What's new
By:

Mechanics Have Reason To Be Upset

Let's all take TWU and KCFlyer advice.

We can negotiate a whopping $6.50 per hour entry rate with 25 year progession to a huge and fair $7.75 top out pay, then AA can purchase every available maintenance base on the planet.

Then, and only then, we will be real union men!

THINK OF THE JOBS WE WOULD CREATE!
 
While were at it, lets open repair stations in every state at that rate of pay and cure the nations unemployment rate. Just think of the dues money rolling in now, Jim.......
 
----------------
On 7/4/2003 7:22:39 AM RV4 wrote:


YOU IDIOT!

Companies lay off workers NOT unions!

----------------
​
Well, now that that''s all cleared up, I guess the company is damned if they do and damned if they don''t...if the AMFA were in place and the company announced layoff time, then it''s THEIR fault for the layoffs. If on the other hand the company tries to salvage some jobs and asks for concessions, they should have just implemented layoffs. But true union men would NEVER admit that their union was the one who recommended a companies course of action - especially when their paying their dues to the union that just suggested laying off.

Attention TWU - please stop agreeing to concessions and suggest to managment that they just lay off some people. You''d most likely still have people trying to get you out of American Airlines, but what the hell, let them see one of these AMFA benefits in action.
 
----------------
On 7/6/2003 4:15:32 PM KCFlyer wrote:




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


YOU IDIOT!

Companies lay off workers NOT unions!

----------------
​
Well, now that that''s all cleared up, I guess the company is damned if they do and damned if they don''t...if the AMFA were in place and the company announced layoff time, then it''s THEIR fault for the layoffs. If on the other hand the company tries to salvage some jobs and asks for concessions, they should have just implemented layoffs. But true union men would NEVER admit that their union was the one who recommended a companies course of action - especially when their paying their dues to the union that just suggested laying off.

Attention TWU - please stop agreeing to concessions and suggest to managment that they just lay off some people. You''d most likely still have people trying to get you out of American Airlines, but what the hell, let them see one of these AMFA benefits in action.

----------------​
What is it that you do not understand KCFlyer? Is American Airlines susposed to maintain the current amount of employees because those employees are unionized? You come across like a layoff is something completely new.
 
----------------
On 7/6/2003 4:15:32 PM KCFlyer wrote:




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


YOU IDIOT!

Companies lay off workers NOT unions!

----------------
​
Well, now that that''s all cleared up, I guess the company is damned if they do and damned if they don''t...if the AMFA were in place and the company announced layoff time, then it''s THEIR fault for the layoffs. If on the other hand the company tries to salvage some jobs and asks for concessions, they should have just implemented layoffs. But true union men would NEVER admit that their union was the one who recommended a companies course of action - especially when their paying their dues to the union that just suggested laying off.

Attention TWU - please stop agreeing to concessions and suggest to managment that they just lay off some people. You''d most likely still have people trying to get you out of American Airlines, but what the hell, let them see one of these AMFA benefits in action.
----------------
​
Earth to KCFLyer...

One more time!

The support for AMFA has nothing to do with AA and their current situation.

The support for AMFA has nothing to do with AA and their current situation.

The support for AMFA has nothing to do with AA and their current situation.

The support for AMFA has nothing to do with AA and their current situation.

The support for AMFA has nothing to do with AA and their current situation.

The support for AMFA has nothing to do with AA and their current situation.

The support for AMFA has nothing to do with AA and their current situation.

The support for AMFA has nothing to do with AA and their current situation.

The support for AMFA has nothing to do with AA and their current situation.

The support for AMFA has nothing to do with AA and their current situation.

The support for AMFA has nothing to do with AA and their current situation.

The support for AMFA has nothing to do with AA and their current situation.

The support for AMFA has nothing to do with AA and their current situation.

The support for AMFA has nothing to do with AA and their current situation.

The support for AMFA has nothing to do with AA and their current situation.

The support for AMFA has nothing to do with AA and their current situation.

The support for AMFA has nothing to do with AA and their current situation.

The support for AMFA has nothing to do with AA and their current situation.

The support for AMFA has nothing to do with AA and their current situation.

The support for AMFA has nothing to do with AA and their current situation.

The support for AMFA has nothing to do with AA and their current situation.
 
Buck, allow me to ask you a question and tell me which one you''d be happier with...assume you are the person involved in either situation:

1. The company asks you for concessions
2. The company lays you off.

Which is more palatable - and which would cause less resentment of the company?

And RV4 - I know that the AMFA doesn''t have anything to do with AA''s current situation, but you''re determined to get AMFA voted in at AA. But you continually dodge the questions about what AMFA would do to get AA OUT of their current situation.

