Last May we had a tremendous advantage and the negotiators let it slip away by folding early. Again we see another opportunity brewing. Supervisors will be gone for weeks interviewing new hires because of critical headcount deficiencies. We have low recall responses, weather delays creating maintenance schedule difficulties and the busy summer travel season quickly approaching. A new 7 day coverage 737 line in Tulsa is failing miserably with many bidding out and a visit by the FAA next week to top it all off. As I said before, a one week moratorium on overtime would send a strong message that we, the membership, will not tolerate this negotiation pace.
TWU negotiations.........what?
- Thread starter Chuck Schalk
- Start date
TWU informer
Veteran
- Nov 4, 2003
- 7,550
- 3,731
Don't forget this...
It was the TWU who failed to initiate early opener option in the 2003 retructuring agreement. Negotiations could have started 4/30/2006
It was the TWU that agreed to a T/A that proved unworthy of passage.
It was the TWU that took nearly Four Months to get a the simple ratification vote done.
It was the TWU that took nearly Three more Months to determine reason for failure and get back to the table with AA.
It was the TWU who replaced many negotiators and requested to nearly start over on negotiations.
There are YEARS of wasted time (nearly 5 years now) within these facts that were in the control of the TWU.
So, while I am disgusted with the length of time we have been without an aggreement, everyone simply blaming AA Management and/or the NMB is either off target or ignoring some of the available facts. Bob Owens is fanning the flames when emotions get riled about the failure in the TWU's ability to secure an agreement. But signing a card and supporting AMP will do much more value to our future than refusing to work Overtime and Blaming only the Company. If we do not get rid of the TWU, we will re-live this experience once again, just as we have before. Were these facts printed on the flyer distributed on Super Bowl Weekend at DFW? I doubt it.
WAS IT AA MANAGEMENT OR THE NMB THAT FAILED TO INITIATE THE EARLY REOPENER ON 4/30/2006? NO
BUT IT WAS THE TWU THAT SIT ON THEIR ASS AND DID NOTHING EVEN THOUGH THIS OPTION WAS AVAILABLE.
The TWU instead waited and finally initiated "negotiations training" in 2007 a full year past the available reopener date.
Stop being fooled and manipulated into blaming someone other than your own P.O.S. Union for the incredible and disgusting time it is taking to correct the injustice of 2003. It is the TWU that should pay the price for the without further ratification concessions and failure to utilize the early opener option. BLAMING SOMEONE ELSE FOR FAILURE IS A STAPLE IN THE ARENA OF LIBERAL POLITICIANS AND LIBERAL APOLOGIST AND NOW YOUR UNION INVOKES THIS TACTIC INTO YOUR PERSONAL DAILY LIFE. DONT BE FOOLED
It was the TWU who failed to initiate early opener option in the 2003 retructuring agreement. Negotiations could have started 4/30/2006
It was the TWU that agreed to a T/A that proved unworthy of passage.
It was the TWU that took nearly Four Months to get a the simple ratification vote done.
It was the TWU that took nearly Three more Months to determine reason for failure and get back to the table with AA.
It was the TWU who replaced many negotiators and requested to nearly start over on negotiations.
There are YEARS of wasted time (nearly 5 years now) within these facts that were in the control of the TWU.
So, while I am disgusted with the length of time we have been without an aggreement, everyone simply blaming AA Management and/or the NMB is either off target or ignoring some of the available facts. Bob Owens is fanning the flames when emotions get riled about the failure in the TWU's ability to secure an agreement. But signing a card and supporting AMP will do much more value to our future than refusing to work Overtime and Blaming only the Company. If we do not get rid of the TWU, we will re-live this experience once again, just as we have before. Were these facts printed on the flyer distributed on Super Bowl Weekend at DFW? I doubt it.
WAS IT AA MANAGEMENT OR THE NMB THAT FAILED TO INITIATE THE EARLY REOPENER ON 4/30/2006? NO
BUT IT WAS THE TWU THAT SIT ON THEIR ASS AND DID NOTHING EVEN THOUGH THIS OPTION WAS AVAILABLE.
The TWU instead waited and finally initiated "negotiations training" in 2007 a full year past the available reopener date.
Stop being fooled and manipulated into blaming someone other than your own P.O.S. Union for the incredible and disgusting time it is taking to correct the injustice of 2003. It is the TWU that should pay the price for the without further ratification concessions and failure to utilize the early opener option. BLAMING SOMEONE ELSE FOR FAILURE IS A STAPLE IN THE ARENA OF LIBERAL POLITICIANS AND LIBERAL APOLOGIST AND NOW YOUR UNION INVOKES THIS TACTIC INTO YOUR PERSONAL DAILY LIFE. DONT BE FOOLED
The membership wanted "full text" with a few weeks to read over the agreement before voting. I think that was/is a wise decision, or would you rather that the membership simply vote on bullett points presented by the International like the insert that was included in the ballott?
