please spare me the "half a loaf is better than no loaf" philosophy that has been the motto of the TWU and IAM since their beginnings.

You know what the irony of all this is, KCFLYER? The $620,000,000.00 that the TWU GAVE to the company DID not and DOES not include the layoffs and the savings associated with them.

The next item to go will be the pensions, not to mention the major health cost increase we will see when we elect our 2004 Flex benefits.