TWU and IAM representation alliance vote

[NYer]

Or company payoffs. AA would be the biggest beneficiary of this "Association", a membership permanently structurally divided between two different unions. 

 
And we don't have that now with the TWU and the AMFA supporters...Please.
 
And I guess if there was a vote between the TWU and IAM or even if the IAM walked away, you'd expect the IAM guys to sit on the corner and leave the anti-TWU megaphone just for the AMFA supporters.....Please.

 

[NYer]

That was the membership that nego that, not the union.  AMFA can very easily agree to maintain the exact same agreement as the TWU/IAM has agreed to IF that is what the majority of the membership wants.  It's that easy.  AMFA would be more than willing to continue the very same agreement for seniority integration.  If this is something holding up the AMFA drive then I would suggest someone from National put an agreement out with signatures that they will honor the existing agreement that is already agreed upon...

 
You left out one small detail....You need enough cards to make that agreement even possible. No cards, no vote, no AMFA.....Get going, you guy have work to do. 10 years and counting....

 

[dfw gen]

 
And we don't have that now with the TWU and the AMFA supporters...Please.
 
And I guess if there was a vote between the TWU and IAM or even if the IAM walked away, you'd expect the IAM guys to sit on the corner and leave the anti-TWU megaphone just for the AMFA supporters.....Please.
tell you what chief if there was a vote between the twu and the iam id vote iam the lesser of two evils.might as well give someone else the chance to screw us

 

[TRAVIS]

 
Sorry man. What about $35.00 with your licenses? The over $40.00 comes next year with the industry averaging. Have any of you guys done the math on those rates yet? 

bad link
 
The link has the pay scales. WHATS IN YOUR WALLET! 

 

[NYer]

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. --Rather than "fight," in a bankruptcy? That's rich. If WeAAsles is responsible for what happened in Fleet talks and wasn't at the table then that seems to indicate that you were equally, if not more responsible, for what happened in M&R. No....wait.....of course not. That was the fault of the International and Videtich, none of whom have a vote at the table. That leaves us in a quandary, doesn't it. 
 
 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. --In a BK, the choices are cut at 17% or abrogation of the entire CBA. There doesn't seem to be a door in which the option to turn down cuts would be available. As a matter of clarity, before the final number became 17% and was still situated at 20% the Fleet Presidents had a 2% pay cut which would have allowed less Members from being involuntarily furloughed. Thankfully for everyone, including M&R, the Me Too enabled those cuts to be unnecessary. I know you're in story making mode, but let's not ignore the facts.
 
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 PEB, which is something that will never come to a legacy airline again would have at the very worst been at the levels of the Tentative Agreement which were available before the BK was filed. If you actually believe the PEB would have been the same as the BK CBA's, then that would mean that your rants about turning down the TA, were wrong. It also means that if you believe a PEB would have meant a BK type deal, then you should have told that to your Members so that they would then be able to choose the less destructive option of the TA. Each group you mentioned took a 17% cut, Fleet, APA and APFA so that means the M&R deal was also destined to be what it is whether it was in BK or a PEB. If you knew that, you should of shared because it means everyone did as well as could be expected. 
 
 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. --Isn't AMFA a small union, and in contrast the Association will pool two unions to negotiate in tandem rather than worry about it's own survival.
 
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. --AMFA, 2000 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. --So, as I understand it, the solution is to have all the M&R in one union representing all mechanics in at least the 80% of the total mechanics population. Then the issue lies in the fact that the solution is  to beat out the IAM TWU Association, which would represent mechanics in the largest airline, in order to replace it with the smallest mechanic union there is. Shouldn't the solution be to support the Association then use the AFL-CIO to consolidate all the mechanic CBA's into a uniform package, especially now that the industry is profitable. Seems to make little sense, for the points you make, to join the smallest available union then try to bring back Members from United (for example) that already tasted that cup of coffee and left. I mean, it's taken 10 years to get to this point and still no AMFA at AA...so it doesn't make sense to continue on that road and fulfill your goals of solidarity...now does it. Of course, I'm going on the premise that you actually mean what you wrote and it isn't just a diatribe to raise more anti-TWU sentiment.
 
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. --So outsourcing is good as long as those that remain get better wages, vacation, sick time and holidays.
 
Never saw a PEB where that did not happen. --What was the last PEB that you saw?
 
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. --Is this in reference to the 2013 Pinnacle Air BK...If so, the Judge in that case did the same thing as Judge Lane. In the case of Pinnacle, there was a settlement between the airline and the ALPA at the insistence of the Judge. That being the case, the airline went back to the TWU and the AFA to lessen the burden of the concessions for those groups as it agreed with the ALPA. You certainly know that Judge's in BK don't look to specific numbers such as wages, but overall value of the entire contract. Such was the case in the Pinnacle BK and the AA BK.
 
