I've read the debates going back and forth about the removal of stewards and officers and about the oaths they took.
I took an oath also. And I have done my best to uphold that oath.
However the question is what parts of the oath take priority when there is a conflict within? Does our "allegiance to the International" take precedence over the Constitution, allegiance to the Local and the cause of all organized labor?
Should those at the top have the right to change the objects of the organization from “obtaining adequate wage standards, retirement benefits, shorter hours of work and improvements in the conditions of employment†(Article II) in favor of maintaining levels of employment and protecting the treasury?
It’s sad that the membership is not even mentioned in the oath even though they are the ones who put us there. Shouldn’t the oath of a representative be geared towards the members that they represent? Once elected do we become representatives and guardians of the Internationals interests or of the members who put us there?
If we believe that the International is acting in their own self-interests and not the members are we bound by that oath to support the Internationals interests over those of our members and ourselves? Are we bound to sacrifice for the likes of Jim Little, Sonny Hall, Gary Yingst and Bobby Gless, all people who earn six figure salaries off our dues while doing nothing to preserve our working living standards?
What about the fact that we made commitments to our members? Shouldn’t that "oath" take precedence over all others? Some would argue that if we feel that the International is not acting in our best interests that we should resign. But is resigning in our members best interests? My members have told me point blank that I should not resign; they want me to keep doing what I’ve been trying to do. This includes stores workers.
When I was active in the AMFA drive I was told that we should "change from within". When we were given the opportunity to have separate locals I supported it and became involved. I did so with the goal of "changing from within". When the members of our local gave me the privilege of representing them I no longer had the freedom to look at things from solely an aircraft mechanics point of view, for when I took on this job I also was entrusted by our stores personnel and later Title II to look out for their interests. There is no doubt in my mind that as a Licensed Aircraft Mechanic I believe that we should all be in one union for mechanics. A union that would focus upon and have the resources to prioritize retaining the value of our licenses. However as an officer who represents Stores personnel, who was also entrusted by his fellow human beings I have an obligation to look at their best interests also. It’s not something I take lightly.
To reconcile what could be considered a conflict, for the last three years I have spent much time and effort at change from within. The decline that Aircraft Mechanics have seen is not something that is unique to our class and craft. We did not sacrifice so other could advance. Other workers have also seen a decline. The organizations that have failed us have failed them also.The main reason why there is a conflict is because the organizations that represet us are content to allow us ALL to decline, instead of trying to find a way we can compliment each other and advance.
For the last three years, in whatever time I had available I’ve pushed for change from within. I’ve written to Sonny Hall, Thomas Buffenbarger, James Hoffa and John Sweeny, sharing my observations, highlighting problems and offering solutions and volunteering to devote whatever was necessary to pursue those solutions. While the AFL-CIO recognized the problem and agreed with the solution they were politically prohibited from giving any support to the effort. In the AFL-CIO the member unions really do have the power plus they also can leave the organization whenever they like. In order for the problems of this industry to be properly addressed a major restructuring is required meaning that at least two powerful members of the AFL-CIO would have to be willing to make sacrifices for the benefit of the workers. Imagine that! A union sacrificing for the benefit of its members!
For many years I've done my best to learn not only the shortcomings of the TWU but Unionism in the entire industry and to a lesser extent the whole country. I did so following the logic of a mechanic- identify the problem; troubleshoot to find the cause and then repair. In no way is my motive meant to destroy, it is to repair and enhance.
I’ve identified many problems within the TWU. I don’t want to go on too long so I will go after the top two; the lack of accountability and Democracy. I will look at two areas where this problem exists.
Constitutional.
This can be traced directly to the Constitutional Conventions.
