And of course.....
October 27, 2014
Dear Brother Klima:
I am in receipt of your letter dated October 24, 2014, via your email. I will address the primary topic of your letter first, before proceeding into your embellishing account of the association’s very existence and your inclusion of me in your email.
I can certainly understand, from your perspective, the need and urgency for negotiations training, by IAM, based on the recently ratified agreement with the “New American” for your M&R group. As I also recall, IAM made it clear they would not participate in pre-merger talks with US Airways management because they were in negotiations and the former TWU International President chose to go it alone with them. What we have since found out is that was a critical mistake by the IAM and former TWU representatives, because other represented groups were able to negotiate substantial gains during that time for all their members. This came at a time when US Airways management was ripe for negotiating, because they knew they needed support from the unions in getting their deal to lead the “New American” approved. And then finally, after several years of fruitless negotiations with US Airways, IAM had the opportunity of a lifetime dropped into its lap at the bargaining table when the merger with American created the world’s largest airline. Even as the “New American” announced record setting profits and management once again awarded themselves with millions of dollars in incentive pay, the IAM M&R negotiating committee fumbled away the opportunity for an industry leading pay-rate by agreeing to a paltry pay raise that only equaled what Legacy American management achieved through the 1113 bankruptcy process. While Local 591 provided written support for IAM to use as leverage in negotiations and Local 591 members refused to work US Airways metal, outside of Scope the IAM Agreement, my membership watched in horror as IAM endorsed the M&R Agreement to its members. That new Agreement gave “any” American Airlines employee, not TWU member, the opportunity to do IAM work - in exchange for a layoff clause. That language alone has provided the “New American” with significant synergies needed by management that they promised to shareholders and work to be done by non-union and union members, outside the Scope of the M&R Agreement, on US Airways metal. At best, what I saw from the endorsement for ratification, of the M&R Agreement, was a willingness by IAM to accept the “trust us” mantra of the “New American” management team. In my world, actions speak louder than words and after nearly of year working under the “New American” management structure and seeing the IAM’s ratified Agreement with them, I expect nothing less than a significant battle with management when the time comes to negotiate a combined airline Agreement.
As for your requested attendance at the IAM facility, I will not be attending because: (a) the “Association” has not been approved by the NMB, (b) nor has an affirmation vote in support of the “Association” by the respective TWU & IAM membership groups taken place. Furthermore, I am not interested in learning how IAM has historically bargained. I have read the last two IAM negotiated Agreements with US Airways, cover-to-cover, and the results speak for themselves. I can also promise you that the IAM cannot properly prepare a negotiating team with a curriculum that includes “guests, trainers, and speakers” while also planning to “develop negotiating goals, a communications strategy, and surveys for proposals” all in one week. To believe that such a shortsighted strategy could work is both naive and a disservice to the dues paying members. As a TWU President, before any effective “joint” negotiating plan can materialize, the NMB must first accept the “Association,” and an affirmation vote of both the TWU and IAM membership’s groups must then take place, and then and only then can a bargaining strategy of the “Association” be developed.
I did notice one item of truth in your letter; TWU does provide their Local’s with “a certain level of autonomy.” While still bureaucratic, the TWU International Constitution does allow for a Local to not only question, but also properly challenge the organization at times. I have read and do not see where the IAM Constitution, nor the Association Agreement, allows for the same. President Lombardo has been clear that he intends to allow locally elected leaders, to represent the TWU membership (with support from TWU International) and not be a top down dictatorship that tells the membership what is in their best interest. As you are also aware, President Lombardo continues to work on overcoming the past TWU leaders and International Representative’s shortcomings. Another benefit of the autonomy TWU organizationally provides it Local’s, is our ability to communicate openly with our members. Do locally elected IAM Presidents enjoy the same freedom of speech when representing their members criticizing and challenging the IAM District or International Lodge? During the Local 591 membership meetings throughout the country the Local 591 Executive Board and myself have yet to find any current TWU represented station interested in being transitioned to IAM. Members are vocal in expressing their apprehension, based on personal accounts and discussions with IAM members in these “joint represented” cities. What I have heard from them is the noticeable difference on the availability of fact-based information from locally elected representatives and how TWU takes a “hands-on” grievance handling in the station from start to finish. Based on my member’s observations in these “joint” cities, I cannot, in good conscious, support or agree that any Local 591 member should be forced to give up their TWU membership, for the IAM, in the “Association.” I have also recently been told that in several of these cities, IAM representatives have told members that if they leave the IAM or vote against the Association, they will lose their pension. This is simply not a true statement, it seems that someone within IAM has created a campaign of fear and intimidation regarding the IAM pension; which is a classic management diversion strategy. I believe very strongly that IAM has an immediate responsibility to correct this falsehood to the IAM membership in writing.
Finally, with regard to your comment in your email which states the following: “I have tried to include all of the TWU presidents in the copy line. I would appreciate your help in assuring all of them get a copy. I don't know most of them except Gary Peterson and I want to be sure he gets his invitation since he played such a big role as an architect and early supporter of the Alliance Associations.”
You clearly knew that my role, while I was President of TWU Local 565, during the briefings at the IAM facility in Maryland, was to learn about the history of IAM, receive a brief overview of the IAM pension fund that included an explanation on why TWU may want to participate, and finally to participate in a discussion on what “an alliance between TWU and IAM might look like.” At the time of the meeting, I was there to do nothing more than collect the data on IAM and report back on the information provided and any items discussed to the AA TWU President Council. It is absolutely a fib to say that I “played such a big role as an architect and early supporter of the Alliance Associations” simply because I was authorized to attend the briefings at the IAM facility, by the AA TWU Presidents Council. Furthermore, and for the IAM’s clarity of facts, former TWU International President Little consummated the “Association Agreement,” which was another tyrannical mistake that lead to his groups demise, without any vote of support for its approval by the AA TWU Presidents Council.
That said, I can only take your above comment as an attempt to smear my name, due to my Local’s objection to the “Association” currently before the NMB. Clearly, you have no idea of the relationship that exists between myself and the other TWU Presidents listed in the email, all of them have already been debriefed on the facts of how the “Association” came to be. The problem with a tactic like this is that it comes with an inherent flaw; you do not know the audience you wrote to. Up until now, the objections before the NMB came from Local 591 and through thousands of signed petitions by TWU members, but by trying to use my name in an effort to move the IAM’s organizational agenda forward, veiled in training for the “Association,” by inviting the TWU Presidents is weak at best. You need to remember that while IAM may be a bigger organization overall than TWU, that on the American property IAM is much smaller than TWU. I am also not sure why you believe that IAM can speak from a position of power when IAM is clearly in the minority, and by a sizeable margin in Maintenance and Related. So although you may be under the impression, from your previous encounters with former TWU representatives, that you can somehow invoke a sense of fear or intimidation, within Local 591 no such fear exists.
In closing, while IAM International President Buffenbarger and former TWU International President Little may have entered in the “Association Agreement,” the current TWU leadership and membership did not. If the NMB actually allows the “Association” to be on a ballot, and if the “Association” were to be successful in winning the election for representation, you can rest assured that I am fully prepared to enter negotiations, for a Joint Collective Bargaining Agreement, on behalf of the members I am elected to represent.
Fraternally,
Gary G. Peterson
[SIZE=13.5pt]President[/SIZE]