Asking to consolidate power into one individual without the right to see the structure prior to doing so is just plain dumb.
Well the structure of Locals tend to be common, sure there are differences but there is little doubt that consolidation could not be any worse than what we have now. At the very least we would end up with a better financed Local. One of the problems with the current structure is that there is no one that can be held responsible. A powerless Local President could reasonably claim that he had fought for what the members wanted but other locals were not on board, in fact they all could make the same claim without any means available for verification by the members.
Consolidation, if it continued through the contract group could lead to ownership of the contract by that singular Local, like most other Locals have. If everyone under the contract was in one Local there would no longer be a need for International ownership of the contract.
If the infamous, "they", want us to vote for, "them", "they" need to explain the mechanics and reasoning behind the vote PRIOR to the vote.
Fair enough, but I think that two very different concepts are behing discussed here. One is an International conspired deal of a singular voice from the line chosen by the Presidents of the five Locals. That I disagree with, the other is to merge the line locals into one local, One president and one E-board. That I favor, as long as they go with an electronic local.
In the 2001 Negotiations "Training", the Line forwarded a proposal for SCOPE. It required that both the Company and the Union sign off on:
1) the intent of the article;
2) the language of each article prior to ratification;
3) the arbitrability of the article;
4) the penalty for breach by the Company, self disclosed; and,
5) the penalty for breach by the Company, arbitrated.
Following the train wreck at the end-game of the 2001 Negotiations; the Line Presidents met in DFW for a debrief of the events culminating in the ramrodding of the negotiations phase into a TA: we eventually determined that the TWU International had programmed the negotiations into a defined period during which only pre-determined segments would be discussed. The range of values for the remainder of the contract were determined prior to calling the Negotiations "Teams" into session.
This negotiations paradigm was to repeat during the 2003 fiasco.
I remember it well.
After the 2003 debacle, and during the lawsuit by 562, et al.,...the TWU claimed that allowing the membership to actually vote on any agreement after the intitial contract was not required by the RLA: the Federal Judge AGREED with the position of the TWU INTERNATIONAL.
Thats because the law makes the assumption that the person or persons making that decision will ultimately be held accountable during an election, as is the norm. While it is very common to have one Local that has several contracts its much less common to have twenty Locals under one contract. This is the main source of our problems. The structure keeps the members divided and powerless while the International has immunity from electoral accountability from the members at AA.
With several TWU Line Locals: we have several opportunities to check the power of any one wayward TWU Local Line President.
You cant check what isnt there. As the lawsuit pointed out none of these locals are party to the agreement.All that having several line locals does is dilute the financial resources of line local members by having the expense of five locals, all under one contract where none of them are party to it.
With one TWU Line Local, one TWU Line President, and no real recall power under the TWU Constitution: we have even less power.
When the issue of recall was brought up at the 2001 Convention Sonny Hall tstified that any Local that wanted to put recall provisions in their bylaws was free to do so, I believe that some already have them. So under one Local we could have recall.
We already have a dictatorship over the TWU Membership and Line by Overhaul: do not give the TWU and Overhaul "lebensraum" over the Line by the creation of
"the strong man".
Well actually the dictaorship lies with the International. However in their attempt to construct the illusion of democracy they allow Tulsa to weild a roll call vote at Presidents council meetings. This practice allows the President from Tulsa to totally ignore the needs of any other workgroup. The only thing that having 5 line locals does is give line mechs " five witnesses". The fact is line mechs would have more of a say in things if we were all included in Local 514.
You may find that incredible but let me illustarate a point.
One of the most critical stations for anyone running for office at Local 562 is SJU. SJU?? They only have 50 guys compared to 400 at JFK and 100 at LGA. Why is SJU so critical? Because they vote and because they usually vote the same. SJU can not be ignored by anyone seeking an "at large" position in Local 562.
Lets say we were all in Local 514, sure the President would most likely be someone from Tulsa(Just as every President from Local 562 has been from JFK) but in order to win no candidate could afford to ignore 4000 line workers, especially if they have a high turnout. (Typically, local 514 Presidents get into office with less than one third of the memberships vote)
The fact is we know that what we have now is totally ineffective. We have an unaccountable International that owns the contract. We have 5 small, financially strapped, powerless locals that are unable to challenge the International.Sure it provides a good gig for the few that can escape the floor and pick up an extra twenty grand or so but it doesnt do anything for the majority of members. Having a more consolidated but just as accountable local can put us in a better position than where we are now, at its worst we could end up with what we have now.