I believe thats pretty much standard practice when a TA is rejected.
I cant dispute the failure to enact the early opener clause, I was in exhile when that occured. Dispatch did, but they still dont have an agreement either. The fact is the company is dragging things out. We gave them Articles 3, 11, 12 and 39 in January, so in addition to the week we were in session they had a month to put together their counter yet they had nothing prepared and we sat there all day Monday and a good part of Tuesday waiting for responses on those Articles. Now they want us to wait till March to hear from them on why they need what they want in Articles 3, 11 and 12. So we put 1, 15 and 21 on the table as well. I suspect in March they will do the same thing again, why not? What can we do about it?
The mediator dictates what we can present and the company simply drags the simplest things out all week. We've complianed about it, asked for longer sessions, asked for a different location so management doesnt get to go home evry night but the mediator has rejected those requests thus far. I'm open to suggestions, what is your suggestion to force the company and the mediator to speed things up? How do you suggest we force their hand? The fact is we arent the only union experiencing this, both the APFA and the APA had the same options and they are in the same spot, if anything further away from being released than we are since they dont have rejected TAs. If we go over to United with the Teamsters Alpa AFA and IAM you see the same thing. In fact there are so many airlines out there with open contracts that the NMB ran out of mediators. The lack of mediators is yet another factor in the slow pace of negotiations.
No matter what Union you have you still have to be willing to fight the company if you want to get anything.
The International still has a role, they do own the contract. Don is Co-chair, Tony McCoy sits in as well as Donnelly. But they've let us do what we want at the sessions. I could not answer whether or not there are seperate talks, not that I've seen at the sessions, I have no way of knowing what goes on between sessions. Legally they could strike a deal without us but I dont see any indication of that.
TWU informer
Veteran
- Nov 4, 2003
- 7,550
- 3,731
I am not foolish enough to post what I think we should do on a public forum. As that is not the proper method to communicate such information and you know that. If the leaders do not have enough sense to know what should be done, and how to communicate that to the membership then they have no business being in a leadership role. Call Roger Toussant (sp?)and ask him he appeared to have what it takes. He even stood in defiance of the Law. I am not the elected leader, I am not the one that needs to commit, you and your friends in the TWU leadership are. You know exaclty what needs to be done, but either don't have nads or your allegiance to the TWU is greater. I am not sure which. Complaining from a non-leadership role is one thing, complaining from an elected leadership position is another. I recall the AMFA supporters in NY and LA did something that got the companies attention. Because I recall them claiming I was in-directly responsible or that the other platiffs in the RLA distribution lawsuit were in some way responsible for that activity. I sat through 1 and 1/2 days of depositions aswering questions about that in the face of company lawyers. No doubt when someone injected aluminum into their rear orafice at those two stations it defintely got their attention though, otherwise I wouldn't have been subjected to such harrasment over what had happened. I am not advocating anyone break the law just simply stating what I witnessed both from Local 100 in NY and during the AMFA vs AA Lawsuit from the NY and LA line stations.
Sitting around hoping the membership acts without leadership is typical of the TWU. Without leadership at some level, the members will not act. Even the docile negotiations updates do nothing to indicate the leaders are miffed at the progress.
Do you think the members should figure it out by themsleves? Maybe if all the facts about what is taking place during these sessions instead of docile propoganda thanking us for our patience would be presented then a renegade or two might come out of the woodwork. Beyond that, lead us in a plan.
This posting in intself will get the company whiners twitching and worrying, but I clearly state here for the record that I am not advocating anyone break the law or start an illegal job action. It is interesting to note that even the TWU's Historical Successful leader Mike Quill had to do some time in jail to get what was needed for the working stiffs, and to make that history that we all read about today. Did he break the law or get railroaded?
BigMac
Veteran
Maybe off the topic, but humor me.
I have been ousted two times from local membership meetings so I haven't had access to the annual expenditures concerning negotiations.
Do TWU officers make more money while negotiating ?
Where do the officers stay and eat ?
Do they fly stand-by ?
How is the NMB funded ? Is it in their best interest to drag their feet by allowing AA to show up on a regular basis unprepared ?
Simple questions
I have been ousted two times from local membership meetings so I haven't had access to the annual expenditures concerning negotiations.
Do TWU officers make more money while negotiating ?
Where do the officers stay and eat ?
Do they fly stand-by ?
How is the NMB funded ? Is it in their best interest to drag their feet by allowing AA to show up on a regular basis unprepared ?
Simple questions
odie01
Veteran
- May 11, 2010
- 1,321
- 473
I think they may be going behind your back, get back to you soon.
Simple answers;
1) No, we get our regular salary. I would say that the guys who arent Presidents get screwed because no matter how many hours are put in they only get paid for eight.
2) In Hotels and resturaunts.
3) No, A-12. The RLA stipulates that the carriers must provide transport to negotiations.
