TWU and IAM representation alliance vote

[737823]

Who voted this one in? I know in Fleet this brought in the wonderful idea of junior FSC. $10.00 per hour top out in 9 years. So what and who did you guys in maintenance who voted yes for this sell out for?Published: August 15, 1995

 

"The tentative agreement between American Airlines Inc. and the Transport Workers Union -- a pact that would include a temporary wage-scale freeze and an early retirement package -- would provide substantial savings for the airline, a spokesman for the airline's parent, the AMR Corporation, said."
http://www.nytimes.com/1995/08/15/business/american-airlines-in-tentative-union-pact.html

You are a '95 hire so presumably you voted and should know.

Josh

 

[WeAAsles]

You are a '95 hire so presumably you voted and should know.
Josh

Did you read my other posts? I stated that I did not vote and my question was specific to others that did vote and what their choice was? I do know that in Fleet the 95 TA passed.

 

[Realityck]

Pretty slick the way you mention the diminishing need of OH based solely on the arrival of new aircraft as a means of giving the TWU a pass. As if they played no part in the destruction of the aircraft mechanics class.
I guess the TWU had no part in loss of mechanic jobs to line cargo...Deicing and push backs?
I guess the TWU had no part in the creation of the B scale!
I guess the TWU had no part in the elimination of building cleaners!
I guess the TWU had no part in the creation of OSMs and SRPS!
Incidentally the above mentioned HAPPENED WAAAAAY BEFORE BANKRUPTCY!

 
 
 
[SIZE=13pt]I've done my share of deicing & push-outs when I worked the line, and neither of those jobs required the skills of an A&E Licensed mechanic. In fact, I often wondered how long it would take American to figure that out when they often watched a mechanic sitting on the gate in his Hough tractor reading a newspaper, while everyone else was hustling their butts off to get the aircraft out on time. I always thought it was only a matter of time before they woke up and in managements typical convoluted fashion, they finally did. In any case, the idea that loss of this function caused mass loss of mechanic jobs is ludicrous –we could be reassigned all deicing and I doubt it would produce two dozen jobs on a very infrequent and seasonal basis.[/SIZE]
 
[SIZE=13pt]As for the B scale issue, you either don't know the facts, or would rather ignore them since AMFA's law firm had a lot to do with its introduction to AA. Here’s an excerpt from an APA letter you might find informative.[/SIZE]
 
“American Airlines adopted the benchmark B-scale in 1983, permanently reducing pay for newly hired pilots by 50 percent. In fact, under the AA system—negotiated while the Seham firm sat on the labor side of the table—pay rates and pensions for new employees would never merge with those of then-current employees.
 
Martin Seham wrote proudly of this accomplishment in Cleared for Takeoff: Airline Labor Relations Since Deregulation.
 
As general counsel to the Allied Pilots Association (APA), the independent certified representative of the American Airlines pilots, I was close to the negotiations that resulted, in 1983, in the earliest realization of the two-tier system. APA was not faced with an insolvent or failing carrier; it was, however, forced to deal with an economic environment that had changed dramatically because of the effects of deregulation and was, by virtue of its independence, mandated to reach an agreement consistent with the needs and objectives of its constituency. — Martin C. Seham
 
Although B-scales were not a new concept, their initial format was unique to the airline industry. Following American’s lead, other airlines began to demand similar packages—forcing the entire airline labor movement into a new era of concessions. Good for management; bad for pilots, flight attendants, mechanics, and all of the airline industry’s workers.
 
While ALPA pilots were forced to deal with this blight brought to the industry by APA and the Sehams, not one ALPA pilot group accepted a non-merging two-tier scale. The clearest example of this was the ALPA strike at United in June 1985, when the pilots refused to agree to a non-merging two-tier pay scale”.
 
 
[SIZE=13pt]As for the TWU, here’s an editorial regarding their 1983 ratification process:[/SIZE]
 
      [SIZE=19pt]UNION OKS AMERICAN AIRLINES PACT[/SIZE]
 
[SIZE=19pt]   Author: United Press International[/SIZE]
 
Transportation Workers Union officials said yesterday that union members have *ratified a new contract with American Airlines, averting a strike that had been scheduled for 12:01 a.m. today.
 
TWU leaders had recommended that the contract be rejected.
 
The airline set the strike deadline on the pact after the union backed out of a strike three weeks ago and submitted the contract to the membership.
 
American had said it would use nonunion personnel to run the airline if the TWU's 10,000 ground workers struck. It also said if the contract was not ratified, it would begin laying off TWU workers.
 
The airline 's offer includes 21 percent pay raises over the three-year life of the contract; a clause the airline calls a "lifetime" job guarantee, and incentives for early retirement at age 55.
 
But it also grants the airline the right to ask TWU employees to do work not covered in their job descriptions; establishes a separate wage structure for new employees up to 27 percent below union scale, and allows the airline to contract for building maintenance work outside the union.
 