The Convention provides nothing to the members. No accountability and no real chance at democratic reform. As Stanley Aronowitz wrote in his book, typically once leaders get put in place the only way they are removed is by “death or indictmentâ€. The Conventions are infrequent and as such an ineffective means to change. The four-year term for Conventions vs. the three-year term for local officers insures at least some turnover of local officers and gives the International the ability to identify and try to remove potential adversaries. (Such as Local 501-two members who ran for International positions were later fired while the International stood by, and I, who nominated one of those members for International Treasurer-Jack Sullivan, have been suspended). Members can submit resolutions but they have no way to determine who supported the resolution or who was against it. Discussion on resolutions were typically very limited and the democratic process was further stifled by conducting voice votes which pretty much meant that the vote was at the discretion of the chair. Minutes from the Convention still, nearly two years later have not been distributed. While the rhetoric goes on about unity and solidarity the fact is that it’s easier for those in power to retain control by dividing and isolating the members as much as possible. By having a union made up a many different work groups from many different companies from several different industries it not only insures that the entire entity lacks the ability to effectively focus on promoting the inertest of any group but the ability for anyone to mount an effective campaign for change is negated.
This is a complex problem but the first step towards a fix is relatively simple. The Convention votes should be roll called in that every delegates vote on every item should be recorded, published and distributed so that any member who supports a resolution will have the opportunity to promote his idea in those areas where it was not supported. By being able to identify who is against the resolution at least he then has four years to try and get the support needed to put in desired change. More importantly, by recording and distributing how each delegate voted, it ensures that the delegate can be held accountable to the members he represents. This simple measure, which could easily be done electronically, which would ensure accuracy and be quick, would encourage democracy by providing the information needed to promote debate between locals and members on resolutions and accountability by allowing the members to see how their delegates voted.
However even if this is put in place, the recent trend by the courts at allowing Union Bosses to put aside the Constitution and do as they please limits the ability to make changes in the Constitution translate into effective changes.
International
While the Constitution in theory governs the International recent events prove that changes in the way the Conventions are conducted will have a limited effect at giving power back to the membership. In order for the members to have power then they must possess the individual right to choose who governs their agreement. To be more specific, in our case we must be able to choose who ever can modify, or sign into effect our agreement. The only ones who should be able to remove this officer are the members who work under the agreement that the officer is in charge of. The top four International officers could still be elected at Constitutional Conventions, as long as accountability is provided for as stated earlier. All other officers should be by membership vote. This would provide a division of power within without compromising the power of the Union. It would help prevent the abuse of power that we see from Sonny Hall and Jim Little. It would provide the member’s access to the power that unions are obliged to provide.
I’ve discussed two of the problems I see and presented a brief solution to each, or means to a solution to each. However if only the Constitutional part is addressed without the International part then it is all for naught, because in reality the bulk of the problem lies with the International, its composition, is structure and its performance.
One major problem with the Composition of the International is that flunkies that could not stand the test of democracy are often brought up into the organization. This lessens the credibility of the organization as a whole. The two international representatives that came from 562 were both rejected by not only their members but by their boards. Both the E-Boards that worked under them (President and VP) and the members had no faith and were dissatisfied with their “leadership†yet both are now International members. Clearly placing rejected leaders in International posts does not give the members the impression that the International represents their interests.
Clearly the change needs to come at the top. Clearly those at the top do not see a need for change when they attack and abuse those who promote change.
The next opportunity for Constitutional or internally driven change from within will not be until October of 2005. (Although internal change can result from external pressures such as a representational vote) Chances for change from within are largely dependant on what happens at Local 100. Should the anti-Hall forces, which are presently divided but have majority control of the local, put aside their differences to ensure that Local 100 sends a 100% anti-Hall delegation to the next Convention then the likelihood of bringing in accountability and democracy are enhanced. Without a unified local 100 delegation the chances for real change are pretty much nil. My experience from the last Convention revealed to me that without accountability the majority of the delegates are trying to endear themselves to those in power so they too can get one of those coveted International appointments. Deals are cut, myself included as I voted for Sonny Hall. I supported the opposition ticket and the deal that I cut was to vote for Sonny if all the rest of the line locals would vote against the rest of the top four incumbents. If we had an accountable system in place I would not have made such a deal.
The Local 100 factor will be determined this December.
If the Local 100 election does go favorably I am confident that it will lead to a more effective union for all TWU members. As a licensed mechanic I still have to wonder if a reformed TWU will have the resources and focus to adequately address my expectations. Would a reformed TWU focus on maintaining the value of my license?
