You have hit the nail on the head, Registered Republicans. Where has the Republican Party helped labor in the United States of America? Most republican hate unions in the first place. Do you remember the Taft Hartley Act? Promoting goodwill within the community makes perfect sense. Who will help to get legislation passed to make a living wage a reality? The union is the community. Have you notice the United States in a recession? Let’s get some laws passed to fix trade deficits. Let’s get some laws passed to make companies that outsource work pay a duty of some kind. We need work back here in the USA. Let’s get some laws passed to get the 2% of the population that has all the big bucks pay some taxes so the burden we are legally forced to pay is shared equally. It is rumored that TCW and The AFL-CIO will unite, but you in all your wisdom know that coalitions are not beneficial to unions. Union participation in community activities promotes unionism throughout the year, not just during election cycles. We are fighting amongst ourselves which is the company’s greatest pleasure. Fix it in house. Do you buy a new car when the tire gets a flat?
TWU vs. AMP Debate Comments
- Thread starter Ralph
- Start date
TWU informer
Veteran
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2003
- Messages
- 7,550
- Reaction score
- 3,731
Have the AFL-CIO create a Labor Party that doesn't associate with abortion, gay rights, bigger government, bigger taxes, or have Democrats not sign NAFTA Laws, Interfere with Labor Stirikes, and pretend to be Labors friend.
You are one of those that is still hoodiwnked by the single issue of Organized Labor while both current parties are nothing but a bunch of rich men causing much more sacrifice on the middle class, most of which do not belong to unions at all. The Democrats at best should be referenced as a party for the poor and lazy rather than a party for labor. And well the Republicans dont hide their hatred for unions and why not the unions spend every frekin dime they have attacking them. But I don't see where anyone can claim there is a middle class workning man's party anymore.
The 2 party system is broken and they have everyone divided up by single issue poilitics keeping eveything at a stalemate.
If the AFL-CIO would stop kissing the Democrats ass while they hand it to us in the middle class, and form a third party for the working man, we might just actually be able say there is a labor friendly party without telling a lie.
Anyone calling the Democrats Labor Friendly needs to be drug tested. I cannot think of one politician in either party I would call my friend.
You sound as though you forget that Organiced Labor is now only about 12% of the workforce and 80% of that 12% is State, and Federal Government Workers.
You want to get something changed? Have every working man and woman file a W4 claiming expemt from taxes and stop the payroll deduction/theft of your hard earned money. That will get both parties' attention real fast. It would be a revolution without violence and the working man would win.
You dont get it I guess. When the Supreme Court ruled that money was Free Speech when it comes to political campaigning, the working man lost. Working men will NEVER win a game of who has the most money to influence and buy access against the Rich. You have lost before the game began. But if we ALL took our tax dollars away from the already elected, then I believe you would have their ears and friendship real quick.
But what do I know? I am just an uneducated working man waiting and depending on some Union Leader to speak for me, think for me, and protect me from the evil Republican Boogie Man.
Most on your wish list I agree with. I believe the Democrats are holding the whitehouse, and both branches of Congress. How's come those "labor friendly" follks have not passed your labor fiiendly wish list yet? Stop buying the CULT Like fear and babble and look at the facts.
Just sayin...
If what you say is correct than why are we losing, the ideas you have bought into are fifty years old and have failed. I completely agree that we need to apply pressure to the political body in this country but the current way of doing it is not working. Remember the words TWU founder Michael J. Quill, as he stood up at the final CIO convention and warned delegates that by seeking peace with the AFL and forming the AFL-CIO they were betraying the militant, progressive legacy of their organization. He predicted the merger would fail to sustain the forward march of Labor and voted against it.
I know you do not want to hear this but it starts by removing the TWU, because many different groups have tried to change it from within and failed, go get the transcripts of the constitutional conventions and see for yourself. You say we are divided, there is only one way to fix that sign the cards and put it to a vote over ten years ago they put me in kangaroo court, the transcript is down at the hall go read it I told them until there was a vote they would never be a union do what you want but remember NO VOTE NO PEACE!!
