TWU-IAM Association thread

[scorpion 2]

 
 
He calls 2/3rds of the members "know nothings" when in fact the members were given more information than ever before. They had the International and the Company selling it and they had the Presidents they elected telling them whats wrong with it. The members were fully aware of what they rejected, a ZERO cost contract, improvements in pay were paid for with concessions in benefits and work rules, what the members  and those who recommended the NO vote could not have known, since there was no precedent in history, was that after rejecting it the International had ZERO intention of moving on to the next step in the process that workers in this industry have followed for 75 years,  in fact they blocked moving on to the next step even into BK nearly 18 months AFTER the members rejected the TA.  Had the International informed the NMB in August of 2010 that we needed to move on to the next step we most likely would have had a PEB crafted agreement which, based on historical records, would have included retro and brought us up to industry standards by December of 2010. 
 
The fact is the NO vote didn't screw us, it stopped us from agreeing to a zero cost agreement, the International screwed us by not bringing the process forward. 
 
Lets look at this from the company position, the other work groups on the property, including other TWU groups had good cause to keep kicking the can down the road till BK, they were ahead of most of the industry at that time. As the Economist Tom Roth said "You are better off going into BK fat than skinny". (The opposite of what Jim Little and Sonny Hall said in 2003 when they told us that we needed to give concessions prior to BK which they said was "inevitable") The company refused to give any of us anything other than a ZERO cost contract because all the other groups on the property were in negotiations and all of them were industry leading either in wages, work rules or both. So going into a PEB with the mechanics would not have been a bad thing for the company on the whole, what they gave up with the mechanics, which would have made them pay industry standard, and allowed them to hold on to and attract qualified replacements necessary for the operation would have been offset by what they gained from the other work groups that had them above industry standard, primarily work rules such as Scope. Sure AA would have had an argument as far as mechanics Scope as well, but they ended up getting that in BK anyway. 

They even went as far as drawing up a (Bankruptcy Protection) Letter of Agreement with the  company. It gave conditional protection to our concessionary contract and full protection to our stock options if BK was filed. That LOA never saw the light of day during BK proceedings though!

 

[Real tired]

 
You really sound like you're afraid of negotiating.  Are you like that when you shop for a car, or buy a house?   You keep calling two thirds of the AA AMTs "know nothings" for voting that 2010 TA down.  Fact is, nobody knew our negotiating team was going to let us down - again - that includes you.   Now here you are, already shaking in you boots that the AMTs will vote down the first offer.  Calling people "know nothings", as if that is going to somehow convince people to change their minds, and vote yes.  I expect the company will offer the right amount of money to get us where we need to be; however, that is where the TWU international steps in, and starts the horse trading.  By the time the international gets done with the company's offer, AAs AMTs will be relegated to the bottom of the industry for pay and benefits for another 5 years.  That will be courtesy of the spineless yes voters like yourself.

That was a great post.
 
A lot of us say the same thing about the greater majority of my coworkers, and it's the reason the IAM represented USAirways Mechanic is at the bottom of the barrel.

 

[bigjets]

Asking for what everyone else had makes us Hogs? 
 
 
If that saying were true there would be a lot of slaughtered CEOs out there. Not seeing it, yet.

The hogs comment was for the 2010 TA, where we voted away $40k dollars.

That was a time when AA AMTs had OH, retiree medical, pension, when the other legacy airlines went BK and shed OH, pensions, and retiree medical and thousands of AMT jobs, but what we wanted on the whole was everything back plus some more, and we got nothing (slaughtered)

Hogs comment could also be for the FA contract where you said advocated for a NO vote, that's when they lost $81m off their pay (slaughtered) and lost on every decision from arbitrator.

I'm surprised and a little disappointed you can't keep up with this conversation.

Now in 2015 we vote NO if we don't get the best of every contractual item, including a better then 10% CONTRIBUTION to our 401k. When AA is making a billion a quarter, that is when we expect a great contract, especially after the other unions got it. Not in 2010 when we were $22b in debt and all the other airlines had shed pension and OH. Timing is everything.

Just like in 98 when Jim Little said I can get you guys $28 an hour, but in 2001 we got $32 an hour. Timing

Times like they were in 2010 you get what you can without killing the company, times like now we get everything back plus a lot more. We are all on same page for this contract, but in 2010 the know nothing's cost us money, and bobs line of thinking could have cost the FAs $81m in pay, if not for the generosity of the executives. I hear FAs say they had to give us that money. NO they didn't, couple reasons why, you worked here the past 12 years making a lot less with a worse contract, second, in 2 months time they have a new FA qualified on everything at less then half the pay, more then likely a better attitude.

