TWU negotiations.........what?

[strikeforce]

The bottom line is stop pointing fingers and blaming someone else. Until you and I get 100% cards signed at our station,we have no reason to point the finger at another station. Yes Tulsa has their problems the same as any other station. Look in the mirror and start holding yourself accountable. As for your other post about bitching and AMP bringing on a vote. Remember you are AMP and so am I along with every other member. So if we don't get a vote look in the mirror and #### at yourself.

I don't have to look in the mirror to hold myself accountable. I hold myself accountable by doing my JOB professionally, and that means....coming to work everyday, follow company policies, and accomplish my job in accordance with AA manuals VERBATIM, don't turn my union brothers in to management, and I prefer to fight for our CONTRACT over the CS Policy.

Just a side note regarding the CS Policy....I just find it absolutely amazing and down right pathetic, that UNION members will fight harder for the CS Policy and will just sit there and shrug off the contract. Don't you find it amazing??? That's one of the reasons why I don't waste my time getting involved with AMP's organizing efforts. I don't waste my time convincing irrational people that prefer to fight for a company privilege over our CONTRACT. That, my friend, is a UNION problem.....remember YOU and ME, and not a TWU problem.

I said it before.....If you can get 11,000 AMT's to be on the same page......AMP will be here, but we're having a hard time convincing 400 AMT's in ORD to change representation.....that's not my fault. If people don't want to hear RATIONAL ideas to enhance their lives, then move on! You will NEVER convince these people!

Look, I don't know about you, and I certainly don't know who you are behind your alias, but I'm not willing to work 80 hours a week for the rest of my career in order to live comfortably through the use of the CS Policy. The majority of the guys at ORD are doing that, and good for them. It should be a no brainer to convince rational people to change representation, especially after 8 years of brutal concessions. In other words, you don't have to convince ME to change labor organizations because I can see that the TWU leadership is not working for my best interest. BUT, I'm having a hard time understanding why other people can't see that too, and why they don't want to engage themselves for change by signing a little green card!

If you want to talk to me I work TN AVI. See ya!

Carmen

 

[kma]

I don't have to look in the mirror to hold myself accountable. I hold myself accountable by doing my JOB professionally, and that means....coming to work everyday, follow company policies, and accomplish my job in accordance with AA manuals VERBATIM, don't turn my union brothers in to management, and I prefer to fight for our CONTRACT over the CS Policy.

Just a side note regarding the CS Policy....I just find it absolutely amazing and down right pathetic, that UNION members will fight harder for the CS Policy and will just sit there and shrug off the contract. Don't you find it amazing??? That's one of the reasons why I don't waste my time getting involved with AMP's organizing efforts. I don't waste my time convincing irrational people that prefer to fight for a company privilege over our CONTRACT. That, my friend, is a UNION problem.....remember YOU and ME, and not a TWU problem.

I said it before.....If you can get 11,000 AMT's to be on the same page......AMP will be here, but we're having a hard time convincing 400 AMT's in ORD to change representation.....that's not my fault. If people don't want to hear RATIONAL ideas to enhance their lives, then move on! You will NEVER convince these people!

Look, I don't know about you, and I certainly don't know who you are behind your alias, but I'm not willing to work 80 hours a week for the rest of my career in order to live comfortably through the use of the CS Policy. The majority of the guys at ORD are doing that, and good for them. It should be a no brainer to convince rational people to change representation, especially after 8 years of brutal concessions. In other words, you don't have to convince ME to change labor organizations because I can see that the TWU leadership is not working for my best interest. BUT, I'm having a hard time understanding why other people can't see that too, and why they don't want to engage themselves for change by signing a little green card!

If you want to talk to me I work TN AVI. See ya!

