Negotiations Timeline....

[Hopeful]

February 1, 2007 - John Conley: "We might set greater expectations than those of our colleagues based on ... what we have been able to achieve."
February 28, 2007 - Gary Yingst: "Our position is that moving forward, we need to have a contract in place by the (May 2008) amendable date, and it's not going to be a concessionary contract."
November 9, 2007 - John Conley: "It’s time to settle the debts and repair the “Balance Sheet” with our members. In Texas terminology – let’s get –r – done."
November 9, 2007 - Dennis Burchette: “Ground workers want to see their compensation restored to pre-concessions, 2003 levels.The TWU has been doing the heavy lifting for this corporation So we're expecting full restoration."

April 4, 2008 - Jim Little: "The first thing they wanted to do is take away the retiree medical. I get tired of hearing about the impact of rising fuel costs on the carriers. Everybody we represent is facing the same thing."

December 15, 2008 - John Conley: “The company didn’t seem very serious about getting an agreement.”

January 16, 2009 - Bob Gless: "The gloves are coming off. Up until now our vocabulary has revolved around words like ‘partnership’ and ‘plan to win.’ I know we will refer to the latest round of talks with ‘betrayal.'"

January 16, 2009 - John Conley: "The TWU believes the company failed to honor their commitments. We essentially told them, 'Don't waste your breath' and 'Don't waste our time."

March 12, 2009 - Steve Luis: "I have worked for American 23 years and the lack of trust between union and management is at a level that is very alarming to me.”

September 18, 2009 - Joe Gordon: "Lets kick some ass!"

January 15, 2010 - Don Videtich: "We need to get a negotiated deal that is fair for our members and this one fell way short of being fair."

February 19, 2010 - Jim Little: "The company needs to recognize the wage and benefit needs of our members, as well as the contribution they’ve made through enhanced productivity and by bringing new business into the company. If AMR executives are not serious, they’re going to find out very quickly that TWU members are – and we’re going to do what it takes to reach a fair and equitable agreement,”

January 29, 2010 - Bob Zimmerman: " . . . at this point in our careers we may have to choose between continuing down the path of career destruction, or to take a stand. It has been 41 years since this airline has seen a strike by its mechanics, and they have obviously forgotten or are ignoring the importance of maintenance. With that said, we all need to prepare for a possible strike, or some other type of self help."

March 9, 2010 - Bob Gless: “Members are wanting to be brought back to the wages and benefits that will bring them some stability."

March 11, 2010 - John Conley: "It is the concerted opinion of International President James C Little and me, that all reasonable efforts to reach an amicable agreement through mediated session has failed. For that reason, please accept this notice as formal request to release the parties."

April 16, 2010 - John Conley: "They’ve stiffed our members at the bargaining table for the past four years - even though we were the ones who stepped up to take a 30 percent pay cut in 2003 to save the airline from bankruptcy."

May 7, 2010 - John Conley: “Today’s announcement marks a dramatic turn from only a week ago when negotiations were at a standstill and our union was waiting for the NMB to release our union from mediation. Progress is being made with other work groups and we are hoping to have other announcements in the near future.”

 

[TWU informer]

This looks the same as the last 25+ years only the names have changed.

No wonder this Corporation defended this union with all available resources when the membership attempted to make a change.

 

[comatose]

Ask the International reps what shared sacrifice have they given up?
How's their TWU pension and benefits?
And how does it feel to have their secretary being paid more than 99% of
the people they represent?

 

[frontline]

TWU is very far from perfect (I doubt many on here would dispute that) but what do you think another union could have done differently? The company is hellbent on more productivity and keeping costs in line with competitors. So what's the alternative? Strike and push to bankruptcy? Ok, but how does that help us? The way I see it we just end up with another concessionary deal that way.

 

[TWU informer]

TWU is very far from perfect (I doubt many on here would dispute that) but what do you think another union could have done differently? The company is hellbent on more productivity and keeping costs in line with competitors. So what's the alternative? Strike and push to bankruptcy? Ok, but how does that help us? The way I see it we just end up with another concessionary deal that way.

We will never know if the outcome at this point would be the same or not.

But these things with a different union do make logical sense.

If the International Leaders were directly elected by the membership via ballot when they impose their will on the Presidents Council and Negotiating Committee, I believe the direction would be different if they were to be held accountable instead of appointed for life.

Allowing negotiations to continue at a pace of 3 day every two months since amendable date is absurd. And the pace and information relaease would have looked much different if the leadership faced a member ballot during this time frame.

Jim Little had an early open option he gained in the without further ratification agreement and he failed to use it mainly because he is a company sellout and we cannot vote him out and that might be different with another union and another constitution.

Secert negotiations for the first 18 months leave us without accurate information as to what was actually taking place and being discussed during the time. A different union would likely be more open and less secretive. And we have facts about what took place instead of silent negotiators that have been gagged since th start under threat of being removed which in the end Jim Little removed them and reduced the size of the commitee to get this accomplished. Another union would have a structure that would require full participation by all representatives.


This T/A looks like something that could have been obtained either at amendable date or during early opener option instead of something after a reqeust for release.

The request for release was a farce as the company so clearly pointed out in their response to the request for release that a strike vote had not even taken place by the TWU.

You are seeking a difference to the outcome and our current position. I belive the different union would have had a different timeline, a different outcome, and different style of leadership simply based a membership direct election of International Officers. If they wanted to get re-elected, this whole process would have been differnet in my opinion.

Those are some differences that I see. If you accept that this all company winning the negotiation process then you will see things differently, I personally see this as a union leader guiding the process per the company request which is a huge difference.

Basic common sense tells us that if Jim Little or any International Officer would soon face a ballot vote by the membership, the negotiations would have been different from start to finish, and we wouldn't have to question if the outcome would have been different. We would have been informed every step of the process and we would know the outcome was the best we could expect. Instead appointed, secret leaders leads us to believe something is terribly wrong and the outcome could have been better at this stage of the game.
Simple