 

[1AA]

All can be negotiated away. The 2001 amfa contract we had was obliviated to hell. So if we took the 2010 deal what makes you think it would have lasted today?

 

[La Li Lu Le Lo]

The hogs comment was for the 2010 TA, where we voted away $40k dollars.

That was a time when AA AMTs had OH, retiree medical, pension, when the other legacy airlines went BK and shed OH, pensions, and retiree medical and thousands of AMT jobs, but what we wanted on the whole was everything back plus some more, and we got nothing (slaughtered)

Hogs comment could also be for the FA contract where you said advocated for a NO vote, that's when they lost $81m off their pay (slaughtered) and lost on every decision from arbitrator.

I'm surprised and a little disappointed you can't keep up with this conversation.

Now in 2015 we vote NO if we don't get the best of every contractual item, including a better then 10% CONTRIBUTION to our 401k. When AA is making a billion a quarter, that is when we expect a great contract, especially after the other unions got it. Not in 2010 when we were $22b in debt and all the other airlines had shed pension and OH. Timing is everything.

Just like in 98 when Jim Little said I can get you guys $28 an hour, but in 2001 we got $32 an hour. Timing

Times like they were in 2010 you get what you can without killing the company, times like now we get everything back plus a lot more. We are all on same page for this contract, but in 2010 the know nothing's cost us money, and bobs line of thinking could have cost the FAs $81m in pay, if not for the generosity of the executives. I hear FAs say they had to give us that money. NO they didn't, couple reasons why, you worked here the past 12 years making a lot less with a worse contract, second, in 2 months time they have a new FA qualified on everything at less then half the pay, more then likely a better attitude.

You know what a flight attendant is with 30 years on the job? The same thing they were the day they hired in. I personally would not call work with no upward mobility a career. I used to but not anymore.
 
If you really truly love the job then fine...... make it a career. If you are enduring it for a paycheck...... it's time to move on.
 
You really have to ask yourself if you are going to be happy doing the same job the day you retire as the day you started.

 

[La Li Lu Le Lo]

You know what a flight attendant is with 30 years on the job? The same thing they were the day they hired in. I personally would not call work with no upward mobility a career. I used to but not anymore.
 
If you really truly love the job then fine...... make it a career. If you are enduring it for a paycheck...... it's time to move on.

I only say this because I have seen "settling in" backfire in my own life. I took a job with no real expectation of progressing and probably would have made a career out of it had American Airlines not closed my shop. Being laid off after 12 years with no real marketable job skills taught me a valuable lesson.
 
The comments I made were not intended as an insult only as a "caveat emptor" for those working the same job their whole careers. If you do decide to work the same job don't make the same mistake I did, at least make sure what you are doing is marketable, pays a living wage, and that you can command a similar salary somewhere else.

 

[bigjets]

All can be negotiated away. The 2001 amfa contract we had was obliviated to hell. So if we took the 2010 deal what makes you think it would have lasted today?

Because the other TWU represented groups voted it in and didn't lose anything but the retiree medical and pension. No other group period lost anything but retiree medical and pension.


It's a common saying amongst the know nothing's "we would have lost it anyway"

 

[OldGuy@AA]

You continue to try to sell a dead TA that was voted down by the majority of the membership.  Apparently the amount of people who didn't like the TA (Me included) outnumbered those that did.  I have posted on numerous occasions that giving away the retiree medical for pennies was not in my best interest so I voted no.  Some had other reasons but the majority did not like it even though the international and local put a hard sell on it.  If you want to keep bringing this up go ahead, but I would rather focus on these negotiations and make sure my representatives know that I am not willing to give away anything and I will not vote for any TA that does not restore all that was taken from us over a dozen years ago as well as pay us what the other airlines are paying their AMTs.  Any talk of 2010 is just a distraction..  

 

[bigjets]

You continue to try to sell a dead TA that was voted down by the majority of the membership.  Apparently the amount of people who didn't like the TA (Me included) outnumbered those that did.  I have posted on numerous occasions that giving away the retiree medical for pennies was not in my best interest so I voted no.  Some had other reasons but the majority did not like it even though the international and local put a hard sell on it.  If you want to keep bringing this up go ahead, but I would rather focus on these negotiations and make sure my representatives know that I am not willing to give away anything and I will not vote for any TA that does not restore all that was taken from us over a dozen years ago as well as pay us what the other airlines are paying their AMTs.  Any talk of 2010 is just a distraction..

I agree whole heartedly, I will speak of the lost $40k no longer. If I worked in TUL I would voted NO too, for reasons you mentioned in earlier posts.

I now consider the 2010 TA not worthy of further discussion.

