Mechanics Have Reason To Be Upset
- Thread starter RV4
- Start date
----------------
On 5/6/2003 2:54:51 PM Wretched Wrench wrote:
From what I understand, the TWU had similar options on the table to eliminate jobs vs. paycuts. They chose to keep jobs.
------------------------------------------------------------
The choice was made by the company. The company got the pay cuts and other concessions first.. The elimination of jobs will come as the next step. It is inevitable. The future is outsourcing. The TWU knows this, but is trying to milk the last possible nickle of dues income before it happens. But both the company and the TWU know that when the shops and overhaul are gone, the line mechs will vote them out. So the company has to weigh the extra cost of heavy maintenance done in house vs the cost of another, perhaps less compliant, union representing the mechanics.
----------------
On 5/6/2003 2:54:51 PM Wretched Wrench wrote:
From what I understand, the TWU had similar options on the table to eliminate jobs vs. paycuts. They chose to keep jobs.
------------------------------------------------------------
The choice was made by the company. The company got the pay cuts and other concessions first.. The elimination of jobs will come as the next step. It is inevitable. The future is outsourcing. The TWU knows this, but is trying to milk the last possible nickle of dues income before it happens. But both the company and the TWU know that when the shops and overhaul are gone, the line mechs will vote them out. So the company has to weigh the extra cost of heavy maintenance done in house vs the cost of another, perhaps less compliant, union representing the mechanics.
----------------
To be more accurate the choice was/is between pay and benifits cuts or SCOPE clause cuts which would allow more outsorcing. Pay and Benifits can come back. But once your SCOPE is changed its most likely changed forever. The TWU was smart in trying to hold on to as much SCOPE as possible. But in the end it may be for naught. More outsourcing is probably enivitable as the TWU has been great at keeping work in house.
Do You really think AA cares if AMFA is the union here? Do you really thing the company is blind to whats been happening at NWA? With their track record they''ll be welcomed in here with open arms!
----------------
On 5/6/2003 3:44:08 PM Boomer wrote:
eolesen,
The Maint. & Related went in with a proposal to save the contract and take the hit through layoffs.
AA would not allow it.
----------------
On 5/6/2003 3:44:08 PM Boomer wrote:
eolesen,
The Maint. & Related went in with a proposal to save the contract and take the hit through layoffs.
AA would not allow it.
----------------
Of course they wouldn''t! They have an airline to run, you sort of need people to fix the planes you fly. I hear this one all the time but it makes no sense. You just can''t go around laying off butt loads of people without having to cancel butt loads of flights which then causes more losses. Kind of self defeating.
- Thread Starter
- Thread starter
- #49
----------------
On 5/6/2003 6:48:12 PM AAmech wrote:
To be more accurate the choice was/is between pay and benifits cuts or SCOPE clause cuts which would allow more outsorcing. Pay and Benifits can come back. But once your SCOPE is changed its most likely changed forever. The TWU was smart in trying to hold on to as much SCOPE as possible. But in the end it may be for naught. More outsourcing is probably enivitable as the TWU has been great at keeping work in house.
Do You really think AA cares if AMFA is the union here? Do you really thing the company is blind to whats been happening at NWA? With their track record they'll be welcomed in here with open arms!
----------------
On 5/6/2003 6:48:12 PM AAmech wrote:
To be more accurate the choice was/is between pay and benifits cuts or SCOPE clause cuts which would allow more outsorcing. Pay and Benifits can come back. But once your SCOPE is changed its most likely changed forever. The TWU was smart in trying to hold on to as much SCOPE as possible. But in the end it may be for naught. More outsourcing is probably enivitable as the TWU has been great at keeping work in house.
Do You really think AA cares if AMFA is the union here? Do you really thing the company is blind to whats been happening at NWA? With their track record they'll be welcomed in here with open arms!
----------------
Please tell us all the data we seek.
What is the cuurent outsource percentage at AA?
You repeat the lies, you focus your attention of NWA and AMFA, all the while the TWU provides you with zero facts about your own workplace.
If you have so much faith in the TWU, then tell us the current outsource percentage at AA? Your own Tulsa RO Committee Chairman and other watchdogs cannot tell us the current percentage.
But as you have now publicy chosen to claim TWU is superior in this area of contract negotiations and enforcement, then you must surely have the facts to back up your claim?
Bring on the facts, and dispense with the rhetoric?
