TWA ers Thankful for Jobs?

[FA Mikey]

TWAFA007:APFA has told all other Unions that they dont believe in the frateranal Brotherhood of Unions. That they do not understand the fundelmentals of what it REALLY means to be a Union.

Can you give us the statement or press release that says what you are quoting? What is the fraternal brotherhood. I ***ume its helping each others union when in need. Fighting together for rules and laws to protect all workers, and people. Working to make a collective voice of the people heard.

I ***ume from your statements you think it means that workers in company should shoulder a burden from people in another. That being a so called real union means that seniority is accrued not at a company but in a particular union. That seniority should carry over no matter where you go.

I dont agree. In this company you joined, seniority doesn't even hold from position to position, or job to job.

 

[twaokc]

FA Mikey,

Before you jump too HIGH, just remember the courts have not ruled yet??

 

[bagsmasher]

twaokc,
Are you going to share with us the details of the TWA/Ozark deal? Did Ozark require DOH as a condition of the sale?

 

[twaokc]

Bags,
What don't you understand. DOH is DOH.

 

[onceoza]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 9/8/2002 4:57:00 PM bagsmasher wrote:

twaokc,
Are you going to share with us the details of the TWA/Ozark deal? Did Ozark require DOH as a condition of the sale?
----------------
[/blockquote]

Bags...

I don't know where you are getting your information. Record profits? I remember a meeting where Ozark management said that they were asking us for concessions.

As a flight attendant, my DOH seniority was agreed to during negotiations between AFA and IFFA. It was not a condition of the sale. There were no negotiations between the IAM and the APFA.

 

[rampguy]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 9/6/2002 1136 AM BeenThere wrote:

TWAFA007

Please keep in mind that in the case of the TWU/IAM arbitrion ruling, TWALLCers were given either 4/10/01, 25% or 100%, depending where they are based and the TWAllCers affected by this ruling are not happy with it. They still want 100%, all and everything.
----------------
[/blockquote]


When did you become an expert on what multi-thousands want and are or not happy with? The vast majority of all of us are getting along very well. It's just the few on this board who hide behind anonimity that say stupid things.

 

[TWAFA007]

Aloha,

Mikey says,
Yea, I love hearing about Delta and there caring for the Western people. I am sure Delta management (not the flight attendants) who decided what will be done. Never even considered the consequences of what would happen if there didnt appease this union group.

007,
There were not any consequences. Delta didnt have to give any seniority to the Western F/As. DAL Management gave seniority to the Western F/As because it was the right thing to do.

What about other Union members? Have you talk to anyone not an APFA member?

Mikey says,
Plenty, I suppose the way I put it and the way you put it. We will likely get people to agree with our particular side. I have yet to have a single person disagree with how things have gone to this point.

007,
Its all in the presentation. Are you telling me that you have talk to an AFA F/A, the largest F/A Union in the world, and they think that stapling of the TWA F/As was fair. Thats interesting because their contracts dictate DOH in ALL transactions. I can honestly say that EVERY UAL, CAL,NW, and even DAL F/A or Pilot I have talked to say that stapling is wrong and I have talk to a lot of them.

Mikey says,
What is the fraternal brotherhood. I ***ume its helping each others union when in need. Fighting together for rules and laws to protect all workers, and people. Working to make a collective voice of the people heard.

I ***ume from your statements you think it means that workers in company should shoulder a burden from people in another.

007,
Exactly. Helping each other union when in need and shouldering a burden from people of another, is what Unionism is all about. What burden did the APFA shoulder for their fellow Union memebers of the IAM? Or did the APFA take advantage of an, union in need? Its the TWA F/As that is taking the whole burden for the APFA F/As. AA took away our NYC Base so 1000+ APFA F/As could keep working and now another 1000 TWA F/As will lose their jobs so that AA F/As can keep theirs. How many AA F/As are/will be furloughed compared to TWA F/As. What is it? 50% of TWA F/As on the street and just 2% of AA F/As? Who is, shouldering, the burden?

