Tulsa AMT movement.
- Thread starter chilokie1
- Start date
Twice we refused to take a pay raise from company, Little had nothing to do with our presidents refusing the first one and then us voting down the second one, because we want everything without taking the circumstances into consideration. As I understand it the TWU doesn't even have to take a vote and Little could have signed in any contract since the TWU owns contract.Buck said:
I fear that the bob owen type guys will not want to except the 7% better then delta because delta might get a pay raise in the future so we should turn this down. I say that because that is what bob articulated on this forum for the FAs. What the FAs did was cost themselves $81 million in pay, (which the company just gave back to them), and now they have to work 40 hours every month instead of being able to take off months at a time. The big mouth know it alls said they would win in arbitration, but the FAs lost every arbitration ruling and now have not quite as good contract and lost money, which the company's gave to them anyway.
By being spoiled little children we have cost ourselves over $50k in cash and a better contract sick time, holiday pay, etc etc time to stop blaming Little for ALL our failings. We collectively have voted down raises and have failed to vote in a new union.
We are being told by the executives that they're waiting for our association to get ready to except AAs proposal. Which makes sense as contracts are complicated and I'm expecting something big for next contract, while our union reps tells us the company isn't offering anything. I believe the executives. Instead of our local president saying that our union is getting on the same page, which is a valid excuse, he creates animosity with AA. I've seen this in the past when I was a union rep. Management says one thing like build a widget, our local union leaders say that company will fire you unless you build 3 widgets an hour. Creating animosity but the local leader he is the one keeping the company at bay.
One of our executives came to break room to talk with us. One of our big mouth complaining know it alls sat in the back room and wouldn't engage, but when executive leaves, now he's the expert again, and his know nothing minions are just hanging on his every word. That's what's holding us back.
bigjets said:
Don't be making excuses for Jim Little, that sawed off POS, with his mail order college diploma - screwed AA's AMTs six ways from Sunday. Here you are "King of the Sheeple", ranting on about AMTs questioning the international or Jim Little. Yeah, we voted no, we hadn't quite gotten around to lowering our expectations as Bobby Gless had suggested. Spoiled children? It's called negotiations, that dosn't mean accept the first offer. Of course with the TWU, probably not so much.
As far as the next contract offer goes, I would suggest the company mail out their offer to the membership (you know, untouched by the international wealth redistribution tribunal) for us to make a decision.
Personal insults aside, you sound like the type of guy who yells the same tired rhetoric and throws out a lame insult when confronted with some hard truths. You actual proved my point, yaeh we voted it down.Vortilon said:
I do agree the company should send proposal to us instead of using the union as a conduit. That way we can actually see what the contract is instead of bullet point. Kind of like our equity shares where the union decided to keep 14%, don't remember that vote.
2008 contract extension VOTED down presidents thought not good enough didn't restore 2001 contract, offered a worse deal 2 years later, VOTED down not 2001 contract. 2012 the worse contract yet VOTED in by membership. Boy you really know how to negotiate. I blame Little for not just signing contracts, he gets blamed either way.
No Union is the way to go, ask any union rep and he will tell you he spends most of his time dealing with 5% of the guys.
