TWU and IAM representation alliance vote

[Bob Owens]

Then someone (maybe you Bob) should get a better definition from the "alliance" what they mean by "industry leading contract" and who exactly they will be comparing to.  When someone says industry, it includes every and all within the industry, NOT just individual airlines that the company wants to include.  SWA has done this for years with the cargo companies, and as of recent, a mediator has ruled that SWA will indeed include the cargo liners (UPS and FedEx) as the jobs performed are the same. Only difference now are that we are responsible for human lives, NOT just packages---period...

I think I'd rather focus on making sure the Alliance never happens.
 
Under the Little -Videtich era the company was allowed to define the Industry to what they felt advantaged their argument, and they narrowed it down to carriers that had gone through BK, US, UAL and DAL. I challenged that definition, also brought up that back in 2001 we were all within pennies of each other and the business models of SWA, Fed Ex and UPS never changed. Their spin was that those carrier traded higher wages for less heads, but the fact is that all of those carriers added heads, the only ones that cut heads were the ones that also cut pay and benefits. Then the claim was they paid more because they made more, but thats not really true either. Their pay merely kept pace with inflation, UPS did the best job, SWA actually lagged inflation by a bit. 
 
The sad part is that I feel that our concessions in the 80s and 90s it what forced those other carriers to take such aggressive actions against their mechanics and switch to more outsourcing. In the 80s we were the first to agree to B scale and a whole list of other concessions that the other legacy carriers kept right up until Bankruptcy. While they also went with B-scale their starting pay was higher and their progressions were as much as seven years shorter (AA had a 12 year progression for mechanics with 5 years experience, 16 year progression for no experience and the scales were end loaded). In the 90s we gave them OSMs, permanently low paid aircraft mechanics in the bases. There was no way UAL could compete with that, try paying a guy in SFO $10hr (I don't even think they legally can, isn't the minimum wage there $15? ). AA was able to slip in their OSMs over time, nobody there had to take a cut in pay, they just got moved out of their bid shops. By 2001 AA had a huge cost advantage over UAL, US and even Delta. Their dirt cheap labor costs allowed them to keep and maintain older aircraft in house while their competitors had to channel scarce capital into new aircraft leases and payments. When UAL got a 14% cut in BK a day later the TWU gave AA 25% (17.5% of which was a wage reduction)  without even going into BK. We ended up with deals that were inferior to non-union. Sonny Hall and Jim Little promised that this was just a temporary emergency measure to get them through the post 9-11 economic downturn and we would get it all back by 2006 with the early opener provision they secured in the contract. Of course that never happened, 2006 came and went, along with 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011 and in all that time Little and Videtich did their best to sell AA's sob story as AA eliminated over $10 billion in debt and built up over $5 billion in cash (and cut over 35% of the mechanics jobs while increasing insourced work).  Then AA pulled off the biggest fraud ever perpetrated in this industry, bigger than than air mail fraud scam where they ripped off the USPS and filed for BK  despite the fact that they were poised to make billions anyway. Their target was labor, and everyone else walked away from AA at 100%. Even the owners of folder aircraft who were still collecting leases on aircraft AA hadn't used in at least a decade, even airport authorities who were still collecting rents on facilities long abandoned. And the group that took the worst hit were the mechanics. Most of the other groups were well above their peers in the other legacy carriers. This is one example where being in a union with other work groups was devastatingly detrimental to aircraft mechanics. Most of our coworkers at AA went into BK situated well above the other legacy carriers and came out more in line with them. Mechanics went in at the bottom and came out 20% lower still. bankruptcy law says that in order to void labor agreements the company has to make an argument showing that the terms are "onerous" and the Union is unwilling to address those onerous terms. In other words that AA is subjected to contractual language and pay rats inconsistent with the industry. AA went in with below even the narrow legacy industry in everything except outsourcing language. Even then the argument could have been made that with the influx of new aircraft that language would be redundant if AA outsourced the work from the get go. Our contract in its entirety was nowhere near onerous, yes it kept more work in house, but most of that work was accomplished by much lower paid mechanics and all AA's mechanics were working for much less than their peers. In other words we were subsidizing the company for insourcing. Because we are in the same union as other workers who were doing much better comparatively our union refused to aggressively pursue this argument. Sure, Sharon Levine made cursory statements lacking detail but they didn't aggressively pursue the argument like the Union representing the Pilots at Pinnicle airlines did. Clearly the people running the TWU had something against mechanics and were intent on making this as painful as possible for us. As a result not only did the mechanics end up worse off than other mechanics across the industry, we ended up worse off than other TWU members. We have less vacation than other TWU members and lose half a days pay (in violation of NYC Law) for the first two days they do call in sick. So not only do we have the least amount of Vacation and sick time (this allows them to get more hours of work free of cost compared to competitors) of any mechanics across the industry we also get less Vacation and sick time than other TWU members. 
 
 
Well back to the issue, had the IAM secured a good contract I would have been ok with the TWU saying "We are dumping all the mechanics in the IAM and the TWU is taking all of Fleet" . I still would want it to go to a vote but I would have been Okay with going to the IAM at that point. Under no circumstances can I support being split up between two unions, even if one of them had secured an industry leading contract.  I had a lot of respect for the IAM, the way they held the line against TWU concessions through the 80's and 90's. I lost a little respect for the IAM when they walked way from their TWA members, giving up contract language so they would not have to fight for lease and pension payments owed to them. I lost a little more when I saw what they cooked up with Little with this totally undemocratic and divisive Alliance, and I lost what respect remained when I saw the concessionary deal they brought back from a carrier that was now part of the biggest airline in the world earning billions in profits. 
 
As bad as the TWU has been for us I'd rather take my chances with it than with this Alliance which is basically the IAM running everything while our Dues go to the TWU. And because they go to the TWU we have no say or input on what the IAM/Alliance decides to do-we see this already with the Seniority Integration and the Pension. At least with the TWU we have some Local Autonomy, or at least the expectation of it,  and have the right to inform our members when we feel the International isn't doing right by us- under the IAM they would have removed me again years ago (Under the Alliance they can easily dissolve us and put us into the IAM to shut us up. Its pretty much common knowledge that the IAM doesn't tolerate dissent.) If I look only at what the TWU has done at AA there is nothing to defend, but when I see the TWU outside of AA I see a different Union. SWA has Flight Attendants and Ramp workers that do very well. They are in the same Union but they are in different, independent but allied Locals. The ramp guys choose their representatives and the Flight Attendants choose theirs. Neither gets to sit in and vote in each others negotiations and each class and craft is in one Local. Such a model would be much better than the broken model we have at AA, and the Alliance would make that broken model even more fractured. If we end up in the Alliance then there is little point in continuing to try and change the TWU into an effective bargaining representative for us because the very structure of the Alliance was deliberately designed to prevent that. 
 
 
This Alliance is basically "Union Pergatury'. We will have a contract but we won't have a democratically elected Union that governs it in our behalf. We have all the constraints and expense of a Union without having a Union. Instead we are adjuncts governed by two people who even if every single member at AA called for their removal can not removed. We are to be governed by bylaws that we never had any input into, not even our elected representatives had any input into and there is no mechanism for the membership to change the Alliance, we become serfs of the two International Presidents. . 

 

[MetalMover]

I think I'd rather focus on making sure the Alliance never happens.
 
 

Great post but this line is enough for me!

 

[700UW]

Is there a link or anything to back this up? 

Google it and find out, it was 20 years ago

 

[Bob Owens]

PS, In court AA testified indirectly that they needed to cut costs by $2 billion so they could earn $3 billion in profits. So in other words AA went into BK expecting to be earning a Billion a year in profits, healthy by any standard for this industry, but said they needed to earn higher profits to attract capital investment, despite the fact that after a decade of losses they had no problem securing financing for the largest order of new aircraft ever. The whole thing was a huge farce, makes me very disappointed in the American system of law. Its not a court system, its a market system.

 

[Bob Owens]

Here's a link to the IAMPNF. Time to start reading and learning.
 
http://mypension.iamnpf.org/national-pension-plan.aspx
 
http://mypension.iamnpf.org/media/13829/IAM_SPD_11.pdf

Thanks for the link. 
 
 

• 
  

  Years of vesting service, including predecessor plan service with a prior qualified plan, will count in determining eligibility for unreduced pensions from the Plan. 
   

   
  

 

Currently, benefits totaling more than $445,000,000 are being paid each year to over 80,000 retirees and beneficiaries.  
 

So that comes out to a whopping $5562 per year per retiree and beneficiary. Not much if you ask me. 
 

[SIZE=13pt]Amount of Your Early Retirement Pension [/SIZE]
[SIZE=10pt]The amount of your early retirement benefit is determined by first calculating your normal pension as described on pages 12 and 13. This amount is then reduced by 4/10 of 1% (.004) for each month (4.8% for each year) that you are younger than age 65 on the effective date of your pension. [/SIZE]




 
 

 




So under our AA plan we lose 15% if we retire at 55, and we can work as a mechanic at another carrier, but under the IAMNPF we would lose 48% and we can not work. This plan makes you a captive of AA. We see our peers quitting and going to better carriers and they get to collect their pensions while they climb up the scales, having that income gives us options, the IAMNPF takes those options away. It makes it easier for the company to abuse you, see how well its worked at US where the average mechanic is roughly 58 years old? Those old guys aren't going anywhere, they can't. The IAMNPF makes employment at the same place a life sentence.  Why would any Union do such a thing?
 
AA management would love nothing better than to dump us into the IAMNPF. We can not let that happen. First step is stopping the Alliance. 

 

[TWU informer]

Thanks for the link. 
 
 

• 
   
  

 




So that comes out to a whopping $5562 per year per retiree and beneficiary. Not much if you ask me. 
 
 




So under our AA plan we lose 15% if we retire at 55, and we can work as a mechanic at another carrier, but under the IAMNPF we would lose 48% and we can not work. This plan makes you a captive of AA. We see our peers quitting and going to better carriers and they get to collect their pensions while they climb up the scales, having that income gives us options, the IAMNPF takes those options away. It makes it easier for the company to abuse you, see how well its worked at US where the average mechanic is roughly 58 years old? Those old guys aren't going anywhere, they can't. The IAMNPF makes employment at the same place a life sentence.  Why would any Union do such a thing?
 
AA management would love nothing better than to dump us into the IAMNPF. We can not let that happen. First step is stopping the Alliance. 

 
I agree with you Bob.
 
But since our leaders in our representation have all the Union Constitutional power, and also uses our paychecks to buy influence in politics that without question is effective at the NMB level, how exactly do you suggest we stop the Alliance?

 

[Bob Owens]

 
I agree with you Bob.
 
But since our leaders in our representation have all the Union Constitutional power, and also uses our paychecks to buy influence in politics that without question is effective at the NMB level, how exactly do you suggest we stop the Alliance?

Well the first step would be to write a letter as a member to the NMB if you didn't sign the petitions. (We received several hundred from Tulsa that we forwarded to the NMB.) At the very least that takes away any claim by the NMB that the membership is ok with this going forward without a vote. 

 

[WeAAsles]

 
 
You keep missing that by going into the IAMPF where we can't retire without penalty till 65, instead of 60 that millions of dollars worth of that shortfall would simply disappear. Adding five more working years greatly reduces the amount required to fund the pension. They will use these saving to fund changes to our agreement to the point where they can claim its industry leading while at the same time allowing AA to tell its share holders they just got another zero cost contract from their ground workers.  

No you're missing the point by perpetuating a doomsday scenario that we will all be FORCED into the IAMPF. Yes the IAM went after the Co CARP members twice and were told NO. But from what I understand was that they wanted those members to FREEZE the CARP and enter the IAMPF. And I'm not trying to hit you but do you have any letters of proof that they wanted the CARP fund rolled into the IAMPF to verify if I am wrong about this?
 
 
 
Look at the contracts we work under, the worst in the industry. Who would believe that anyone would vote for a deal like this at a company thats pulling in billions in profits? Most of the people I represent were well informed and voted against these bad deals yet somebody voted yes and here we are at the very bottom of the industry working for less than half in real terms than we were 15 years ago. You may call them stupid, I call them uninformed and misled.


I did not call the members stupid. I asked if YOU think they are stupid in regards to this conversation about our currently frozen Pensions being rolled into the IAMPF? We're under a very different scenario today moving forward then we have been for the last dozen years or so.
 
How long have you been in this industry? Have you ever been told all the details of the concessions you are giving or just enough in the Highlites to say "We told you"? "We told you our intent was to put everyone in the IAMNPF and have you fully vested from day one", but they aren't going to voluntarily tell you that it saves AA millions of dollars and that you lose the ability to retire at 60 and can't work another job, , that your pension would no longer be guaranteed under the PBGC to the amount earned up to the freeze date, that your pension can be reduced under the multi employer plan and in a worst case scenario where the plan runs out of money the most you are guaranteed is $13000 a year. 

Even though you are painting a picture of the interpretation of the language to be that the intent is to put (Dump) us all into the IAMPF that's not the way it reads. It states that our negotiators will "propose" the company to include us in the plan. Nothing about rolling our current pension into it. The agreement mentions that our pension was frozen and nothing more.  After that proposal if unsuccessful the TWU will "support" continued participation for those already in the plan. There's no doom and gloom in any of this when it comes to us.

The other thing you're leaving out of the equation is our structure. Do you really believe that your President if this was brought back to the membership would support passage? Of course not. I don't hear from one solitary individual on the TWU side that would take the ball and run with something that most of them would also have to live with as well. Presidents and even those in the International do have a way of being thrown back among the rank and file as we've seen. You speak to a lot of local Presidents I'm sure. Can you give me even one that would go along with this idea no matter how much money we might be offered?

And no again I do not support exchanging my 401k match for participation in the IAMPF either. But I am fine with a one time choice being offered "individually"  if that comes down the pipe. And yes I have read about the dangers of a multiemployer plan if it ever went to the PBGC and that's why at my age I don't think I'm interested in it.

I do advise others to do what I did and contact the PBGC and ask them questions about the IAMPF. They did call me back and the lawyer was very helpful at answering questions.

 

[WeAAsles]

 




So under our AA plan we lose 15% if we retire at 55, and we can work as a mechanic at another carrier, but under the IAMNPF we would lose 48% and we can not work. This plan makes you a captive of AA. We see our peers quitting and going to better carriers and they get to collect their pensions while they climb up the scales, having that income gives us options, the IAMNPF takes those options away. It makes it easier for the company to abuse you, see how well its worked at US where the average mechanic is roughly 58 years old? Those old guys aren't going anywhere, they can't. The IAMNPF makes employment at the same place a life sentence.  Why would any Union do such a thing?

Agreed. That caveat of having to ask if I can leave my current place of employment and where I can work is shameful and another reason why especially if I was in a skilled trade I would not have interest in being a part of the plan. Is this same stipulation in any other Union sponsored multi-employer plans?

Another reason again why I feel that our negotiators for TWU will have little interest in any conversation that puts our currently frozen pension into this plan.
 
 
AA management would love nothing better than to dump us into the IAMNPF. We can not let that happen. First step is stopping the Alliance. 

 

[swamt]

Well the first step would be to write a letter as a member to the NMB if you didn't sign the petitions. (We received several hundred from Tulsa that we forwarded to the NMB.) At the very least that takes away any claim by the NMB that the membership is ok with this going forward without a vote. 

I posted long ago for all members to do this.  Most are just lazy and don't want to get involved, but it would be very helpful if everybody would get involved and write the NMB, it's still not too late, but act now by E-mail.  If the majority was to send letters to NMB they would see that this alliance is being forced upon the membership without any say what-so-ever.  At least they would see that there never was a vote by the membership to even entertain or for this alliance to be formed, then they will more than likely have to call for the election of this alliance by the membership.  This is what the TWU and IAM does not want to happen, hence why they are fighting hard to get the NMB's blessing w/o a vote. I am 90% sure the NMB will call for an election, but I have seen so many underhanded crap pulled by the TWU/IAM in the past that I would not be completely shocked if this alliance has teamed together (behind closed doors meetings with the NMB), which they have had, and have come up with a way to get this thing to flow thru without a vote.  People if you really want to stop this alliance then get involved and get active and write the NMB and tell them how you actually feel about this alliance moving forward...

 

[Bob Owens]

Even though you are painting a picture of the interpretation of the language to be that the intent is to put (Dump) us all into the IAMPF that's not the way it reads. It states that our negotiators will "propose" the company to include us in the plan. Nothing about rolling our current pension into it. The agreement mentions that our pension was frozen and nothing more.  After that proposal if unsuccessful the TWU will "support" continued participation for those already in the plan. There's no doom and gloom in any of this when it comes to us.

The other thing you're leaving out of the equation is our structure. Do you really believe that your President if this was brought back to the membership would support passage? Of course not. I don't hear from one solitary individual on the TWU side that would take the ball and run with something that most of them would also have to live with as well. Presidents and even those in the International do have a way of being thrown back among the rank and file as we've seen. You speak to a lot of local Presidents I'm sure. Can you give me even one that would go along with this idea no matter how much money we might be offered?

And no again I do not support exchanging my 401k match for participation in the IAMPF either. But I am fine with a one time choice being offered "individually"  if that comes down the pipe. And yes I have read about the dangers of a multiemployer plan if it ever went to the PBGC and that's why at my age I don't think I'm interested in it.

I do advise others to do what I did and contact the PBGC and ask them questions about the IAMPF. They did call me back and the lawyer was very helpful at answering questions.

After three decades in this game I've learned to prepare myself for what the language is saying, and what its not. How many people said I was nuts when I said don't hold your breath for the matching funds for pre funding, that we needed to remove the words "upon successful resolution of the 1114 process", that was 2012, 63 days from 2015 and still no funds.
 
Does the language say that the intent is to leave our current pension with AA and have us start in the IAM plan at day one? No it does not say that. They did say that they were going to bring back an industry leading contract though, well, where, under these non-section 6 negotiations with contracts in place till 2018, do you think that money is going to come from? Synergies that the company is going to share with us? No Parker already promised that to the shareholders. Then I look at the dollars that are involved and how the penalty under the IAM for early retirement is 4.8% per year prior to 65 vs 3% prior to 60 (IAMNPF is more than triple the AA penalty, and you can't work) and realize that by rolling our pension into the IAMNPF AA gets to do what they couldn't do in BK and eliminate millions of dollars in pension liability. Then I look at how the company also gets a fixed contribution rate of $4160 a year and saves an additional $1200 per mechanic per year by dumping us in the IAMNPF and to date I have not heard one word from the IAM , who is clearly running everything however they choose to, and will do so for the first two critical years to dispel anything I've said, not even from 700.
 
If I were AA management I would jump at the opportunity to dump us into the IAMNPF in a heartbeat. There is zero downside. They get to eliminate millions in debt, even if they have to throw in a few million now, they get a fixed cost of $4160 per mechanic, so roughly than 4% of mechanics total compensation will be pension related vs roughly 5.5%  (half the rate Flight Attendants get and less than one third the rate the pilots get) and it creates a captive workforce that they can abuse the shyte out of. Pay them crap, treat them like crap and every year or so raffle off a free Mustang and make videos showing everyone how happy the old workers are to be there, just don't expect them to stand up too quickly and add a walker to their list of tools because with the IAMNPF you ain't going anywhere. .
 
Hey. I'd love to be wrong on this, lets just see a letter that says that our AA pension is not to be put on the table and have the two Presidents sign it. 
 
 
BTW, the negotiators will be even in number, the same from AA and the same from the IAM, even though we have double the amount of people, guess who the tie breaker is then? 
 
 
Another thing, there are what seven Fleet service Locals right?
Well only three get to go. So maybe your Local will have someone there, maybe they won't, who decides? The International, not you, not even the Presidents council-welcome to the Alliance

 

[Bob Owens]

Another thing, where are you coming up with this one time choice?  Where does it say anything like that? Why would AA agree to that? What has this management team agreed to yet that improves anything for us? Its going to be all or nothing, and they are going to use the savings to pay for the improvements elsewhere. If not where do you think they are going to get the money to pay for what they promised? Remember these are not Section six negotiations, they now have concessionary deals in place for both the IAM and TWU till 2018 and with the IAM deal we can work their stuff, so they already got half the synergies for free already from the IAM (they offered "job Security" for allowing us to do their work-dumb, really dumb, another mark against the IAM so in other words AA got it for free, workers will die off faster than they become redundant).  What makes you sure they aren't trying to work out a deal to get the same from the TWU through an LOA?  

 

[WeAAsles]

Who says there needs to be a fight? As long as the older guys at PMUS get to keep their IAMNPF they have nothing to be sore about, no collateral damage unless the IAM wants to be spiteful.  If the IAM was going to allow TWU members under the Alliance to go into the IAMPF then why not allow those who are in it to stay in it? Like the credit union-once a member, always a member. Many of the younger guys from PMUS will be glad to see the IAM go and opt out of a pension plan that handcuffs them to both the IAM and US-now AA. You make it sound like all those guys are devoted to the IAM but not long ago over 50% of the mechanics signed IBT cards, yes the vote failed but you can't claim that all those guys would be bitter about going into the TWU where they would be paying less in dues than they do now? Some may be, but in five years most of them will be gone. 
 
I don't think there will be a fight because I don't think the IAM will be able to get enough cards from AA guys to get on the ballot. They can thank their latest agreement for that. No profit sharing, not even asking for what Delta gets, a concessionary deal with a company making billions, pathetic.  

Bob you never answered this question?

You're a student of Labor and you know that their influence has been getting weaker for too many years now. If not forming and supporting alliances Bob then what's your solution to stop the hemorrhaging? Do you have a better idea?

Now as for the rest I'm not going to speculate what's going to come of this current situation between our two unions or what the decision of the NMB will wind up being? No point in any of us speculating without a crystal ball. But your thought of why shouldn't the IAM continue to accept the mechanics contributions to the fund if there was a representational battle, card drive, whatever is kind of silly. Why would the IAM make their own effort to either gain or keep members even more difficult by agreeing to this idea? 

From what I understand there is no language as to what happens to those contributions if the IAM was displaced as the representational agent. Could the company just keep those contributions? I doubt it ultimately and that would be up to the new agents to engage the company about? But the question still is why would the IAM make their own representational effort more difficult?

Fleet isn't an issue because they have language as to where that money will go. I believe it would go into a 401k but I haven't looked that up. Heard it from multiple people though.

 

[swamt]

Page 32 of the links provided above says it all guys.  Why would you restrict anyone wanting to go back to work after retirement.  Hell you will lose all your pension benefit if you start your own business.  I will try to transfer below;
 
If you return to work after you have retired and while you are receiving a pension from the National 
Pension Plan, your pension may be suspended, depending upon your age and the type of work 
you are doing.
 

If you have reached normal retirement age, your pension 
benefits will be suspended for any month in which:
■■ You work 40 or more hours in any industry and 
geographical area which was covered by the Plan 
when you retired, and
■■ Your employment is in any trade or craft in which 
you worked at any time under the Plan after your 
contribution date, which is generally the date on which 
a contributing employer first became obligated to 
make contributions to the Plan (or a prior plan) on 
your behalf.
 

If you have not reached normal retirement age, you cannot 
receive pension benefits and work for a contributing 
employer or for any other employer "including self employment" in the same or related business or industry 
from which you retired, regardless of the number of hours 
worked or the geographical area in which you worked. 
Further, you may not work in any employment that would 
be disqualifying employment at normal retirement age.
Your pension benefits will not be suspended after you 
have reached the date at which benefits must be paid 
automatically generally, the later of the April 1st 
following the year during which you retire or the April 1st 
following the year during which you reach age 70½. 
 

If you are thinking about accepting any employment 
after you retire, please contact the Fund office to get 
a ruling on that employment. 
You can also download a “Ruling on Employment” form 
from the Plan’s website at www.iamnpf.org. You are 
required to report all employment to the Fund office within 
30 days of the start of such employment.

The Trustees may require you to periodically provide 
information about your employment status.
Disability pensioners are required to report any employment 
to the Fund office within 15 days of returning to work. 
Failure to make a timely report of employment may result 
in disqualification of benefits for six months.
If the Trustees find, from any source, that you have 
worked in employment as just described and you have not 
notified the Fund, the Trustees will presume that you are 
working 40 hours a month in disqualifying employment 
and will suspend your pension for that month and each 
subsequent month until you give written notice that you 
are no longer working or establish that the employment 
is not disqualifying employment.
 
 
***The self employment restriction is just pathetic.  My father has a pension and he has no restrictions what-so-ever to obtain work again after retirement (except for the ages) and he now owns his own business and still receives his full monthly pension.  Hell he even went back to work 3 months after retirement, same job, but not as an employee, but as a contractor, to consult and direct and performing the exact same services.    The other restrictions upon this pension system is that the pensions could be stopped if you guys voted out the IAM.  When you have a restriction to your retirement funds if you change unions is just plain stupid and scare tactics to keep the union from being voted out, and if any union has to have that clause as a keeper clause for the union to stay protected from being fired is just as pathetic as the employment and self employment restrictions if not worse.  
 
You guys need to put your money in a 401K system that pays a decent % with dollar for dollar match.  

 

[Bob Owens]

Bob you never answered this question?

You're a student of Labor and you know that their influence has been getting weaker for too many years now. If not forming and supporting alliances Bob then what's your solution to stop the hemorrhaging? Do you have a better idea?

 

Actually I had it all in a letter to Sweeney 15 years ago. F*&& this Alliance BS, Consolidate, either through mutual agreement or hostile takeover.  The Alliance fractures us, it keeps us structurally divided, its BS and it does nothing for the membership. Show me one clause in the Alliance agreement that is geared towards improving accountability of the organization to the members it serves. That document treats the entire combined membership like cattle.
 
 
Consolidation-into one, not split between two,  makes us stronger. 
 
Alliances for external purposes such as political action etc is fine, but structurally dividing a singular class and craft under one contract at one employer between two Unions is a no-go. 
 
Labor isn't getting weaker because they are losing members, (membership numbers wise has been pretty steady, but as a percentage of the growing workforce it has lagged. Workers don't see a value in it. Unions are getting weaker because they are ineffective at getting better contracts. Look at us, non-union mechanics do better than AA mechanics, we had guys quit and go to Non-union Jet Blue,  thats a disgrace.