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. --What was the last time you saw a workforce strike an airline after their contract was abrogated...No wait, let's do it this way. The last set of union workers that tried the strike route after their contract was abrogated were the Northwest F/A's. In that case, a District Court and the Second Circuit Court both agreed to the fact that the Northwest F/A's were not able to strike because their contract was abrogated during a bankruptcy.
 
"A federal judge who had blocked a strike by Northwest Airlines flight attendants last month reaffirmed that decision today and said a bankruptcy judge was wrong not to do the same...U.S. District Judge Victor Marrero issued a written ruling finding that courts do have the power to stop strikes in situations similar to when he stopped the flight attendants from striking just hours before they were to do so in late August. In his ruling, Marrero suggested that a bankruptcy judge who had declined to block the strike on grounds he had no authority in the matter had overlooked the "exceptional recognition Congress has accorded to the importance of the nation's interstate transportation system of railroads and airlines." He said "Congress has gone to extraordinary lengths to legislate its view of the vital role that these carriers play for the economy, national security, movement of goods and people, and general well-being of the United States." --Associated Press
 
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. 

 
This is where you change the subject...

 

[WeAAsles]

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. --Rather than "fight," in a bankruptcy? That's rich. If WeAAsles is responsible for what happened in Fleet talks and wasn't at the table then that seems to indicate that you were equally, if not more responsible, for what happened in M&R. No....wait.....of course not. That was the fault of the International and Videtich, none of whom have a vote at the table. That leaves us in a quandary, doesn't it. 
 
 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. --In a BK, the choices are cut at 17% or abrogation of the entire CBA. There doesn't seem to be a door in which the option to turn down cuts would be available. As a matter of clarity, before the final number became 17% and was still situated at 20% the Fleet Presidents had a 2% pay cut which would have allowed less Members from being involuntarily furloughed. Thankfully for everyone, including M&R, the Me Too enabled those cuts to be unnecessary. I know you're in story making mode, but let's not ignore the facts.
 
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 PEB, which is something that will never come to a legacy airline again would have at the very worst been at the levels of the Tentative Agreement which were available before the BK was filed. If you actually believe the PEB would have been the same as the BK CBA's, then that would mean that your rants about turning down the TA, were wrong. It also means that if you believe a PEB would have meant a BK type deal, then you should have told that to your Members so that they would then be able to choose the less destructive option of the TA. Each group you mentioned took a 17% cut, Fleet, APA and APFA so that means the M&R deal was also destined to be what it is whether it was in BK or a PEB. If you knew that, you should of shared because it means everyone did as well as could be expected. 
 
 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. --Isn't AMFA a small union, and in contrast the Association will pool two unions to negotiate in tandem rather than worry about it's own survival.
 
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. --AMFA, 2000 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. --So, as I understand it, the solution is to have all the M&R in one union representing all mechanics in at least the 80% of the total mechanics population. Then the issue lies in the fact that the solution is  to beat out the IAM TWU Association, which would represent mechanics in the largest airline, in order to replace it with the smallest mechanic union there is. Shouldn't the solution be to support the Association then use the AFL-CIO to consolidate all the mechanic CBA's into a uniform package, especially now that the industry is profitable. Seems to make little sense, for the points you make, to join the smallest available union then try to bring back Members from United (for example) that already tasted that cup of coffee and left. I mean, it's taken 10 years to get to this point and still no AMFA at AA...so it doesn't make sense to continue on that road and fulfill your goals of solidarity...now does it. Of course, I'm going on the premise that you actually mean what you wrote and it isn't just a diatribe to raise more anti-TWU sentiment.
 
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. --So outsourcing is good as long as those that remain get better wages, vacation, sick time and holidays.
 
Never saw a PEB where that did not happen. --What was the last PEB that you saw?
 
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. --Is this in reference to the 2013 Pinnacle Air BK...If so, the Judge in that case did the same thing as Judge Lane. In the case of Pinnacle, there was a settlement between the airline and the ALPA at the insistence of the Judge. That being the case, the airline went back to the TWU and the AFA to lessen the burden of the concessions for those groups as it agreed with the ALPA. You certainly know that Judge's in BK don't look to specific numbers such as wages, but overall value of the entire contract. Such was the case in the Pinnacle BK and the AA BK.
 
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. --What was the last time you saw a workforce strike an airline after their contract was abrogated...No wait, let's do it this way. The last set of union workers that tried the strike route after their contract was abrogated were the Northwest F/A's. In that case, a District Court and the Second Circuit Court both agreed to the fact that the Northwest F/A's were not able to strike because their contract was abrogated during a bankruptcy.
 