AAMech,
The facts are clear:
"Latest word at DFW is approx 180 fulltimers will get cut on Jun 14th. All RON's will be outsourced on midnites, however AA will keep the lav and rug truck duties. Word has it the same company that cleans the terminals at DFW will now be doing the AA RON's. They are the same company that had 80 employees deported last year when the INS raided DFW. There is no way in hell they will be able to clean 40-50 RON's a nite.
I also heard that some cities will not outsource RON's. Why have somebody else come out to clean one F-100 RON."
I also heard that some cities will not outsource RON's. Why have somebody else come out to clean one F-100 RON."
THE TWU CANNOT EVEN REPRESENT THE FLEET SERVICE CLERKS PROPERLY AND PROTECT THEIR WORK, MUCH LESS A GROUP OF SKILLED MECHANICS!
TALK ABOUT OUTSOURCING JOBS!
KCFlyer
Veteran
- Aug 20, 2002
- 11,294
- 1,427
----------------
On 5/6/2003 7:59:27 PM RV4 wrote:
You repeat the lies, you focus your attention of NWA and AMFA, all the while the TWU provides you with zero facts about your own workplace.
----------------
Imagine...a guy reading "facts" about the AMFA on a daily basis who actually looks over at the largest airline with the AMFA on site to see what life might be like should he jump on the AMFA bandwagon.On 5/6/2003 7:59:27 PM RV4 wrote:
You repeat the lies, you focus your attention of NWA and AMFA, all the while the TWU provides you with zero facts about your own workplace.
----------------
- Aug 20, 2002
- 7,319
- 1,555
----------------
On 5/6/2003 8:59:36 PM KCFlyer wrote:
Â
----------------
Imagine...a guy reading the "facts" about the TWU on a daily basis who actually looks over to the largest airline with the TWU on the site to see what life might be like should he jump on the AMFA bandwagon.On 5/6/2003 8:59:36 PM KCFlyer wrote:
Â
----------------
On 5/6/2003 7:59:27 PM RV4 wrote:
You repeat the lies, you focus your attention of NWA and AMFA, all the while the TWU provides you with zero facts about your own workplace.
----------------
Imagine...a guy reading "facts" about the AMFA on a daily basis who actually looks over at the largest airline with the AMFA on site to see what life might be like should he jump on the AMFA bandwagon. On 5/6/2003 7:59:27 PM RV4 wrote:
You repeat the lies, you focus your attention of NWA and AMFA, all the while the TWU provides you with zero facts about your own workplace.
----------------
----------------
- Thread Starter
- Thread starter
- #52
----------------
On 5/6/2003 8:59:36 PM KCFlyer wrote:
Imagine...a guy reading "facts" about the AMFA on a daily basis who actually looks over at the largest airline with the AMFA on site to see what life might be like should he jump on the AMFA bandwagon.
----------------
We have learned all about your so-called "facts". Where is that ONE contract negotiations that the members of AMFA were denied the right to a "credible" vote on, which you claimed you would be "happy" to produce for us? Imagine...another TWU supporting liar.On 5/6/2003 8:59:36 PM KCFlyer wrote:
Imagine...a guy reading "facts" about the AMFA on a daily basis who actually looks over at the largest airline with the AMFA on site to see what life might be like should he jump on the AMFA bandwagon.
----------------
AAmech, is going to show us some more facts. Like what is the current outsource percentage at AA. I fear his facts and KCFlyer's all come from the same dream...or nightmare might be more appropiate..
- Thread Starter
- Thread starter
- #54
----------------
On 5/6/2003 6:32:40 PM AAmech wrote:
Of course they wouldn''t! They have an airline to run, you sort of need people to fix the planes you fly. I hear this one all the time but it makes no sense. You just can''t go around laying off butt loads of people without having to cancel butt loads of flights which then causes more losses. Kind of self defeating.
----------------
It appears AA is losing 1 Billion in a quarter while still flying 2700 flights per day.On 5/6/2003 6:32:40 PM AAmech wrote:
Of course they wouldn''t! They have an airline to run, you sort of need people to fix the planes you fly. I hear this one all the time but it makes no sense. You just can''t go around laying off butt loads of people without having to cancel butt loads of flights which then causes more losses. Kind of self defeating.
----------------
We will soon see if BIG is better.
AA Management in Tulsa cannot even do the TWU agreed to reduction in force right, How can we expect them to run a maintenance base?
KCFlyer
Veteran
- Aug 20, 2002
- 11,294
- 1,427
----------------
On 5/7/2003 5:43:06 AM RV4 wrote:
We have learned all about your so-called "facts". Where is that ONE contract negotiations that the members of AMFA were denied the right to a "credible" vote on, which you claimed you would be "happy" to produce for us? Imagine...another TWU supporting liar.