P.S. I would not buy a new for a tire but when its fifty years old anf the motor and transmission or gone it time to trader in,
The Man Who Ran The Subway pg. 202 “A fifth reason was simply that Mike believed in the principle he stated. He was particularly concerned about interunion raiding of members and about labor’s attitude toward Negros, which he thought was discriminatory. However, Mike knew that in the long run he could not afford to stay out of the merger. All his opposition, which was to last almost a year, was with the knowledge that in the end he would be back in the fold”
A new tire for restored 1969 Roadrunner, in a hearetbeat
TWU informer
Veteran
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2003
- Messages
- 7,550
- Reaction score
- 3,731
So he was out numbered by majority rule and had to enter back into the fold. This doesn't change what aapitbull pointed out his predictions were. If anything your post just confirms what aapitbull has been telling you Quill predicted would happen. And it has.
eolesen
Veteran
- Joined
- Jul 23, 2003
- Messages
- 15,959
- Reaction score
- 9,374
Republicans don't hate unions -- the concept of a community taking care of each other instead of the government/company doing it for you is probably more in line with traditional Republican values than not. We just think it should be voluntary, and not a forced redistribution of wealth... but I digress.
Unfortunately, today's unions are pretty far removed from what I'd consider traditional union values, and seem more interested in dues and politics than they are in being responsive or accountable to the membership.
The notion that only Democrats care about union workers is almost as ridiculous as the notion that only Democrats care about Hispanics. I suspect if you took a poll, you'd have around 35-40% Republicans amongst the unions at AA.
Frank Szabo
Veteran
That's rich, E - Republicans hate anything that takes away from their control of a business.
I point out to you the many Chambers of Commerce in the United States and their attitudes towards organized labor. I point out to you the Baby Bush doing everything in his power to nullify any edge a labor organization may have had while he was in office (don't start with the "It's Bush's fault" crap - dont EVEN go there). Republicans would be perfectly happy if a medieval two-class society of serfs and masters would emerge (I didn't say you thought that way - don't go there, either) as the existence of a middle class syphons money the super rich could be collecting.
Democrats are no friend to labor either as Unions represent middle America - that's the farthest thing from any Democrat's mind.
A lot of the division you speak of in Okiehoma the thought of the DemocRATS trying to enact gun control, something that doesn't sit well here. I can't say as I blame them, though - if I were a criminal (as most politicians seem to be), I wouldn't want the good guys to be armed, either.
Actually, there's little (no pun intended) to distinguish the two major parties as both seek to eliminate the middle class and control the workers - one might look at that as a sort of Facism, referring to the present government/industrial complex of the Republicans.
A Conservative, however, hasn't the traits of either Democrat or Republican, at least by my definition.
ThirdSeatHero
Veteran
Again, just another point of clarification. In his latest debate post CIO makes this statement:
""...No other carrier besides NWA was able to get away with calling the Iraq War a force majeure incident...""
As a point in fact UAL cited force majeure at the onset of the Iraq War and proceeeded to close two maintenance bases (OAK & IND)
http://lubbockonline.com/stories/032203/bus_0322030007.shtml
""...No other carrier besides NWA was able to get away with calling the Iraq War a force majeure incident...""
As a point in fact UAL cited force majeure at the onset of the Iraq War and proceeeded to close two maintenance bases (OAK & IND)
http://lubbockonline.com/stories/032203/bus_0322030007.shtml
And I would add that fell under the IAM not AMFA but I was so hoping he would lie about it. Thank you for keeping both of us on track it has been awhile and I do not always recall the time line.
Pitbull
Well I have been patient so far. It looks like CIO will not answer or counter or defend the TWU. Just a whole lot of copy and paste. This is a waste of my time. Sorry guys but this debate is not really going anywhere.
BigMac
Veteran
Note from Allan Ball :
After the 2008 election the AFL-CIO Transportation and Trades Department filed a petition with the National Mediation Board (NMB) to change the election rules under the Railway Labor Act (RLA).
Under the old rule the union asking for an election had to have 50%+1 of all the workers in the craft or class who are eligible to vote actually vote for union representation for the union to win. The workers in the class and craft who did not vote were counted as no votes or votes against representation
Example: 400 workers in the class and craft
*100 voted TWU
*99 voted AMP
*201 did not vote
Winner = No Representation
Because a majority did not vote for representation they were counted as “I do not want a union.”
Unions have long complained that the rule was unfair for organizations seeking to represent unrepresented workers. They felt the rule should be the same as in the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) where the choice receiving a majority of the workers that cast a ballot is counted as the winner. On that ballot there is a choice for union “A” or union “B” (if there are two unions running), but also a choice for no representation or no union.
The NMB did make a rule change to now reflect that only the workers that actually vote will be counted and the choice receiving the majority of votes cast will win, but they will also now include a “No Representation” choice on the ballot, a choice not previously offered on NMB ballots. While this is helpful to unions seeking to represent unrepresented workers it creates some serious risks in a situation where one union is seeking to raid another.
Example: 400 workers in class and craft; only 251 vote
*TWU 100 votes
*AMP 25 votes
*126 No Representation votes
Winner = Decertification. You no longer have any contract or union.