4)The NMB is funded by the government. The NMBs stated goal is to prevent interuptions to commerce. IMO dragging things out is a tactic used against workers to wear them down. We have seen several cases where when carriers want to try and bust a union the NMB declares an impasse within months of the contract becoming amendable(Continental, EAL and NWA) however we have also seen where the NMB tells unions, even after years of negotiations, that if they dont lower their demands they would keep them on ice forever(AMFA). The NMB is not on the side of labor, nor are they neutral.
You wont tell what you think should be done but you want me to tell people to do it.
The fact is you are claiming that the company isnt to blame, I'm saying they are and we are doing all we legally can to get a fair agreemnent as fast as we can. You seem to forget that UPS was in negotiations for four years. I'm not saying our end product will be $50/hr like theirs but like I've said before we are subject to the RLA. (Local 100 isn't by the way) If I thought we were in a position to start a movement for repealing the RLA I would support it but we are nowhere near that.
TWU informer
Veteran
- Nov 4, 2003
- 7,550
- 3,731
I never said the company wasn't to blame.
I said the TWU has just as much blame to go around as AA or NMB
You are the elected leader not me.
TWU informer
Veteran
- Nov 4, 2003
- 7,550
- 3,731
The Railway Labor Act does not have to be repealed. There are other proven effective ways to eliminate the law as being a hinderance to your quest if you feel you are at your ropes end while in compliance. Think about it.
I am not as stupid as Bob thinks, and never claimed Local 100 was under the RLA.
Local 100 was subjected to the TAYLOR LAW regarding strikes and job actions, and somehow their LEADER just ignored that law and did what he had to do.
Disclaimer: I am not advocating that anyone, anywhere violate the Law or be involved in a job action. Every individual is responsible for their own actions and I have no authority or control over individuals to even to make such request.
I am not as stupid as Bob thinks, and never claimed Local 100 was under the RLA.
Local 100 was subjected to the TAYLOR LAW regarding strikes and job actions, and somehow their LEADER just ignored that law and did what he had to do.
Disclaimer: I am not advocating that anyone, anywhere violate the Law or be involved in a job action. Every individual is responsible for their own actions and I have no authority or control over individuals to even to make such request.
TWU informer
Veteran
- Nov 4, 2003
- 7,550
- 3,731
The requirement is in the Presidents Council By-Laws that the membership have 30 days to review the full language. Although conveniently not done in 2003, in fact I didnt have 30 days this T/A either. Also 30 days is not 4 months, which is what it took to get the vote done. Then you must have missed the 3 months it took to get back to the table after the vote. The membership WANTED full language in 2003, and didnt get it so don't blame the members for the failure. You sound more and more like a TWU International Appointee everyday.
Blame the members...... TWU typical B) BS
Next you will tell me I don't see the big picture.
Take a pill. Who's blaming the members for anything? You are complaining that it took three months to get a vote done. I was explaining why. We wanted full text in 2001, 2003 and now. Well it takes a while to review and print up 12,000 copies, then distribute them. Then once distrubuted the members need to get enough time to review them. When we struck the TA we were all asked to stick around and finalize and review the language, I refused to put all that work into something I was determined to kill. So maybe I'm partly to blame, maybe if we had stayed it would have taken a week less, I'd do the same thing again. I think that full text (or whats considered full text because some of the language stated that details would be worked out later) was/is the right way to do it.
If you want to go after the TWU pick something valid, it should not be hard to do but when you pick points that dont make sense I'm going to call you on it. You basically absolved the company and put all the blame on the union for the delay. I've refrained from doing so because I dont want to take part in being a distraction.
Show me a union, independant or affiliated, that has managed to move talks along(without giving the store away) at their own pace. Its something we have to deal with no matter who the bargaining unit is. The fact is only two other groups have gotten to the point of having a vote, one passed and one failed, the FAs and Pilots havent voted yet and Dispatch opened in 2006 and havent gotten as far as we have. So who is trying to hype things up on emotion? And absolve the company at the same time, you may say I sound like an International appointee but you sound like management when you say they arent mostly to blame for the slow pace of negotiations.
Yes, it took three months to get back to the table. I dont know how long it normally takes because this is not only the first time since I've been at AA that we've been in mediation but its the first time we turned down a TA in mediation. When we meet is pretty much determined by the NMB, Fleet hasnt gone back since July. If you recall the NMB was playing games with AMFA back in the day, Some of these things are simply not up to the Union.
Never claimed you were stupid, bitter and angry at times yes, but not stupid.
Now thats something you can rail about. They have an elected leader. We dont. Therein lies most of our problems. I'm not your leader, you never had an opportunity to cast a vote for or against me. I represent just 800 members out of a contract group of 11,000. My name will appear as a Witness to the contract, not a party, at Local 100 Toussaint was the President representing everyone, all 36000 of them and he signed the agreement as a party to it, not a witness.
