TWU one line local for maint.

[High Speed Steel]

The "negotiating committee" where 6 out of 7 A&Ps voted NO, where 7 out of the 7 guys from the Locals that are being liquidated voted NO, but were outnumbered by guys from FSC dominated locals and Tulsa.

Now the ATD is propsing reducing the group that voted NO to one on the committeee, adding three more heads from FSC dominated locals and adding nearly 1000 guys from Vote NO locals to 514.

The committe by roll call vote supported the TA, the line locals were never given the opportunuity to negotiate with the company.

The committee is controled by the ATD, keep trying to spin, most of the members are very aware of the sham.

During this time there were no announcements of local liquidation, so what are you talking about Bob? The committee as structured voted for the passage of the TA which required support of all committee members if we had unified leadership. You on the other hand chose to run amok with your own personal agenda and disrupt any chance at the line AMT making $38.00 per hour today. Go sit in the truck

 

[Bob Owens]

Wasn't this merger of locals your idea? Seems I read a letter you posted reflecting exactly that. Now you wanna complain about what you suggested...lmao

I never suggested this. Suggesting consentual consolidation is not the same as saying that we want to be stripped of Title II and forced into a structure that's worse than what we have now. If this is the best the TWU can do for the members then a change of unions is inevitable. the guys will reject it by signing cards to get rid of the TWU. The TWU needs to listen to the guys the members elected, not a secret committee formed by the ATD. Title II has always been the most resistant part of the Line group to accept change,either internally or externally, you just got a lot more cards signed, and, contrary to your wishes they may not be just IBT cards.

 

[Bob Owens]

During this time there were no announcements of local liquidation, so what are you talking about Bob?

What are you talking about?

 

[Overspeed]

Labor management, or is it managements labor?

Difference is the International is shutting down the locals that will lose the fewest members and sending members from our locals to the locals that are losing the most members. Maybe those locals should consolidate?

What this is all about is retaliation, all the Locals that voted NO are being liquidated, and the ATD is trying to insure that the areas that tend to reject concessions never gain enough power to make a difference. From the timing of the annoucement its obvious that certain members of our ATD have alingned themselves with management to punish the line guys and attempt to make sure that the next round of concessions go through without any hitches. Under their plan Local 514 would gain nearly 1000 members from locals that voted NO (their reward) and fleet locals would gain a few hundred Title II guys from Locals that voted NO (their reward). The new local they are proposing for the line guys is smaller than the sum of the locals that are being merged together. The decision to permanently seperate Title II line from Title I line is not a reflection of the will of Line Title II either. Their have been petitions circulated in at least two of the cornerstone hubs in the past by Title II guys to join with Title I that were rejected, but no petitions the other way around. Title II line should be given the right to vote as a group. I dont think Title II wants to be split up.

This has nothing to do with financing or building stronger representation for mechanics, in fact its the opposite, dispersing Title II, but only from the line, into 11 fleets service locals instead of having all title II in the two maintenance locals is proof of that. According to you Roll call is the answer to that, well all that does is hand the decision over to 514, so how does that help line maintenance? The fact is it perpetuates the same conditions that brought us the 2003 concessions and the 2012 concessions.

Look at what the ATD is proposing
Title II will be seearated from the line at all locations.
but
Title II will remain with local 514, in fact the only Fleet Local that will lose Title II members is 513, but only the ones at DWH, which are also going to 514 along with DWH TI and V.

They are calling 591 a "line Local", thats why they say they are removing DWH, which the company has said is neither a Base or a Line but a "Hybrid", and sending it to 514, but even though 514 is to be considered the 'base Local" it will reatian its Line Title 1 and V guys in Tulsa and any other cities it represents. They claim they are doing this because of the one station set despite the fact that in every other one station set there is more than one local in that station. That gives Tulsa the right to be considered a Line rep as well as a base rep. Seems that they have special rules for 514 to ensure they keep the majority. the strategy is pretty transparant despite OS and HSS smoke show. Shore up 514 with T-II and workers from 567 and DWH while stripping the more troublesome group of their Title II guys. Spread the title II line guys out as thin as possible and put them in Locals where they are greatly outnumbered by workers who make less money than they do to insure that the President who represents
them will not likely come from Title II, the odds that all eleven of them will be from Title II are slim.