AAmech, is going to show us some more facts. Like what is the current outsource percentage at AA. I fear his facts and KCFlyer's all come from the same dream...or nightmare might be more appropiate..
----------------
RV4 - lets reverse roles for a moment. Suppose you guys were represented by AMFA and you just found that many jobs were being sacrificed for the good of the brotherhood. This doesn't sit well with you, as you have been a dues paying member for years and cannot believe that the union didn't fight any harder for all employees...after all, strength in numbers you know. Meanwhile, a rather vocal coworker kept complaining about AMFA and was spreading the word that TWU was the way to go. His complaints have piqued your interest - do you accept his word as "facts", and blindly follow, or do you do a little digging on your own to see the entire view of the TWU? And if in your digging, you find that things over at ABC airlines (who is represented by TWU) are not that much better than they are at XYZ airlines - when you see that the members at MNO airlines (a smaller airline represented by the same union) got an increase thru arbitration that was LESS than management origianlly offered, because the union leadership was going to stand as one against a sh*tty offer, then maybe you start to think that just maybe the things that are being spouted by this vocal organizer are not really as good as he'd like you to believe. But when he posts anything he finds that is the least bit negative, he is a "liar" or "uninformed".On 5/7/2003 5:43:06 AM RV4 wrote:
We have learned all about your so-called "facts". Where is that ONE contract negotiations that the members of AMFA were denied the right to a "credible" vote on, which you claimed you would be "happy" to produce for us? Imagine...another TWU supporting liar.
AAmech, is going to show us some more facts. Like what is the current outsource percentage at AA. I fear his facts and KCFlyer's all come from the same dream...or nightmare might be more appropiate..
----------------
----------------
On 5/7/2003 5:39:13 AM RV4 wrote:
Back to the original topic.
Can anyone give us the CURRENT breakdown of Cost per Available Seat Mile by airlines after the concessions?
----------------
One of the things we must keep in mind is that our ASMs are not a reliable comparasion because of our "More Room in Coach" layout. Less seats makes every ASM more expensive.On 5/7/2003 5:39:13 AM RV4 wrote:
Back to the original topic.
Can anyone give us the CURRENT breakdown of Cost per Available Seat Mile by airlines after the concessions?
----------------
KCFlyer
Veteran
- Aug 20, 2002
- 11,294
- 1,427
Bob,
Valid points. However, my point is that RV4 seems to paint life with the AMFA as just a beautiful thing...why, there isn''t anything negative about it at all. Anytime someone points to something that paints AMFA in less than glowing light, they are labled as a "liar". My point (and I believe AAMech''s point) is that nothing is perfect. Pointing that out does not make one a "liar" - it only makes them guilty of becoming informed about an issue - warts and all.
While I understand that, in the words of NHBB, "seniority rules", and while I understand accross the board paycuts and still seeing layoffs among junior union members, I would think that if I were union member 99 and a pay cut accross the board might have meant that AA lays off up to member 90, then I am satisfied because I and others still have my job. If I were member number 89, it would still suck. On the other hand, if the wages and bene''s were protected and the layoffs went up to employee number 200 or 300, I wouldn''t be terribly happy about that, and in all honesty, I''d imagine that employee number 201 or 301 would now be living under even more stress, knowing full well that if "shrinking" doesn''t show enough gains to the company, then my turn is next.
I''m glad I don''t work for a union - they can''t win any more than management can win. Aim for job preservation and half the senior guys think you suck. Aim for pay and benefit preservation and all the junior guys think you suck.
Valid points. However, my point is that RV4 seems to paint life with the AMFA as just a beautiful thing...why, there isn''t anything negative about it at all. Anytime someone points to something that paints AMFA in less than glowing light, they are labled as a "liar". My point (and I believe AAMech''s point) is that nothing is perfect. Pointing that out does not make one a "liar" - it only makes them guilty of becoming informed about an issue - warts and all.
While I understand that, in the words of NHBB, "seniority rules", and while I understand accross the board paycuts and still seeing layoffs among junior union members, I would think that if I were union member 99 and a pay cut accross the board might have meant that AA lays off up to member 90, then I am satisfied because I and others still have my job. If I were member number 89, it would still suck. On the other hand, if the wages and bene''s were protected and the layoffs went up to employee number 200 or 300, I wouldn''t be terribly happy about that, and in all honesty, I''d imagine that employee number 201 or 301 would now be living under even more stress, knowing full well that if "shrinking" doesn''t show enough gains to the company, then my turn is next.