Mikey says,
Just because TWA, Delta, or who ever did it a different way. This is American and we do it, the American way. You want occupational seniority given to you, with out having earned it. Then I think you should have done a better job of shopping yourselfs around to Delta or another carrier. I wont say United. Because they were looking for ways to protect themselves from USAIRs seniority.

007,
The American way or the highway, thats the attitude that a lot of people outside of AA have a problem with. That position will be hard to defend in a court outside the AA arena. There was never a question of seniority between UAL & U. Both were AFA and it is strictly DOH.

ALOHA, 007

 

[FA Mikey]

TWAFA007:007,
Exactly. Helping each other union when in need and shouldering a burden from people of another, is what Unionism is all about. What burden did the APFA shoulder for their fellow Union memebers of the IAM? Or did the APFA take advantage of an, union in need? Its the TWA F/As that is taking the whole burden for the APFA F/As. AA took away our NYC Base so 1000+ APFA F/As could keep working and now another 1000 TWA F/As will lose their jobs so that AA F/As can keep theirs. How many AA F/As are/will be furloughed compared to TWA F/As. What is it? 50% of TWA F/As on the street and just 2% of AA F/As? Who is, shouldering, the burden?



Mike says: Wrong, Wrong, Wrong. A Unions jobs are specific. To protect and serve the members of its organization. Its job is not, nor should it ever be to directly serve or protect anyone or group who are not dues paying members. Why do you continue to feel the need. That the AAers who choose this company as a career. Need to lay there jobs down for people who are just starting. Be real 50% of the former TW flight attendats are not on the street. Only 833, out of 3200. October 13th 162 more AAers will be laid off. They are junior to you. Why a lower percent for the AAers. Well that easy. While your union was doing I dont know what. Mine was writing in to our contract. Article to protect us from furlough. AA offered leaves,to us. Thats why there are fewer AAers out. I am sorry IAM could manage the same protections for you. Now you do have a union, and formew TW people are being offered leaves as well. AA and APFA are bending over backwards to see that they can cover as many slots as possible. The goal for all is 0 people being laid off.

For burden. Ours is woring to get the best contract and work rules possible. Then you can have AFA and IAM come in and match ours. If IAM was a union in need. Then it may have something to do with there way of doing business. I dont see anyone singing the praises of the IAM on any board here.

Please, TWers are taking the burden of furlough for us. Not true. With out TW we would likely have no f/as on layoff.

AFA may have a policy of DOH. But the United flight attendants as well as the pilots, were working hard to make sure that U f/a's didnt walk in and on them in the merger.

Delta did have to give something to the union people. If they hadn't there would have been a strong move to unionize that group. In order to get back what they had. Delta does what serves Deltas agenda. They have a policy to do what ever it takes to keep unions out. At the time, giving occupational seniority served that purpose for the long run.

 

[lownslow]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 9/10/2002 12:51:04 PM FA Mikey wrote:

Please, TWers are taking the burden of furlough for us. Not true. With out TW we would likely have no f/as on layoff.

----------------
[/blockquote]

Mikey, what have you been smoking? Do you really think that AA would not have laid off any f/as had they not bought TWA? They would have laid off about the same % after 9/11... then many would have been brought back, but the whole rolling hub concept would still have been put in place. That would mean layoffs. Those layoffs will largely come from the TWA side now, rather than the AA side. That means they *ARE* taking the burden of the furloughs for you, whether or not you want to admit it. Had AA not bought TWA, every last one of those would layoffs associated with AA flights would have to come from the AA ranks.

I'm not saying that the system as it stands is entirely unfair (although I do think it is rather biased towards AAers), but the very least you can do is admit the obvious.

 

[xsqueezeme]

uh ever hear of last in first out when it comes to downsizing employees?

something unfair about laying off employees who help build a company so that it will create slots for acquired assets, slots that may even bump down the seniority of others who were spared from being furloughed.
what exactly have these people done to deserve it? more years experience? sorry, but there are a lot of original employees who have the same number of years who had to start over when transferred to another department, some even take a paycut. Now for these outsiders to come in, and demand a seniority slot above ours, plus get a pay hike, well what's so fair and equitable about that? fair and equitable for them maybe, but not for those of us who broke our backs for this company from the beginning of our careers.

you may call me greedy, and if that's because I'm trying to protect what I've put in for this company from a former competitor who's done nothing for us, then yes I'm probably the greddiest person in this world.

