mojo13 said:
AMFAMAN said:
mojo13 said:
Are we talking reduction in force (with recall) due to economic condidtions or are we talking permanent job loss (no recall) because they closed your facility?
How many ex-TWAer's out of NY,LA,STL and elsewhere expect to ever see another AA paycheck? Some are out almost 3 years already. Whose fault is this, TWU, IAM, AFL-CIO, or of course little AMFA and their 16 supporters.
NWA will be decided soon and you know UAL happened way before AMFA.
I would like to know if you intend to blame AMFA for those ex-TWA jobs lossed the past few years?
It is unfortunate that we have people furloughed from ex TWA. That was due to the purchase of TWA assets by American Airlines.
I am not going to blame amfa for that but I will say that amfa's track record for losing jobs far outweigh what has become of us due to circumstances out of our control.
Hey Mojo;
I dont remember the Solidarity Day in 1990 but I do remember the one in 1991 in Washington DC. It was great to see all those unionists out there in force, and boy was it hot out there!
I have to wonder though dont you ever ask yourself, as a unionist, if the concessionary path is the right one? Dont you think that the unionists of long ago faced adversity, hardship, a hostile government and an apathetic membership? These challenges are perennial to the labor movement thats why having an accountable leadership is critical. We do not have that with the TWU/ATD.
There were always risks when labor chose to resist. Todays threats of moving the work overseas is not much different than what unionists were told years ago about moving the work out of state. They might do it, they might not, it depends, but to just cave into every threat? What is the point? Why have a union at all if all they can do is say "take this or it will be worse". Over 90% of the members only rely on the union for one thing-the contract. Only a small portion of the membership ever files a grievance or needs representation for discipline. We could save the two hours pay per month if thats all we really get. If we cant count on our union to get us the best possible rates of pay and benifits then we need to get an organization that will fight for just that, not one that simply tells us what the company tells them with no rebuttal from the union whatsoever.
I've been in this union for 17 years.
It has been leading the industry in concessions for even more years than that.
I was an officer for 4 years until they removed me because of the fact that I said it like it was.
I can tell you from my experiences and conversations that I've had that our "leaders", Sonny Hall, Jim Little, Mike Bakala, Gless, just to name a few are dishonest people who have a dislike of the 'membership'. I've heard so many negative comments from these people about the membership over the years, they say the members are apathetic, ungreatful, spoiled, lazy, uncaring, unintelligent and so on. They tell the members to accept concessions then turn around and blame the members for acceting them!
They preach among themselves that THEY are the "heart and soul" of the labor movement, not the members. If you dont believe me ask to see the minutes of the Internationals meeting in Florida this past Summer.
I heard Sonny Hall speak at a class for officers at the George Meany Institute, the first words out his mouth was "What a thankless job you people have taken on". Ed Koziatek said the same exact thing months earlier at a class for the officers of the maint locals in DFW.
Why would they say such things?
To draw you closer to them and away from your members. To make it so that officers start to disregard what the members say and become tools of the International.
Without a doubt being an elected Union Rep can be a challenging experience, aggravating and fustrating too, but thankless? Isnt that an insult to all those who voted for you?
Lets face it none of us are trained for the job of being a union rep prior to becoming one, so when you get in there you come under a lot of pressure. Especially if you were foolish enough to make a lot of promises while campaigning. That makes new officers easy pickings for the International. They try to gain your confidence by appearing to be "on your side" when pressure comes from the members to deliver. They then try to turn you against your members who put you there to represent them and make you into the sacrificial zinc of the International. They set up these "front" committees and "councils" but all the deals are cut between the International and the company before hand, the committes are then simply led down a path to a predetermined destination. This is how our contract negotiations were really done. Little and the company probably had the deal done back in 2002.