"A federal judge who had blocked a strike by Northwest Airlines flight attendants last month reaffirmed that decision today and said a bankruptcy judge was wrong not to do the same...U.S. District Judge Victor Marrero issued a written ruling finding that courts do have the power to stop strikes in situations similar to when he stopped the flight attendants from striking just hours before they were to do so in late August. In his ruling, Marrero suggested that a bankruptcy judge who had declined to block the strike on grounds he had no authority in the matter had overlooked the "exceptional recognition Congress has accorded to the importance of the nation's interstate transportation system of railroads and airlines." He said "Congress has gone to extraordinary lengths to legislate its view of the vital role that these carriers play for the economy, national security, movement of goods and people, and general well-being of the United States." --Associated Press
 
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.

 
This is where you change the subject...

 
I'll go get the mop....+10 NYer
 
keep this up and we are going to need the Hurricane 360 Spin Mop with Foot Pedal & Bucket Improved & Built To Last! LOL
 
Mud Sucker Pumps
  Professional Pumps for Pumping Thicker Slurries and Solids.

http://www.wastecorp.com/mudsucker/professional-pump-series.html

 

[Bob Owens]

 
And we don't have that now with the TWU and the AMFA supporters...Please.
 
And I guess if there was a vote between the TWU and IAM or even if the IAM walked away, you'd expect the IAM guys to sit on the corner and leave the anti-TWU megaphone just for the AMFA supporters.....Please.

Last time I looked there is only one union here, and I don't see any member proposing that we have two. While members may have different opinions on who the Union should be I think all recognize that the battle is between us and management and that we should be in one union. We have seen change in the TWU, how far that change will go is yet to be seen, I don't think Lombardo has the same love affair with AA that Little had, but there was no change in the IAM, the same team that just gave a multi-billion dollar profit earning company a bottom of the industry agreement is still running the IAM and the old TWU team agreed to let them run the Association for the first two years. look at what has already come out of this deal;
 
-adopting the IAM system of tie breaking for seniority, where it goes by SSN instead of age, which will reshuffles thousands of AA workers, SSN what a stupid concept, if two guys start on the same day, one is 20 and one is 40 the 20 year old would hold seniority over the 40 year old because his last 4 digits on his SSN are lower?? Dumb. 
 
-and being put into the IAMNPF. 
 
So thats two bad things already and the only positive thing you have brought up is "preferential hiring", which may help out a few FSC's but few, if any, mechanics. 

 

[NYer]

Last time I looked there is only one union here, and I don't see any member proposing that we have two. --And under the Association, the TWU will still be your union. Isn't better to have a system in place where you, Bob, continue to be the representative of your Members. Why risk an election in which the IAM could win representation and the current representatives of the TWU will no longer hold those positions. You'd risk that when at the moment you can continue to be the voice of the Members and the advocate for the JCBA. C'mon on now, Bob. You'd sacrifice that.
 
While members may have different opinions on who the Union should be I think all recognize that the battle is between us and management and that we should be in one union. We have seen change in the TWU, how far that change will go is yet to be seen, I don't think Lombardo has the same love affair with AA that Little had, but there was no change in the IAM, the same team that just gave a multi-billion dollar profit earning company a bottom of the industry agreement is still running the IAM and the old TWU team agreed to let them run the Association for the first two years. look at what has already come out of this deal; --Again, if you feel the IAM is not worthy of representing your Members why give up the opportunity to have TWU representatives on the Negotiating Committee. There will be a voice for the Members, a voice they'd recognize. Is taking a chance to lose that voice worth not having the Association where the voice is guaranteed. Really.  You always tell us that your Members want your voice in there, a competent and knowledgeable mind (in your opinion). Throwing the Association to the side, can also throw that voice to the side. That's not really what you want.
 
-adopting the IAM system of tie breaking for seniority, where it goes by SSN instead of age, which will reshuffles thousands of AA workers, SSN what a stupid concept, if two guys start on the same day, one is 20 and one is 40 the 20 year old would hold seniority over the 40 year old because his last 4 digits on his SSN are lower?? Dumb. --Dumb is the fact that you have twisted the entire process. The integration, as agreed will go with Classification seniority first, then it would be Date of Hire and if there are still a few that are tied it goes to the SSN as the THIRD tie-breaker. If this isn't a workable solution then pitting the seniority process to the Arbitration process is much more of a "throwing the dice" scenario. Now if you believe there will be "thousands" of Members tied in seniority after the Classification and Date of Hire seniorities are used, then maybe your scenario could play out. Let's not trip over the facts, Bob.
 
