TWU and IAM representation alliance vote

[TRAVIS]

I will bet that the letters NYer posted never get posted in pit in the hanger, The IAM will do everything they can to hide it from the members and all you will here is all's well.
Not that I'm a fan of the TWU but if I were them I'd drop the hammer on the IAM and tell them to pack sand and show them the door/curb/boot.
 
The way Bob and MetalMover talk about voting and who is on the Negotiations team send shivers up my back. (As I think, Here we go again just another union and there way to screw my profession up.)

 

[MetalMover]

Like the Good Ol Days!
Maybe they'll negotiate a cut in license pay for us!

OOOhhhhhh...A down rep! Did I say something wrong? Anyone who was here BEFORE maintenance separated and got our own locals, we were dominated by fleet service and you all know how that turned out for the mechanics!
 
To the down REPer.....Unless you are a mechanic, I guess you like the idea of fleet service dominating M&R negotiations?

 

[OldGuy@AA]

I got you MetalMover.  I remember the bad old days too.  Remember the $500 lump sum payment instead of a % raise?  Fleet didn't want us to get more than they did so they made sure both groups got less.  And Local 514 leadership fought us tooth and nail when we tried to separate from Fleet.  Now, because we did, the TWU International punishes us with the lousiest pay and worst benefits.  Of course We took the biggest cuts too.  Can't have equal givebacks now can we?

 

[MetalMover]

I got you MetalMover.  I remember the bad old days too.  Remember the $500 lump sum payment instead of a % raise?  Fleet didn't want us to get more than they did so they made sure both groups got less.  And Local 514 leadership fought us tooth and nail when we tried to separate from Fleet.  Now, because we did, the TWU International punishes us with the lousiest pay and worst benefits.  Of course We took the biggest cuts too.  Can't have equal givebacks now can we?

I also remember the TWU was the first to give away what was mechanic's work and gave push backs and deicing to ramp. The they spearheaded the OSM program and took more work away. Then they got fancy with the SRP program
One would think that if you're gonna give the most concessions in the industry, we would be at top in terms of pay and benefits.
I can't understand ANY mechanic supporting the TWU.

 

[Bob Owens]

 
 
 Did we agree to give up profit sharing for six years for a two year 4% advance of the mid term wage adjustment? No but did it happen? Yes. 

You thought we should have said no and others who were in the position to go for it said yes. Who knew at that moment that others in the industry were finally going to start seeing their wages rise? None of us had or have that crystal ball.

There was no time given to vote on it and those in elected positions by their members made the choice as they needed to at that moment.
 
 

Why was there no time? Sure there was time but Jim Little decided on his own and he announced what he decided over a conference call to the Presidents.  Nor was a Crystal Ball needed to know how profitable the company was expected to be, the Company informed Little that they expected to be showing nearly $3 billion a year in profits without the merger and the merger was expected to show $2 billion in synergies. This information was shared with the International and the lawyers but not the Negotiating committee. It was well known that AA would be immensely profitable when Little decided to cut out profit sharing. I know this because when the redacted documents were released it wasn't hard to remove the redacts and see what was written underneath and it clearly spelled out $2.8 billion. Prior to seeing that the company's lawyers let out how profitable they expected to be early on in the case when they told the Judge that workers would be getting back everything they gave up through profit sharing. Having the profit sharing formula and the ask it wasn't hard to do the math and show they expected to be making nearly $3billion a year in profits, I put that out all over the Internet, shortly after that the company requested that the Unions lawyers tell me to leave the courtroom, they even went to the Judge. 
 

 

No they can't. We all have contracts. And we have to vote to change that. And unless they agree or already have agreed to some type of Arbitration like the APA and APFA have there's nothing the leaders or the company can do to change that.
 

You are naive, been there, even brought it to court, they can change whatever they want, legally your recourse is you can vote out the Union.  We just discussed an example where they did just that, profit sharing was part of our contract, now its not. 
 
 


 

I'm just kind of sick of Unions fighting Unions. Seems to me that's all we ever do?
 