I guess it''s hard to say "A vote for AMFA is a vote to put your sorry low-time ass on the street" Doesn''t sound too politically beneficial. You push for something that would protect your "class and craft" (translation - layoffs instead of any kind of concessions) and that sounds oh so nice...until the reality of what it means starts to set in with members - we''d rather see you out of a job than to drag down your brothers paycheck. Of course, that issue is dodged by announcing "The company lays off workers...not the union".
 
KCFlyer, what happens if the union membership votes to not accept concessions? Is it the union''s fault? Granted, with the IAM, IBT or TWU it seems that the union leadership makes the choice, officially the membership has to vote to accept concessions. Does this jibe with your skewed view of how airline unions operate? At NWA, AMFA has told their membership that if the membership thinks it is preferable to the membership to take concessions along with lay-offs, AMFA at NWA will hold a vote if the membership gathers a petition to hold such a vote. So far the NWA mechanics would rather not try concessions again.

Looking around at the airline industry, do you have any examples where a mechanics group took concessions and had no lay-offs? UAL, USair, American and Delta all took concessions and also took lay-offs. Maybe you''ll have to sell concessions a little harder, as I''m not convinced enough to vote for them.
 
----------------
On 7/6/2003 7:43:24 PM TDR1502C wrote:

KCFlyer, what happens if the union membership votes to not accept concessions? Is it the union''s fault? Granted, with the IAM, IBT or TWU it seems that the union leadership makes the choice, officially the membership has to vote to accept concessions. Does this jibe with your skewed view of how airline unions operate? At NWA, AMFA has told their membership that if the membership thinks it is preferable to the membership to take concessions along with lay-offs, AMFA at NWA will hold a vote if the membership gathers a petition to hold such a vote. So far the NWA mechanics would rather not try concessions again.

Looking around at the airline industry, do you have any examples where a mechanics group took concessions and had no lay-offs? UAL, USair, American and Delta all took concessions and also took lay-offs. Maybe you''ll have to sell concessions a little harder, as I''m not convinced enough to vote for them.

----------------​
After all the dust has settled and the vote to keep or oust TWU at AA has passed, everybody is still going to sit around and #### about the mess your in because it WON''T change a single thing at the company. And the AMFA at NWA is doomed to get the "company union" label, should they aks the members to vote if they want them to consider concessions. Any "no" voter will call the "yes" voters a bunch of kool aid drinking fools...there will be resentment of each other in the same work group. A union cannot "unify" those who disagree. Judging from the rhetoric on this board, I can tell you three posters on this board who wouldn''t be happy with the majority if they WERE AMFA and the "majority" voted to preserve jobs via concessions.

Bottom line, the mentality that "the company is out to screw you" keeps labor and management from working together to solve the problems. If the union membership votes not to accept concessions, then I''d sure like to see them offer up a counterproposal to help keep their employer in business. Because I think there is a misplaced "comfort level" in the bankruptcy route. At some point, an airline is going to go into Chapter 11 and the courts and creditors will say - nope...been there, done that, it doesn''t work...liquidate.
 
----------------
On 7/6/2003 7:27:13 PM KCFlyer wrote:


Buck, allow me to ask you a question and tell me which one you''d be happier with...assume you are the person involved in either situation:

1. The company asks you for concessions
2. The company lays you off.

Which is more palatable - and which would cause less resentment of the company?

And RV4 - I know that the AMFA doesn''t have anything to do with AA''s current situation, but you''re determined to get AMFA voted in at AA. But you continually dodge the questions about what AMFA would do to get AA OUT of their current situation.

I guess it''s hard to say "A vote for AMFA is a vote to put your sorry low-time ass on the street" Doesn''t sound too politically beneficial. You push for something that would protect your "class and craft" (translation - layoffs instead of any kind of concessions) and that sounds oh so nice...until the reality of what it means starts to set in with members - we''d rather see you out of a job than to drag down your brothers paycheck. Of course, that issue is dodged by announcing "The company lays off workers...not the union".

----------------​
I am senior in the company.......

I would not be happy with either. But I would rather be layed off, knowing that I could return at the same wages and benefits as when I was layed off. The only resentment I have for American Airlines is their inability to manage their company. The members of the mechanic craft and class at American Airlines have had concessions in every contract, except when the PEB at Northwest under AMFA gained us a 22% raise for those at the top of the payscale. Then the TWU negotiated that gain away. A large number of mechanics are still earning the lowest average wage at any major airline.These concessionary contracts have laid the ground work for all other mechanics in the industry to take concessions. The negotiating ability of the TWU has had a wonderful result for other than the mechanics. With your vast knowledge of the industry, show us the wage comparasions of each work group. Who has done the best?
 
