Questions you must ask yourself before you vote.
Do you trust the Company?
Do you trust the International?
Why you should not trust either.
Back in 1994 the company and the Union were both allowing the membership to believe that concessions were necessary in order to “save†the company. The company replaced the word “profitable†with the word “competitiveâ€. American needed concessions in order to be “competitiveâ€. It was no longer acceptable to be profitable; they had to be the most profitable. They had to beat everybody else and be the biggest most profitable airline. So in order for AA to get the title, which did not help us pay our bills, we should be willing to “sacrifice for the companyâ€. After already going through 10 years of concessions the company knew that not too many workers were buying the idea of sacrificing for six years so American could be the biggest most profitable airline, so they added a couple of little false incentives. One thing they did was float out an offer for an early retirement package, that turned out to be an empty box, many of those who voted yes based upon the vague offer realized afterwards that the numbers were not what they were led to believe. Another ruse was that they also claimed that they were agreeing to a “Me Too†clause that tied our contract to the Pilots Contract. It turns out that the company was aware that the “Me Too†clause was moot at the time but they proceeded with the deception. Members were told across the system not to worry that the raises would not keep up with inflation because of the “Me Too†clause. The effort to deceive and defraud paid off as the vote passed by a margin of 77 votes. While the company was certainly aware of this deception its highly likely that the union was also. For cover, prior to the contract negotiations the union sent out a weighted survey that was designed to come to the conclusion that job protection took priority over wages. Using this, and agreeing to and participating in the deceptive early out and “Me Too†clauses the International made the argument that they were not responsible for the sorry ass 6 year 6% contract that financially devastated the membership. While the rest of the economy soared through the nineties, as average real wages increasing by 10% we saw our real wages go down, in total nearly 30% when compared to 1984.
While the motivation for why the company would do this is clear, to make more money for itself, trying to figure out why a union would do this is not as obvious. In order to figure out why we have to look at some of the facts behind our relationship with the International and more specifically the ATD.
1) The ATD does not work for us.
The ATD is made up of appointed officials. They are not accountable to us nor can they be removed by us. The ATD is answerable to Sonny Hall. Sonny never worked in this industry and is no doubt still influenced in his opinions about our conditions based on word of mouth comparisons that were made 25 years ago when he drove a bus. Back during deregulation the industry had the reputation of being a great paying place to work. Sonny is also director of the Transportation Trades Division. The fact that the TWU has been successful at expanding in large part through growth of the ATD has not been lost on the top leaders of the union. This type of performance makes it more likely that ATD members will move up through the ranks to higher position within the union. In other words if the membership of the ATD goes up ATD Directors are likely to be rewarded by the people they work for, namely Sonny Hall, not you or me. So even if our conditions deteriorate if the membership goes up, to those that the ATD is accountable to, they are doing a great job.
2) The loss of revenue through concessions can easily be offset by a growing membership.
If American expands because our lower wages allow it to beat out competitors the union sees more dues paying members. Raiding is illegal between AFL-CIO unions but undercutting each other is not. In the 80s the TWU helped AA undercut other competitors with lower labor costs, AA was able to drive other companies out of business. AA then expanded and hired many former members of other unions. In other words the TWU effectively raided the other unions by default. The TWU did not directly go after other union members, they helped AA undercut the other airlines and we got their members when they hired on at AA. As other unions like the IAM continue to shrink, the TWU continues to expand, but at what cost? The cost is us making less money. We have been the industry leaders in concessions for 20 years!
3) The interests of the International and the membership are not always the same.
Well I think the above example illustrates this point. There are going to be many times where the Interests of the International do not coincide with our interests. More members vs. better pay and benefits is one of them. Another one is taking action to defend workers rights. Recently we saw where the government gave itself the right to take away our ability to support our families in our chosen profession without the benefit of due process. Our leaders will challenge this using the same approach that they used to challenge random drug testing, with the same results no doubt. We may see the courts abrogate the UAL/workers contracts. Following Frank Lorenzo’s abuse of C-11 in the 80s workers started to question why they should honor contracts if the law provided companies such a convenient escape route. Legislators then enacted revisions to the law and workers were lead to believe that such abuses would not be repeated in the future. If the judge abrogates these agreements then we know that the so-called safeguards that were put in place are ineffective and were put there to pacify workers. That’s why if the judge does abrogate the agreements over there all union workers should walk out. They should do so because all contracts are now really worthless from a workers point of view. The International will not sponsor or condone any action that would leave the organization liable to attack from the courts. The international will not even use the word Strike. The International is more concerned about the viability of the organization than the members. Years ago and in countries where a viable “movement†still exists these attacks would have been met with acts of civil disobedience such as strikes and protests. In the incorporated world of American unionism the cost of such measures are weighted against the cost to the treasury and the risk to its officers and not the effects upon the workers.
With these three things understood we could now look at any offer put in front of us and the union’s position on that offer in a different light. We know why the company is doing this. It gives the company a competitive advantage over other carriers. It will allow AA access to financing under better terms that may enable AA to drive the final nail in UALs coffin. Afterwards the company can reap massive rewards while we are once again locked into a concessionary agreement.
The union benefits because once UAL is out of the way AA will expand, hiring more workers thus more members and dues. The TTD officer’s salaries or other perks can even be raised using the larger membership as an excuse.
The question is are we going to once again lead the industry in concessions or are we going to stand up and say “NOâ€!!!
Do you trust the Company?