 

[Overspeed]

Oldguy,
Dead TA yes. The fact that we were lied to is not over. Retiree medical was never gone due to the 2010 TA language only the funding of how to pay for retiree medical. If you were age 50 or older you continued on the existing plan. If you were younger you changed to covering the cost of retiree medical with SK time. The new SK bank would be increase and those 45 to under 50 would get an accelerator. Retiree medical would not have ceased to exist and the real issue is the vote no coalition lied to get you to vote down the 2010 TA. If it was bad, give the facts to the members and let them decide. Don't lie.

 

[Vortilon]

Oldguy,
Dead TA yes. The fact that we were lied to is not over. Retiree medical was never gone due to the 2010 TA language only the funding of how to pay for retiree medical. If you were age 50 or older you continued on the existing plan. If you were younger you changed to covering the cost of retiree medical with SK time. The new SK bank would be increase and those 45 to under 50 would get an accelerator. Retiree medical would not have ceased to exist and the real issue is the vote no coalition lied to get you to vote down the 2010 TA. If it was bad, give the facts to the members and let them decide. Don't lie.

 
"Vote no" coalition?  Are you saying that there was some sort of organized effort to vote that TA down?  I never saw one at DFW.  Seems more like it was personal decisions made by the individuals who voted, given the info they were presented at the time.

 

[2ndGENAMT]

Oldguy,
Dead TA yes. The fact that we were lied to is not over. Retiree medical was never gone due to the 2010 TA language only the funding of how to pay for retiree medical. If you were age 50 or older you continued on the existing plan. If you were younger you changed to covering the cost of retiree medical with SK time. The new SK bank would be increase and those 45 to under 50 would get an accelerator. Retiree medical would not have ceased to exist and the real issue is the vote no coalition lied to get you to vote down the 2010 TA. If it was bad, give the facts to the members and let them decide. Don't lie.

What Lies are you talking about?

 

[Gman10]

If the "Vote No" coalition was so influential how could there have been a "Yes" vote in 2012? Representation that seeks only 51% of the membership approval as their goal should be unacceptable. But that's what the company wants and that's what our representation gives them. This JCBA will be no different. People will vote on what is best for them and majority, 51% or 50% +1, will rule. Each side will put their spin on the major issues but in the end everyone that votes, still can't believe everyone doesn't vote, will make their decision.
I'm hoping this doesn't turn out to be another cluster Fack like always but time will tell.

 

[bob@las-AA]

If the "Vote No" coalition was so influential how could there have been a "Yes" vote in 2012? Representation that seeks only 51% of the membership approval as their goal should be unacceptable. But that's what the company wants and that's what our representation gives them. This JCBA will be no different. People will vote on what is best for them and majority, 51% or 50% +1, will rule. Each side will put their spin on the major issues but in the end everyone that votes, still can't believe everyone doesn't vote, will make their decision.
I'm hoping this doesn't turn out to be another cluster Fack like always but time will tell.

The answer to that question is money. Money for the ones who left and the promise of money for the ones who stay, what's so hard to understand? To win the majority is only the fundamental principle of our democratic process and the coalition recognized the difficulties of selling this "coalition" to the membership and acted within the powers "we the membership" entrusted them with. Now to make my position known so that it is as clear as crystal. I would vote for NO UNION if it was places on the ballot. I'm not a fan for the side effects of the union mechanism and that we are all responsible for making for ourselves. What issues? All I hear is a bunch of hot that is emitted from the backsides of the AMT, fleet from my view (yes I'm fleet) just might be sitting in a good position for only the next 10-15 year. And that's just long enough for me to get mine and get out. Its the job of those who come behind me and others to save their own skin. voting for the collective good doesn't happen in real life. I vote for what's good for me, and for my future. You can stick to that ideological thinking if you must, because " Hope and courage will fill the coffers of the people's spirits. " What debacle?  

 

[WeAAsles]

The answer to that question is money. Money for the ones who left and the promise of money for the ones who stay, what's so hard to understand? To win the majority is only the fundamental principle of our democratic process and the coalition recognized the difficulties of selling this "coalition" to the membership and acted within the powers "we the membership" entrusted them with. Now to make my position known so that it is as clear as crystal. I would vote for NO UNION if it was places on the ballot. I'm not a fan for the side effects of the union mechanism and that we are all responsible for making for ourselves. What issues? All I hear is a bunch of hot that is emitted from the backsides of the AMT, fleet from my view (yes I'm fleet) just might be sitting in a good position for only the next 10-15 year. And that's just long enough for me to get mine and get out. Its the job of those who come behind me and others to save their own skin. voting for the collective good doesn't happen in real life. I vote for what's good for me, and for my future. You can stick to that ideological thinking if you must, because " Hope and courage will fill the coffers of the people's spirits. " What debacle?  

Oh well this comes as a huge surprise huh? <_<