New TWU president talks tough against DOJ lawsuit, American Airlines layoffs, industry outsourcing

Like I said. I would be fine either way. I have more than 25 years. You want to take extreme risk because you think we would have gotten a different result than NWA, US, UA, HP, or what DL did to their employees then fine. I would still be working. If anything I feel very disheartened that I am sticking up for people's careers that they obviously are willing to sacrifice for me getting a fatter paycheck.

IGM.....You're such a wuss, and not even close to a union man!
 
swamt you are sadly wrong. The TWU did not "agree" to anything. We were quasi-negotiating in BK. BK is that place where corporations get what they want (ref. UA, US, DL, and NWA) and labor gets the shaft. Plan A was to mitigate the concessions and Plan B was to go vote the deal down and see if we do better than every other labor group that fought abrogation. There was no real negotiations here at AA.
Yes the TWU , under Don Videtich did negotiate, as you already pointed out several times and they agreed to endorse accepting the deal he brokered with an intense lobbying campaign in Tulsa. You also claimed that these "Negotiations" saved jobs in Tulsa. You claimed the the DFR lawsuit was the line guys suing to try and make Tulsa lose the jobs you claimed they saved by negotiating more away from the line in exchange for more jobs saved in Tulsa, because as you have said here before the company wanted to cut more heads in Tulsa but the TWU negotiated and reduced the job loss. Now if you had said the the Line did not negotiate then you would be correct, hence the lawsuit right? You are getting caught up in your own lies.
 
Yes the TWU , under Don Videtich did negotiate, as you already pointed out several times and they agreed to endorse accepting the deal he brokered with an intense lobbying campaign in Tulsa. You also claimed that these "Negotiations" saved jobs in Tulsa. You claimed the the DFR lawsuit was the line guys suing to try and make Tulsa lose the jobs you claimed they saved by negotiating more away from the line in exchange for more jobs saved in Tulsa, because as you have said here before the company wanted to cut more heads in Tulsa but the TWU negotiated and reduced the job loss. Now if you had said the the Line did not negotiate then you would be correct, hence the lawsuit right? You are getting caught up in your own lies.
Read the 1113c law regarding CBAs. The company must only hold discussions with the union on the CBA and their need to reach cost reductions. The company attorneys make their case as to why the concessions are needed and therefore abrogation if reasonable terms (from the company POV) from the union cannot be reached. The union (TWU) can either go with presenting their case as to why much less or fewer concessions are needed or try to negotiate terms that will still meet the company's petition for relief. Option A was AA asking for and most likely getting the industry average outsourcing percentage of 50% or Option B which was a reduction in the outsourcing percentage with an early out to reduce involuntary job loss. A would equal 4,300 jobs lost, B would be 2,300 lost with about 1,250 taking some kind of early out.

You are mistaken on Don V negotiating since there is a committee who propose changes. Whether or not Don lobbied for or against that's part of the process. It sounds like you want someone advising who would tell you fight on we will win even though the facts say otherwise. That didn't work at NWA or UA, why did you think we the M&R at AA would have had a different outcome? The judge is not allowed to determine wage parity under BK law.

And about the lawsuit? Anyone can file one, its quite different to actually win. We will see but I doubt a judge will say that the Int'l union is prohibited from providing advice and a locals members taking that advice. I expect that will be more members money wasted by the local.
 
Yep, and they really don't need experience or skills for the job, and they don't pay union dues. starting rate for AMT-$15.64, Starting rate for OSM-$10.17 , Starting rate for Cleaner $10.40, Starting rate for MSP-$8.90. These poor souls earning just $8.90 an hour have to fork over two hours pay per month to the Union, yea, I'd say that puts them in league with McDonalds workers, except that they don't get fed. When you add in the value of being fed every day , short commute and take out what the MSP must pay in Union Dues I'll bet the McDonalds worker is paid better.
They make $7.25 and hour now. The comment said that AMTs would for BK wages and that's not true.
 
So being a union man means willing to put your overhaul brothers and sisters on the street to prove a point? No, you're the wuss.

Never said I'd throw overhaul under the bus. You throw that out there all the time so it looks like the line doesn't care about overhaul. I'm talking basic benefits. GEO PAY, sick pay, vacation, shift diff, o/t, medical, holidays, etc, etc. You think it's fine to give all that away. I don't.
 