 
-and being put into the IAMNPF. --No one that doesn't want to be in the IAMNPF will be forced. The wording on that is that priority will be given to that in negotiations, but if that fails it also stipulates that the TWU will not stand in the way of the current participants on the IAMNPF to continue to do so. You can repeat your version over and over, but the it doesn't become a fact because you do so.
 
So thats two bad things already and the only positive thing you have brought up is "preferential hiring", which may help out a few FSC's but few, if any, mechanics. --Few is still more than none.

 

[Bob Owens]

 
 --Rather than "fight," in a bankruptcy? That's rich.      
 
 The Pinnicle pilots chose to fight, and the Judge refused to abrogate. 
 
--In a BK, the choices are cut at 17% or abrogation of the entire CBA. There doesn't seem to be a door in which the option to turn down cuts would be available. As a matter of clarity, before the final number became 17% and was still situated at 20% the Fleet Presidents had a 2% pay cut which would have allowed less Members from being involuntarily furloughed. Thankfully for everyone, including M&R, the Me Too enabled those cuts to be unnecessary. I know you're in story making mode, but let's not ignore the facts.
 
You are ignoring the facts of what is written in the language of the law and what happened at Pinnicle.  The basis for abrogation is that the contract is "onerous".  If you go into BK with wages and work rules above industry standard then your choices are more limited, as was the case for most other work groups at AA, but not Maintenance, like the Pinnicle Pilots our wages and work rules were already below industry standards when AA went into BK which would have been an embarrassment for the Union to argue. The only argument the company had was that our language kept more work in house, but with OSMs, less vacation, fewer Holidays etc etc they would have had a difficult time proving that limits to outsourcing was putting them at a competitive disadvantage and even if they could the new fleet would have eliminated any disadvantage if there was one. Yes AA had higher maintenance costs, but they also had the oldest fleet. 
 
 --The PEB, which is something that will never come to a legacy airline again would have at the very worst been at the levels of the Tentative Agreement which were available before the BK was filed. If you actually believe the PEB would have been the same as the BK CBA's, then that would mean that your rants about turning down the TA, were wrong. It also means that if you believe a PEB would have meant a BK type deal, then you should have told that to your Members so that they would then be able to choose the less destructive option of the TA. Each group you mentioned took a 17% cut, Fleet, APA and APFA so that means the M&R deal was also destined to be what it is whether it was in BK or a PEB. If you knew that, you should of shared because it means everyone did as well as could be expected.  
 
Once again you have it all backwards. PEBs among the top three will be more likely than ever before because consolidation of the industry has made it that a strike at any of the top three would be a major disruption. 
 
  --So, as I understand it, the solution is to have all the M&R in one union representing all mechanics in at least the 80% of the total mechanics population. Then the issue lies in the fact that the solution is  to beat out the IAM TWU Association, which would represent mechanics in the largest airline, in order to replace it with the smallest mechanic union there is. Shouldn't the solution be to support the Association then use the AFL-CIO to consolidate all the mechanic CBA's into a uniform package, especially now that the industry is profitable. Seems to make little sense, for the points you make, to join the smallest available union then try to bring back Members from United (for example) that already tasted that cup of coffee and left. I mean, it's taken 10 years to get to this point and still no AMFA at AA...so it doesn't make sense to continue on that road and fulfill your goals of solidarity...now does it. Of course, I'm going on the premise that you actually mean what you wrote and it isn't just a diatribe to raise more anti-TWU sentiment. 
 
No, obviously you don't understand it. I see you choose to ignore the fact that the response was about Fleet Service clerks, not mechanics in an attempt to make this a TWU/AMFA argument. That said, yes consolidation for mechanics also would yield better results than being split up into many small unions that do not compete based on getting better contracts for their members but rather compete by trying to help the employer they are associated with put the airline where the competing union represents people out of business and plunge their memberships into a race to the bottom in the attempt. There are examples that support my opinion, there were Unions in place in the NY mass transit industry for decades prior to Mike Quill and others forming the TWU. One transportation system had the same workers represented by many different unions that were all equally ineffective, it was only when they all got into one union that Transit workers were able to make real gains. 
 
--So outsourcing is good as long as those that remain get better wages, vacation, sick time and holidays.
 
Not at all, just stating that fleet accepted the choices put before them by the company and chose to preserve wages instead of headcount. 
 
--What was the last PEB that you saw?
 
 The last PEB I saw was the Amtrak one where they got retro and raises. If you read the book "Understanding the Railway Labor Act" it reviews several PEBs. Managements claim to poverty were more valid than AA's were but the PEB still went by historical and industry trends, not the companies claimed finical situation. 
 