It was these clauses that prompted TWU officials to recommend that the contract be rejected.
                                      * the contract passed with a +75% Yes Vote
 
 
[SIZE=13pt]Your concern about Building Cleaners though really warms my heart. It's the first time I've ever heard an AMFA supporter express concern about anyone but himself, and never about a Building Cleaner! What is the world coming too?[/SIZE]
 
[SIZE=13pt]I'll have to get back to you on the OSM's since it will require some research on my part, but were you working in Tulsa at the time? The reason I ask is if you were, you may have some information that came out at Local 514's contract ratification meeting that might help explain their attitude about this issue since it was primarily an Overhaul matter. But, for all the complaining about that development, what happened elsewhere was worse. At Alaska, all heavy overhaul was wiped out and at NWA, even before the strike, the majority of heavy checks were outsourced. After the strike, of course, all of it was outsourced [/SIZE]
 
[SIZE=13pt]Also, since you didn't mention what was going on at the other major carriers during this period, these bankruptcies occurred and they obviously had an impact since negotiations don’t occur in a vacuum:[/SIZE]
 
Braniff  - May 1982,  Continental - Sept 1983, Eastern - Mar 1989, Braniff - Sept 1989, Continental - Dec 1990, Pan Am - Jan 1991,  Eastern - Jan 1991, America West- Jun 1991, TWA - Jan 1992

 

[WeAAsles]

 
 
 
[SIZE=13pt]I've done my share of deicing & push-outs when I worked the line, and neither of those jobs required the skills of an A&E Licensed mechanic. In fact, I often wondered how long it would take American to figure that out when they often watched a mechanic sitting on the gate in his Hough tractor reading a newspaper, while everyone else was hustling their butts off to get the aircraft out on time. I always thought it was only a matter of time before they woke up and in managements typical convoluted fashion, they finally did. In any case, the idea that loss of this function caused mass loss of mechanic jobs is ludicrous –we could be reassigned all deicing and I doubt it would produce two dozen jobs on a very infrequent and seasonal basis.[/SIZE]
 
[SIZE=13pt]As for the B scale issue, you either don't know the facts, or would rather ignore them since AMFA's law firm had a lot to do with its introduction to AA. Here’s an excerpt from an APA letter you might find informative.[/SIZE]
 
“American Airlines adopted the benchmark B-scale in 1983, permanently reducing pay for newly hired pilots by 50 percent. In fact, under the AA system—negotiated while the Seham firm sat on the labor side of the table—pay rates and pensions for new employees would never merge with those of then-current employees.
 
Martin Seham wrote proudly of this accomplishment in Cleared for Takeoff: Airline Labor Relations Since Deregulation.
 
As general counsel to the Allied Pilots Association (APA), the independent certified representative of the American Airlines pilots, I was close to the negotiations that resulted, in 1983, in the earliest realization of the two-tier system. APA was not faced with an insolvent or failing carrier; it was, however, forced to deal with an economic environment that had changed dramatically because of the effects of deregulation and was, by virtue of its independence, mandated to reach an agreement consistent with the needs and objectives of its constituency. — Martin C. Seham
 
Although B-scales were not a new concept, their initial format was unique to the airline industry. Following American’s lead, other airlines began to demand similar packages—forcing the entire airline labor movement into a new era of concessions. Good for management; bad for pilots, flight attendants, mechanics, and all of the airline industry’s workers.
 
While ALPA pilots were forced to deal with this blight brought to the industry by APA and the Sehams, not one ALPA pilot group accepted a non-merging two-tier scale. The clearest example of this was the ALPA strike at United in June 1985, when the pilots refused to agree to a non-merging two-tier pay scale”.
 
 
[SIZE=13pt]As for the TWU, here’s an editorial regarding their 1983 ratification process:[/SIZE]
 
      [SIZE=19pt]UNION OKS AMERICAN AIRLINES PACT[/SIZE]
 
[SIZE=19pt]   Author: United Press International[/SIZE]
 
Transportation Workers Union officials said yesterday that union members have *ratified a new contract with American Airlines, averting a strike that had been scheduled for 12:01 a.m. today.
 
TWU leaders had recommended that the contract be rejected.
 
The airline set the strike deadline on the pact after the union backed out of a strike three weeks ago and submitted the contract to the membership.
 
American had said it would use nonunion personnel to run the airline if the TWU's 10,000 ground workers struck. It also said if the contract was not ratified, it would begin laying off TWU workers.
 
The airline 's offer includes 21 percent pay raises over the three-year life of the contract; a clause the airline calls a "lifetime" job guarantee, and incentives for early retirement at age 55.
 
But it also grants the airline the right to ask TWU employees to do work not covered in their job descriptions; establishes a separate wage structure for new employees up to 27 percent below union scale, and allows the airline to contract for building maintenance work outside the union.
 