Carmen

Forget Amp, Forget the TWU... Here's whats gonna happen... The pilots don't sign off on the new A/C.. AMR files BK and washes out the union. Now the crying begins.
Then some entity comes in and takes over Overhaul in TUL and AFW. Most people will work for them to have a job. Wages will be maybe 2/3 rds of what they are now. The upside is all the slackers will be gone . There will be no union to help them keep their jobs.
This is what happened to United OH in Indy. AAR moved in. Check history.
Can't say how line stations will fare...As long as they get to keep their laptops and internet cafe's all will be happy...

 

[Bob Owens]

Bob Owens

How are you guys preparing for your big blow job on Sunday, and did you feel the eathquake the other day?

I was in SFO for the quake, Looks like the storm will be a big one, up to 12 inches of rain, and the ground is already pretty soaked, storm surge of anywhere from 3 to 12 ft high tide with a new moon. I'm sitting at around 35ft ASL so no mandatory evacuation for us. Wife is a nurse so she will likely be on the job for the duration. Not much you can really do, put stuff away, freeze as much stuff as you can and hope for the best. So far some rain and a little wind, storm is in Maryland should be over by this time tomorrow.

 

[aapitbull]

I was in SFO for the quake, Looks like the storm will be a big one, up to 12 inches of rain, and the ground is already pretty soaked, storm surge of anywhere from 3 to 12 ft high tide with a new moon. I'm sitting at around 35ft ASL so no mandatory evacuation for us. Wife is a nurse so she will likely be on the job for the duration. Not much you can really do, put stuff away, freeze as much stuff as you can and hope for the best. So far some rain and a little wind, storm is in Maryland should be over by this time tomorrow.

Good luck to you and all the guys and don't forget to tell the company this was not a job action.

 

[1AA]

I was in SFO for the quake, Looks like the storm will be a big one, up to 12 inches of rain, and the ground is already pretty soaked, storm surge of anywhere from 3 to 12 ft high tide with a new moon. I'm sitting at around 35ft ASL so no mandatory evacuation for us. Wife is a nurse so she will likely be on the job for the duration. Not much you can really do, put stuff away, freeze as much stuff as you can and hope for the best. So far some rain and a little wind, storm is in Maryland should be over by this time tomorrow.

I hope this event qualifies for TE pay.

 

[Bob Owens]

I hope this event qualifies for TE pay.

If we had Continentals language there would not even be a question.

 

[odie01]

[#103133] You do not have permission to reply to locked topics.

Just got locked out for commenting on " Here comes the BK threat from the company" Why?

To answer your question Dama, I'm sure a family with four kids pays more into the self funded system to support Mike's useless surgery to become Michelle. JMO though, not bashing Mike or Michelle.

 

[odie01]

Ratings agency releases list of world's '10 safest airlines'
AFP – 7 hrs agotweet25Share8EmailPrintRelated ContentAir France-KLM, British Airways and Lufthansa are the safest airlines in Europe, …
Air France-KLM, British Airways and Lufthansa are the safest airlines in Europe, according to a study ranking the "ten safest airlines" by the Air Transport Rating Agency (ATRA) released Monday.

The safest US-based airlines are AMR Corporation, Continental Airlines, Delta Airlines, Southwest Airlines, United Airlines and US Airways, while the safest from Asia is Japan Airlines, it said, without giving a ranking within the top ten.

To obtain this classification, the first of its kind, ATRA examined publicly available information on 15 criteria, such as the average age of the aircraft used or the homogeneity of the fleet, it said.

The agency explained that to understand airline safety, one needed not only to look at accident figures, but also "technical, human, organisational and external" elements.

"Even though the European Union publishes a 'blacklist' of dangerous airlines, there exists a real difference in safety between the other airline companies," ATRA added.

