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.