DWH and AFW are hundreds of miles away yet 565, or 591 are right there.

The objectives of who ever drew up this plan are obvious, weaken the guys who are willing to fight by either folding them into 514 or to the Title III locasl.

Either that or they are trying to ensure that the TWU is ousted.

It's called the LMRDA read it. You have been working under it as management of your Local.

I agree, Fleet should consolidate.

It's not retaliation or a reward. Bob you know that you have officers that are either off the bid or rarely work doing "union" work but paid for by AA. All the Locals do it and some more than others as AMFAinMIA has said. TUL/AFW will be losing a a few thousand over the coming years due to the new fleets and new scope clause. You have already said that and if they have to now pay for their officers and reps doing UB then having 4,000 to 5,000 members will help pay for that. On the line the company paid UB and deals are going to be gone and if you needed them off before on top of you and Gukelberger going to negotiations how are you and the deals like they have in MIA going to be continued? They can't. Consolidating locals makes good cost sense and streamlines the representation just as you stated was good for Local 556.

T2 in the line report to DAS management not M&E management.

DWH is a hybrid of line work? No. It is supposed to handle Drop-ins and special visits. Name one line station that does drop-ins and special check visits Bob. None. There will be no AC, PS, 0909, BC, CFPs, or short term OTS. You are full of it again. Hybrid is to discuss HMV and Special Visits. You don't know how to tell the truth.

Bob, you are losing your kingdom, your $22K annually, and you don't want to work the line. That's what you are worried about. You want a restructure but only your restructure plan.

Bob keep writing letters and posting them on your website that contradict yourself. You want to restructure locals in one letter then in this letter say you are saving money and should be autonomous, then you flip flop in the same letter and say you want to restructure but only your way.

 

[Bob Owens]

. And that doesn't seem too much of an issue based on the roll call vote. If 11 Title 3 Presidents are in the room with 600 T2 roll call votes and two M&R local presidents are in the room representing 8,000 roll call votes who wins? The 11 joint local presidents is another red herring.

This structure is to insure that 514 still controls the process, thats what its all about, why not just admit it? because you are so arrogant you believe you can talk a steer into giving milk.

If the five locals were combined, with current members and jurisdiction that local would be venly matched with 514, so what who ever drew up this plan did was strip Title II from the Line stations,give them to FSC Locals that do not represent any TITLE II guys now, and rip DWH out of 565 and give it and 567 to 514.

Spin away, we can still see exactly what your intents are. Even an alias cant hide the numbers.

The way they are setting this up is to spread out the line electorate over eleven FSC dominated locals and provide 514 a majority status.

 

[Bob Owens]

I have no idea about Hewitt's position during the May 2010 TA. Never spoke to him.

Who made the vote no video? You. Who stamped vote no on contract books? Pike? Who went all over the system to spread lies about the TA you and Gukelberger with your gang of puppets Schiable, MacTiernan, Ruiz, Houseman, etc...

What lies? Bill ORielly strikes again, "they are lying because the almighty powerful OS says they are lying, dont dare ask me for things such as details, the Mighty OS has spoken"

Ruiz position I was told was that he was promising a "snap back plus" plan that would get big raises for the line with stagnant wages for the base. That'll pass...NOT!

Wasnt stagnant wages for the base part of the 2010 TA? How many people in the bases would have topped out at $38/hr under the 2010 agreement? How many of them would have been number 2 in the industry? You are the one making these claims arent you?

50 days an counting until you unblock a lav Bob. The brown trout are biting...