----------------
On 7/6/2003 7:59:19 PM KCFlyer wrote:




After all the dust has settled and the vote to keep or oust TWU at AA has passed, everybody is still going to sit around and #### about the mess your in because it WON'T change a single thing at the company. And the AMFA at NWA is doomed to get the "company union" label, should they aks the members to vote if they want them to consider concessions. Any "no" voter will call the "yes" voters a bunch of kool aid drinking fools...there will be resentment of each other in the same work group. A union cannot "unify" those who disagree. Judging from the rhetoric on this board, I can tell you three posters on this board who wouldn't be happy with the majority if they WERE AMFA and the "majority" voted to preserve jobs via concessions.

Bottom line, the mentality that "the company is out to screw you" keeps labor and management from working together to solve the problems. If the union membership votes not to accept concessions, then I'd sure like to see them offer up a counterproposal to help keep their employer in business. Because I think there is a misplaced "comfort level" in the bankruptcy route. At some point, an airline is going to go into Chapter 11 and the courts and creditors will say - nope...been there, done that, it doesn't work...liquidate.



----------------​
The bottom line is that we should be entitled to decide for ourselves, and if we face consequences due to our decision making then so be it. But to have dictators deciding our fate, is exactly why we enjoy the ability to correctly blame others for our demise....

The difference? We decided or they decided! We are to blame or They are to blame.

I personally think my union leadership screws me more than thinking the company is doing so. We would be hard pressed to blame AMFA for anything if union democracy prevails, we could then only blame ourselves.
 
----------------
On 7/6/2003 9:00:38 PM RV4 wrote:




The bottom line is that we should be entitled to decide for ourselves, and if we face consequences due to our decision making then so be it. But to have dictators deciding our fate, is exactly why we enjoy the ability to correctly blame others for our demise....

The difference? We decided or they decided! We are to blame or They are to blame.

RV4 - so...every AMFA vote will be 100%? Let's say your AMFA now and you vote for no concessions and AAMECH (sorry to use your name in vain) votes for concessions...AAMECH's group wins....Who do you blame....AAMECH or the company? My point being, judging from the way you guys feel about SCABS, I can't help but feel that you'd hold those who voted opposite you in a similar light....and is THAT good for morale or brotherhood?

I personally think my union leadership screws me more than thinking the company is doing so. We would be hard pressed to blame AMFA for anything if union democracy prevails, we could then only blame ourselves.

Again, I doubt you'd blame yourself. Instead, I think you'd begin am "I didn't vote for this crap" campaign. Just a gut feel from what I've been reading.





----------------​
 
Concessions don't save jobs, ask anyone who has been through bankruptcy with an airline. Concessions are just a Band-Aid on a bigger problem. As for your RV4 baiting with AMFA what-ifs KCFlyer, as an AMFA represented mechanic at an airline where we have voted them in, our union better not do anything that doesn't have our support, as other unions have done.
 
I believe KCFlyer may actually be one of those appointed, untouchable, in-for-life, problems that the TWU is weighted with.
 
----------------
On 7/7/2003 5:17:06 AM RV4 wrote:


I believe KCFlyer may actually be one of those appointed, untouchable, in-for-life, problems that the TWU is weighted with.

----------------​
Sorry Mr Stone (odd that you mention him in your signature), I don't belong to a union and I certainly don't work for a union. But it's apparant that anyone who disagrees with you must be a lacky for the TWU. And you didn't answer my question (not that I expected that you would), but I'll try again - what would you do if your peers voted for concessions and you voted against them? Would you just say "well, that's democracy in action" and head back to work, or would you treat those "yes" voters like a scab? Would you tell your buddies (who of course voted "no" to any concessions) that those kool-aid drinking idiots are to blame. And would the union that even suggested the vote (and had that vote go opposite what you wanted) suddenly become "the company union"? Inquiring minds want to know.

And TDR, I'm not really baiting RV4 - I'm just trying to "balance" his posts. If you read them, life with the AMFA is all sunshine and sweet dreams - he won't address what some of their policies can mean, especially to the junior mechanics.
 
KCFLYER:

You mention that Management and Labor should be working together to solve problems?

How about shared sacrifices for starters?

Mechanics lost about $20,000.00 a year when you include loss of holiday pay, the 17% paycut and one week vacation. Management took only a $4500.00 average paycut for a supervisor earning about $60,000.00,and no loss of sick and vacation time. As I have stated before, it''s not a matter of who represents you, but it''s time to pay the TWU back by voting in another union so the TWU cannot use your own union dues money to buy the knife that stabs you in the back!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

J
Airlines, Facing Cost Pressure, Outsource Crucial
2 3
Replies
32
Views
5K
AMFAMAN
A
C
January 11 Airline News
Replies
4
Views
2K
cubfan02us
C

Latest posts

Back
Top