 

[Sean]

Wow, with all this brotherly love you all are showing one another it makes me glad I'm not in a union. Hopefully, I will never be required to join one after seeing some of the displays of solidarity on this board. If the shoe is ever on the other foot a lot of you may have an entirely different outlook on the way things should happen. In the airline industry that shoe may someday in fact end up on the other foot.

 

[MiAAmi]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 9/11/2002 12:28:08 PM Sean wrote:

Wow, with all this "brotherly" love you all are showing one another it makes me glad I'm not in a union. Hopefully, I will never be required to join one after seeing some of the displays of solidarity on this board. If the shoe is ever on the other foot a lot of you may have an entirely different outlook on the way things should happen. In the airline industry that shoe may someday in fact end up on the other foot.
----------------
[/blockquote]


Thanks for the words of wisdom. I feel enlightened

 

[aislehopper]

[P]
[BLOCKQUOTE][BR]----------------[BR]On 9/10/2002 12:51:04 PM FA Mikey wrote:
[P]Delta did have to give something to the union people. If they hadn't there would have been a strong move to unionize that group. In order to get back what they had. Delta does what serves Deltas agenda. They have a policy to do what ever it takes to keep unions out. At the time, giving occupational seniority served that purpose for the long run.[BR]----------------[/P]
[P] [/P][/BLOCKQUOTE]
[P]Mike:[/P]
[P]I do not think that this is a correct statement of the why at Delta. Northeast in the 1970's, Western in the late 1980's, and Pan Am in early 1990's all resulted in a blended seniority list. There was protection for the top of the Delta list, and a ratio merge under the protected Delta flight attendants. However, I doubt that an anti-union sentiment played a major part that long ago.[/P]
[P]I believe that each instance worked like this. A committee of flight attendants from Delta and the merged/acquired airline was formed to try to work out a seniority agreement. When these committees reached an impasse, management stepped in and imposed a ratio. [/P]
[P]The lists were merged in a manner that was a compromise. Neither group was entirely happy with the result. However, the resulting list was enough of a win for each group that the wounds would eventually heal and we would become a cohesive group. Management took its actions to try to promote unity and harmonious relations within our group. A polarized and divided flight attendant group provides poor service which can negatively impact the bottom line. In sum, I think management’s motivation had more to do with finding a fair solution that would not cause years of resentment among us.[/P]
[P][/P]
[P]Until the recent AFA campaign, there was no credible union threat. With both Western and Pan Am, the new groups were not large enough to win an election. (Although a significant number of the leaders of the recent AFA drive came from these groups) I doubt that dealing with a union drive even popped up in management’s mind until the mid 1990's. At that time, we saw management consultants hired and a new emphasis on communications.[/P]
[P]Even with a management imposed, fair integration, the Western flight attendants took the seniority award to arbitration and lost. Former Pan Am flight attendants got together and formed FAFSI (Flight Attendants for Fair Seniority Integration). They went to court and lost. [/P]
[P]No matter what method is used, some group will feel that it is not fair. It is natural for that group to try to fight for its rights. Like at Delta, some tribunal will decide the fate of the former TWA flight attendants. Once that is done, everybody can move on with their lives.[/P]

 

[Wild Onion]

I'm glad everyone decided to take today off from bickering about seniority

 

[Sean]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 9/11/2002 1:05:27 PM MiAAmi wrote:

[blockquote]
----------------
On 9/11/2002 12:28:08 PM Sean wrote:

Wow, with all this "brotherly" love you all are showing one another it makes me glad I'm not in a union. Hopefully, I will never be required to join one after seeing some of the displays of solidarity on this board. If the shoe is ever on the other foot a lot of you may have an entirely different outlook on the way things should happen. In the airline industry that shoe may someday in fact end up on the other foot.
----------------
[/blockquote]


Thanks for the words of wisdom. I feel enlightened

----------------
[/blockquote]

You're welcome.