Not a problem, but the comment just goes to show the disdain you have for the profession. Unblocking a lav is part of the job and its less repulsive than dealing with much bigger turds like you. At least those turds dont lie! The way you keep spinning the truth by saying "We would be the second highest paid, while hiding the fact that the vast majority of our guys would not be topping out at $38 and hour, just a select few , if any, that the company decided to start within the narrow window that would get the MRT would, the rest of the guys on the line, would be topped out at $36.50, which is much less than their peers at UAL Delta and WN, even less than Jet Blue and the guys at the bases would be topped out at $34. Those under 50 would have already lost their retiree medical, and not only the company match but also their contributions as well if they were under 50 on DOS because those funds would have already been transferred out of our accounts as part of their replacement plan and not only would all these guys be making less but they would have also worked at least 40 more hours per year and recieved much less pay for working the holidays and since they had already given up many of the things that the company sought in BK they would have had to take pay cuts in order to get to the 17% that the company demanded. So is it really an honest statement when you claim that we would be number two in the industry when the "we" includes people who top out at $34/hr, with less vacation, fewer holidays, less sick time etc while the avereage for the rest of industry is $38/hr plus more VC , Holidays, sick etc?? Thats the OS version of truth.

 

[Bob Owens]

It's not retaliation or a reward. Bob you know that you have officers that are either off the bid or rarely work doing "union" work but paid for by AA. All the Locals do it and some more than others as AMFAinMIA has said. TUL/AFW will be losing a a few thousand over the coming years due to the new fleets and new scope clause. You have already said that and if they have to now pay for their officers and reps doing UB then having 4,000 to 5,000 members will help pay for that. On the line the company paid UB and deals are going to be gone and if you needed them off before on top of you and Gukelberger going to negotiations how are you and the deals like they have in MIA going to be continued? They can't. Consolidating locals makes good cost sense and streamlines the representation just as you stated was good for Local 556.

The only member of 562 who is not on the bid is Bobby Gless. I'm slotted in to a spot, I had requested to bid by my seniority but management informed me that they pushed my return to the floor back to December because of some changes that were being made. Imagine that, they knew about this before we did!!!!

T2 in the line report to DAS management not M&E management.

They are in our book, they are part of our class and craft. If the members vote to go to the IBT or AMFA wont they still report to DAS? Or do you feel that we should allow the company decides to set up their management to determine how we set up our Union? We know the answer, you will say NO but we know you are lying. what company wouldnt love to have a union thats willing to isloate the group they feel stands in their way of getting everything they want and then chops up part of the guys from those higher cost areas in 11 smaller locals? The only one off the clock (other than Gless) is me, unlike the deal Don Videtich had set up in 565 back when he was in office where he had several guys who could hang out at the hall all day getting paid by the company.

DWH is a hybrid of line work?

Whose work rules? Don had no problem when Ream refered to DWH as a Hybrid. If they are under the same book, they should be in the same local.

Bob keep writing letters and posting them on your website that contradict yourself. You want to restructure locals in one letter then in this letter say you are saving money and should be autonomous, then you flip flop in the same letter and say you want to restructure but only your way.

Where is the contradiction? If and when WE decide to merge it should be the members decision. We should put together a plan and let the members decide, I never said the ATD should force some of our members into FSC locals and force others into 514 hundreds of miles away when they already have two locals right there on the same airport. If we decide to merge from two into one that does not mean we gave up our autonomy, we would simply have a larger autonomous local however if the International says "You are merging under our terms" then they have taken away our autonomy.

So are Locals under the TWU autonomous as the Intenational claims all the time or not?

 

[Lloyd Grey]

Has anybody heard the lastest, the twu intl exec.wants one local for line maint. WTF!!

How is this going to benefit US?
How are we going to have a say at are station?
How will we vote on anything?
How and where will are meetings be?

We will have no say at are stations WTF!!!!

Sign and AMFA card and FIRE the TWScrew.

 

[Overspeed]

This structure is to insure that 514 still controls the process, thats what its all about, why not just admit it? because you are so arrogant you believe you can talk a steer into giving milk.

If the five locals were combined, with current members and jurisdiction that local would be venly matched with 514, so what who ever drew up this plan did was strip Title II from the Line stations,give them to FSC Locals that do not represent any TITLE II guys now, and rip DWH out of 565 and give it and 567 to 514.

Spin away, we can still see exactly what your intents are. Even an alias cant hide the numbers.