It was these clauses that prompted TWU officials to recommend that the contract be rejected.
                                      * the contract passed with a +75% Yes Vote
 
 
[SIZE=13pt]Your concern about Building Cleaners though really warms my heart. It's the first time I've ever heard an AMFA supporter express concern about anyone but himself, and never about a Building Cleaner! What is the world coming too?[/SIZE]
 
[SIZE=13pt]I'll have to get back to you on the OSM's since it will require some research on my part, but were you working in Tulsa at the time? The reason I ask is if you were, you may have some information that came out at Local 514's contract ratification meeting that might help explain their attitude about this issue since it was primarily an Overhaul matter. But, for all the complaining about that development, what happened elsewhere was worse. At Alaska, all heavy overhaul was wiped out and at NWA, even before the strike, the majority of heavy checks were outsourced. After the strike, of course, all of it was outsourced [/SIZE]
 
[SIZE=13pt]Also, since you didn't mention what was going on at the other major carriers during this period, these bankruptcies occurred and they obviously had an impact since negotiations don’t occur in a vacuum:[/SIZE]
 
Braniff  - May 1982,  Continental - Sept 1983, Eastern - Mar 1989, Braniff - Sept 1989, Continental - Dec 1990, Pan Am - Jan 1991,  Eastern - Jan 1991, America West- Jun 1991, TWA - Jan 1992

REALITY I wanted to thank you for finding that article and giving me the ability to highlight very clearly the part where the TWU leaders at that time recommended REJECTION of the TA and how the membership completely disregarded that recommendation and seriously squashed egg in the face of both themselves and their elected leaders.

The old adage stands quite sternly "We are our own worse enemies"

I'm sure that TA was sent out to the members to tell the company to shove it up theirs with an overwhelming NO vote!!!! But it was the MEMBERS who were too weak to take it to the next step. Too chickechit to maybe have to go on strike and walk a picket line.

Maybe ever since that day the TWU leadership has a far better understanding of who they represent then any of these posters here would ever care to admit?

 

[MetalMover]

 
 
 
[SIZE=13pt]I've done my share of deicing & push-outs when I worked the line, and neither of those jobs required the skills of an A&E Licensed mechanic. In fact, I often wondered how long it would take American to figure that out when they often watched a mechanic sitting on the gate in his Hough tractor reading a newspaper, while everyone else was hustling their butts off to get the aircraft out on time. I always thought it was only a matter of time before they woke up and in managements typical convoluted fashion, they finally did. In any case, the idea that loss of this function caused mass loss of mechanic jobs is ludicrous –we could be reassigned all deicing and I doubt it would produce two dozen jobs on a very infrequent and seasonal basis.[/SIZE]
 
[SIZE=13pt]As for the B scale issue, you either don't know the facts, or would rather ignore them since AMFA's law firm had a lot to do with its introduction to AA. Here’s an excerpt from an APA letter you might find informative.[/SIZE]
 
“American Airlines adopted the benchmark B-scale in 1983, permanently reducing pay for newly hired pilots by 50 percent. In fact, under the AA system—negotiated while the Seham firm sat on the labor side of the table—pay rates and pensions for new employees would never merge with those of then-current employees.
 
Martin Seham wrote proudly of this accomplishment in Cleared for Takeoff: Airline Labor Relations Since Deregulation.
 
As general counsel to the Allied Pilots Association (APA), the independent certified representative of the American Airlines pilots, I was close to the negotiations that resulted, in 1983, in the earliest realization of the two-tier system. APA was not faced with an insolvent or failing carrier; it was, however, forced to deal with an economic environment that had changed dramatically because of the effects of deregulation and was, by virtue of its independence, mandated to reach an agreement consistent with the needs and objectives of its constituency. — Martin C. Seham
 
Although B-scales were not a new concept, their initial format was unique to the airline industry. Following American’s lead, other airlines began to demand similar packages—forcing the entire airline labor movement into a new era of concessions. Good for management; bad for pilots, flight attendants, mechanics, and all of the airline industry’s workers.
 
While ALPA pilots were forced to deal with this blight brought to the industry by APA and the Sehams, not one ALPA pilot group accepted a non-merging two-tier scale. The clearest example of this was the ALPA strike at United in June 1985, when the pilots refused to agree to a non-merging two-tier pay scale”.
 
 
[SIZE=13pt]As for the TWU, here’s an editorial regarding their 1983 ratification process:[/SIZE]
 
      [SIZE=19pt]UNION OKS AMERICAN AIRLINES PACT[/SIZE]
 
[SIZE=19pt]   Author: United Press International[/SIZE]
 
Transportation Workers Union officials said yesterday that union members have *ratified a new contract with American Airlines, averting a strike that had been scheduled for 12:01 a.m. today.
 
TWU leaders had recommended that the contract be rejected.
 
The airline set the strike deadline on the pact after the union backed out of a strike three weeks ago and submitted the contract to the membership.
 
American had said it would use nonunion personnel to run the airline if the TWU's 10,000 ground workers struck. It also said if the contract was not ratified, it would begin laying off TWU workers.
 
