Way To Go Iam Boys

[Ken MacTiernan]

Seed, you wrote, " ... to bring to the membership the best offer possible." regarding a unions responsibility. You are correct. But was the twu's dash to accept concessions "without further ratification" the best? Or is the iam's cowardice in bringing back concessions a fourth time the best?

I think the best is AMFA's actions at UAL by taking a strike vote after talking to the company about concessions. The twu supporting alias using cowards crow about AMFA's negotiating at UAL. AMFA did not accept concessions. They fully realize their members previous concessions and that is why a strike vote is being taken. AMFA will not take FOUR concession hits. Would the twu ever take a strike vote? Not as long as International officers are appointed and held unaccountable all the while NOT taking a pay cut when the members do.

 

[Bob Owens]

They were cought between a brick and a hard place.
Do you really see this as a "IAM" default? This is a no win scenario. Now Roach expects management to lead the way out of BK, yeah right. It will get to the point that AAR is the leading wage earners. Goodbye airlines, hello welfare!

[post="241169"][/post]​

So in other words "Strenth in numbers", United Invinceble" and all the other slogans that these unions have blurted out for years in fact mean nothing?

The unions sold out the members because it was more cost effective than fighting for them.

These unions are businesses, nothing more.

The IAM should be fired. If unions can do nothing to protect you on the one hand and lock you into long term concessions on the other than they do more harm than good. The fact is that in the early days of unionism the unions fought the courts, they disobeyed Judges and when the courts realized that you could not jail people for not going to work and that putting the leaders in jail only hardened the workers resolve they backed off.

Todays union leaders care more about their own perks and benifits(provided by the dues funded union treasury) than they do about the members (to whom they are not accountable to anyway).

Business unions do more harm than good. Its time we all rid ourselves of these parasites. Lets get real unions!

 

[Bob Owens]

And it's time to ixnay the sheep BS. Our co-workers vote their minds. Because it doesn't coincide with our focus does not make them sheep. Fact is, we are under attack, taking fire, without arms to return fire.

[post="241228"][/post]​

Yea but every paycheck we are paying for them.

 

[Bob Owens]

Does it ,or better yet should it, matter to us who states what concerning concessions?  Mr. Little could have stated anything, should not have mattered.  Concessions do not solve any problems, they simply forego them until another time.  I find it queer that management can give raises and bonus during furlough times, stating they must to retain the talent level.  Was it not this same talent that took us down poverty lane?  Who would want them?,  I say fire them and hire competant people with the bonus or raise $$$.

People need to wake up, read the news.  The trend is not a good one.  End of story

[post="241757"][/post]​

Well now you are making sense.

The same goes for the union leaders who went along with the management right?

They also gave themselves raises while getting us paycuts.

We should fire them too, but how do we do that? WE HAVE TO VOTE OUT THE TWU!!!

 

[Bob Owens]

I agree Ken, but it is the company, or companies that keep asking for concessions.  It is the union's job, wether elected officers or appointed officers, AMFA or TWU or IAM, to bring to the membership the best offer possible.  It is then the job of the membership to reject those pieces of crap *excuse my anger.  I wholeheartedly agree we should throw those bricks right back at the company's laughing mouth, breaking teeth in the process.

Shame on all of our profession for not uniting in this battle against the companies and judges.  We lack backbone and conviction, myself included.  I feel I should have put forward an effort years ago.

[post="241692"][/post]​

In the TWU its the job of all the officers, whether elected or appointed to do as the International tells them. At least thats what the International claims.

I have been putting forth an effort to unite airline workers for years. I tried doing it internally. Now I'm trying the external route. The opposition to this, the unions, has a lot more resources than you or I do. They will do everything in their power to prevent it.


If you want to know why simply dig through all the LM-2s with Jim Littles name on it. Go back to when he was in the dispatchers Local. You will find that by screwing us Mr Little has more than tripled his sal;ary as a union official. When I called for uniting he demanded that I retract the statement. What are you supposed to do without leadership?