The way they are setting this up is to spread out the line electorate over eleven FSC dominated locals and provide 514 a majority status.

Bob, all BS aside. If you were the President of the new 591 and you had about 4,000 votes for roll call versus your current 700 that isn't more effective then trying to get 5 line maintenance presidents to agree? They are all trying to get re-elected every three years and most concerned with not pissing their Local off. Now if there is one president at least running all the line stations then the president is representing ALL the line maintenance stations and has to be concerned with meeting the majority of ALL the stations satisfied with their representation at negotiations. Now it isn't what JFK/LGA wants, it is what all 20 some odd stations want. That is a better way and more democratic.

 

[Overspeed]

The only member of 562 who is not on the bid is Bobby Gless. I'm slotted in to a spot, I had requested to bid by my seniority but management informed me that they pushed my return to the floor back to December because of some changes that were being made. Imagine that, they knew about this before we did!!!!






They are in our book, they are part of our class and craft. If the members vote to go to the IBT or AMFA wont they still report to DAS? Or do you feel that we should allow the company decides to set up their management to determine how we set up our Union? We know the answer, you will say NO but we know you are lying. what company wouldnt love to have a union thats willing to isloate the group they feel stands in their way of getting everything they want and then chops up part of the guys from those higher cost areas in 11 smaller locals? The only one off the clock (other than Gless) is me, unlike the deal Don Videtich had set up in 565 back when he was in office where he had several guys who could hang out at the hall all day getting paid by the company.





Whose work rules? Don had no problem when Ream refered to DWH as a Hybrid. If they are under the same book, they should be in the same local.




Where is the contradiction? If and when WE decide to merge it should be the members decision. We should put together a plan and let the members decide, I never said the ATD should force some of our members into FSC locals and force others into 514 hundreds of miles away when they already have two locals right there on the same airport. If we decide to merge from two into one that does not mean we gave up our autonomy, we would simply have a larger autonomous local however if the International says "You are merging under our terms" then they have taken away our autonomy.

So are Locals under the TWU autonomous as the Intenational claims all the time or not?

But see you agree that you were off the bid as well as others and now you will be bidding a slot. That's the core of the financial issue. If all the locals were only able to represent their members with multiple people on either UB, UBP, UBC, or some under the table bid but not really work a crew deal then something doesn't smell right Bob. So suddenly you will all go back on the bid or no longer be on some sort of UB in all the Locals - 561, 562, 563, 564, and 565 - and the work that officers just HAD to be off the bid will no longer be there anymore? So either all the union officers that were not a negotiations were scamming or they will have work to do and need to now burn UB at the local's expense. Which is Bob, are all these local E Boards been perpetrating a scam in collusion with the MDs and Station Managers or were all the E Boards doing legitimate work?

We are not AMFA or the IBT, we are the TWU members. Maybe having T2 in joint won't work and if it doesn't then approach Little. Is it not worth a try. Note your concerns and then ask the IEC to reconsider putting T2 for the reasons you cite.

Well the transition document on the web shows what DWH does. That's what I am going off of, what I can read for myself.

Bob, I never thought locals were fully autonomous nor could they be. If a local is violating the contract, constitution, or some other legal constraint the senior leadership (management) has a duty to make changes. In this case locals will be insolvent based on the new CBA provisions and the International made a decision that instead of taking a wait and see approach they exercised their responsibility and made a change that ensured their would be the financial ability to represent the membership in the foreseeable future.

 

[Bob Owens]

Bob, all BS aside. If you were the President of the new 591 and you had about 4,000 votes for roll call versus your current 700 that isn't more effective then trying to get 5 line maintenance presidents to agree? They are all trying to get re-elected every three years and most concerned with not pissing their Local off. Now if there is one president at least running all the line stations then the president is representing ALL the line maintenance stations and has to be concerned with meeting the majority of ALL the stations satisfied with their representation at negotiations. Now it isn't what JFK/LGA wants, it is what all 20 some odd stations want. That is a better way and more democratic.