--Is this in reference to the 2013 Pinnacle Air BK...If so, the Judge in that case did the same thing as Judge Lane. In the case of Pinnacle, there was a settlement between the airline and the ALPA at the insistence of the Judge. That being the case, the airline went back to the TWU and the AFA to lessen the burden of the concessions for those groups as it agreed with the ALPA. You certainly know that Judge's in BK don't look to specific numbers such as wages, but overall value of the entire contract. Such was the case in the Pinnacle BK and the AA BK. 
 
And in the case of Pinnicle the Pilots argued that the company was demanding below industry average and the Judge told the company he would not abrogate and they needed to go back and continue to negotiate with the company. In our case the Pilots were not being told to accept bottom of the industry, only maintenance was, still Lane hesitated because he probably did not want to provoke a war with the pilots and thanks to the Pilots. 
 
--What was the last time you saw a workforce strike an airline after their contract was abrogated...No wait, let's do it this way. The last set of union workers that tried the strike route after their contract was abrogated were the Northwest F/A's. In that case, a District Court and the Second Circuit Court both agreed to the fact that the Northwest F/A's were not able to strike because their contract was abrogated during a bankruptcy. 
 
Once again you are inadvertently pointing out how Unions have failed airline workers. The Pilots tried to have that corrected, they received very little support from other Unions. I've tried to bring this issue forth within the TWU with little success. Instead of fighting to get us the same rights as all other workers I'm told airline workers need to support reform that will protect the pensions and contracts of workers who still have the right to fight back.  Just because you don't have equal rights doesn't mean that you can't fight and engage in activities that are legal for others, sure you may be punished, or you may bring about justice, it worked for Rosa Parks or would you still be OK with legal segregation based upon race? 
 
Abrogations are not very frequent occurrences in the airline industry but up until the NWA AFA ruling (which I believe has been cited by the TWU's legal firm in a legal industry publication as a very poor ruling by the way, one which should not stand) Airine workers could and did strike upon abrogation of their contract, ALPA at Continental did it.
 

 

[Bob Owens]

 

. --And under the Association, the TWU will still be your union. Isn't better to have a system in place where you, Bob, continue to be the representative of your Members. Why risk an election in which the IAM could win representation and the current representatives of the TWU will no longer hold those positions. You'd risk that when at the moment you can continue to be the voice of the Members and the advocate for the JCBA. C'mon on now, Bob. You'd sacrifice that.
 
 
Well if the IAM won because the majority chose that then I would have to accept that and try and make the IAM become and perform as we rightfully expect them to, as I said fixing one broken union is hard, fixing two in a structure which removes all power from the Locals the members elect is damn near impossible. What about our TWU members in BOS, DCA, PHL etc? Without it even going to a vote they would be forced into a new union and pay higher dues. So you are saying that because I an staying TWU I should be ok with it? That makes no sense. So the answer is YES, I would rather have the right to vote, even if it meant we could all end up in the IAM than not have a vote and be stuck into a disastrous Association with a Union that you are claiming that we do not want to risk becoming members of. I think I already asked the question, if you admit that the IAM is bad then why would you want to be in an association with them, one where they have control the first two years, one where so far everything change that has been made or planned is to do it their way, not our way? One contract between two Unions is a house divided against itself. 
 
 
 
--Again, if you feel the IAM is not worthy of representing your Members why give up the opportunity to have TWU representatives on the Negotiating Committee. There will be a voice for the Members, a voice they'd recognize. Is taking a chance to lose that voice worth not having the Association where the voice is guaranteed. Really.  You always tell us that your Members want your voice in there, a competent and knowledgeable mind (in your opinion). Throwing the Association to the side, can also throw that voice to the side. That's not really what you want.
 
Your spin is pathetic, I want a Union, not an association between two unions at one company. With the Association we lose the right to have people the members vote for participate in contract negotiations, the Association says the International picks three each , thats it. The members don't pick, the Internationals do with the Association. For Fleet that means that at least four locals will not have anyone from their Local at negotiations. For M&R it means that Title II and Stores will not have anyone from their Locals at negotiations. So don't play you silly games and say what I want. 
 
-Dumb is the fact that you have twisted the entire process. The integration, as agreed will go with Classification seniority first, then it would be Date of Hire and if there are still a few that are tied it goes to the SSN as the THIRD tie-breaker. If this isn't a workable solution then pitting the seniority process to the Arbitration process is much more of a "throwing the dice" scenario. Now if you believe there will be "thousands" of Members tied in seniority after the Classification and Date of Hire seniorities are used, then maybe your scenario could play out. Let's not trip over the facts, Bob.
 