Therefore, in a raid situation far less than a majority of the class and craft could vote for no representation and cause decertification and void the contract. This rule is similar to the rules under the NLRA and, unfortunately, these rules are often manipulated by management and total loss of union representation is much more common under that law. One of the reasons for this is that once the “no representation” choice is on the ballot managements have the right to advocate for this position and they commonly do.
However, the new rule is being challenged by the Air Transport Association (ATA) in the District of Columbia Court of Appeals, and one of the many issues under challenge relates to decertification procedures and the ATA’s demand that they be made even easier. The rule could be shot down by the courts or changed at anytime by the NMB but one thing is for sure, there has always been a way to lose union representation in an election under the Railway Labor Act and that remains the case. With the new rule you could actually be decertified with less than a majority in the class and craft voting for this result.
If there is a tie there will be a run off election.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
We are trained professionals and we take our jobs seriously.
We are the TWU
--
Allan Ball
IT/Communications
After the 2008 election the AFL-CIO Transportation and Trades Department filed a petition with the National Mediation Board (NMB) to change the election rules under the Railway Labor Act (RLA).
Under the old rule the union asking for an election had to have 50%+1 of all the workers in the craft or class who are eligible to vote actually vote for union representation for the union to win. The workers in the class and craft who did not vote were counted as no votes or votes against representation
Example: 400 workers in the class and craft
*100 voted TWU
*99 voted AMP
*201 did not vote
Winner = No Representation
Because a majority did not vote for representation they were counted as “I do not want a union.”
Unions have long complained that the rule was unfair for organizations seeking to represent unrepresented workers. They felt the rule should be the same as in the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) where the choice receiving a majority of the workers that cast a ballot is counted as the winner. On that ballot there is a choice for union “A” or union “B” (if there are two unions running), but also a choice for no representation or no union.
The NMB did make a rule change to now reflect that only the workers that actually vote will be counted and the choice receiving the majority of votes cast will win, but they will also now include a “No Representation” choice on the ballot, a choice not previously offered on NMB ballots. While this is helpful to unions seeking to represent unrepresented workers it creates some serious risks in a situation where one union is seeking to raid another.
Example: 400 workers in class and craft; only 251 vote
*TWU 100 votes
*AMP 25 votes
*126 No Representation votes
Winner = Decertification. You no longer have any contract or union.
Therefore, in a raid situation far less than a majority of the class and craft could vote for no representation and cause decertification and void the contract. This rule is similar to the rules under the NLRA and, unfortunately, these rules are often manipulated by management and total loss of union representation is much more common under that law. One of the reasons for this is that once the “no representation” choice is on the ballot managements have the right to advocate for this position and they commonly do.
However, the new rule is being challenged by the Air Transport Association (ATA) in the District of Columbia Court of Appeals, and one of the many issues under challenge relates to decertification procedures and the ATA’s demand that they be made even easier. The rule could be shot down by the courts or changed at anytime by the NMB but one thing is for sure, there has always been a way to lose union representation in an election under the Railway Labor Act and that remains the case. With the new rule you could actually be decertified with less than a majority in the class and craft voting for this result.
If there is a tie there will be a run off election.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
We are trained professionals and we take our jobs seriously.
We are the TWU
--
Allan Ball
IT/Communications
Typical TWU take somthing simple and turn it into fear lets take their example.
Example: 400 workers in class and craft; only 251 vote
*TWU 100 votes
*AMP 25 votes
*126 No Representation votes
Winner = Decertification. You no longer have any contract or union
What did they not tell you, is under this scenario AMP would need to get at least 220 of the members to sign cards to bring it to a vote, and at that vote get less than 15% of the members that signed the cards to vote. while this is technically possible in the real world this does not happen
TWU informer
Veteran
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2003
- Messages
- 7,550
- Reaction score
- 3,731
So we should accept the fact that our Local President won with 680 votes. Which far more voted someone else than voted for him.
But if the majority voted NO UNION we should fear that?
I am not much interested in working at AA without a Union. But when there is a vote and the members have been educated as to the rules and possible outcomes, if the majority voted NO UNION then at least we voted and know the will of majority. Many times I have accepted majority rule when it goes against my position. how strong is your union if the majority don't want a union anyway? A weak ass union without any membership support is just one step away from no union at all, and not much different in some aspects.
On the other hand, requesting an election, and having the incumbent union inflate the list to prevent the vote because they FEAR the will of the majoirity. Well in the United States of America that is just plain wrong and should be criminal.