Have we been fighting the IAM at AA since TWA? NO, but if we have two unions with vastly different cultures sharing the same contract there will be perpetual conflict, get it over and done with one coming out the other end. One contract, one employer, One Union. Pretty simple, why complicate things? 
 

 

 

[Bob Owens]

Is that under Obamacare?

No, thats where he is being forced to go. $24000 is what AA demanded from him for coverage. He obviously isn't going to pay it, that would consume his entire pension. Sounds just like one of the nightmare stories I read about in Ellen Shultz's book "Retirement Heist". 

 

[Bob Owens]

 
 
You asked, you don't like my answer.

No I actually LOVE your answer. Good luck trying to get everyone to give up all those leather chairs out there though. Are you willing to throw your chair on the bonfire for the cause?
 
 
 

My "leather chair" was already burned and yes I'm Ok with that. The fact is that no matter how hard I tried 562 could not make enough of a difference. Despite all my efforts my peers are no better off financially than they were before, they may be better informed but that doesn't help them pay their bills. Even when all five line Locals Presidents were more or less on the same page, (ORD was a little weak, refused to take a position or take part in the Video), it still wasn't enough. So what we had wasn't working, things were not getting better so yes the leather chairs have to be sacrificed for the good of everyone else. If they aren't willing to do that then they don't belong there. Immediate Self interest has to be put aside in a Union to advance things that will benefit all of us. By doing so, acting for collective advancement your own self interests are better served-if we had SWA wages at AA I would be earning more in 40 than I earn being Treasurer, which has been consuming a lot, lot, more than 40, so my self interests are better served by having an effective structure that gets us good contracts than by having a position in an ineffective one.   My wage as a mechanic on the floor, which is my chosen career, would be higher than what I'm making as Treasurer, so its in my best interests to do whatever it takes to get a better structure.
 
Immediate self interests is part of the problem we have still, Fleet Locals are not willing to let their Title II guys decide where they want to be, its not for me to say but I do think they should be with us because they are in our contract. Either way the question should be put before them, either all go with Fleet, and get their own contract, go with their own Local , and get their own contract, or all come with us and stay in our contract. The Fleet Presidents aren't keeping these guys out of concern for the Title II guys, and they aren't looking to put them in their contract either, they are keeping them to preserve their finances(so they won't have to restructure and can keep their leather chairs) , to buttress up their silos, to weaken M&R and to have seats in our negotiations even though we don't have a seat in theirs.  The International isn't pushing it from my best guess for several reasons, 
1-everyone at the International is from Fleet, so they probably feel its in their best interests to keep us as weak as possible
2-because of 1 those in the International not from AA only hear the fleet or Tulsa side of the story, and the last thing Fleet, or Tulsa wants is to see Local 591 become 500 members bigger than 514 because they feel that 591 is an AMFA Local, oddly enough, even the Stores guys are branded as AMFA. 
3-by keeping Title II Fleet gets to have votes at the table in M&R negotiations.  
4-and finally, the Lombardo team pledged at the Convention they would not interfere in Local Union structures. Sad, but it means that Fleet will never get fixed either. 

 

[Bob Owens]

 



You look at industry leading as base wages not jobs. You can keep trying to sell it but to get those SWA wages would mean less jobs. Fight for that COLA or GEO pay in the next negotiations. You supposedly have the numbers now.

Hmm, Fleet gave up jobs in BK to keep industry leading pay but you say we should be willing to work for bottom of the industry to maintain headcount. 
 
You keep saying that we have no choice but to accept the company's terms of either this or that. Well if thats the case you really don't need a Union, a Union can say neither of those options is acceptable and we need this,,,,. SWA never gave up jobs for pay increases, we gave up jobs and pay while SWA and UPS have both added jobs and neither ever laid off any mechanics. Sure they never had many, they had even less when they earned less or around the same as we did. Once again, you have consumed the company's (and Don Videtich's) cool aide and accepted their propaganda as fact. Are you aware that a rather large number of our base workers earn wages that are below MROs? That the facilities in Tulsa are subsidized by the City of Tulsa? Even some of the payroll is subsidized by Tulsa? That if properly managed Tulsa puts out better quality at faster times due to their superior expertise than MRO's do? Tulsa has long time experienced workers, MROs tend to have high turnover rates and substandard quality. Tulsa's superior quality allowed AA to run one of the oldest fleets in the industry with excellent reliability. I believe their reliability was better with the old fleet than it is now with the newer fleet and increased outsourcing. 