The airline 's offer includes 21 percent pay raises over the three-year life of the contract; a clause the airline calls a "lifetime" job guarantee, and incentives for early retirement at age 55.
 
But it also grants the airline the right to ask TWU employees to do work not covered in their job descriptions; establishes a separate wage structure for new employees up to 27 percent below union scale, and allows the airline to contract for building maintenance work outside the union.
 
It was these clauses that prompted TWU officials to recommend that the contract be rejected.
                                      * the contract passed with a +75% Yes Vote
 
 
[SIZE=13pt]Your concern about Building Cleaners though really warms my heart. It's the first time I've ever heard an AMFA supporter express concern about anyone but himself, and never about a Building Cleaner! What is the world coming too?[/SIZE]
 
[SIZE=13pt]I'll have to get back to you on the OSM's since it will require some research on my part, but were you working in Tulsa at the time? The reason I ask is if you were, you may have some information that came out at Local 514's contract ratification meeting that might help explain their attitude about this issue since it was primarily an Overhaul matter. But, for all the complaining about that development, what happened elsewhere was worse. At Alaska, all heavy overhaul was wiped out and at NWA, even before the strike, the majority of heavy checks were outsourced. After the strike, of course, all of it was outsourced [/SIZE]
 
[SIZE=13pt]Also, since you didn't mention what was going on at the other major carriers during this period, these bankruptcies occurred and they obviously had an impact since negotiations don’t occur in a vacuum:[/SIZE]
 
Braniff  - May 1982,  Continental - Sept 1983, Eastern - Mar 1989, Braniff - Sept 1989, Continental - Dec 1990, Pan Am - Jan 1991,  Eastern - Jan 1991, America West- Jun 1991, TWA - Jan 1992

You could post a reply as lengthy as the book WAR AND PEACE....defending the POS TWU.....Means nothing...Basically what you are saying is that the TWU bent over,,,,er I mean bent the members over because of what was happening in the industry.....I do not see it that way...I see a union that has been too eager to accomodate the company's every whim....SO according the to you, the TWU was just a babe in the woods during negotiations and really had to submit the company's demands.....
I have an idea...why don't we all work for minimum wage if the company promises never to liquidate??????? Or better yet a lifetime job at minimum wage...
What a spineless post...But what else can one expect from this wothless union and its defenders.

 

[MetalMover]

The B scale concept was not created by the TWU. The APA at AA brought in the exact same thing and AMFA counsel Martin Seham bragged about negotiating the B scale in for the pilots. Get your facts straight.
 
Deicing and pushbacks have been done by other AMTs at many airlines around the same time as the TWU. It was post deregulation.
 
The TWU Int'l had been trying to bring the building cleaners over to the higher wage Title III wage scale but their brothers and sisters in Title III were against it. The 2010 TA was going to move them over to the higher wage utility pay scale but we the membership voted that down too. We are the membership and WE voted to screw them.
 
The OSM/SRP classification was and is an attempt to hang on to jobs in-house at wages higher than those people would be making at low wage MROs. Plus it provides and place to bump if you get laid off as an AMT. Also the other unions eventually decided overhaul jobs of any kind would be better off being outsourced entirely which means making zero pay versus making much more plus earning seniority and the ability to transfer to a higher wage AMT job.

Poor poor TWU, they didn't have any say in what the company wanted...Boohoo...poor TWU.

 

[Bob Owens]

 
 
 
[SIZE=13pt]I've done my share of deicing & push-outs when I worked the line, and neither of those jobs required the skills of an A&E Licensed mechanic. In fact, I often wondered how long it would take American to figure that out when they often watched a mechanic sitting on the gate in his Hough tractor reading a newspaper, while everyone else was hustling their butts off to get the aircraft out on time. I always thought it was only a matter of time before they woke up and in managements typical convoluted fashion, they finally did. In any case, the idea that loss of this function caused mass loss of mechanic jobs is ludicrous –we could be reassigned all deicing and I doubt it would produce two dozen jobs on a very infrequent and seasonal basis.[/SIZE]
 
[SIZE=13pt]As for the B scale issue, you either don't know the facts, or would rather ignore them since AMFA's law firm had a lot to do with its introduction to AA. Here’s an excerpt from an APA letter you might find informative.[/SIZE]
 
“American Airlines adopted the benchmark B-scale in 1983, permanently reducing pay for newly hired pilots by 50 percent. In fact, under the AA system—negotiated while the Seham firm sat on the labor side of the table—pay rates and pensions for new employees would never merge with those of then-current employees.
 
Martin Seham wrote proudly of this accomplishment in Cleared for Takeoff: Airline Labor Relations Since Deregulation.
 