Do you trust the International?
Why you should not trust either.
Back in 1994 the company and the Union were both allowing the membership to believe that concessions were necessary in order to “save†the company. The company replaced the word “profitable†with the word “competitiveâ€. American needed concessions in order to be “competitiveâ€. It was no longer acceptable to be profitable; they had to be the most profitable. They had to beat everybody else and be the biggest most profitable airline. So in order for AA to get the title, which did not help us pay our bills, we should be willing to “sacrifice for the companyâ€. After already going through 10 years of concessions the company knew that not too many workers were buying the idea of sacrificing for six years so American could be the biggest most profitable airline, so they added a couple of little false incentives. One thing they did was float out an offer for an early retirement package, that turned out to be an empty box, many of those who voted yes based upon the vague offer realized afterwards that the numbers were not what they were led to believe. Another ruse was that they also claimed that they were agreeing to a “Me Too†clause that tied our contract to the Pilots Contract. It turns out that the company was aware that the “Me Too†clause was moot at the time but they proceeded with the deception. Members were told across the system not to worry that the raises would not keep up with inflation because of the “Me Too†clause. The effort to deceive and defraud paid off as the vote passed by a margin of 77 votes. While the company was certainly aware of this deception its highly likely that the union was also. For cover, prior to the contract negotiations the union sent out a weighted survey that was designed to come to the conclusion that job protection took priority over wages. Using this, and agreeing to and participating in the deceptive early out and “Me Too†clauses the International made the argument that they were not responsible for the sorry ass 6 year 6% contract that financially devastated the membership. While the rest of the economy soared through the nineties, as average real wages increasing by 10% we saw our real wages go down, in total nearly 30% when compared to 1984.
While the motivation for why the company would do this is clear, to make more money for itself, trying to figure out why a union would do this is not as obvious. In order to figure out why we have to look at some of the facts behind our relationship with the International and more specifically the ATD.
1) The ATD does not work for us.
The ATD is made up of appointed officials. They are not accountable to us nor can they be removed by us. The ATD is answerable to Sonny Hall. Sonny never worked in this industry and is no doubt still influenced in his opinions about our conditions based on word of mouth comparisons that were made 25 years ago when he drove a bus. Back during deregulation the industry had the reputation of being a great paying place to work. Sonny is also director of the Transportation Trades Division. The fact that the TWU has been successful at expanding in large part through growth of the ATD has not been lost on the top leaders of the union. This type of performance makes it more likely that ATD members will move up through the ranks to higher position within the union. In other words if the membership of the ATD goes up ATD Directors are likely to be rewarded by the people they work for, namely Sonny Hall, not you or me. So even if our conditions deteriorate if the membership goes up, to those that the ATD is accountable to, they are doing a great job.
2) The loss of revenue through concessions can easily be offset by a growing membership.
If American expands because our lower wages allow it to beat out competitors the union sees more dues paying members. Raiding is illegal between AFL-CIO unions but undercutting each other is not. In the 80s the TWU helped AA undercut other competitors with lower labor costs, AA was able to drive other companies out of business. AA then expanded and hired many former members of other unions. In other words the TWU effectively raided the other unions by default. The TWU did not directly go after other union members, they helped AA undercut the other airlines and we got their members when they hired on at AA. As other unions like the IAM continue to shrink, the TWU continues to expand, but at what cost? The cost is us making less money. We have been the industry leaders in concessions for 20 years!
3) The interests of the International and the membership are not always the same.
Well I think the above example illustrates this point. There are going to be many times where the Interests of the International do not coincide with our interests. More members vs. better pay and benefits is one of them. Another one is taking action to defend workers rights. Recently we saw where the government gave itself the right to take away our ability to support our families in our chosen profession without the benefit of due process. Our leaders will challenge this using the same approach that they used to challenge random drug testing, with the same results no doubt. We may see the courts abrogate the UAL/workers contracts. Following Frank Lorenzo’s abuse of C-11 in the 80s workers started to question why they should honor contracts if the law provided companies such a convenient escape route. Legislators then enacted revisions to the law and workers were lead to believe that such abuses would not be repeated in the future. If the judge abrogates these agreements then we know that the so-called safeguards that were put in place are ineffective and were put there to pacify workers. That’s why if the judge does abrogate the agreements over there all union workers should walk out. They should do so because all contracts are now really worthless from a workers point of view. The International will not sponsor or condone any action that would leave the organization liable to attack from the courts. The international will not even use the word Strike. The International is more concerned about the viability of the organization than the members. Years ago and in countries where a viable “movement†still exists these attacks would have been met with acts of civil disobedience such as strikes and protests. In the incorporated world of American unionism the cost of such measures are weighted against the cost to the treasury and the risk to its officers and not the effects upon the workers.
With these three things understood we could now look at any offer put in front of us and the union’s position on that offer in a different light. We know why the company is doing this. It gives the company a competitive advantage over other carriers. It will allow AA access to financing under better terms that may enable AA to drive the final nail in UALs coffin. Afterwards the company can reap massive rewards while we are once again locked into a concessionary agreement.
The union benefits because once UAL is out of the way AA will expand, hiring more workers thus more members and dues. The TTD officer’s salaries or other perks can even be raised using the larger membership as an excuse.
The question is are we going to once again lead the industry in concessions or are we going to stand up and say “NOâ€!!!
20 PM Bob Owens wrote:
56 PM RV4 wrote:
