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

[PRINCESS KIDAGAKASH]

The International can accept any contract without a vote as long as they feel it is in the best interest of the membership. The vote being turned down is irrelevant. They play it that if the contract passes it was the members fault for voting it in. The judge said the TWU international is the "party" to the contract not the presidents. To support that, if you look in your contract book all the presidents are listed as only witnesses and they do not sign the contract. So what is the role of the presidents? Scapegoats is the best word I can think of. Many of us are fooled into believing who controls the contract.

Talk about being stuck between a rock and a hard place. If the local president's keep shooting these "junk" contracts down, the company keeps us under the 2003 concessions possibly forever. If the local presidents do allow one of these company "proposals" to be voted on, we get stuck with another worthless contract full of givebacks whether we vote it down or not. We are so DOOMED!
I also doubt AMR will let us start mediation with the NMB. Arpey will command his Senior Vice-president of Ground Labor(aka Jim Little) to accept the "contract" before that will ever happen.

 

[Wretched Wrench]

The International can accept any contract without a vote as long as they feel it is in the best interest of the membership. The vote being turned down is irrelevant.

So, a vote is not a vote. Just a charade.

The TWU is a dues collection agency. All else is a Potemkin village.

When I first read Animal Farm, in the 50s, I took it as Orwell wrote it, as a harbinger of things to come, where Big Government was the pigs. Now, ironically, it is Big Labor playing the part of the pigs.

Every revolution seeks to don the robes of its oppressor.

.

 

[The Goose]

The International can accept any contract without a vote as long as they feel it is in the best interest of the membership. The vote being turned down is irrelevant. They play it that if the contract passes it was the members fault for voting it in. The judge said the TWU international is the "party" to the contract not the presidents. To support that, if you look in your contract book all the presidents are listed as only witnesses and they do not sign the contract. So what is the role of the presidents? Scapegoats is the best word I can think of. Many of us are fooled into believing who controls the contract.

Hey Chuck:

Do you have anything on paper re: the judge's decision about this? I've been looking and asking trying to find something to show a "non-believer". I was under the impression a vote had to have held in order for Little to accept.

If you do, please respond and I'll get with you about a copy.

 

[Bob Owens]

Remember back to 2003 - Little went to court and got a ruling he could accept a contract if it had been voted on, after we wanted a revote when Carty's little trick was exposed ($46 million for execs retirement fund).

Bringing anything back for a vote now carries the danger of being accepted by the International, even if voted down by the membership. Those on the committee seem to be wise enough not to bring anything back unless it's acceptable which is fine by me. I'd be very happy to vote no many times were it not for Little's court ruling.

IIRC the TWUs statement was that although the TWU Constitution gives us the right to vote on "new contracts" we dont have the right to vote on "amended" contracts and since contracts dont expire under the RLA they satisfied the Constitution in 1946, any vote thereafter is simply gratis, but its not a "right". Thats their position in court no matter what they say to your face.

The only reason they let us vote is because they are afraid that if they dont we would get rid of the TWU. But make no mistake these contracts are not only the property of but also the creation of the International, they simply keep the membership in the dark and lock the committee in "negotiations" until they agree to what the International/company wants.

After the Wall Street Journal exposed what ECLAT failed to uncover they added the profit sharing that kicked in after half a billion in profits, that constitutes a new deal, that and the fact that the TWU Constitution says we have the right to vote on Contracts was the basis for the lawsuit. All this came out at the TRO hearing. After we failed to get the TRO Videtich led drive to pull out of the lawsuit, with only one or two Locals and the fact that none of us are party to the contract there wasnt much of a point going forward, Videtich has been well rewarded, five days after the suit was dropped Chuck and I were removed from office.

 

[Chuck Schalk]

Hey Chuck:

Do you have anything on paper re: the judge's decision about this? I've been looking and asking trying to find something to show a "non-believer". I was under the impression a vote had to have held in order for Little to accept.

If you do, please respond and I'll get with you about a copy.

I have the complete decision from court

 

[Observer]

hey Chuckie, while you are at it, include the comment from the Judge who stated, brankruptcy is not a place you want to be...............looking around at the landscape of the past 5 years, there is plenty of fact to that comment to be observed............

 

[The Goose]

hey Chuckie, while you are at it, include the comment from the Judge who stated, brankruptcy is not a place you want to be...............looking around at the landscape of the past 5 years, there is plenty of fact to that comment to be observed............

For my two cents, I agree re: bankruptcy not being a nice place to be, however - all need to understand that we are fighting the "union" (all the while paying dues) that supposedly operates for our best interests and that entity's alliance with the company which most certainly does not have the union memberships' best interests in mind.

 

[The Goose]

I also doubt AMR will let us start mediation with the NMB. Arpey will command his Senior Vice-president of Ground Labor(aka Jim Little) to accept the "contract" before that will ever happen.

I'm rather curious as to who can call for arbitration - if it's Little, you're right re: the 'doomed' part.

If not, by all means let's do so and call Little Jimmy out on this one. Accepting a contract will be the final nail, I believe.

 

[Bob Owens]

hey Chuckie, while you are at it, include the comment from the Judge who stated, brankruptcy is not a place you want to be...............looking around at the landscape of the past 5 years, there is plenty of fact to that comment to be observed............

So instead of the company going bankrupt we are.

Not every airline went bankrupt and not all workers took huge concessions. Nobody took the concessions we did outside of BK and some even kept things through the BK process that we lost. The TWU did a horrible job.

Would AA have gone bankrupt? Maybe, maybe not. You cant take AA management for their word, not even on the little things, just look a the thread "Good for Life".

 

[Ken MacTiernan]

hey Chuckie, while you are at it, include the comment from the Judge who stated, brankruptcy is not a place you want to be...............looking around at the landscape of the past 5 years, there is plenty of fact to that comment to be observed............

Are we to always live in fear of the big BK?

 

[Runwaysticker]

Are we to always live in fear of the big BK?

Why all the BK talk, AA has too much cash to file BK. Don't they??????????????????? h34r:

 

[Observer]

Are we to always live in fear of the big BK?

no we should not live in fear of the big BK. If all remember that the company let the UNIONS on the property have access to the financial condition that prevailed at that time. The 3 unions leaderships agreed to give the company relief. My complaint with the Company was we had been hemoraging money for many months, the leadership of the company should have approached the UNIONS then, not when it was down to the wire............those that wanted bankruptcy their position is the same today.

 

[AircraftMaintainer]

AA had to much money in 2003 to file BK. Funny, after the concessionary contract was signed they found millions due to a "accounting error". AA does not want the US Government looking at their books.

 

[The Goose]

Why all the BK talk, AA has too much cash to file BK. Don't they??????????????????? h34r:

The way the Chapter 11 law is written, a company with all going perfectly for it can file. There's is no qualification in that regard.

 

[Chuck Schalk]

If the company closes MCI and AFW that will complete the bankruptcy plan that the TWU said they fighting by giving those huge concessions in 2003. It just took more time. We gained nothing and lost everything! Look at the bankruptcy plan (vermont plan) in 2003 and tell me I am wrong.