As general counsel to the Allied Pilots Association (APA), the independent certified representative of the American Airlines pilots, I was close to the negotiations that resulted, in 1983, in the earliest realization of the two-tier system. APA was not faced with an insolvent or failing carrier; it was, however, forced to deal with an economic environment that had changed dramatically because of the effects of deregulation and was, by virtue of its independence, mandated to reach an agreement consistent with the needs and objectives of its constituency. — Martin C. Seham
 
Although B-scales were not a new concept, their initial format was unique to the airline industry. Following American’s lead, other airlines began to demand similar packages—forcing the entire airline labor movement into a new era of concessions. Good for management; bad for pilots, flight attendants, mechanics, and all of the airline industry’s workers.
 
While ALPA pilots were forced to deal with this blight brought to the industry by APA and the Sehams, not one ALPA pilot group accepted a non-merging two-tier scale. The clearest example of this was the ALPA strike at United in June 1985, when the pilots refused to agree to a non-merging two-tier pay scale”.
 
 
[SIZE=13pt]As for the TWU, here’s an editorial regarding their 1983 ratification process:[/SIZE]
 
      [SIZE=19pt]UNION OKS AMERICAN AIRLINES PACT[/SIZE]
 
[SIZE=19pt]   Author: United Press International[/SIZE]
 
Transportation Workers Union officials said yesterday that union members have *ratified a new contract with American Airlines, averting a strike that had been scheduled for 12:01 a.m. today.
 
TWU leaders had recommended that the contract be rejected.
 
The airline set the strike deadline on the pact after the union backed out of a strike three weeks ago and submitted the contract to the membership.
 
American had said it would use nonunion personnel to run the airline if the TWU's 10,000 ground workers struck. It also said if the contract was not ratified, it would begin laying off TWU workers.
 
The airline 's offer includes 21 percent pay raises over the three-year life of the contract; a clause the airline calls a "lifetime" job guarantee, and incentives for early retirement at age 55.
 
But it also grants the airline the right to ask TWU employees to do work not covered in their job descriptions; establishes a separate wage structure for new employees up to 27 percent below union scale, and allows the airline to contract for building maintenance work outside the union.
 
It was these clauses that prompted TWU officials to recommend that the contract be rejected.
                                      * the contract passed with a +75% Yes Vote
 
 
[SIZE=13pt]Your concern about Building Cleaners though really warms my heart. It's the first time I've ever heard an AMFA supporter express concern about anyone but himself, and never about a Building Cleaner! What is the world coming too?[/SIZE]
 
[SIZE=13pt]I'll have to get back to you on the OSM's since it will require some research on my part, but were you working in Tulsa at the time? The reason I ask is if you were, you may have some information that came out at Local 514's contract ratification meeting that might help explain their attitude about this issue since it was primarily an Overhaul matter. But, for all the complaining about that development, what happened elsewhere was worse. At Alaska, all heavy overhaul was wiped out and at NWA, even before the strike, the majority of heavy checks were outsourced. After the strike, of course, all of it was outsourced [/SIZE]
 
[SIZE=13pt]Also, since you didn't mention what was going on at the other major carriers during this period, these bankruptcies occurred and they obviously had an impact since negotiations don’t occur in a vacuum:[/SIZE]
 
Braniff  - May 1982,  Continental - Sept 1983, Eastern - Mar 1989, Braniff - Sept 1989, Continental - Dec 1990, Pan Am - Jan 1991,  Eastern - Jan 1991, America West- Jun 1991, TWA - Jan 1992

Heard a different version of 1983 from Nick Massi (RIP), the International initially wanted to say "VOTE YES" and cite only the plus's, with comments about not being there to protect the "newborn" etc. Massi put out info against the deal, the International did not.
 
Your time line is a little off as well, Branniff expanded extremely rapidly with deregulation and the downturn in the economy made their departure inevitable. Branniff was a victim of poor management like the scores of other airlines that went bankrupt prior to deregulation. According to you Lorenzo took CAL into BK  four months after AA got B-scale and  AA was able to expanded rapidly from 1983 till 1992 with their low wage workforce it could be easily argued that helped drive EAL, CAL, and TWA into BK.  Perhaps you should have cited PATCO and the layoffs instead.  
 
AA was a significant competitor in 1983 but they were not as much of a player as say EAL, Pan Am or TWA at the time, note the article cites 10,000 ground workers at AA, by 2000 AA (and TWU) had over 30,000, 30,000 low paid members that is. No doubt the low wages at a significant competitor like AA helped destabilize the wage structure much more than the new entrants which were frequently cited as hurting the legacies ability to compete. The high paying jobs at EAL, Pan Am, etc became low paying jobs with a 12 year progression at AA.  As they shrank and disappeared AA grew. The TWU undercut the IAM and as a result the IAM shrank in the airline industry as the TWU grew. Thirty years ago the IAM represented the vast majority of airline ground workers. IAM was the dominant Union for Aircraft mechanics, now they are down to pretty much USAIR. While the TWU has grown this growth also coincides with an increased rate of non-union mechanics. The successful growth of TWU mechanics membership did not come through elections and card drives, it came through concessions in a race to the bottom and as a result the labor movement in this industry became weaker and less dense. 
 