While the AFL-CIO unions have taken a recent interest in FAR 145- after ignoring it for the entire Clinton administration- they still ignore FAR 66. In fact our contract language is dismissive of and does not address our concerns over the FAR. The FAR 145 fight has nothing to do with the preservation or enhancement of the value of our licenses, it simply has to do with the loss of dues payers.
TWU agreements have already laid out the groundwork to devalue our licenses with the creation of SRPs then OSMs which may explain why they are not concerned, Sonny Hall, Jim Little and Art Luby have no interest in preserving the value of our licenses in fact, looking at the trend in our contracts it looks as if the Union is trying to devalue our licenses as much as possible by reducing the demand for A&Ps so long as the work can be transferred to other, lower paid TWU members.
Clearly the transfer of work away from A&Ps is not in the interests of those who hold A&P tickets. It lessens the demand thus lowering our bargaining power. In the minds of Sonny Hall, Jim Little and Art Luby (who more than likely wrote the language) this may be considered justifiable under the theory of Industrial Unionism, to level the field between those who went out on their own accord –and expense- to obtain licenses and other workers who did not. However their concepts of equality do not extend to themselves, as they make sure that their positions command pay and benefits that are far in excess of any union member.
Over the last three years I’ve met many good union men and women that serve under the TWU banner, I’ve also met some who are willing to sell out their members for self gain as I’m sure exists in any organization including AMFA. However the barriers to change, lack of transparency, accountability, democracy and the abuse of power that I have personally been subjected to are presenting a major challenge to my beliefs that change from within is not only possible but inevitable. The pathetic unaccountable leadership that has been imposed upon us by Sonny Hall is intolerable. Oath or no oath I cannot lie to my members and tell them that they are wrong to seek external change when those in control have erected such formidable barriers to internal change. One thing that the last twenty years of concessions has made clear is that the status quo, while rewarding to those who obtain positions in the International, is unacceptable to the thousands of workers across all classes and crafts who have suffered from their inept leadership. Clearly these individuals, the Jim Littles and all the others that could not stand an electoral test from the membership, those that participated and profited from our collective demise, cannot be entrusted to lead us out.
Change, by whatever means available, must be pursued.
I took an oath also. And I have done my best to uphold that oath.
However the question is what parts of the oath take priority when there is a conflict within? Does our "allegiance to the International" take precedence over the Constitution, allegiance to the Local and the cause of all organized labor?
Should those at the top have the right to change the objects of the organization from “obtaining adequate wage standards, retirement benefits, shorter hours of work and improvements in the conditions of employment†(Article II) in favor of maintaining levels of employment and protecting the treasury?
It’s sad that the membership is not even mentioned in the oath even though they are the ones who put us there. Shouldn’t the oath of a representative be geared towards the members that they represent? Once elected do we become representatives and guardians of the Internationals interests or of the members who put us there?
If we believe that the International is acting in their own self-interests and not the members are we bound by that oath to support the Internationals interests over those of our members and ourselves? Are we bound to sacrifice for the likes of Jim Little, Sonny Hall, Gary Yingst and Bobby Gless, all people who earn six figure salaries off our dues while doing nothing to preserve our working living standards?
What about the fact that we made commitments to our members? Shouldn’t that "oath" take precedence over all others? Some would argue that if we feel that the International is not acting in our best interests that we should resign. But is resigning in our members best interests? My members have told me point blank that I should not resign; they want me to keep doing what I’ve been trying to do. This includes stores workers.
When I was active in the AMFA drive I was told that we should "change from within". When we were given the opportunity to have separate locals I supported it and became involved. I did so with the goal of "changing from within". When the members of our local gave me the privilege of representing them I no longer had the freedom to look at things from solely an aircraft mechanics point of view, for when I took on this job I also was entrusted by our stores personnel and later Title II to look out for their interests. There is no doubt in my mind that as a Licensed Aircraft Mechanic I believe that we should all be in one union for mechanics. A union that would focus upon and have the resources to prioritize retaining the value of our licenses. However as an officer who represents Stores personnel, who was also entrusted by his fellow human beings I have an obligation to look at their best interests also. It’s not something I take lightly.