 
More spin, the tie breaker for two people hired the same day, not upgraded, hired, will be by SSN. Its not a tie breaker if one has Classification seniority. When AA hires they typically hire several on the same day, usually a monday, when they upgrade they usually do so on Saturday, putting them two days ahead of the new hires. They do this so they can have full classes for new hire training. On the day I was hired they hired 24 people just at JFK, and our seniority was determined by date of birth. 
 
So I guess we can consider you on record as being in favor of adopting the IAM method of tie breaking? 
 
 
-and being put into the IAMNPF. --No one that doesn't want to be in the IAMNPF will be forced. The wording on that is that priority will be given to that in negotiations, but if that fails it also stipulates that the TWU will not stand in the way of the current participants on the IAMNPF to continue to do so. You can repeat your version over and over, but the it doesn't become a fact because you do so.
 
Show me something in the document that supports your version that we would not be forced. Do you think AA would agree to keep the more expensive 401K match plan when they have to contribute to the IAMNPF? 
 
So thats two bad things already and the only positive thing you have brought up is "preferential hiring", which may help out a few FSC's but few, if any, mechanics. --Few is still more than none.
 
I'll take that as your best and only response and admission that the Association has nothing to offer the members other than being divided between two unions at one company. "if a house be divided against itself, that house cannot stand".  One Contract-One Union. 

 

 

[OldGuy@AA]

NYer loves to dump on Bob Owens, but we all know he did what he could to try to prevent all of this.  The TULE roll call vote is what brought the POS TA back for a vote.  Also the vote passed system wide by a total of 48 votes.  NYer also knows there was a buyout package offered that bought yes votes.  Anyone would admit that if you take away the yes votes for the (I got mine) buyout package then you have a failed TA.  Bob Owens has proven his dedication to the membership with his posts and his sharing of information during the whole BK process where the international did not tell us squat.  Nyer chooses to remain loyal to this international that has "Negotiated" benefits that are inferior to any other work group in the TWU.  Those of us who really pay attention know who is for us and who is not.  Bob Owens is for us and apparently NYer is not.  No way you can blame any of this on Bob.

 

[NYer]

 

 
     
 
 The Pinnicle pilots chose to fight, and the Judge refused to abrogate.
 
You are ignoring the facts of what is written in the language of the law and what happened at Pinnicle.  The basis for abrogation is that the contract is "onerous".  If you go into BK with wages and work rules above industry standard then your choices are more limited, as was the case for most other work groups at AA, but not Maintenance, like the Pinnicle Pilots our wages and work rules were already below industry standards when AA went into BK which would have been an embarrassment for the Union to argue. The only argument the company had was that our language kept more work in house, but with OSMs, less vacation, fewer Holidays etc etc they would have had a difficult time proving that limits to outsourcing was putting them at a competitive disadvantage and even if they could the new fleet would have eliminated any disadvantage if there was one. Yes AA had higher maintenance costs, but they also had the oldest fleet. --The Judge refused to abrogate because the airline raised the amount they were seeking in their original "ask." They originally wanted a total of $30M in concessions. Later, they raised the amount they sought to $59.6M and didn't back off that amount one cent. When it came time to abrogate, the Judge refused the $59.6M amount and instead allowed the $30M amount to be used as a basis for continued negotiations. What was the final outcome?
 
"The seven-year agreement includes, among other cuts, a 9 percent pay reduction for all pilots plus longevity caps to all pay scales which will further cut the pay of more than half of Pinnacle’s pilots by as much as another 16 percent. In addition to almost 25 percent pay cuts, the deal also increases health care costs for all pilots while reducing pilot retirement benefits by more than 50 percent for Pinnacle’s most senior pilots.
 
The amount earned by any union (creditor) is not the basis of what cuts are being approved. If that were the case then the each union would have to give up different amounts and not all being sliced by 17%. That is clearly not the scenario that played out in Pinnacle with their pilots and it certainly isn't the way the process has worked in recent BK's
 
Once again you have it all backwards. PEBs among the top three will be more likely than ever before because consolidation of the industry has made it that a strike at any of the top three would be a major disruption. --After the PEB gives their recommendations neither side is obligated to accept them. If the union decides not to accept the recommendations a 30 day clock begins which leads to the availability to seek Self Help (strike) unless Congress steps it and imposes a CBA. It's baffling how you could equate getting closer to a strike and disrupting national commerce as the very reason why it's MORE likely to happen.
 