Keep spinning, the sum of the five Locals is greater than the total of the proposed 591, why? Because they want to make sure that the five combined locals is still smaller than 514. They are doing this by removing all Title II from the line locals (but leaving them in 514) and having them disbursed across 11 FSC Locals and removing over 400 AMTs and Title V from what is now 565 and spinning them into Local 514.

By disbursing Title II across eleven FSC locals it ensures that 514 can always get a second for a roll call vote. This proposal isolates and margianalizes all of line maintenance, both Title 1 and II.

What would be democratic would be to allow the elected leaders to put together a plan for the members to vote on like I proposed, but you dont want that do you?

 

[Bob Owens]

But see you agree that you were off the bid as well as others and now you will be bidding a slot. That's the core of the financial issue. If all the locals were only able to represent their members with multiple people on either UB, UBP, UBC, or some under the table bid but not really work a crew deal then something doesn't smell right Bob. So suddenly you will all go back on the bid or no longer be on some sort of UB in all the Locals

the company is only eliminating UBP and I am the only one in 562 that gets it.

I am the only one off the field. When I was treasurer I reported to work and recieveed my assignments like anyone else, so did everyone else on out board ecept the President. Its the same way today. As far as the section chairmen nothing there is changing, they clock in. They may spend time investigating grievances or meeting with management or in some stations doing the bid.If they need them to work on aircraft they are there for that as well.

Maybe having T2 in joint won't work and if it doesn't then approach Little. Is it not worth a try. Note your concerns and then ask the IEC to reconsider putting T2 for the reasons you cite.

Title Ii is in our contract, if the company decides to put Title II under aircarft maintenance would you switch all the Title II guys, again without a vote, into 591?

Bob, I never thought locals were fully autonomous nor could they be. If a local is violating the contract, constitution, or some other legal constraint the senior leadership (management) has a duty to make changes. In this case locals will be insolvent based on the new CBA provisions and the International made a decision that instead of taking a wait and see approach they exercised their responsibility and made a change that ensured their would be the financial ability to represent the membership in the foreseeable future.

Will be insolvent based on what? Donnelly projections? You say that the International decided to act instead of taking a wait and see approach, well isnt the financial performance of most of the maintenance locals better than the performace of the Internationals Treasury? How much further down does it have to go before they act? Who is trying to keep their Kingdoms as long as they can? Our locals treasury went up over $50 k this year even with negotiationsnand without the proposed changes which would have brought it up another $30k if they had been in place in the beginning of the year, that more than covers any UB that I would need. The finances is just a ploy, this is about isolating and margalizing the line and shoring up 514 which has never failed to deliver concessions for the company. So keep spinning away, the numbers tell the real story.

 

[Overspeed]

Keep spinning, the sum of the five Locals is greater than the total of the proposed 591, why? Because they want to make sure that the five combined locals is still smaller than 514. They are doing this by removing all Title II from the line locals (but leaving them in 514) and having them disbursed across 11 FSC Locals and removing over 400 AMTs and Title V from what is now 565 and spinning them into Local 514.

By disbursing Title II across eleven FSC locals it ensures that 514 can always get a second for a roll call vote. This proposal isolates and margianalizes all of line maintenance, both Title 1 and II.

What would be democratic would be to allow the elected leaders to put together a plan for the members to vote on like I proposed, but you dont want that do you?

I having always been in favor of letting the members decide but how did that turnout with self determination. T2 and 5 did not come across to join up as one M&R local did they. Why were M&R presidents sitting on joint and vice versa.

Bob are you for one local or not? You have flip flopped more than Romney in the past few months. You are completely against anything that you did not come up with or orchestrate. It is obvious your ego is bruised that you are not the ring master.

The issue is do you want a more effective negotiating committee. From your arguments you are afraid of TUL. Why? Because you want one local that you can run and force your line maintenance issues forward at the expense of the base. That is the reality.

 

[Chuck Schalk]

I having always been in favor of letting the members decide but how did that turnout with self determination. T2 and 5 did not come across to join up as one M&R local did they. Why were M&R presidents sitting on joint and vice versa.