@yahoonews on Twitter, become a fan on Facebook

 

[odie01]

Bob Owens

The company is threatening bankruptcy on Oct. 1st if their is no agreement with the pilots, do you think it's wise to continue talks with the company before this drop dead date? If for some strange reason the twu brings back a concessioanary TA in Sept, and AA doesn't work out an agreement with the pilots and files for bankruptcy, is their a chance that the bakruptcy judge can implemeant the newly ram-rodded TA? This is my point, keep our current agreement and have the juge work off it, instead of working off the new concessionary TA. One other question, our lawyer, the international is paying for his services, what's his opinion on being released?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Bfe6CgYbH8

 

[Bob Owens]

Bob Owens

The company is threatening bankruptcy on Oct. 1st if their is no agreement with the pilots, do you think it's wise to continue talks with the company before this drop dead date? If for some strange reason the twu brings back a concessioanary TA in Sept, and AA doesn't work out an agreement with the pilots and files for bankruptcy, is their a chance that the bakruptcy judge can implemeant the newly ram-rodded TA? This is my point, keep our current agreement and have the juge work off it, instead of working off the new concessionary TA. One other question, our lawyer, the international is paying for his services, what's his opinion on being released?

Well the company has been threatening to file BK since 2003. I would think they would have done so prior to amassing $5 billion in cash and paying off half their debt. Normally you build up debt and burn cash before filing BK.

As far as a judge Ram Rodding a concessionary deal I dont think its ever been challenged, after all if they can impose terms going forward on us then whats stopping them from imposing terms going forward on the Oil companies and Airport Authorities? Both of whom have significantly increased what they charge the airlines since 2001. Basically it amounts to confiscation of private property, our labor, for the benefit of other private persons-a corporation. The law gives the court the right to shred agreements, and that was the intent, to release them from agreements that they claimed were causing them grief, where does it say the courts can not only rip up the old ones but write and force the creditors to accept new terms going forward that are unfavorable? So I have to wonder were any of these deals imposed or did the unions agree to the modifications to avoid having their deals scrapped entirely at a time when the industry had dumped thousands of workers onto the street? The law was not supposed to simply be an end run around the RLA or the NLRA, if it is used in such a way then it would be our duty as Free Americans to go on strike and request the help of the rest of the labor movement, a push for a Nationwade General Strike. As workers we cant allow companies to simply jump into BK and have the courts impose what the company could not negotiate. Lets face it, what put the airlines in dire straits labor costs or fuel costs? Allowing the courts to impose contracts brings up a very basic question, do workers have the right to charge what ever they feel they can get for their labor? If the answer has become "NO', that corporationws have the right to set prices and force unions to agree to those prices with the aid of the government and law then its either time for Rebellion or an Exodus, this is no longer a Free Country. The Facists have won.


Last question. If you hire a lawyer then you should trust his opinion, but you should never trust the opinion of a lawyer that you did not hire. I like the guy but I'm not paying him so his opinion does not carry the same weight as it would if I was. He is there to represent the interests of the International and I think he is doing a good job at it. That should answer your question.

 

[odie01]

Well the company has been threatening to file BK since 2003. I would think they would have done so prior to amassing $5 billion in cash and paying off half their debt. Normally you build up debt and burn cash before filing BK.

As far as a judge Ram Rodding a concessionary deal I dont think its ever been challenged, after all if they can impose terms going forward on us then whats stopping them from imposing terms going forward on the Oil companies and Airport Authorities? Both of whom have significantly increased what they charge the airlines since 2001. Basically it amounts to confiscation of private property, our labor, for the benefit of another private owners-the shareholders. The law gives the court the right to shred agreements, and that was the intent, to release them from agreements that they claimed were causing them grief, where does it say the courts can not only rip up the old ones but write and force the creditors to accept new terms going forward that are unfavorable? So I have to wonder were any of these deals imposed or did the unions agree to the modifications to avoid having their deals scrapped entirely at a time when the industry had dumped thousands of workers onto the street? The law was not supposed to simply be an end run around the RLA or the NLRA, if it is used in such a way then it would be our duty as Free Americans to go on strike and request the help of the rest of the labor movement, a push for a Nationwade General Strike. As workers we cant allow companies to simply jump into BK and have the courts impose what the company could not negotiate. Lets face it, what put the airlines in dire straits labor costs or fuel costs? Well if you hire a lawyer then you should trust his opinion, but you should never trust the opinion of a lawyer that you did not hire. I like the guy but I'm not paying him so his opinion does not carry the same weight as it would if I was. He is there to represent the interests of the International and I think he is doing a good job at it. That should answer your question.