  No, obviously you don't understand it. I see you choose to ignore the fact that the response was about Fleet Service clerks, not mechanics in an attempt to make this a TWU/AMFA argument. That said, yes consolidation for mechanics also would yield better results than being split up into many small unions that do not compete based on getting better contracts for their members but rather compete by trying to help the employer they are associated with put the airline where the competing union represents people out of business and plunge their memberships into a race to the bottom in the attempt. There are examples that support my opinion, there were Unions in place in the NY mass transit industry for decades prior to Mike Quill and others forming the TWU. One transportation system had the same workers represented by many different unions that were all equally ineffective, it was only when they all got into one union that Transit workers were able to make real gains.  --Well that being the case, then the Association would seem to be the way to get something as you state done. The TWU/IAM Association is getting the two unions of the biggest carrier together which makes consolidating with United that much easier. When the big two are together then we can try to organize Delta and the big three will be under the same fold. Now, I know there is an affinity for AMFA, but being that they represent barely 2000 Members it seems like the least capable way to reach your goals of consolidation.  
 
Not at all, just stating that fleet accepted the choices put before them by the company and chose to preserve wages instead of headcount. --The choices put forth to Fleet and all the other groups and unions were the same. Accept 17% or be in danger of having the Ask imposed. The APA took the change to not accept the changes, their CBA was abrogated and they ended up accepting the same 17% total they originally turned down.
 
 The last PEB I saw was the Amtrak one where they got retro and raises. If you read the book "Understanding the Railway Labor Act" it reviews several PEBs. Managements claim to poverty were more valid than AA's were but the PEB still went by historical and industry trends, not the companies claimed finical situation. --PEB's in the railroads are a dime a dozen. When was the last major airline that received a PEB.
 
Once again you are inadvertently pointing out how Unions have failed airline workers. The Pilots tried to have that corrected, they received very little support from other Unions. I've tried to bring this issue forth within the TWU with little success. Instead of fighting to get us the same rights as all other workers I'm told airline workers need to support reform that will protect the pensions and contracts of workers who still have the right to fight back.  Just because you don't have equal rights doesn't mean that you can't fight and engage in activities that are legal for others, sure you may be punished, or you may bring about justice, it worked for Rosa Parks or would you still be OK with legal segregation based upon race? --You needed to take that out of your hat to make a point? Unless there is a concerted effort to overturn or modify the laws on the books a simple act of defiance will not do it in itself. It takes changes within the legal system that binds out hands in order to make the changes possible. Segregation didn't end with Rosa Parks sitting on that bus, it wasn't even when her case, taken to court and fought by the NAACP, that challenged the segregation laws of Alabama...That was Browder v Gayle that in 1956 made the Alabama bus segregation laws unconstitutional.
 
Abrogations are not very frequent occurrences in the airline industry but up until the NWA AFA ruling (which I believe has been cited by the TWU's legal firm in a legal industry publication as a very poor ruling by the way, one which should not stand) Airine workers could and did strike upon abrogation of their contract, ALPA at Continental did it. --You can't be referring to their 2 year strike in the mid 80's where Continental took back 600 ALPA Members and hired another 1000 pilots while the strike dragged for two years. The outcome being that ALPA had to give up and remaining striking pilots may be called by seniority as new hires. You surely can't be using that as an example. Surely you must have more positive examples since the Pinnacle and Continental models aren't very pleasant.
 

 

 

[NYer]

NYer loves to dump on Bob Owens, but we all know he did what he could to try to prevent all of this.  The TULE roll call vote is what brought the POS TA back for a vote.  Also the vote passed system wide by a total of 48 votes.  NYer also knows there was a buyout package offered that bought yes votes.  Anyone would admit that if you take away the yes votes for the (I got mine) buyout package then you have a failed TA.  Bob Owens has proven his dedication to the membership with his posts and his sharing of information during the whole BK process where the international did not tell us squat.  Nyer chooses to remain loyal to this international that has "Negotiated" benefits that are inferior to any other work group in the TWU.  Those of us who really pay attention know who is for us and who is not.  Bob Owens is for us and apparently NYer is not.  No way you can blame any of this on Bob.

 
Surely if the majority wants the TWU out and if AMFA is breathing down everyone's throat there would be no way for the "Yes" votes to win anything. After a 10 year education campaign where the AMFA supporters consistently say "no one wants the TWU," yet the leaders voted on for by the majority are unable to out maneuver a couple of people at the International.
 
C'mon people. You have to do better than that. Of course, name calling is very effective.