I''m glad I don''t work for a union - they can''t win any more than management can win. Aim for job preservation and half the senior guys think you suck. Aim for pay and benefit preservation and all the junior guys think you suck.
----------------
On 5/7/2003 6:24:41 AM KCFlyer wrote:
RV4 - lets reverse roles for a moment. Suppose you guys were represented by AMFA and you just found that many jobs were being sacrificed for the good of the brotherhood. This doesn't sit well with you, as you have been a dues paying member for years and cannot believe that the union didn't fight any harder for all employees...after all, strength in numbers you know. Meanwhile, a rather vocal coworker kept complaining about AMFA and was spreading the word that TWU was the way to go. His complaints have piqued your interest - do you accept his word as "facts", and blindly follow, or do you do a little digging on your own to see the entire view of the TWU? And if in your digging, you find that things over at ABC airlines (who is represented by TWU) are not that much better than they are at XYZ airlines - when you see that the members at MNO airlines (a smaller airline represented by the same union) got an increase thru arbitration that was LESS than management origianlly offered, because the union leadership was going to stand as one against a sh*tty offer, then maybe you start to think that just maybe the things that are being spouted by this vocal organizer are not really as good as he'd like you to believe. But when he posts anything he finds that is the least bit negative, he is a "liar" or "uninformed".
----------------
One of the suggestions I forwarded to Jim Little months ago was a job sharing program similar to that used by trades here in NY. Instead of just throwing out the Junior guys all workers would take the hit in the form of a layoff. The workers would pick the period in which they wanted to be laid off by seniority.
They dont accept pay cuts"to keep people working".
The concept of keeping as many people producing as possible is the responsibility of the government, not unions. Companies use the arguement of lower wages as a means to full employment not unions. Following this logic of less pay for more jobs then why do unions support raising the minimum wage?
Everyone would have a lower yearly income but they would also collect unemployment and have the opportunity to sell their labor somewhere else until they are called back. This would allow those who were on layoff to potentially offset their losses while still working the same amount of hours. We will now in effect be working from October till December for free.Isnt the whole idea to work less hours for more pay so you can have more time to have a life outside of work?
Instead we agreed to lowering everyones yearly income by more than 20% while increasing the amount of hours worked in that year, and we are still putting Junior workers on the street.
On 5/7/2003 6:24:41 AM KCFlyer wrote:
RV4 - lets reverse roles for a moment. Suppose you guys were represented by AMFA and you just found that many jobs were being sacrificed for the good of the brotherhood. This doesn't sit well with you, as you have been a dues paying member for years and cannot believe that the union didn't fight any harder for all employees...after all, strength in numbers you know. Meanwhile, a rather vocal coworker kept complaining about AMFA and was spreading the word that TWU was the way to go. His complaints have piqued your interest - do you accept his word as "facts", and blindly follow, or do you do a little digging on your own to see the entire view of the TWU? And if in your digging, you find that things over at ABC airlines (who is represented by TWU) are not that much better than they are at XYZ airlines - when you see that the members at MNO airlines (a smaller airline represented by the same union) got an increase thru arbitration that was LESS than management origianlly offered, because the union leadership was going to stand as one against a sh*tty offer, then maybe you start to think that just maybe the things that are being spouted by this vocal organizer are not really as good as he'd like you to believe. But when he posts anything he finds that is the least bit negative, he is a "liar" or "uninformed".
----------------
One of the suggestions I forwarded to Jim Little months ago was a job sharing program similar to that used by trades here in NY. Instead of just throwing out the Junior guys all workers would take the hit in the form of a layoff. The workers would pick the period in which they wanted to be laid off by seniority.
They dont accept pay cuts"to keep people working".
The concept of keeping as many people producing as possible is the responsibility of the government, not unions. Companies use the arguement of lower wages as a means to full employment not unions. Following this logic of less pay for more jobs then why do unions support raising the minimum wage?
Everyone would have a lower yearly income but they would also collect unemployment and have the opportunity to sell their labor somewhere else until they are called back. This would allow those who were on layoff to potentially offset their losses while still working the same amount of hours. We will now in effect be working from October till December for free.Isnt the whole idea to work less hours for more pay so you can have more time to have a life outside of work?
Instead we agreed to lowering everyones yearly income by more than 20% while increasing the amount of hours worked in that year, and we are still putting Junior workers on the street.