If you want to defend this track record to appease your conscience as you sit back collecting two pensions and living way above the levels of the people you represented fine, do as you must but for us we have to deal with the fact that in real terms we are earning less than half the wages you earned when you turned a wrench, sure there are more aircraft mechanics jobs at AA, but it came at the cost of the elimination of very good jobs at EAL, Pan Am, TWA, CAL-pre Lorenzo and even AA itself. Using your arguement the workers at Walmart should be ok with the fact that Walmart came in, wiped out their former employers and created jobs at reduced wages and benefits, or is that only acceptable if those low wage workers pay dues that help fund the second pensions of ex-union officials such as yourself? 
 
If you are  here to say that the TWU needs to continue on a path that has lead their members to earn wages that are below non-union, to have less paid time off than non-union and pay more for benefits than non-union then you are not doing the Union any favors. These are the facts we live with as we sit at the very bottom of a severely diminished industry, we need a plan to move forward  and regain what we gave up not excuses and justifications as to how we got here. 

 

[OgieJFK]

Did you read my other posts? I stated that I did not vote and my question was specific to others that did vote and what their choice was? I do know that in Fleet the 95 TA passed.

 The 95 TA didn't pass the first time around. It was overwhelmingly rejected by the Title 3 work group. Unfortunately every other TWU work group passed their TA's which left title 3 with just their johnson's in hand. In the immortal words of that POS "union" man Ed Kozatech(sp) "You guys are on your own". The next TA was basically the same as the first rejected TA and it was voted in.

Off the top of my head.....The 95 contract saw two job titles disappear with FSC and Building cleaners. We also lost like 7(?) small stations with that contract. The two that effected JFK the most was losing Islip and the Title 2 building cleaners. The lowest guy in Islip had like 30 years on the job and those guys all got bumped back to JFK. The Title 2 building cleaners were put in a Title 3 job (Cabin Service) cause non of the other Title 2 work groups wanted them at JFK. I believe the Title 2 building cleaners sued the local and the company and were finally awarded in 2004(?) with back pay and being put in the proper title group. The Jr FSC was another disaster at JFK. It got so bad that the company upped the starting salary from $6 to $8 an hour but their pay was frozen for a couple of years. They took longer to top out (14 years?) then a FSC and I believe their top pay($12) wasn't even the same as a FSC.

 

[OgieJFK]

I'd like to hear from some people who were around for both those TA's that I posted who have the guts to admit that they voted yes on them. Any takers?

I hired on in May of 95. Had a ton of old farts trying to get me to vote yes on the 95 contract the second I walked in the door of the company. I didn't vote because I was new and had no clue what any of it really meant and just wanted to work.

I voted YES in 01. Told a former Junior friend that I was voting yes but if I were him I would vote no. They were slotted over on the payscale rather than being placed at the scale that coincided with their years in the company. It took guys who hired on in late 95, 14 years total to top out where I topped out in 8 years. 6 years longer than me and I hired on only 5 months before the contract was ratified.

I didn't vote in 03. My thought was if the company was going to mug me they could take my wallet out of my pocket themselves. The gun was at the back of my head and I couldn't see the bullets.

I was going to vote NO on the TA we had just prior to the BK.

I voted YES on the BK contract. I saw a loaded gun pointed at my face and I handed over my wallet.

I bet I won't get any honest injuns on this thread? <_< 

I had voted NO on EVERY contract I saw when I was there.

1989...Losing a vacation week and FREE health benefits...Voted NO...I still get a kick out of this one because of the propaganda being spread at JFK that we had to give up the free health bennies cause of all the FAs dying of AIDS and the company was taking a beating cause of it. No, I'm not even embellishing this at ALL.

1991-92(?)...Contract extension that wasn't voted on. Crap raise but got the week VC we lost in 89 back...Rumor was Crandell wanted the MD11 and the banks would only lend the money if the unions contracts were in place. The TWU helped him out.

1995...The job killer contract...Losing 2 classifications but starting a new underpaid classification....Voted NO both times.

2001...The 9/11 contract.....Voted NO.

2003...The "We're on the steps" giveback contract. ...Voted NO.

 

 

[AMFAinMIAMI]

We all can agree to disagree with the way the contracts have been here at AA.
 
The Bottom line is that many here at AA don't even care enough about their careers or the class and craft in which they work. To Vote.
 
Most here at AA allow the few people who do vote to dictate the future for all.
 
From my time here at AA and in the industry the pom-pom we are the #1 airline, mentality here seems to trump the rationality of what we bring home. I work for the biggest and best. That does not put food on your table or provide future security for your family.
 
What happened in the past is stuff we all should remember but what is going to happen to us in the very near future should be the priority don't you all agree.
 
We may or may-not get a vote the NMB will soon let us know about that. But are all of us up to speed on what the effect of this IAM/TWU Association will do to our class and craft?
 