To reconcile what could be considered a conflict, for the last three years I have spent much time and effort at change from within. The decline that Aircraft Mechanics have seen is not something that is unique to our class and craft. We did not sacrifice so other could advance. Other workers have also seen a decline. The organizations that have failed us have failed them also.The main reason why there is a conflict is because the organizations that represet us are content to allow us ALL to decline, instead of trying to find a way we can compliment each other and advance.
For the last three years, in whatever time I had available I’ve pushed for change from within. I’ve written to Sonny Hall, Thomas Buffenbarger, James Hoffa and John Sweeny, sharing my observations, highlighting problems and offering solutions and volunteering to devote whatever was necessary to pursue those solutions. While the AFL-CIO recognized the problem and agreed with the solution they were politically prohibited from giving any support to the effort. In the AFL-CIO the member unions really do have the power plus they also can leave the organization whenever they like. In order for the problems of this industry to be properly addressed a major restructuring is required meaning that at least two powerful members of the AFL-CIO would have to be willing to make sacrifices for the benefit of the workers. Imagine that! A union sacrificing for the benefit of its members!
For many years I've done my best to learn not only the shortcomings of the TWU but Unionism in the entire industry and to a lesser extent the whole country. I did so following the logic of a mechanic- identify the problem; troubleshoot to find the cause and then repair. In no way is my motive meant to destroy, it is to repair and enhance.
I’ve identified many problems within the TWU. I don’t want to go on too long so I will go after the top two; the lack of accountability and Democracy. I will look at two areas where this problem exists.
Constitutional.
This can be traced directly to the Constitutional Conventions.
The Convention provides nothing to the members. No accountability and no real chance at democratic reform. As Stanley Aronowitz wrote in his book, typically once leaders get put in place the only way they are removed is by “death or indictmentâ€. The Conventions are infrequent and as such an ineffective means to change. The four-year term for Conventions vs. the three-year term for local officers insures at least some turnover of local officers and gives the International the ability to identify and try to remove potential adversaries. (Such as Local 501-two members who ran for International positions were later fired while the International stood by, and I, who nominated one of those members for International Treasurer-Jack Sullivan, have been suspended). Members can submit resolutions but they have no way to determine who supported the resolution or who was against it. Discussion on resolutions were typically very limited and the democratic process was further stifled by conducting voice votes which pretty much meant that the vote was at the discretion of the chair. Minutes from the Convention still, nearly two years later have not been distributed. While the rhetoric goes on about unity and solidarity the fact is that it’s easier for those in power to retain control by dividing and isolating the members as much as possible. By having a union made up a many different work groups from many different companies from several different industries it not only insures that the entire entity lacks the ability to effectively focus on promoting the inertest of any group but the ability for anyone to mount an effective campaign for change is negated.
This is a complex problem but the first step towards a fix is relatively simple. The Convention votes should be roll called in that every delegates vote on every item should be recorded, published and distributed so that any member who supports a resolution will have the opportunity to promote his idea in those areas where it was not supported. By being able to identify who is against the resolution at least he then has four years to try and get the support needed to put in desired change. More importantly, by recording and distributing how each delegate voted, it ensures that the delegate can be held accountable to the members he represents. This simple measure, which could easily be done electronically, which would ensure accuracy and be quick, would encourage democracy by providing the information needed to promote debate between locals and members on resolutions and accountability by allowing the members to see how their delegates voted.
However even if this is put in place, the recent trend by the courts at allowing Union Bosses to put aside the Constitution and do as they please limits the ability to make changes in the Constitution translate into effective changes.
International
While the Constitution in theory governs the International recent events prove that changes in the way the Conventions are conducted will have a limited effect at giving power back to the membership. In order for the members to have power then they must possess the individual right to choose who governs their agreement. To be more specific, in our case we must be able to choose who ever can modify, or sign into effect our agreement. The only ones who should be able to remove this officer are the members who work under the agreement that the officer is in charge of. The top four International officers could still be elected at Constitutional Conventions, as long as accountability is provided for as stated earlier. All other officers should be by membership vote. This would provide a division of power within without compromising the power of the Union. It would help prevent the abuse of power that we see from Sonny Hall and Jim Little. It would provide the member’s access to the power that unions are obliged to provide.