 

[MetalMover]

No, thats where he is being forced to go. $24000 is what AA demanded from him for coverage. He obviously isn't going to pay it, that would consume his entire pension. Sounds just like one of the nightmare stories I read about in Ellen Shultz's book "Retirement Heist". 

Gotcha!

 

[TWU informer]

WARNING:
If you spend too much time reading these forums, you will develop a very negative attitude.
 
THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS GRAVITY!
THE WHOLE WORLD SUCKS!
THAT IS WHAT HOLDS US ON THE PLANET SURFACE!

 

[bigjets]

What's really sad is that neither the IAM or TWU feel they can win an election with their own memberships.

 

[WeAAsles]

Why was there no time? Sure there was time but Jim Little decided on his own and he announced what he decided over a conference call to the Presidents.  Nor was a Crystal Ball needed to know how profitable the company was expected to be, the Company informed Little that they expected to be showing nearly $3 billion a year in profits without the merger and the merger was expected to show $2 billion in synergies. This information was shared with the International and the lawyers but not the Negotiating committee. It was well known that AA would be immensely profitable when Little decided to cut out profit sharing. I know this because when the redacted documents were released it wasn't hard to remove the redacts and see what was written underneath and it clearly spelled out $2.8 billion. Prior to seeing that the company's lawyers let out how profitable they expected to be early on in the case when they told the Judge that workers would be getting back everything they gave up through profit sharing. Having the profit sharing formula and the ask it wasn't hard to do the math and show they expected to be making nearly $3billion a year in profits, I put that out all over the Internet, shortly after that the company requested that the Unions lawyers tell me to leave the courtroom, they even went to the Judge. 

So you prefer playing VEGAS with our pay over direct and tangible wage increases that are set in stone then? Ok you and I both agree that the company is going to be profitable for many years to come more than likely. We're on the same page except on how to capitalize on that profit. Take part of that wage increase you received and invest it in AAL stock. I started that run with LCC at $18.50 per share and have slowly added in more when and since it converted over to AAL. It's hit $41.55 so far today so you tell me how I'm doing?

Parker has been very clear that he doesn't want to give Profit Sharing and will incorporate those metrics directly into the contracts. 50 Mil was incorporated into the APFA contract. Maybe it should be more and maybe it should be less depending on the crystal ball? Take that extra capital and invest it wisely and you may be able to beat what the expected year end PS payout might have been? 

You've also pointed out that we're not in Section 6. So do you want to hold up the progress by making a demand for something that is not wanted to be given the way you want it?
 

 
You are naive, been there, even brought it to court, they can change whatever they want, legally your recourse is you can vote out the Union.  We just discussed an example where they did just that, profit sharing was part of our contract, now its not. 

Ok I know that you believe that Jim Little and Co. were in bed with the company. Do you believe the same thing about Harry Lombardo? Seems to me from what's going on with those letters to the IAM and other issues in NYC that the man is willing to play hard ball? 

 

Have we been fighting the IAM at AA since TWA? NO, but if we have two unions with vastly different cultures sharing the same contract there will be perpetual conflict, get it over and done with one coming out the other end. One contract, one employer, One Union. Pretty simple, why complicate things?

Right now for your dream to happen Bob it looks to me like both parties need to back out of the agreement. I don't think the IAM is willing to do that just because you're on here asking them to? Without a legal loophole (NMB) deciding against it, it looks like we're diving in even if the water is cold right now.
 

 

 

[WeAAsles]

My "leather chair" was already burned and yes I'm Ok with that. The fact is that no matter how hard I tried 562 could not make enough of a difference. Despite all my efforts my peers are no better off financially than they were before, they may be better informed but that doesn't help them pay their bills. Even when all five line Locals Presidents were more or less on the same page, (ORD was a little weak, refused to take a position or take part in the Video), it still wasn't enough. So what we had wasn't working, things were not getting better so yes the leather chairs have to be sacrificed for the good of everyone else. If they aren't willing to do that then they don't belong there. Immediate Self interest has to be put aside in a Union to advance things that will benefit all of us. By doing so, acting for collective advancement your own self interests are better served-if we had SWA wages at AA I would be earning more in 40 than I earn being Treasurer, which has been consuming a lot, lot, more than 40, so my self interests are better served by having an effective structure that gets us good contracts than by having a position in an ineffective one.   My wage as a mechanic on the floor, which is my chosen career, would be higher than what I'm making as Treasurer, so its in my best interests to do whatever it takes to get a better structure.

I'll make this one simple. You should have went to work for UPS instead of getting involved in the Airline Industry after it was deregulated. You filled out the wrong application.

http://finance.yahoo.com/q/ks?s=UPS+Key+Statistics
 
 
Immediate self interests is part of the problem we have still, Fleet Locals are not willing to let their Title II guys decide where they want to be, its not for me to say but I do think they should be with us because they are in our contract. Either way the question should be put before them, either all go with Fleet, and get their own contract, go with their own Local , and get their own contract, or all come with us and stay in our contract. The Fleet Presidents aren't keeping these guys out of concern for the Title II guys, and they aren't looking to put them in their contract either, they are keeping them to preserve their finances(so they won't have to restructure and can keep their leather chairs) , to buttress up their silos, to weaken M&R and to have seats in our negotiations even though we don't have a seat in theirs.  The International isn't pushing it from my best guess for several reasons, 
1-everyone at the International is from Fleet, so they probably feel its in their best interests to keep us as weak as possible

Yes there should be a maintenance rep in there. Absolutely. Who would you pick? The guy who has a lawsuit going against the union, lol. You? You got any team players in your group or just a bunch of mavericks? But again yes there should be a mechanic in there.
 
2-because of 1 those in the International not from AA only hear the fleet or Tulsa side of the story, and the last thing Fleet, or Tulsa wants is to see Local 591 become 500 members bigger than 514 because they feel that 591 is an AMFA Local, oddly enough, even the Stores guys are branded as AMFA.

They listen to your wants and needs and get you a decent contract and the AMFA noise will die down (Not wanting to get into an AMFA discussion)
 
3-by keeping Title II Fleet gets to have votes at the table in M&R negotiations.

I think most in Title II trust Fleet more to look out for their interests than M&R IMO. They probably wouldn't tell you but that's what I've heard from many of them. Sorry.

 
4-and finally, the Lombardo team pledged at the Convention they would not interfere in Local Union structures. Sad, but it means that Fleet will never get fixed either.

We'll see?

So I guess you didn't want to touch this huh?

So what if that one Local you're talking about has it's home base in TUL or DFW. You cool with that? Actually that one Local should be in DFW since that's where HQ is. Much easier for those leaders to have a one on one with the company if they don't have to fly in. Also would save the members some money. 

You cool with this?

Also by the way your whole idea sounds very familiar. Oh wait, it sounds like the IAM. I personally would rather see 4 Regional locals all with the same equality and everyone else can be a Sub Command outpost tied to their region. One Local can be very easily enticed to be corruptible.
 

 

[TRAVIS]

 

Why was there no time? Sure there was time but Jim Little decided on his own and he announced what he decided over a conference call to the Presidents.  Nor was a Crystal Ball needed to know how profitable the company was expected to be, the Company informed Little that they expected to be showing nearly $3 billion a year in profits without the merger and the merger was expected to show $2 billion in synergies. This information was shared with the International and the lawyers but not the Negotiating committee. It was well known that AA would be immensely profitable when Little decided to cut out profit sharing. I know this because when the redacted documents were released it wasn't hard to remove the redacts and see what was written underneath and it clearly spelled out $2.8 billion. Prior to seeing that the company's lawyers let out how profitable they expected to be early on in the case when they told the Judge that workers would be getting back everything they gave up through profit sharing. Having the profit sharing formula and the ask it wasn't hard to do the math and show they expected to be making nearly $3billion a year in profits, I put that out all over the Internet, shortly after that the company requested that the Unions lawyers tell me to leave the courtroom, they even went to the Judge. 

So you prefer playing VEGAS with our pay over direct and tangible wage increases that are set in stone then? Ok you and I both agree that the company is going to be profitable for many years to come more than likely. We're on the same page except on how to capitalize on that profit. Take part of that wage increase you received and invest it in AAL stock. I started that run with LCC at $18.50 per share and have slowly added in more when and since it converted over to AAL. It's hit $41.55 so far today so you tell me how I'm doing?

Parker has been very clear that he doesn't want to give Profit Sharing and will incorporate those metrics directly into the contracts. 50 Mil was incorporated into the APFA contract. Maybe it should be more and maybe it should be less depending on the crystal ball? Take that extra capital and invest it wisely and you may be able to beat what the expected year end PS payout might have been? 

You've also pointed out that we're not in Section 6. So do you want to hold up the progress by making a demand for something that is not wanted to be given the way you want it?
 

 
You are naive, been there, even brought it to court, they can change whatever they want, legally your recourse is you can vote out the Union.  We just discussed an example where they did just that, profit sharing was part of our contract, now its not. 

Ok I know that you believe that Jim Little and Co. were in bed with the company. Do you believe the same thing about Harry Lombardo? Seems to me from what's going on with those letters to the IAM and other issues in NYC that the man is willing to play hard ball? 

 

Have we been fighting the IAM at AA since TWA? NO, but if we have two unions with vastly different cultures sharing the same contract there will be perpetual conflict, get it over and done with one coming out the other end. One contract, one employer, One Union. Pretty simple, why complicate things?

Right now for your dream to happen Bob it looks to me like both parties need to back out of the agreement. I don't think the IAM is willing to do that just because you're on here asking them to? Without a legal loophole (NMB) deciding against it, it looks like we're diving in even if the water is cold right now.
 

 

Is this not what the IAM did with that last CONTRACT at US AIRWAYS!

 

[WeAAsles]

Hmm, Fleet gave up jobs in BK to keep industry leading pay but you say we should be willing to work for bottom of the industry to maintain headcount. 

Don't put words in my mouth Bob. I never said what you should or should be willing to do. I pointed out what the facts are at other airlines. They have less people so they make more money. And Fleet was not willing to take deeper paycuts either to save jobs or else we would still have cabin and maybe some more stations. As a matter of fact before the "Me Too" kicked in we were going to take a .42 cent per hour cut. Jeez you should have heard the uproar and outcry. I'm in a hub and didn't hear one person scream about station closures, just Cabin and that .42 cents. And I'll always be just one vote.

But my group is no different then yours.
 
 
You keep saying that we have no choice but to accept the company's terms of either this or that. Well if thats the case you really don't need a Union, a Union can say neither of those options is acceptable and we need this,,,,. SWA never gave up jobs for pay increases, we gave up jobs and pay while SWA and UPS have both added jobs and neither ever laid off any mechanics. Sure they never had many, they had even less when they earned less or around the same as we did. Once again, you have consumed the company's (and Don Videtich's) cool aide and accepted their propaganda as fact. Are you aware that a rather large number of our base workers earn wages that are below MROs? That the facilities in Tulsa are subsidized by the City of Tulsa? Even some of the payroll is subsidized by Tulsa? That if properly managed Tulsa puts out better quality at faster times due to their superior expertise than MRO's do? Tulsa has long time experienced workers, MROs tend to have high turnover rates and substandard quality. Tulsa's superior quality allowed AA to run one of the oldest fleets in the industry with excellent reliability. I believe their reliability was better with the old fleet than it is now with the newer fleet and increased outsourcing. 


Good stuff but again back to putting words in my mouth and the fact that you just may have filled out the wrong job application. The reality is that if you don't yet you soon will be the voting majority. My opinion is COLA or GEO pay. Your group just may have the ability to make that happen? My group I'm not so sure because we have CLT, DFW, and PHX to contend with. I think it's very fair though but all I can do is advocate and lobby for it. 

http://money.cnn.com/calculator/pf/cost-of-living/