No matter what the TWU says, if you don't do your own research and ask what about this or that then it's your fault for not getting involved. Most of us don't feel we have ever had all the information. back door deals cut and we will work on it as we go type contracts.
 
This VOTE is important for all of us in each class and craft.  
 
For the Maintenance class and craft members, (MECHANICS)
 
Facilities-Automotive-Shop-O/H-Utility-Aircraft, all of us are or have been disappointed with the TWU's representation. Looking at what happened in the past should be enough to say "WE HAVE HAD ENOUGH". The future of O/H here is a question.
 
Our stock, pre-funding money, pension, retirement medical, Profit sharing, all of it should effect how you vote. Having the ability to remove the Officers of the Union that we feel did not Look out for our class and craft is important.
 
AA is and always has been a force that the Unions here lost much too. They preach working together but that means we are going to take it in the shorts. The employees of AA financed the MD-80's to help AA grow, now the new fleet and the painting of the old and US aircraft.
 
The TWU is who we Blame and most of it should be placed there, But if we get a VOTE, This is the chance for Maintenance at Both US/AA to stand together and NOT allow this Association to get into power. It's time for a change, at the new AA and we the members of the Maintenance class and craft to Vote in AMFA.   We won't have anyone to Blame but ourselves if it fails.
 
The leaders of AMFA are our peers. Not from outside the airline business, the bus or rail system, or the other class and crafts within the industry, fellow maintenance members.
 
It's time you ask your self am I going to VOTE if we get a chance? Am I going to get involved so that I have all the answers before I do Vote? Will you vote to better your Class and Craft or follow the pattern of the past just to say I GOT MINE.
 
The Union is about all equally, Not just about the senior guys, each of us pays dues.
each of us should make decisions that will better our class and craft NOW and in the Future. 
 
If you think the TWU has Lied to you and that we were fooled by the IBT last yr, We can see just how good/Bad the IAM did for the USAir guys. Its time all us in Maintenance at both US/AA to vote if we get one, and insure that we get a Union (AMFA) that is of our peers that will do our bidding to better our class and craft.

 

[Bob Owens]

The 95 TA didn't pass the first time around. It was overwhelmingly rejected by the Title 3 work group. Unfortunately every other TWU work group passed their TA's which left title 3 with just their johnson's in hand. In the immortal words of that POS "union" man Ed Kozatech(sp) "You guys are on your own". The next TA was basically the same as the first rejected TA and it was voted in.
Off the top of my head.....The 95 contract saw two job titles disappear with FSC and Building cleaners. We also lost like 7(?) small stations with that contract. The two that effected JFK the most was losing Islip and the Title 2 building cleaners. The lowest guy in Islip had like 30 years on the job and those guys all got bumped back to JFK. The Title 2 building cleaners were put in a Title 3 job (Cabin Service) cause non of the other Title 2 work groups wanted them at JFK. I believe the Title 2 building cleaners sued the local and the company and were finally awarded in 2004(?) with back pay and being put in the proper title group. The Jr FSC was another disaster at JFK. It got so bad that the company upped the starting salary from $6 to $8 an hour but their pay was frozen for a couple of years. They took longer to top out (14 years?) then a FSC and I believe their top pay($12) wasn't even the same as a FSC.

I see that T-III is down to 8400 people now. How much of that is PT? How does this maning, when looked at as FTE, compare to your peers? Are you heavy or around the same?

You are correct, WeAAsles tries to fault the membership for poor leadership, when the members VOTE NO they are aware that the next step should be self help, however genberations of "leaders" have instead made it so that a NO vote does no mean going forward, it means having another vote, and another vote and another until you vote yes, sometimes with years in betyween at frozen wages, then they turn around and fault the members for Voting NO. If the 95 M&R agreement had failed by a handful of votes instead of passing by a handful of votes you can be sure the International would have immdiately called for a revote coupled with a fear and intimidation campain, like they did with Fleet, "you are on your own".

I can see why pro-company people would defend and try and justify the miserable record we have had in negotiations, because they want us to just accept it and keep producing for them, I cant understand why pro-union people, or people who claim to be pro-union do so. Maybe thats it, maybe these people really arent pro-TWU, they are really pro-company and defend the TWU as long as the TWU rolls over and gets them everything they want.

 

[AMFAinMIAMI]

Bob Owens
 
With all the Information available to you at the Local level, wouldn't it be a good idea for You since You post here to put information that the local has about what is/isn't about the Association. What your opinion is Pro/Con of how things will be if this Association gets put in place either by a VOTE or just put here.
 
You have access to much more than any of us and if you work for the membership as you say you do, then putting out anything that will help them decide which way to Vote
is important don't you think?
 
The local puts out stuff on the Local's site but how many really go there. 
 
This assoc. is going to effect your career as well, as your union position don't you think?
 