Bob are you for one local or not? You have flip flopped more than Romney in the past few months. You are completely against anything that you did not come up with or orchestrate. It is obvious your ego is bruised that you are not the ring master.

The issue is do you want a more effective negotiating committee. From your arguments you are afraid of TUL. Why? Because you want one local that you can run and force your line maintenance issues forward at the expense of the base. That is the reality.

High speed you are the one who is missing the point as usual.
Tulsa has always had the role call vote and has used it at the request of the International. I saw it with my own eyes so dont go there.
The TWU ATD does not want to give up that control period.
Bob has talked about consolidating locals for a long time, way before anyone took interest. his idea was shelved until they figured out how to use against the "NO" voters and blame Bob again.
Can't the TWU ATD take responsibility for their own actions ever!
the consolidation of locals was not done in any way that Bob Owens was proposing or beneficial to anyone other than the TWU ATD.

 

[Bob Owens]

I having always been in favor of letting the members decide but how did that turnout with self determination. T2 and 5 did not come across to join up as one M&R local did they. Why were M&R presidents sitting on joint and vice versa.

Unfortunately, like many things, it was a mess, much like this. instead of allowing all line maintenance to vote they prevented a vote in smaller locals such as 510 and RDU and the Title II vote should have been after the Title I vote because unless Title I passed it there would have been no seperate Local to join. Many in Title II were unaware that they could end up separated from Title I when they voted others were concerned if they voted YES and M&R voted NO they would be stuck in a local they voted to leave. So yes the Self determination process was a mess, and who's fault was that? My concern is they are taking the same approach to consolidating, in their plan Title I would have just two reps while Title II would have eleven.

Title V did go with Title I every where they were given the option.

Bob are you for one local or not? You have flip flopped more than Romney in the past few months. You are completely against anything that you did not come up with or orchestrate. It is obvious your ego is bruised that you are not the ring master.

Trust me, with Don in the room theres no room left for any other egos.

The plan the ATD came up with is unacceptable and punitive. I'm against anything that makes no sense, you claim that Title II should go with Title II because they have the same management, so if the company were to put Title II under AA management then the Union would force them to move to 591? The fact is, no matter how the company structures their management, something we as a union have absolutely no say in, they are in the same contract as Title I. Who the management is does not matter-its whats in the book that matters. If you were a true unionist you would realize that.

The resultant Local 591 would be smaller than the five locals combined because the framers of this deal wanted to make sure that those locals never get as powerful as 514.You know it thats why you wont address what I've written.

The issue is do you want a more effective negotiating committee. From your arguments you are afraid of TUL. Why? Because you want one local that you can run and force your line maintenance issues forward at the expense of the base. That is the reality.

Define how you conceptualize "more effective". More effective at rolling over and giving the company everything they want?

Of course I want to see power shift away from 514. Who doesnt, except 514? Let the chips fall where they may, they cashed in their chips and you advocate stealing chips from us and giving them to 514. You claim its a base -line thing, I consider DWH and AFW to be the same us us, willing to fight for the profession, I dont see that from 514. Their majority vote has not only controlled discussions in negotiations, controlling what the members get to vote on but also provided the majority of the YES votes that have brought down the profession. So Yes I want to see power shift away from 514. You claim to be a member of 565, are you saying that you like the idea of a local other than yours having so much power that they get to not only determine what you get to vote on but they have enough members to force you to accept whatever they want?

Lets face it, the majority of A&Ps live well enough there so there isnt much of an interest in getting involved with the Union or fighting the company. Hey thats their choice, like I tell my guys if your living standards were comparable to theirs would you be as angry as you are? Would you be willing to fight? Probably not, if it was I never would have ran for office either. As much as I have enjoyed this I did this in an effort to save my profession, not find a new one. I always had every intention of going back to my day shift spot working two doubles and a single. Thats why I kept doing what I do despite several threats from several people who told me I went too far and to "stay tuned". I'll keep doing what I do till we get what we need or I feel I've exhausted every option there is to make a difference. Unlike you, chasing the occasional "brown trout" aside, I like fixing things. Unlike you, being sent back to my box isnt something I fear.