TWU and IAM representation alliance vote
- Thread starter chellow
- Start date
- Status
WeAAsles
Veteran
- Oct 20, 2007
- 23,539
- 5,263
The agenda of many on this thread is no problem to outsourcing as long as I get mine. So how many people are you willing to throw under the bus before someone else decides to throw you under it next?Duke787 said:
This is why AMFA followers have such a bad rep. People read what you post here and say why am I going to sign a card for a group of guys who want to hose me?
WeAAsles
Veteran
- Oct 20, 2007
- 23,539
- 5,263
What doesn't he know if obviously you agree with Duke that outsourcing is acceptable as long as you get paid more? Someone else and their family are just collateral damage as long as yours are taken care of I guess.swamt said:
Maybe he knows more than you think and you're just not crazy about the idea that he's putting it out on here?
WeAAsles
Veteran
- Oct 20, 2007
- 23,539
- 5,263
So they should be our example then? Kill or be killed? Dog eat dog? Is this what we're teaching our children then too?Rogallo said:
But I have to give some credit though. So far I'm up to about 4 AMFA supporters who contribute to this thread that have admitted that they don't care about outsourcing if it raises their pay. A few others have kind of hinted at it.
While I don't agree or support it at least I do respect the people who say it, for saying it.
I never said I agree with Duke. That is you that said I said that. You act just like 700 and WT with your spin words. Re-read my post. Then get back to me. I simply said that he knew nothing about AMFA representation. No where in that post does it say I agree with Duke-period. Nice try to spin it up, won't work with me, carry on...WeAAsles said:
WeAAsles
Veteran
- Oct 20, 2007
- 23,539
- 5,263
swamt said:
Only your own mind can say what you really feel and what you would decide given the choice? You're absolutely not going to say that on here if it's something that could go against the agenda of getting people to sign cards. Especially if it could "possibly" mean they're signing their own death warrant?
AGAIN you are trying to say say what I think or how I feel about something you have no clue on. Just like others out here and I will not allow it. I responded to another individual on a total seperate subject and you are still spinning my post to reflect to your agenda. You are completely off your rocker. Simply say; Oh sorry swamt, I took your post wrong, my bad. And move on dude, don't try to bring me into your agenda, won't happen...WeAAsles said:
WeAAsles
Veteran
- Oct 20, 2007
- 23,539
- 5,263
You're confused. I'm not stating that you said anything. I said that only you know (not me) how you would vote if given the choice to provide yourself more at the expense of someone else? (Note the question mark)swamt said:
You seem slightly standoffish about the subject? Why is that?
NYer
Veteran
- Jun 4, 2010
- 4,167
- 905
comatose said:
Profit Sharing was Parker's call. Fortunately, we were able to get raises built into the pay rates from the MOU that eliminated the Profit Sharing.
I'd rather have the wages built up rather than profit sharing that now has to be divided between over 100,000 employees. If we kept the Profit Sharing we wouldn't of received those extra raises.
NYer
Veteran
- Jun 4, 2010
- 4,167
- 905
bigjets said:
Nope, no ulterior motive. Just the reality of the situation.
We gave up in 2003 to try and keep certain items that would have been at risk if the airline would have filed for BK, like most the other airlines did. Unfortunately, the other airlines filed BK after 2003 so it made our cuts look pale in comparison. We were able to keep many extra jobs that were eliminated in other airlines. We were able to keep our medical lower than the most of the other airlines that filed BK. We were able to accrue our Pensions for another decade and everyone that retired in that time was able to take advantage of the Retiree Medical.
During the negotiations of 2008, the mantra was restore and more. Those negotiations lasted into 2011 and in 2012 we finally got a CBA under the umbrella of BK. In hindsight, we would have been better off trying to recover wages a contract at a time, instead of trying to get double digit raises during one of the worst economic meltdowns this country has even had.
Today, we can try and capitalize on the CEO that has publicly stated he wants to pay industry leading wages, in an industry with record profits...but in the meantime, we're actually trying to create a scenario that we could lose out window of opportunity to take advantage of the most favorable conditions this industry has ever had. But nooooooooooo, we want to stop the process of the Association and waste the time to have votes that could turn us over to the IAM (which most here believe is worse than the TWU) instead of trying to get the industry leading wages we could get.
NYer
Veteran
- Jun 4, 2010
- 4,167
- 905
Duke787 said:
Not at all. Let's get those wages. The current CEO has made public statements that he wants industry leading wages for his workers. The economy is gearing up so more people can fly. Oil is continuously going down. The airlines are making record profits. They have about 8B in the bank....So, let's get the Association behind us and start negotiating those wages.
Why are we wasting time that will only contribute towards that window of opportunity to close.
NYer
Veteran
- Jun 4, 2010
- 4,167
- 905
swamt said:
FACT--AMFA used to have 20,000 Members at one point. Correct?
FACT--AMFA currently has about 2,000 Members. Correct?
FACT--There are more ex-AMFA Members that voted them out than current AMFA Members. Correct?
FACT--AMFA has been trying to organize AA for a decade, with no success. Correct?
FACT--AMFA allows outsourcing at the two remaining shops it still represents. Correct?
FACT--AMFA could be getting cards signed right now and have their name of the representation ballot along with the Association. Correct?
The best argument for AMFA seems to be that they're not the TWU and everyone votes for everything.
- Status
Similar threads