I’ve discussed two of the problems I see and presented a brief solution to each, or means to a solution to each. However if only the Constitutional part is addressed without the International part then it is all for naught, because in reality the bulk of the problem lies with the International, its composition, is structure and its performance.
One major problem with the Composition of the International is that flunkies that could not stand the test of democracy are often brought up into the organization. This lessens the credibility of the organization as a whole. The two international representatives that came from 562 were both rejected by not only their members but by their boards. Both the E-Boards that worked under them (President and VP) and the members had no faith and were dissatisfied with their “leadership†yet both are now International members. Clearly placing rejected leaders in International posts does not give the members the impression that the International represents their interests.
Clearly the change needs to come at the top. Clearly those at the top do not see a need for change when they attack and abuse those who promote change.
The next opportunity for Constitutional or internally driven change from within will not be until October of 2005. (Although internal change can result from external pressures such as a representational vote) Chances for change from within are largely dependant on what happens at Local 100. Should the anti-Hall forces, which are presently divided but have majority control of the local, put aside their differences to ensure that Local 100 sends a 100% anti-Hall delegation to the next Convention then the likelihood of bringing in accountability and democracy are enhanced. Without a unified local 100 delegation the chances for real change are pretty much nil. My experience from the last Convention revealed to me that without accountability the majority of the delegates are trying to endear themselves to those in power so they too can get one of those coveted International appointments. Deals are cut, myself included as I voted for Sonny Hall. I supported the opposition ticket and the deal that I cut was to vote for Sonny if all the rest of the line locals would vote against the rest of the top four incumbents. If we had an accountable system in place I would not have made such a deal.
The Local 100 factor will be determined this December.
If the Local 100 election does go favorably I am confident that it will lead to a more effective union for all TWU members. As a licensed mechanic I still have to wonder if a reformed TWU will have the resources and focus to adequately address my expectations. Would a reformed TWU focus on maintaining the value of my license?
While the AFL-CIO unions have taken a recent interest in FAR 145- after ignoring it for the entire Clinton administration- they still ignore FAR 66. In fact our contract language is dismissive of and does not address our concerns over the FAR. The FAR 145 fight has nothing to do with the preservation or enhancement of the value of our licenses, it simply has to do with the loss of dues payers.
TWU agreements have already laid out the groundwork to devalue our licenses with the creation of SRPs then OSMs which may explain why they are not concerned, Sonny Hall, Jim Little and Art Luby have no interest in preserving the value of our licenses in fact, looking at the trend in our contracts it looks as if the Union is trying to devalue our licenses as much as possible by reducing the demand for A&Ps so long as the work can be transferred to other, lower paid TWU members.
Clearly the transfer of work away from A&Ps is not in the interests of those who hold A&P tickets. It lessens the demand thus lowering our bargaining power. In the minds of Sonny Hall, Jim Little and Art Luby (who more than likely wrote the language) this may be considered justifiable under the theory of Industrial Unionism, to level the field between those who went out on their own accord –and expense- to obtain licenses and other workers who did not. However their concepts of equality do not extend to themselves, as they make sure that their positions command pay and benefits that are far in excess of any union member.
Over the last three years I’ve met many good union men and women that serve under the TWU banner, I’ve also met some who are willing to sell out their members for self gain as I’m sure exists in any organization including AMFA. However the barriers to change, lack of transparency, accountability, democracy and the abuse of power that I have personally been subjected to are presenting a major challenge to my beliefs that change from within is not only possible but inevitable. The pathetic unaccountable leadership that has been imposed upon us by Sonny Hall is intolerable. Oath or no oath I cannot lie to my members and tell them that they are wrong to seek external change when those in control have erected such formidable barriers to internal change. One thing that the last twenty years of concessions has made clear is that the status quo, while rewarding to those who obtain positions in the International, is unacceptable to the thousands of workers across all classes and crafts who have suffered from their inept leadership. Clearly these individuals, the Jim Littles and all the others that could not stand an electoral test from the membership, those that participated and profited from our collective demise, cannot be entrusted to lead us out.
Change, by whatever means available, must be pursued.