And overspeed will claim that AA wanted far, far more headcount than what they got. Little does he know that this was just a tactic. AA called for far more heads to be released just so the TWU could sell the fact that they wanted more. I said this in the very beginning that this was going to happen so that it would "appear" that the TWU fought for jobs. So once again it was collusion between the TWU and AA. Also little does overspeed know, that AA got more headcount reduction than they really needed by working the TWU the way they did, and the TWU thinks they did a great job and won the fight because AA never got that "phantom" number they claim they wanted. It was all a game to both AA and the TWU from the very beginning. A game that was dealing with peoples lively hoods. Really hope you guys get more serious about firing the TWU this time around...
Read the 1113c law regarding CBAs. The company must only hold discussions with the union on the CBA and their need to reach cost reductions. The company attorneys make their case as to why the concessions are needed and therefore abrogation if reasonable terms (from the company POV) from the union cannot be reached. The union (TWU) can either go with presenting their case as to why much less or fewer concessions are needed or try to negotiate terms that will still meet the company's petition for relief. Option A was AA asking for and most likely getting the industry average outsourcing percentage of 50% or Option B which was a reduction in the outsourcing percentage with an early out to reduce involuntary job loss. A would equal 4,300 jobs lost, B would be 2,300 lost with about 1,250 taking some kind of early out.

You are mistaken on Don V negotiating since there is a committee who propose changes. Whether or not Don lobbied for or against that's part of the process. It sounds like you want someone advising who would tell you fight on we will win even though the facts say otherwise. That didn't work at NWA or UA, why did you think we the M&R at AA would have had a different outcome? The judge is not allowed to determine wage parity under BK law.

And about the lawsuit? Anyone can file one, its quite different to actually win. We will see but I doubt a judge will say that the Int'l union is prohibited from providing advice and a locals members taking that advice. I expect that will be more members money wasted by the local.
And there you have it. Need I say any more? Yes, he really is an embarrassment. Typical overspeed, just like a puppet, as expected. Pls keep posting...
 
Never said I'd throw overhaul under the bus. You throw that out there all the time so it looks like the line doesn't care about overhaul. I'm talking basic benefits. GEO PAY, sick pay, vacation, shift diff, o/t, medical, holidays, etc, etc. You think it's fine to give all that away. I don't.
Again, I am not arguing against the items you state. It is easy to ask for things but figure out the total cost of the contract. I am for everyone of the things you have asked for and back you 100% on those as goals. There needs to be a dialogue on what is the plan to get those things. The only plan I hear is get rid of certain people or bring in a specific union and all will be solved.

Think about this, we have less than 36 months to early openers for M&R. What is the comprehensive plan to get our act together and be a union so we can get tops in everything you ask. AMFA is not the solution to our problems. It didn't work at UA and DL rightfully wanted no part of them.
 
Again, I am not arguing against the items you state. It is easy to ask for things but figure out the total cost of the contract. I am for everyone of the things you have asked for and back you 100% on those as goals. There needs to be a dialogue on what is the plan to get those things. The only plan I hear is get rid of certain people or bring in a specific union and all will be solved.

Think about this, we have less than 36 months to early openers for M&R. What is the comprehensive plan to get our act together and be a union so we can get tops in everything you ask. AMFA is not the solution to our problems. It didn't work at UA and DL rightfully wanted no part of them.
I have been hearing the same BS rhetoric for 30 years now. The comprehensive plan requires more than just talk, it requires more than just TWU members, it requires everyone is organized labor to stop reliance on politics and politicians for answers.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/08-205.ZS.html

This 2010 Supreme Court decision allows corporations and unions to spend on unlimited on campaigns.

Do you anyone else believe working men and women can win against corporations in a game of who has the most money to influence politics?

Hell no, organized labor needs to go back to withholding labor and services to force changes in the law first, then we can talk about some comprehensive plan to hold hands and sing together.

As long as we live with a Government by the money, of the money, and for the money, we are screwed until we use our strength to change that. There is step one of your needed comprehensive plan.

But until the labor leaders actually suffer the same losses that the members suffer, what do they have to complain about, and why would they take action that might put them into harms way?

Face it dumbass, we are screwed and you know it, I know it. You fight against any change, and only offer the same old crap and rhetoric.
 
Again, I am not arguing against the items you state. It is easy to ask for things but figure out the total cost of the contract. I am for everyone of the things you have asked for and back you 100% on those as goals. There needs to be a dialogue on what is the plan to get those things. The only plan I hear is get rid of certain people or bring in a specific union and all will be solved.

Think about this, we have less than 36 months to early openers for M&R. What is the comprehensive plan to get our act together and be a union so we can get tops in everything you ask. AMFA is not the solution to our problems. It didn't work at UA and DL rightfully wanted no part of them.
An international union member has to ask this?---"Think about this, we have less than 36 months to early openers for M&R. What is the comprehensive plan to get our act together and be a union so we can get tops in everything you ask." Just proves they have no plans for change. It's time for the membership to make change for themselves. You guys may want to start the resign campaign now...
 

Latest posts

Back
Top