You travel around the system to meetings, you hear what is being asked of the Local leaders and what concerns are in the forefront of the members on the floor.
 
putting out information of what is being asked and how this Vote for/against this assoc. will effect each local and its members.
 
this association is going to set in motion things that will effect our class and craft.
What those will be is a starting point for you.

 

[Vortilon]

I had voted NO on EVERY contract I saw when I was there.

1989...Losing a vacation week and FREE health benefits...Voted NO...I still get a kick out of this one because of the propaganda being spread at JFK that we had to give up the free health bennies cause of all the FAs dying of AIDS and the company was taking a beating cause of it. No, I'm not even embellishing this at ALL.

1991-92(?)...Contract extension that wasn't voted on. Crap raise but got the week VC we lost in 89 back...Rumor was Crandell wanted the MD11 and the banks would only lend the money if the unions contracts were in place. The TWU helped him out.

1995...The job killer contract...Losing 2 classifications but starting a new underpaid classification....Voted NO both times.

2001...The 9/11 contract.....Voted NO.

2003...The "We're on the steps" giveback contract. ...Voted NO.
 
 
Well, if you don't think that the high risk lifestyle types didn't help AA to decide to raise our health insurance costs - you would be mistaken.  I can remember when the Flagship news used to show obituaries for employees, and the amount of young male flight attendants listed was by far way out of whack with the rest of the employees.  My wife is an AA FA, and recently flew with a "new hire" HIV positive male FA who's monthly RX cost is over $5000.00.  In other words, AA hired this guy knowing full well of the cost to the company.  Now throw in the life partner - probably same condition, and the company is on the hook for 120,000.00 per year - just to cover the RX.  There are other ridiculous things the company will pay for - such as sex change operations.  That should be in the same category as other elective surgeries.  AA chooses to spread the pain to all the rest of the employees - for the benefit of the high risk lifestyle types.

 

 

[WeAAsles]

I see that T-III is down to 8400 people now. How much of that is PT? How does this maning, when looked at as FTE, compare to your peers? Are you heavy or around the same?

You are correct, WeAAsles tries to fault the membership for poor leadership, when the members VOTE NO they are aware that the next step should be self help, however genberations of "leaders" have instead made it so that a NO vote does no mean going forward, it means having another vote, and another vote and another until you vote yes, sometimes with years in betyween at frozen wages, then they turn around and fault the members for Voting NO. If the 95 M&R agreement had failed by a handful of votes instead of passing by a handful of votes you can be sure the International would have immdiately called for a revote coupled with a fear and intimidation campain, like they did with Fleet, "you are on your own".

I can see why pro-company people would defend and try and justify the miserable record we have had in negotiations, because they want us to just accept it and keep producing for them, I cant understand why pro-union people, or people who claim to be pro-union do so. Maybe thats it, maybe these people really arent pro-TWU, they are really pro-company and defend the TWU as long as the TWU rolls over and gets them everything they want.

Bob the problem from my point of view that you can't seem to get is that you have an East Coast mentality and mindset. I think that mindset if fantastic and that's why my friend who's a NYC Sanitation worker is making over 100k per year. What you have zero clue on is that the rest of the country doesn't think like you and me. Why don't you take a challenge and see what I mean? Transfer to one of those Southern States for one year and see what it's like? I spent 12 years in one. I unfortunately have a perfect bead on what their mentality and resolve is. They don't fight, don't want to fight and will not go on strike with you guys if you ever took it out. I don't have to be quiet or secretive about that reality because the company knows and understands it completely.

In 2010 the strike talk was grumbling. I started to ask people what they thought. I got emphatically NO from most people I talked to. "I have bills to pay and can't afford it" One guy I practically begged "Give me 3 lousy days if we go" He didn't even want to do that!!!!

You guys talk like maintenance is a different beast then fleet. I'm not in maintenance but I don't buy it. You want to take the hard line and think the outcome would be any different then what happened at NWA. I'm not talking about them going out of business, I'm talking about how many people would cross that picket line. AMFA has a SCAB page that has hundreds and hundreds of their own who are on that page. People who pissed on their own brothers to go back to work.

You can bash me if you want Bob. It's pretty easy to do from that pedestal you stand on. You know your members there in NYC but you have ZERO clue about those people in the rest of the country and for the last 30 years they're the one's who have been driving your bus.

 

[WeAAsles]

If you are  here to say that the TWU needs to continue on a path that has lead their members to earn wages that are below non-union, to have less paid time off than non-union and pay more for benefits than non-union then you are not doing the Union any favors. These are the facts we live with as we sit at the very bottom of a severely diminished industry, we need a plan to move forward  and regain what we gave up not excuses and justifications as to how we got here. 

Alright then Bob what's your plan? In your own words forming an alliance with those who are in the same boat as we are is a bad idea. Better to continue to stand alone and fight is what you advocate? Let everyone try to get there own piece of the pie I guess?

You have a huge audience and you know it Bob. So I'm putting the emphasis on you now. How do all of us start to win if you want us to keep standing apart?