And the context of this information is not for education purposes preceeding an election, instead the intended purpose to invoke fear of signing a card requesting the election in the first place. Now that something they should be damn proud to hang their hats on alright.
On one hand Jim Little writes letters and changes negotiating strategy to spread hope and courage. On the hand the Local spreads FEAR. It is no wonder that the TWU is known as the most Docile Union in the industry. If all you do is manipulate your membership with fear tactics, at what point to expect them stand in the face of a challenge with courage?
One would think that the TWU supporter would be confident enough in their history, their bargaining, their grievance handling, and their administration of the union that the use of FEAR would not be the biggest weapon. I conclude than even Al Ball, CIO, Checking it Out, High Speed Steel, ect. know damn good and well the TWU has failed them and the membership, but they have been led to FEAR change worse than the next TWU shafting. What a great place for a working man to be in these days. It just confirms why these card rives happen in the first place if you ask me.
The reason they fear voters casting NO UNION votes is because the TWU has failed so miserably that their only tactic is to attack and degrade their opponent. It is this strategy that leaves the voter with a choice of KNOWN failure or the DEMONIZED challenger. Well stop DEMONIZING CHANGE and either stand on your own record or get the hell out of the industry and maybe you wont have to FEAR a NO UNION vote.
Just read through the DEBATE between cio and aapitbull. One proposes the belief that change would mean advancement and imporvement in our representation. That we would once again know the will of the membership desired direction. That we can negotiate head to head with American Executives and succeed instead of accepting without challenge everything the company says. While the other never can explain why to the TWU should remain our bargaining agent by examples of success, but instead seems to accept without hesitation that his choice sucks and needs to replaced, but uses hypothetical fear to teardown and demonize the change. Again fearing change worse than the next TWU shafting and degrading of the profession. It doesn't surprise me given the cio and TWU strategy that freedom loving American Airlines workers who wish so bad to stand together with intelligence and courage continues to seek and sign cards each time they spew the fear ans weakness. The FEAR mongering cowards are the best organizers any challenger to recruit.
But if the majority voted NO UNION we should fear that?
I am not much interested in working at AA without a Union. But when there is a vote and the members have been educated as to the rules and possible outcomes, if the majority voted NO UNION then at least we voted and know the will of majority. Many times I have accepted majority rule when it goes against my position. how strong is your union if the majority don't want a union anyway? A weak ass union without any membership support is just one step away from no union at all, and not much different in some aspects.
On the other hand, requesting an election, and having the incumbent union inflate the list to prevent the vote because they FEAR the will of the majoirity. Well in the United States of America that is just plain wrong and should be criminal.
And the context of this information is not for education purposes preceeding an election, instead the intended purpose to invoke fear of signing a card requesting the election in the first place. Now that something they should be damn proud to hang their hats on alright.
On one hand Jim Little writes letters and changes negotiating strategy to spread hope and courage. On the hand the Local spreads FEAR. It is no wonder that the TWU is known as the most Docile Union in the industry. If all you do is manipulate your membership with fear tactics, at what point to expect them stand in the face of a challenge with courage?
One would think that the TWU supporter would be confident enough in their history, their bargaining, their grievance handling, and their administration of the union that the use of FEAR would not be the biggest weapon. I conclude than even Al Ball, CIO, Checking it Out, High Speed Steel, ect. know damn good and well the TWU has failed them and the membership, but they have been led to FEAR change worse than the next TWU shafting. What a great place for a working man to be in these days. It just confirms why these card rives happen in the first place if you ask me.
The reason they fear voters casting NO UNION votes is because the TWU has failed so miserably that their only tactic is to attack and degrade their opponent. It is this strategy that leaves the voter with a choice of KNOWN failure or the DEMONIZED challenger. Well stop DEMONIZING CHANGE and either stand on your own record or get the hell out of the industry and maybe you wont have to FEAR a NO UNION vote.
Just read through the DEBATE between cio and aapitbull. One proposes the belief that change would mean advancement and imporvement in our representation. That we would once again know the will of the membership desired direction. That we can negotiate head to head with American Executives and succeed instead of accepting without challenge everything the company says. While the other never can explain why to the TWU should remain our bargaining agent by examples of success, but instead seems to accept without hesitation that his choice sucks and needs to replaced, but uses hypothetical fear to teardown and demonize the change. Again fearing change worse than the next TWU shafting and degrading of the profession. It doesn't surprise me given the cio and TWU strategy that freedom loving American Airlines workers who wish so bad to stand together with intelligence and courage continues to seek and sign cards each time they spew the fear ans weakness. The FEAR mongering cowards are the best organizers any challenger to recruit.
