The Company And Their Toy Union

Checking it Out said:
Who represents more members in the Airline Industry? TWU or Amfa?

Who Has the Least amount of members on Layoff in comparrision to active members? TWU or Amfa?

Who has more airlines, they represent members at? TWU or Amfa?
cio,
I believe that the twu has a comparable amount of people out on lay off as compared to AMFA. Unless you are going to tell me (like another e-board member told me) that "the TWA people don't count".

If you want to talk about technicians represented by a union then AMFA has got you by a mile. The twu only has us and Eagle as I recall.
 
Checking it Out said:
Bob Owens said:
Checking it Out said:
Tooth fairy! My kids still believe!

Thanks I need a Good laugh!


Quit dreaming! You will not receive this kind of pay! The members keep rejecting you when you run for office! It will not change even if we change Unions! Which at this point is highly unlikely!
AMFA officials do not get compensated like the TWU officials.

And they dont accept $3 million a year from the company either.

Highly unlikely. Isnt that what you said about AMFA getting enough cards?
I believe you do not know what you are talking about Bob!

Some of the locals are complaining about the amfa officials being paid so much the locals will be broke in short order! So go figure!

I beleive Bob, you have been collecting money from the company many times while representing the members! I beliieve the members need to be represented! Apparently you do not!
I beleive Bob, you have been collecting money from the company many times while representing the members! I beliieve the members need to be represented! Apparently you do not!

cio, if you believe the members need to be represented please tell me when the twu plans on doing that for our profession.
 
Checking it Out said:
I believe you do not know what you are talking about Bob!


Some of the locals are complaining about the amfa officials being paid so much the locals will be broke in short order! So go figure!


Well maybe thats because the company is not paying AMFA $3 million a year like the company is paying the TWU. Do you think that Maddish could afford to be off the field without the company paying his salary?


I beleive Bob, you have been collecting money from the company many times while representing the members!

Sure, after I punched in and was on the field, if something came up I would represent them, we are not talking about that. We are talking about TWU officials who do not punch a clock, do not report to AA and collect a 40 hour paycheck.

I beliieve the members need to be represented! Apparently you do not!

Represented by whom? Who they choose or who the International chooses?
 
Bob's quote. . .
Well maybe thats because the company is not paying AMFA $3 million a year like the company is paying the TWU.

Still waiting on the proof Bob. Sure is taking you a while to come up with it.
 
I told you already, it was right on the Vermont plan. You do have a copy dont you? It says right on it "Eliminate company paid UB".


Are you denying that the company pays the Local Presidents 40 hours a week even though they do not work or report on company property?

Are you denying that Robert Gless was still on company payroll, paying his dues through checkoff while he was on the Internationals payroll?
 
this is a blatant outright kickback for local presidents to receive a 40 hr paycheck ontop of thier union salary, no this is worse than a conflict of interest, this union is being bought by the company and selling its members in the process....TWU, AMERICANS REAL STRENGTH :rant:
 
local 12 proud said:
this is a blatant outright kickback for local presidents to receive a 40 hr paycheck ontop of thier union salary, no this is worse than a conflict of interest, this union is being bought by the company and selling its members in the process....TWU, AMERICANS REAL STRENGTH :rant:
Whats even worse is that if you compare LM-2s, most of the Local Presidents no longer drew a full salary from the Local, except for Local 514.

For instance, even Bobby Gless, at Local 562 only shows around $26,000 per year from the Local. Thats $26,000 plus his full 40 from the company. Still a respectable $80K to $90K a year. Most of the other Locals are the same, showing the President at anywhere from $10,000 t0 $26,000, except for Local 514 which shows over $140,000. Once you add in the companys 40 hours it puts the Tulsa President at over $200,000/year!

So while all these Presidents were illegally accepting company funds for doing UB, Tulsa apparently was "Double Dipping " also. How come the Local 514 President didnt do like most of the other Presidents and have his union check cut by the amount that the company was providing? Was it because they have $12,000,000 in the Bank? Or was it because they figured nobody would notice?
 
so bob if i understand this right, the local 514 president was given a premium kickback because it is a known fact that tulsa has always carried the vote! <_<
 
local 12 proud said:
so bob if i understand this right, the local 514 president was given a premium kickback because it is a known fact that tulsa has always carried the vote! <_<
I was told that this whole thing about the seperate Locals and the company paying the Presidents all came at the same time.

Instead of realigning the locals they simply made more locals. This meant that there would be smaller locals, small locals always have financial troubles. So the 40 hours was no doubt a "payoff" of sorts to get the locals to accept the seperate Locals and to help the seperate locals survive. How it fits in with the company picking up the tab is where it really gets strange.

I was told, to his credit, that Dennis Burchette voiced concern about having the company pay the Presidents. I was told that he said something to the effect of "How would it look to the members that their President is getting paid by the company".

However, his concern was apparently short lived.

Now what we have to consider is, why would the company agree to pick up the tab? Why would they agree to give financial support to enable the TWU to form the seperate Locals?

Well an obvious reason could be that the company was quite happy with the TWU and they may have figured the $3 million per year was a good investment if it helped keep the TWU in place as opposed to getting a more militant union.

I doubt at the time they realized exactly how good of an investment that $3 million would turn out to be. They probably never imagined that that $3 million could be turned into $620 million!

I have no doubt that Little and company grabed some of the Presidents from the smaller Locals, and let them know that should they not reach the target, their days of collecting a 40 hour check from the company without setting foot on company property were over. So for these Presidents the stakes were no doubt high, imagine being forced back on to the floor!

One thing is certain, that if the company did not get their $620 million, bankruptcy or not, they could have stopped paying the salaries of union officers that do not technically work for the company, I guess they still could now, in fact they probably will. One of the things that proves that they did not work for the company is that while Bobby Gless was President, since he was still collecting a paycheck as a mechanic, his number came up for random drug testing. They called him at the hall and told him that his number came up for testing, he refused to get tested. Now if anyone else had done that they would have been terminated and have their liscence revoked. However this obviously did not happen. Why wasnt Bobby Gless drug tested? Well because he was not working for AA, he was just getting paid by them.
 
bob thanks for clarifying that, i find that very interesting and suspicious but it by no means suprises me.
 
doggoniit i did again, that should read "MAY THE BEST ASSOCIATION WIN" by golllllly i got right this time! :up: :up: :up:
 

Latest posts

Back
Top