 

[NYer]

 

 


.Well if the IAM won because the majority chose that then I would have to accept that and try and make the IAM become and perform as we rightfully expect them to, as I said fixing one broken union is hard, fixing two in a structure which removes all power from the Locals the members elect is damn near impossible. What about our TWU members in BOS, DCA, PHL etc? Without it even going to a vote they would be forced into a new union and pay higher dues. So you are saying that because I an staying TWU I should be ok with it? That makes no sense. So the answer is YES, I would rather have the right to vote, even if it meant we could all end up in the IAM than not have a vote and be stuck into a disastrous Association with a Union that you are claiming that we do not want to risk becoming members of. I think I already asked the question, if you admit that the IAM is bad then why would you want to be in an association with them, one where they have control the first two years, one where so far everything change that has been made or planned is to do it their way, not our way? One contract between two Unions is a house divided against itself. --There are Members, Bob, from PHL, DCA, BWI, RDU and other stations that have voluntarily gone to IAM stations with the Preferential Hiring. It seems the set up has been beneficial to those that had that option.
 
A house divided against itself is having former IAM or TWU Members resentful of the changes that came about. You, of all people, can't make the argument that we should be fine with it because it is what the majority chose. I mean, you're against every contract and those are voted by the majority. I'd rather stay TWU and with the Association I know I will be. Those that don't agree have all the right to feel that way. Those that don't want neither will have the change to collect cards and add another option to the ballot. It's simple really.
 
Your spin is pathetic, I want a Union, not an association between two unions at one company. With the Association we lose the right to have people the members vote for participate in contract negotiations, the Association says the International picks three each , thats it. The members don't pick, the Internationals do with the Association. For Fleet that means that at least four locals will not have anyone from their Local at negotiations. For M&R it means that Title II and Stores will not have anyone from their Locals at negotiations. So don't play you silly games and say what I want. --Silly games? You guys have been complaining for years that Fleet sabotaged M&R and that's why you can't get a decent CBA. When the Locals were separated, the argument was that Tulsa sabotaged M&R and that's why you can't get a decent CBA. Then it was that Tulsa had the roll call votes and that's why you can't get a decent CBA. (even though a roll call represents each Member at that Local and you seem to be an advocate for each Member being able to have voice)
 
It seems like it's always someone else fault. If that's the case then get the cards needed to end the reign of the TWU or avoid the Association. It's in your hands to control your own destiny. Although your window of opportunity is closing since the added numbers of the IAM will make any card drive even more unlikely than it already is.
 
More spin, the tie breaker for two people hired the same day, not upgraded, hired, will be by SSN. Its not a tie breaker if one has Classification seniority. When AA hires they typically hire several on the same day, usually a monday, when they upgrade they usually do so on Saturday, putting them two days ahead of the new hires. They do this so they can have full classes for new hire training. On the day I was hired they hired 24 people just at JFK, and our seniority was determined by date of birth.  --And that placement on the original AA seniority list will not change. The tie-breakers come in when the IAM Member has the same Classification and Date of Hire as the AA person. The current AA seniority list is not going to be reshuffled. That's why they kept the Classification and Date of Hire. By using the SSN for the final tie breaker is helps to keep the IAM guys in their original order as compared to each other.
 
So I guess we can consider you on record as being in favor of adopting the IAM method of tie breaking? It keep the IAM Members in their original order as compared to each other and causes the least amount of disruption for either side. I'm not in favor of changing the process to the AA method while we stay in out same positions relative to each, then have another group jumbled within the group and the SSN has minimal, if any, effect on our standing.
 
Show me something in the document that supports your version that we would not be forced. Do you think AA would agree to keep the more expensive 401K match plan when they have to contribute to the IAMNPF? --Where does it say we are bring forced.
 
I'll take that as your best and only response and admission that the Association has nothing to offer the members other than being divided between two unions at one company. "if a house be divided against itself, that house cannot stand".  One Contract-One Union. --"yes consolidation for mechanics also would yield better results than being split up into many small unions that do not compete based on getting better contracts for their members but rather compete by trying to help the employer they are associated with put the airline where the competing union represents people out of business and plunge their memberships into a race to the bottom in the attempt."
 
Your words, Bob, not mine. "Consolidation for mechanics also yield better results...."

 

 

 

[toroshark]

One example of a seniority tie breaking headache is for anyone hired on 12/26/95. Close to 150 title 1 employees were hired with the exact same occupational date and doh. It was the first wave of srp's. So because the union that represents a majority of people that will be represented by this proposed association ceded the right to represent its members seniority to the union that represents the minority these 150 persons will have the seniority they have had for almost 20 years changed. There are numerous other examples such as this one. To think that some people actually want to prevent their union brothers and sisters the right to at least vote on this proposed alliance is insane. And I don't consider the alliance or no representation a legitimate voting option. That is blackmail plain and simple.