Bob
Who requested the Sep 12 meeting, and are we (our negotiating team -Don and the paid off lawyer) still on the same page about not bringing back the same sh-t TA?

 

[Bob Owens]

Bob
Who requested the Sep 12 meeting, and are we (our negotiating team -Don and the paid off lawyer) still on the same page about not bringing back the same sh-t TA?

Sept 12 the new 565 E-board is getting sworn in, the rest I'm not sure of.

Here's my concern, IMO Don was confident and enthusiastic as far as his prediction that the TA would pass. So was the majority of the committee. The former President of Tulsa and current International Vice President Steve Luis declared that 95% of his guys were going to vote Yes.

The contract was voted down. 3 to 2 in Tulsa.

So the contract was rejected despite the fact that the majority of the Committee voted in favor of it. Some of these guys went back and told their members they should vote for it. So how will they look if we come back with something better?

In most unions if a committee brings back a TA and its rejected, that committee is dissolved, and a new one put in place because of the ego factor. If they believed that was the best they could do and it was rejected why would anyone send them back? In our case the top egos dont even have to face elections. So if we bring back something worse it would validate their original recommendation and they would remain insulated from membership ire. In fact in those cases where they were faced with it they would simply defer blame to the committee. "I just chair the meeting, I dont have a vote", but as chair one has the final word on every issue before the issue goes to a vote, that can be more powerful than a single vote. The chair has the ability to stifle true debate when he is alowed to engage in the debate.

So they take all the guys that were against the agreement, let them beat their heads against the wall for a while, let the members get even more desperate, then when we get past all the non-money stuff all of a sudden its back to the full committee again. While there have been changes in the committee, the majority of those who were in favor of the failed TA are still involved. With each election that seems to be changing. Dallas gets a new President on Monday the 12th so the next meeting of the full committee will be Friday the 9th. Get the picture?

Anyone who thinks that the negotiating Committee has full control of these negotiations is delusional. Read Article 47. Let me use an example from May of 2010 to illustrate who is really in charge. The morning after the company gave us their comprehensive proposal, that we were told not to debate, " just look it over", Don walked in waiving language about Spin off protection for the bases. The company had already agreed to it, the lawyer for the International had written it and the first time the committee ever even saw this langauge was AFTER THE COMPANY HAD ACCEPTED IT! Don still touts this language, recently calling critics of it shithouse lawyers. Its been accurately described as "a condom with a hole in it". The Article that we were told was written by a TWU lawyer was apparently put to the company, and accepted by them without ever being put before the committee!

 

[odie01]

Sept 12 the new 565 E-board is getting sworn in, the rest I'm not sure of.

Here's my concern, IMO Don was confident and enthusiastic as far as his prediction that the TA would pass. So was the majority of the committee. The former President of Tulsa and current International Vice President Steve Luis declared that 95% of his guys were going to vote Yes.

The contract was voted down. 3 to 2 in Tulsa.

So the contract was rejected despite the fact that the majority of the Committee voted in favor of it. Some of these guys went back and told their members they should vote for it. So how will they look if we come back with something better?

In most unions if a committee brings back a TA and its rejected, that committee is dissolved, and a new one put in place because of the ego factor. If they believed that was the best they could do and it was rejected why would anyone send them back? In our case the top egos dont even have to face elections. So if we bring back something worse it would validate their original recommendation and they would remain insulated from membership ire. In fact in those cases where they were faced with it they would simply defer blame to the committee. "I just chair the meeting, I dont have a vote", but as chair one has the final word on every issue before the issue goes to a vote, that can be more powerful than a single vote. The chair has the ability to stifle true debate when he is alowed to engage in the debate.

