OldGuy@AA said:
No I got the right guy alright. For someone who claims to know so much you are lacking basic math skills. Let's have a math lesson.... Since AMTs make more per hour than FSCs and we both took a 15% pay cut, the AMTs would lose more money. But we didn't lose the same %. AMTs lost 17.5% (that's 2.5% more than the 15% cut you took), plus longevity, plus sick pay. So you got laid off? Many of my fellow AMTs did also. Some were also forced into OSM positions where they lost $10 per hour on top of all the other cuts. No other work groups were faced with a lower classification or the prospect of losing $10 per hour. Of course you were only concerned with yourself. You are the typical "I got mine." that populate the TWU. The facts are all there right in front of you and you still won't admit that the AMTs have been treated unfairly by our union and continue to be mistreated. And we have holier than though FSCs like you judging us for wanting out of the TWU? No matter how hard you try to spin it the facts remain that the AMTs were forced to give up much more than any other group in the TWU. You can deny it all you want. But denial ain't just a river in Egypt pal. You can't admit that the AMTs actually have every reason to want out of the TWU. The TWU (and all other work groups in it) should be ashamed of themselves for allowing this travesty to happen to any group in their union. And it continues going on 12 years now!
But you didn't know huh? Well you know now don't you? But you continue to call others hypocrites? I am done wasting any more time on you and your continued effort to help the TWU torpedo the AMFA drive and also push the alliance. There are way too many like you in the TWU (yes even in the AMT ranks) who will sell out their "Brothers" so they can get theirs. I'm sure you'll have another condescending remark but the truth is you don't care about your union "Brothers". Go ahead and put your spin on this. We all know what you are and what your agenda is. I won't comment on anything else you have to say, but people like you love to get the last word in so have at it. I'm sure it will be "Special". I'll even wait to read it before I put you on ignore like I should have long ago.
WeAAsles also fails to take into account that even with the cuts he took his compensation remained above most of his peers in the industry, in fact from that perspective he remains pretty well situated. In BK Fleet cut heads and allowed the closing of stations to maintain compensation rather than fight. When you are in a union there are always other options than what the company proposes despite what the likes of Little and Videtich claim. Fleet chose not to fight, so they had to choose between the options the company offered, more heads but at much reduced compensation or keep compensation at higher rates with fewer positions, fleet chose to keep compensation. The effect of BK on Fleet is probably around the same as what would have happened had they gone into a PEB prior to BK. Same for the Pilots, and the FAs and all of SWA, which is why all of the unions at SWA unfortunately have to keep kicking the can down the road for many more years.
The challenge that Fleet has faced as far as compensation is purely systemic. The whole industry has declined pretty much the same. I've said for years that Fleets decline under the present structure was inevitable and if they want to preserve the profession as one that will provide a solid living wage (which they deserve) they needed to follow the Longshoreman model.
When the supply of people with the available skills is high and they belong to many small unions the inevitable result will be that Unions will compete for their own survival by getting their members to give more concessions than the Unions at the competitor. This results in a race to the bottom. (In the case of Aircraft maintenance we went below non-union!!!!) Density and unity is even more critical when the supply is high. Its undeniable that as the industry has consolidated the labor movement has not, we have the same number of Unions out there, as we did compared to when the industry had many more airlines out there, they are just smaller, and more desperate to keep members. If three airlines control 80% of the industry then the workers in any given class should be in one union so that all three will face the same demands. The Union would see a loss at one carrier with growth at another, the people just change places (which no doubt incurs hardships on those who relocate but at least compensation remains high- I worked for five different airlines) Three unions with three carriers controlling 80% of the market is two too many and workers will never recover under such a structure. Scams to divide up the membership between two Unions in one company is pretty much a worst case scenario for workers, about as bad as it could get while still paying dues. The "co-operation" between the TWU and IAM is not driven by concern for the members but rather concern for the Union hierarchy, they are treating the members as spoils to be shared rather than served.
The fact is under present conditions and the present structure (way too many Locals) the TWU has done a pretty good job for Fleet, although some who were in PHL, BDL and EWR may disagree. Fleets compensation when compared to the rest of the Industry is pretty good. Maintenance, line maintenance in particular is a very different story. For us the effect of a PEB may have been relaxed outsourcing, which the company got anyway, but wages, vacation, sick time, Holidays, etc would have likely been restored to industry standard. Never saw a PEB where that did not happen. Even in BK as the Pinnicle Airlines case showed the company should not have walked out of there with what they got from us. In the Pinnicle case the Judge refused to abrogate because the company was demanding below industry rates, American management openly admitted that we were below industry standard prior to going into BK. Despite these facts the team hired by the International repeatedly said it didn't matter what they were asking that we had to meet the ask or our contract would be abrogated. One lawyer, Mark Richard went even further, outright lying, claiming that when they abrogated we could not strike and we would no longer have any contractual rights, no just cause, no Union security, nothing and we could not strike, which of course wasn't true because even the Judges could not claim that status quo was in place if that was the case, and once again, as in the Pinnicle case the company did have to justify that the changes they asked for were required to reorganization.
The fact is if a layoff is such a tragedy then WeAAsles is in the wrong business. We need to go back to the old way of "you will pay us or you won't have our labor". No more of this giving everything away for the false promise that they won't cut heads anyway. Better to endure a layoff and have a good job to come back to than to ruin the job and make it one where you don't care anymore.