You blame yourself for not acting, well not everyone is a leader. If the call had come would you have responded? I think yes. Have you ever voted YES when your union asked you to vote NO? If not then the union let you down, not the other way around.

The fact is that human beings are social animals and leadership is critical. Those who took positions of leadership are to blame, they should be fired and replaced. The structure of the TWU will not allow that to be done internally, we must fire the TWU.

 

[aetheling1]

Let us not forget the IAM, vote on it till you get it right.

[post="241725"][/post]​

Let us also not forget the TWU, who just did the same thing on the Eagle Ramp contract (even thought it went to mediation)!

 

[700UW]

There has only been three rounds of concessions, not four.

 

[Bob Owens]

There has only been three rounds of concessions, not four.

[post="243850"][/post]​

Didnt you have one round prior to Bk, then another shortly after, then a temporary one imposed by the court plus the one you just voted on? That sounds like four to me.

 

[700UW]

There was one in September of 2002 during the first bankruptcy, another one in January of 2003 of the first bankruptcy.

You cant count court imposed concessions, the membership did not have a say in that, and now the current one.

That is three.

 

[local 12 proud]

ok three, but round four will be up and coming soon enough!

 

[Bob Owens]

There was one in September of 2002 during the first bankruptcy, another one in January of 2003 of the first bankruptcy.

You cant count court imposed concessions, the membership did not have a say in that, and now the current one.

That is three.

[post="243855"][/post]​

Sure you can, did you take concessions or not? The fact that the union did not say that they would apply their rights as per the RLA and strike once conditions were changed doesnt mean that you did not accept concessions, you accepted four rounds of concessions. Three of them you actually cast ballots on, one you let them impose without resistance.

 

[700UW]

You cant strike because of 1113 e, it is temporary changes permitted by law.

And I just love you non-IAM and non-US Airways employees telling actually employees what happened. The AFA, CWA and IAM opposed the cuts in court, I was there, were you?

Why don't you actually check what happened before spewing your diatribe?

So if you can, why did not AMFA strike over the temporary cuts imposed by the judge?

 

[AMFAMAN]

So if you can, why did not AMFA strike over the temporary cuts imposed by the judge?

[post="243881"][/post]​

When did a judge impose Temporary or any cuts on an AMFA represented Airline? If you are refering to UAL, they were 8 months away from being represented by AMFA. They were represented by your friends/sellouts, the IAM.

 

[Bob Owens]

700UW,Jan 31 2005, 12:16 AM]

You cant strike because of 1113 e, it is temporary changes permitted by law.

(e) If during a period when the collective bargaining agreement continues in effect, and if essential to the continuation of the debtor’s business, or in order to avoid irreparable damage to the estate, the court, after notice and a hearing, may authorize the trustee to implement interim changes in the terms, conditions, wages, benefits, or work rules provided by a collective bargaining agreement. Any hearing under this paragraph shall be scheduled in accordance with the needs of the trustee. The implementation of such interim changes shall not render the application for rejection moot.

It does not say that the Union can not strike does it? It says the changes can be made. The RLA says that when changes are made you can strike. The difference is that you could not go and grieve the company for making the changes and claiming that they violated the contracts. It doesnt say that you can not strike.

And I just love you non-IAM and non-US Airways employees telling actually employees what happened.  The AFA, CWA and IAM opposed the cuts in court, I was there, were you?

No. only what I read in the papers. Did the unions say that they would avail themselves of the right to self help as per the RLA?

Why don't you actually check what happened before spewing your diatribe?

Go ahead fill me in. So the IAM made a weak arguement so they could say that they fought for them, but were they really fighting or just putting on a show? Did they ever mention the word STRIKE?

So if you can, why did not AMFA strike over the temporary cuts imposed by the judge?

Why didnt Amfa strike over the temporary cuts imposed over at USAIR?