So they take all the guys that were against the agreement, let them beat their heads against the wall for a while, let the members get even more desperate, then when we get past all the non-money stuff all of a sudden its back to the full committee again. While there have been changes in the committee, the majority of those who were in favor of the failed TA are still involved. With each election that seems to be changing. Dallas gets a new President on Monday the 12th so the next meeting of the full committee will be Friday the 9th. Get the picture?

The picture is clear, and I would think that even the cowards that voted NOT to be released, would still take into cosideration that the majority of Tulsa and the system checked NO on July 2010 TA. If I remember correctly, it wasn't just NO, but "NO WITH STRIKE AUTHORIZATION" not "NO, with a possible roll call vote for the same sh-t next year!"

 

[odie01]

Anyone who thinks that the negotiating Committee has full control of these negotiations is delusional. Read Article 47. Let me use an example from May of 2010. The morning after the company gave us their comprehensive proposal, that we were told not to debate, " just look it over", Don walked in waiving language about Spin off protection for the bases. The company had already agreed to it, the lawyer for the International had written it and the first time the committee ever even saw this langauge was AFTER THE COMPANY HAD ACCEPTED IT! Don still touts this language, recently calling critics of it shithouse lawyers. Its been accurately described as "a condom with a hole in it". The Article that we were told was written by a TWU lawyer was apparently put to the company, and accepted by them without ever being put before the committee!

This is a problem Bob, and it has to be fixed. You have 7 other committee members that share your views, and soon to get 1 more with Gary Peterson. When will it be the last straw with the twu ????????????? They are destroying us

 

[odie01]

Sept 12 the new 565 E-board is getting sworn in, the rest I'm not sure of.

Here's my concern, IMO Don was confident and enthusiastic as far as his prediction that the TA would pass. So was the majority of the committee. The former President of Tulsa and current International Vice President Steve Luis declared that 95% of his guys were going to vote Yes.

The contract was voted down. 3 to 2 in Tulsa.

So the contract was rejected despite the fact that the majority of the Committee voted in favor of it. Some of these guys went back and told their members they should vote for it. So how will they look if we come back with something better?

In most unions if a committee brings back a TA and its rejected, that committee is dissolved, and a new one put in place because of the ego factor. If they believed that was the best they could do and it was rejected why would anyone send them back? In our case the top egos dont even have to face elections. So if we bring back something worse it would validate their original recommendation and they would remain insulated from membership ire. In fact in those cases where they were faced with it they would simply defer blame to the committee. "I just chair the meeting, I dont have a vote", but as chair one has the final word on every issue before the issue goes to a vote, that can be more powerful than a single vote. The chair has the ability to stifle true debate when he is alowed to engage in the debate.

So they take all the guys that were against the agreement, let them beat their heads against the wall for a while, let the members get even more desperate, then when we get past all the non-money stuff all of a sudden its back to the full committee again. While there have been changes in the committee, the majority of those who were in favor of the failed TA are still involved. With each election that seems to be changing. Dallas gets a new President on Monday the 12th so the next meeting of the full committee will be Friday the 9th. Get the picture?

Anyone who thinks that the negotiating Committee has full control of these negotiations is delusional. Read Article 47. Let me use an example from May of 2010 to illustrate who is really in charge. The morning after the company gave us their comprehensive proposal, that we were told not to debate, " just look it over", Don walked in waiving language about Spin off protection for the bases. The company had already agreed to it, the lawyer for the International had written it and the first time the committee ever even saw this langauge was AFTER THE COMPANY HAD ACCEPTED IT! Don still touts this language, recently calling critics of it shithouse lawyers. Its been accurately described as "a condom with a hole in it". The Article that we were told was written by a TWU lawyer was apparently put to the company, and accepted by them without ever being put before the committee!

Bob,
Zimmerman is touting that he voted FOR being released in the Super Secret Vote. Is their anyway Gary Peterson can be a witness to the full committee meeting on Friday Sep 9 in case their is a roll call vote? Also, if their is a vote can it be delayed until Peterson is sworn in on Monday?